Meme - "Increase the gender pay gap"
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl: "Overnight team locked in and ready (To be clear the full team is more gender balanced! This was just who volunteered for this shift)."
Meme - "This is from Casey Anthony's Substack. Maybe it's just me, but that last sentence sounds racist and sexist"
"Casey Anthony @therealcaseyanthony Researcher. Consultant. Advocate. Activist. Author. LGBTQIA+ Ally. - We are the Resistance. We do not bow to mediocre white men."
Singer in Iran arrested after performing on YouTube without a hijab - "Parastoo Ahmadi posted a 27-minute video of her concert performance Wednesday, in which she sang in a sleeveless dress with her hair down accompanied by four male musicians. In the caption, she described it as an "imaginary concert" and invited the audience to "imagine this beautiful homeland" in Iran."
No wonder feminists put on hijabs
Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour - "Evidence from animal studies in rodents shows that testosterone causes aggressive behaviour towards conspecifics. Folk wisdom generalizes and adapts these findings to humans, suggesting that testosterone induces antisocial, egoistic, or even aggressive human behaviours. However, many researchers have questioned this folk hypothesis... Here we show that the sublingual administration of a single dose of testosterone in women causes a substantial increase in fair bargaining behaviour, thereby reducing bargaining conflicts and increasing the efficiency of social interactions. However, subjects who believed that they received testosterone—regardless of whether they actually received it or not—behaved much more unfairly than those who believed that they were treated with placebo. Thus, the folk hypothesis seems to generate a strong negative association between subjects’ beliefs and the fairness of their offers, even though testosterone administration actually causes a substantial increase in the frequency of fair bargaining offers in our experiment."
More evidence that men are fairer than women
Meme - georgia @geka9400: "if your partner is willing to violently choke you (even consensually during sex) they are statistically more likely to murder you."
ash @efflorscence: "thinking about the possibility (worse, inevitability) of an entire generation of women paralysed, impaired, incontinent, & dead from "sex" that you deem isn't "vanilla" or "boring""
"'There is no safe way to do it': the rapid rise and horrifying risks of choking during sex. Now thought to be the second most common cause of stroke in women under 40, it can also lead to difficulty swallowing, incontinence, seizures, memory problems, depression, anxiety and miscarriage. How has this extreme practice been normalised?"
TL @toplonging: "source?"
georgia @geka9400: "There's statistics all over Google that verify this, it's not my job to research for you. I was told this in court when my ex (non-consensually) got a felony for strangulation."
isabelle @isabellle: "choking during sex is excluded from the study i assume you're referencing so maybe practice reading comprehension before making false and misleading claims
here's the source
Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women"
Covfefe Anon on X - "It's hilarious that "feminism" was this movement that did this kind of thing over and over in every area - making up completely wrong claims, refusing to support them, getting caught and simply never admitting the mistake. This entire cultural history has basically been forgotten on a conscious level and the only result is no one taking these claims seriously any more. Of course, it previously *worked* and laws were made based on various extremely stupid feminist claims ("the wage gap"!)"
Malarkey on X - "It's funny watching them repeatedly retreat to weaker and weaker ground over the past 15 years. First they had the wage gap, which sounded bad. Then it was debunked, so they moved to the pink tax, which seemed irrelevant but still got debunked. Now it's fake credit card history."
Scotty P 🎸 on X - "She gets bonus points for Saying The Thing- "It's not my job to research for you." Actually it IS her job, if she's going to make such an incendiary claim. And whatever extent of truth there is to this claim, it's more evidence that these women are actually ATTRACTED to violent men, but don't want to own up to being drawn to men who are dangerous for them."
Meme - Cremieux @cremieuxrecueil: "The gender wage gap is mostly about married men doing one helluva job earning more than everyone else."
"Wage and Salary Income. Employed Men and Women by Marital Status, 2016
Clearly "patriarchy" values married men more than single men, so men benefit from feminism (i.e.dismantling "patriarchy") too
Meme - reeda @_Jaan___: "Men pushing 30 be like this 23 year old is perfect for me"
">Yes, of course you can kill yourself with cigarettes, youre 18
>Yes, of course you can die for ZOG, youre 18
>Of course you can do porn and strip for 50 year old men, youre 18
>You want to be a sugar baby who jerks off a 70 year old with erectile dysfunction? Thats just fine, you go girl! get that bag!
