Crake

>By conflating their gender with the feminist movement

...what? The author is a feminist. The whole site is.

From the site's FAQ:

"Feminism and fat acceptance have always been, and will always be at the heart of this blog."

>you're implying that non-feminist women are not afraid of being raped

wat

>Given that, why would we expect feminists to be talking about the effect of sexual assault on males?

Because "feminism fights for men too!" is something we hear all the time.

>It's not their responsibility to do so, and I'm absolutely certain that most feminists would not object to male campaign groups which highlight the problem of male sexual assault.

You'd definitely be wrong about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow

>What does it mean for you?

Someone who believes something or another about women's rights, and is statistically more likely to dismiss or suppress any discussion of men's issues.

>men have to deal with the fact that they're more likely to be rasped by another man

Not really.

From a comment below:

One of the studies of the Bureau of Justice data notes that in a certain subset of the data, 46% of the male victims of sexual assault reported a female perpetrator.

Citation: http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/12/3/275.abstract

54% vs 46% is not much of a difference. And then you have this from the article:

"Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member."

>Aaaaaaand it's flagged off the front page.

Any discussion of men's issues is usually quickly suppressed by the usual parties. :/

>these hypothetical feminists you speak of

>citing no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement

>outright fabrication

I provided a link to the source. I recommend you review both it and the hundreds of comments agreeing with it. Most major feminist sites picked up on it at the time as well, and it is also listed as a source on the "geek feminism" wiki.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Interacting_with_women

Please explain how "many feminists" is a "weasel phrase."

>That's a terrible state of affairs, but not for the reasons you think.

Explain.

>Any feminist will tell you that most rape does not fit the "large stranger overpowers a woman in the streets" scenario.

If that is truly the case, then why do many feminists believe that every man on the street must be treated as a potential rapist?

example: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-sch...

Feminists, mostly.

Men are 77% of the homeless population [1]. This doesn't mean that no women are homeless, just that women are much less likely to end up homeless (presumably as a result of the much greater amount of resources dedicated to disadvantaged women compared to disadvantaged men).

I think it goes without saying that a sick or unemployed man is far less likely to find or keep a girlfriend than a sick or unemployed woman.

1. http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001Heal...

>prostitution

I think most couples would be pretty offended if you called the girlfriend a prostitute for letting their boyfriend financially support them.

>Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions.

Women are paid the same as men in studies that control for other variables. I recommend you stop reading "studies" that don't control for things like hours worked and choice of career field.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...

In fact, single childless women now make more than men in most US metropolitan areas: "Young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively." (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...)

Women have an easier time finding somewhere to stay because they are considered more valuable to society. Men are disposable, which is why far fewer resources are devoted to helping them.

Women also can just get a boyfriend if they lose their job or health and need money; I've seen my female friends do this loads of times, but have yet to see it go the other way. Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.

>I ended up at private nationally accredited program

"Nationally" accredited is scam school code for "not accredited."

>disadvantaged minorities always have to consider this. It's probably one of the biggest privileges that white males have in day to day life

White males can be minorities, too.

I actually moved from the midwest to NYC for exactly that reason. I can't afford the in state public university in my home state, so I had to move here, as ridiculous as that sounds. Luckily, NYC is not nearly as expensive as people make it out to be. I pay about $200/month more in living expenses, but it's $10,000/year cheaper to go to school here and I get free health care through medicaid (important since I have a very painful health condition). I have no family support, so I have to make it work through, well, work and what little money I can get from federal financial aid.

I'm really grateful CCNY still exists to provide me a path out of poverty. However, they're hiking tuition by $800/year for the next few years, so soon it'll be unaffordable, too...

Well, the most you can take out is $5,500 as an 18 year old. They're more than happy to legally deny you any other loans if you don't have the support of a rich family to cosign some private ones for you.

You need to have the money upfront to pay for the first two years of college, though. You can't use money you won't earn for another two years to pay a tuition bill that's due now.

At the amount I was getting paid in 2007, it would have taken me 33.3 years to save up for the first two years of in state public college.

These easy opportunities aren't really available to my generation. :/ I was born in a poor rural area, and for a while the only job I could find actually paid less than state minimum wage. It's hard to pay rent and buy food on that little income, much less save up funds for an escape to somewhere with a better economy (which I eventually managed, but it took me 7 years).

There's a $57,500 lifetime limit on federal student loans for undergraduates. The people you see on the news complaining about their $200,000 english degree debt are people who have rich family who cosigned a bunch of private loans for them. (And who will make the loan payments when the english graduate inevitably can't.)

With federal loans, you can only take out at most $5,500/year as an 18 year old, which doesn't do a lot. Cost of attendance in my home state is $20,000/year, so that's about 25% of what you need to go.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized...

> The guy's recommendation to "subtract 1000" from whatever your balance is is totally infeasible for a large portion of the population.

I liked how the example used $1000, too. As if poor people even have that much in total. A better example would have been +/- $10, but a lot of people here have absolutely no comprehension of poverty in the US.

In my experience, wealthy people will usually define wealth in such a way as to exclude themselves from being categorized as wealthy.

Right, because gay people have civil rights but black people and women don't...

Then again "queer" these days often means "straight but wants tumblr oppression points," so your perspective might be different from an actual gay person's.

You must not have met many feminists. They hate egalitarians much more than they hate misogynists, in my experience.

One guy sarcastically suggests getting rid of a term, and you reply by seriously suggesting we get rid of people.

Just curious, if you were in charge--how would you choose to "dispose" of these undesirables?

>Seems like the "pretty rational" behavior of keeping women out of the water fails to account for "unclean" men and animals as well.

I really doubt that they'd let a guy bleeding out everywhere do much of anything either. On a fundamental level, blood has a strong association with injury and sickness for what I think should be obvious reasons.

>Judaism, Protestants and Muslims all believe sex is a normal healthy thing.

LOL. Might want to give their religion's source material a read.

Yup. That's why old testament practices like male genital mutilation are no longer practiced by Christians today.

>The vast majority of Christians would agree that this doesn't apply to Christians today.

Jesus disagrees with that, as these people would learn if they ever actually read their holy text.

I'd recommend reading the Bible. There's a lot on the topic to be found there.

> if you grew up female it was kind of hard to avoid

>I also grew up in LA and not in the middle of some super conservative area

>So much of it is so everyday if you spend enough time around frustrated women

I grew up in a fundamentalist conservative family in the midwest who believed the earth was 5,000 years old. Even we thought the "tampons kill your virginity" thing was ludicrous. I can believe it's a problem in the third world, but suggesting it's a common modern day belief in a first world country like America seems a bit hard to believe.

(A lot of religious people are still weird about the pill, though.)