Not sure if this is meant to be a joke. If not, what? I mean, perhaps you could say that for your compiler output, but otherwise...?
Otherwise, I sympathized with her story, although the rather tired "Where did all the good men go?" ending wasn't particularly apt. Still, this is a Jezebel story. For the penultimate postmodern feminist trash rag, it isn't that bad.
(Just because an online publication frequently publishes stuff I don't read does not imply that I should not read the one good one they publish.)
Further, what's wrong with feminism?
"1 in 4 women is raped" was a fabrication by Mary Koss. "Only 2% of all rape accusations are false" was an anecdote from a Susan Brownmiller book.
> NOW opposing default shared custody
Are you implying that, absent default shared custody, family law is discriminatory towards men? If so, what evidence do you have of that claim?
> pushing the lie that domestic violence is overwhelmingly men hitting women
Who's saying that? Further, how do you know it's not the case? Domestic violence is notoriously hard to measure. You sound much more confident in your conclusion that scientific community is in their tentative findings about domestic violence rates.
> denying men support and services
That's awfully vague. Can you point to a pattern of anti-male gender discrimination by a particular organization, company, or government agency?
> promoting the moral panic of "rape culture" at colleges
Rapes are definitely committed at colleges. We can't know the exact rates for sure, because we don't know what percentage of rapes are ever reported. What evidence do you have that claims about college rape are overblown?
> giving mothers choice while denying fathers any say (under the guise of "the child's interests")
What choices are you referring to? Are you suggesting that a father should be able to either veto or impose an abortion?
> why they have no agency, cannot be held responsible for their actions and need hand outs.
Who's saying that? Based on my experience with feminist writings, I think you're attacking a straw man.
> "1 in 4 women is raped" was a fabrication by Mary Koss. "Only 2% of all rape accusations are false" was an anecdote from a Susan Brownmiller book.
We don't know those claims to be false. Still, one can fairly criticize a commentator for putting forth a claim without adequate data to support it, even if the underlying claim may be true. I won't purport to know whether Mary Koss or Susan Brownmiller had adequate data, nor have I looked up whether they made those claims at all. But even if one or two commentators made an unproven claim, that fact cannot be the basis for an attack on a much larger movement.
When said movement further has an absolute monopoly on the gender discussion and has been known to politically pressure the media to suppress dissent (see: Warren Farrell), I'm pretty happy in just stating the actual facts and letting someone else do the googling for a change.
That's still not a logically valid reason to indict a movement. You can reject specific claims a movement makes, if those claims are based on premises you believe to be false. Yet surely you realize that feminism, like most major movements, is concerned with a myriad of issues, most of which are not closely related to the rate of sexual assault. Even if you can prove that feminists cite incorrect statistics in discussions about rape, that says nothing about, for example, workplace gender discrimination.
> When said movement further has an absolute monopoly on the gender discussion
An absolute monopoly? You've disproven that simply by commenting. Do you feel feminists are violating your right to free speech? If so, what are they doing to silence you?
> see: Warren Farrell
He has published books, run for office, given speeches, and published online. What evidence do you have that his speech has been suppressed? (I Googled for an answer to that very question, but found nothing.)
> just stating the actual facts and letting someone else do the googling for a change
Those are your opinions, not factual claims. For example, your comment about "promoting the moral panic of 'rape culture' at colleges" is not a factual claim, because there are no objective criteria by which it could be proven true or false. Rather, it is an opinion about how concerned the public should be about rape at colleges. You're taking a fact--that feminists advocate about rape at colleges--and offering the opinion that their concerns are overblown.
TLDR: About 20% (with a wide margin of error) of rape accusations are false.
> "1 in 4 women is raped" was a fabrication by Mary Koss.
Not entirely. According to a CDC report (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a...), 1 in 3 women have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. That said, some have criticized this report for taking too broad a definition, e.g. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-v...).
That's not an accurate summary of the linked article's conclusions. It makes no conclusion about the percentage of accusations that are false. Rather, it takes as a seemingly arbitrary premise that 8% of accusations are false. From the article:
> Lisak lists seven studies he considers credible, which find false accusation rates of 2.1%, 2.5%, 3.0%, 5.9%, 6.8%, 8.3%, 10.3%, 10.9%....We will stick with the article’s figure of 84,000 reported rapes per year and 8% false accusation rate, for a total of 6,750 falsely accused.
The article's conclusion is actually about the chance that any particular man will be falsely accused in his lifetime. I can't say whether that particular conclusion is accurate. I can only observe that it is meaningless unless one accepts the 8% assumption. Which is rather suspect, considering it appears to have been cherry-picked from amongst the seven studies the author referenced.
> Which is rather suspect, considering it appears to have been cherry-picked from amongst the seven studies the author referenced.
It's near the middle of the range, though (a bit on the high end), so it seems like a reasonable assumption.
What does this question have to do with my comment?
I don't have time to write a book, but like all ideologies, feminism has pros and cons. Feminism is not a monolithic godlike omnibenevolent movement for social equality like some people like to believe, it's divided into plenty schools of thought, each having their own particular strengths and weaknesses, some more moderate and others more extreme.
Regardless of where you stand on the topic, you don't need to be an anti-feminist to dislike Jezebel.
In simplistic terms on HN and in society in general, there are approximately two working definitions of feminism:
1. Women and men are different [1], but are equal in person-hood and should be treated the same.
2. Women and men are different [1], but are equal in person-hood and should be treated the same, but in areas where women have a record of being discriminated against they should be thoughtfully promoted (aka. what opponents call "reverse discrimination")
[1]: Statistically (thus exceptions) and biologically, but usually in ways that don't matter to the situation at hand.
Without taking sides, you can see that 2 upsets a lot of people. For example a female only code-a-thon, is "OK" but a male code-a-thon would outrageous.
Lack of 2 upsets other people as they perceive it takes more than passive fairness of overcome a social biases.
Personally, I agree with both to a limited extent and attempt to balance them based on the circumstance.