>Enter a consensual relationship with a 25 year old who loves you? WHAT? Are you crazy? Is he a PEDOPHILE? What could he possibly have in common with you???"
Rape is Not (Only) About Power; It’s (Also) About Sex - " Feminist scholarship has also changed the way rape is explained. Prior to the movement’s rise in the '60s and '70s, rape was considered to be largely about sex. Feminist scholarship proposed instead that rape was about the assertion of male power over women. The event that ushered in this paradigm shift was the publication, in 1975, of Susan Brownmiller’s book Against Our Will, in which Brownmiller sought to reframe rape as a political issue: the embodiment, and enforcement tool, of patriarchal misogyny. “Rape,” Brownmiller wrote, “is not a crime of irrational, impulsive, uncontrollable lust, but is a deliberate, hostile, violent act of degradation and possession on the part of a would-be conqueror, designed to intimidate and inspire fear…” She wanted rape to be eliminated through a socio-political change in the same way that lynching, a once-thriving practice, has been thus eliminated. At the time, positioning rape as systemic cultural subjugation rather than mere individual violation was in line with the feminist credo that "the personal is political," and served to highlight the profound social implications of rape and the pressing cultural problems of gender inequality and gender aggression. It did not take long for Brownmiller’s scholarly claim to morph into a galvanizing political battle cry ("rape is about power, not sex"), which would over time calcify into popular dogma, finding frequent, unquestioning expression in the media, becoming a staple of University assault prevention and education efforts and applied liberally to other kinds of sexual misbehavior, such as sexual harassment. What this notion did well was to promote the causes of social justice and gender equality. What it did poorly was to explain rape... Viewed dispassionately, the "rape is about power, not sex" claim appears problematic on its face. First, human behavior is multiply determined. Meaningful human events have more than one reason and are shaped by more than a single motive or force. Rape is a human event. It is motivated by more than one thing. Second, to claim that sex—one of our most powerful motives (our species’ existence depends on it, after all)—is somehow absent from an act that routinely involves erection, vaginal penetration, and ejaculation defies reason. Arguing that rape is not about sex is akin to asserting that gun violence is not about guns. Both claims betray an incomplete and politicized view. Moreover, even if we frame rape as an assertion of patriarchal power, the question remains: asserting power to what end? As some feminist scholars have noted, the origins of the patriarchy itself may quite reasonably be traced to the male motivation to control female sexuality. If rape is a symbol of patriarchal ambition, then it symbolizes a sexual motive. Current scholarship on rape further undermines the "rape is about power" narrative. For example, Richard Felson, professor of sociology and criminology at Penn State, and Richard Moran of Mount Holyoke College provided statistics showing that most rape victims are young women. Youth, of course, is strongly linked in the scientific literature to sexual attractiveness. One could counter that young women are targeted because they are vulnerable, naïve, or easier targets. But elderly women, and children make even easier targets, yet they are not raped at the same high rates. Moreover, when cases of robbery (where control and power goals have already been satisfied) end in rape, the victims are mostly young women. “The evidence is substantial and it leads to a simple conclusion: most rapists force victims to have sex because they want sex,” the researchers assert. In a recent, related study (2014), Felson and his colleague Patrick Cundiff (of Western Michigan University) looked at evidence based on almost 300,000 sexual assaults from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System. They found that “the modal age of victims was 15 years, regardless of the age of the offender, the gender of the offender, or the gender of the victim.” Sexual assault, they conclude, “is as much an offense against young people as it is against women.” Is American patriarchy at war with young people? Not likely. Youth in this context is, in all likelihood, a proxy for sexual attractiveness. Young people are more often raped because they are more attractive. Sexually. Rachel Jewkes, a researcher at the University of the Witwatersrand, and her colleagues (2010) have looked at some of the motives of rapists. A random sample of men (ages 18–49) from the general population of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal were asked anonymously about their rape perpetration practices, motivations, and consequences. “Asked about motivations, men indicated that rape most commonly stemmed from a sense of sexual entitlement, and it was often an act of bored men… seeking entertainment. Rape was often also a punishment directed against girlfriends and other women, and alcohol was often part of the context.” In addition, laboratory research has consistently shown that rapists differ from nonrapists in their patterns of sexual arousal. Rapists show higher erectile response to hearing scenarios of nonconsenting sex. This fact does not exclude the possibility that rapists are responding to the implied violence in the nonconsent scenario, rather than to the sex. However, research has shown that rapists do not differ from nonrapists in response to scenarios of non-sexual violence. For example, in 2012, Canadian researcher Grant Harris and colleagues summarized the research on rapists’ sexual responses thus: “Violence and injury without sexual activity do not usually produce much erectile responding among rapists.” In other words, rapists have a unique taste for nonconsensual sex, rather than for nonconsensual violence per se."
Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Can Meta-Analysis Find a Link? - "Whether pornography contributes to sexual aggression in real life has been the subject of dozens of studies over multiple decades. Nevertheless, scholars have not come to a consensus about whether effects are real. The current meta-analysis examined experimental, correlational, and population studies of the pornography/sexual aggression link dating back from the 1970s to the current time. Methodological weaknesses were very common in this field of research. Nonetheless, evidence did not suggest that nonviolent pornography was associated with sexual aggression. Evidence was particularly weak for longitudinal studies, suggesting an absence of long-term effects. Violent pornography was weakly correlated with sexual aggression, although the current evidence was unable to distinguish between a selection effect as compared to a socialization effect. Studies that employed more best practices tended to provide less evidence for relationships whereas studies with citation bias, an indication of researcher expectancy effects, tended to have higher effect sizes. Population studies suggested that increased availability of pornography is associated with reduced sexual aggression at the population level. More studies with improved practices and preregistration would be welcome."
There goes another feminist myth
Meme - Woman at "Equality" rally with other women holding sign: "End disproportionate male power and dominance."
Woman in bed with tongue out, rolled eyes and flushed cheeks and hearts in air reading book: "Disproportionate male power and dominance."
Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men? - "Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others. This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner. As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias... You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women. Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV... Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc. Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state: “For a long time, the term domestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.” This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue... that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site... When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative. Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies."
Large new study finds almost half of Australians who have experienced intimate partner violence are male - "A new study just published in the Medical Journal of Australia surveyed 8503 people aged 16 years or older, of whom 7022 had been in intimate relationships. The prevalence of intimate partner violence in Australia - a national survey, had the aim of estimating the prevalence in Australia of intimate partner violence, each intimate partner violence type, and multitype intimate partner violence, overall and by gender, age group, and sexual orientation. When it looked at the lifetime experience of any intimate partner violence among the 6934 women and men respondents with intimate partners at any time since age 16 years, it found that 45.5% of people who had experienced violence were male. That’s almost half - much higher than the one in three figure consistently found in the ABS Personal Safety Survey for many years now... Regretfully, the authors adopted the widespread approach found across the domestic violence sector and within government, of excusing women’s intimate partner violence towards men (saying it could have been retaliatory or defensive) and downplaying it (saying it is more likely to be “situational couple violence” than “intimate terrorism”). None of these claims were supported by the actual data of the study, and have been repeatedly debunked in multiple other studies. The authors also downplayed women’s violence towards men by saying it can be less severe than violence inflicted by men. This is certainly true on average, due to men’s average size and strength advantage over women, and had some supportive evidence from the survey data itself. However men made up more than half of the men and women who had experienced being assaulted by a fist or object and close to half of those who had been assaulted with a knife or weapon, so it’s certainly the case that many men experienced severe violence even if less did so on average. It’s also the case that many non-physical forms of intimate partner violence (e.g. withholding access to children) can be more harmful to people over the long term than physical assaults."
The Disaster That Is Australia's Domestic Violence Policy - "Any project or policy – whether public or private sector – depends on the assumptions underlying it to be accurate in order to have any chance of success. Of course, lots of things can still go wrong and often do. But even to make a start, governments and corporations need to know the lie of the land, the essential factuality of the problem they want to address or the outcome they wish to achieve. Which brings me to Australia’s “National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children”. Much of this program focuses on educating people about gender equality and respectful attitudes. Everyone reading this piece has likely seen its telly or social media adverts. The program’s focus on gender issues is derived from modern feminist “scholarship” (scare quotes are necessary) positing that sexist attitudes are the crucial factor when it comes to domestic abuse. There’s a problem with this. It isn’t true... When it comes to domestic abuse, both state and federal governments – not to mention ordinary members of the public – have accurate information at their fingertips and have had for some time. In September 2019, the Australian Institute of Criminology published an evidence review examining 39 quantitative studies of domestic violence over the past decade, entitled simply “Domestic violence offenders, prior offending and reoffending in Australia”. It found a third of offenders had been drinking or were drunk, and alcohol significantly increased the severity of violence. The study also notes violence was concentrated among a relatively small group of repeat offenders, and in more disadvantaged areas, especially remote Aboriginal areas. Perpetrators were more likely to be unemployed, and while recidivism among DV perpetrators was common, it was much, much worse in poor communities. In the Northern Territory in 2016, for example, two per cent of repeat offenders were responsible for 50 per cent of all domestic violence harms. Make sure you grasp the salience of that statistic: we’re talking two per cent of an already small number of repeat offenders. The AIC’s September 2019 study dealt with domestic abuse in the broadest sense, rather than including its most serious manifestation – intimate partner homicide. This is significant because sometimes, disaggregating homicide from other crime statistics produces a different picture because homicide is always thoroughly investigated. Any study that takes in everything from minor assaults to grievous bodily harm while ignoring homicide is going to depend a fair bit on self-reporting to researchers – or leave a lot out if based solely on recorded convictions – because loads of people of both sexes don’t report minor assaults to the police. Understandably, this can skew the data. It’s why lawyers and criminologists often treat homicide as the gold standard when it comes to assessing both demographic and geographical characteristics among offenders and their victims. This may provide some (although not all) of the explanation for lack of public engagement with the AIC’s findings since September. However, the reason the AIC didn’t cover homicide in its 2019 report was simplicity itself: it (and by extension, we) already knew that domestic violence leading to murder or manslaughter shares the same characteristics as less serious forms of domestic violence: chronic recidivism, geographic concentration in poor and indigenous areas, presence of alcohol... Unfortunately, many feminists no longer adhere to the correspondence theory of truth, in large part because they refuse to commit to the understanding that there are better and worse ways to learn about an objectively knowable world. Hence the endless diatribes about things that don’t matter and often don’t exist (“toxic masculinity” or “rape culture”) while ignoring poverty, alcohol and sometimes, tragically, even race. In 2013-14 – the most recent year for which we have national data – the overall indigenous homicide rate was 4.9 per 100,000 or five times the non-indigenous rate (0.9 per 100,000). The victimisation rate for indigenous males was 5.6 per 100,000 compared with 1.1 for non-indigenous males. The rate of indigenous female victimisation was 4.2 per 100,000 compared with 0.7 for non-indigenous females in 2013-14. In almost all cases, both victim and perpetrator were indigenous. This points to a vast disparity between Indigenous Australians and everyone else. Both AIC publications are also relevant to the fact that reported incidents of family violence have increased in the nine years since the national plan was launched. Both sets of findings highlight fundamental flaws in current government policy, which pays little attention to alcohol, mental illness or poverty. Former NSW Liberal minister Pru Goward has said she despairs at the ineffectiveness of current strategies to promote “respectful attitudes”. Jess Hill, in her book See What You Made Me Do, described such policies as “horribly inadequate”. Whatever else, we don’t need another TV ad about gender equality. “Policy wonks” (that is, people like me) have names for this sort of foul-up: we call it the “moralistic fallacy” or “policy-based evidence” or the glorious “Woozle Effect” (after the imaginary creature in Winnie-the-Pooh). All these labels describe forming a view (society has a problem with “toxic masculinity” and “rape culture” and these lead to domestic violence, for example) and then cherry-picking evidence to support the conclusion pre-emptively reached (highlighting the relatively few intimate partner homicides where, say, patriarchal religious values or misogyny were present). While not as common as the “naturalistic fallacy” – where scientists discover a true thing and then expect politicians to enact laws on the back of it without considering moral implications – the moralistic fallacy is far more serious, because at least in the case of the naturalistic fallacy there’s some actual objective truth underneath all the crud. By contrast, enacting legislation and developing (expensive) national strategies on the basis of an unproven claim is literally the policy equivalent of theology. We may as well start sacrificing captive prisoners-of-war on mountaintops à-la the Aztecs to fix the problem for all the good we’re currently doing to address domestic violence. Of course, part of the problem is that alcohol, mental health and poverty are all fairly intractable and expensive/tricky to address. If you want to look like you’re doing a good job then you need to appeal to other things"
Wokeness once again results in bad results. Ideology is more important than reducing harm
Sally Hayden on X - ""Strong men don't need to put down women to make themselves feel powerful" - Michelle Obama. #Trump"
Ironic. She puts men down all the time, including her own husband
