To make men equal to women this is what would have to be done:
1) In the US, take away 25 percent of their earnings.
This is US government data so wage gap deniers can take the bullshit they sling elsewhere. I will delete your unsupported by any data comments.
At the UN's Pan Pacific Southeast Asia Women's Association 21st International Conference in 2001 it was stated that "in the world as a whole, women comprise 51 percent of the population, do 66 percent of the work, receive 10 percent of the income and own less than one percent of the property."
So to make things equal worldwide 90 percent of a man's earnings and over 99 percent of his property would have to be taken away.
2) Rape and beat one out of three men randomly.
In some countries 7 out of 10 men would have to be raped and beaten to make them "equal." (Amnesty International)
In the US, Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault. Less than half of those arrested for rape are convicted, 54% of all rape prosecutions end in either dismissal or acquittal. The conviction rate for those arrested for murder is 69% and all other felons is 54%. 21% of convicted rapists are never sentenced to jail or prison time, and 24% receive time in local jail which means that they spend an average of less than 11 months behind bars. (The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice)
The above paragraph is from a Men against rape website.
Yes, male on male prison rape is a problem and I am against it, so don't bother throwing it up in my face in the comment.
3) Start stoning men for having sex.
4) Toss acid on men when they refuse sexual advances.
Several more points about the rest of Jodi Kasten's poorly researched, highly generalized and anecdotal post:
1) Men failing to get custody these days due to bias is an old trope not supported by reality.
Anecdotal comments not with standing, a little research and fact checking and it turns out men who ask for custody tend to get it and it is men who are abusive who most often seek custody (and win):
"Approximately one in two marriages in the United States end in divorce, affecting over a million children per year. About 10% of these divorces involve custody litigation. At the same time, child abuse is a widespread problem in our society and families with a history of violence often end in divorce. Concerns about safety of the children are behind some of the most bitterly contested child custody cases."
"Unfortunately custody litigation can become a vehicle whereby batterers and child abusers attempt to extend or maintain their control and authority over their victims after the marriage dissolves. Although, research has not found a higher incidence of false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence in the context of custody/visitation disputes, officers of the court tend to be unreasonably suspicious of claims raised during time. As a result, abused parents and their children may find themselves re-victimized by the justice system after separation."
"Although women are more likely to get custody of their children, this is often because they are more likely to ask for it. When men ask for custody, they often get it. According to a report by the American Psychological Association, an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother (APA, 1996). A report by the American Judges Foundation, reported that 70% of the time an abuser who requests custody is able to convince the court to give it to him."
"The majority of parents in "high-conflict divorces" involving child custody disputes report a history of domestic violence and/or child abuse. For example, a review of one sample of parents referred for child custody evaluations by the court found that domestic violence was raised in 75% of the cases (Jaffe & Austin, 1995 as cited by Jaffe, Crooks, & Poisson, 2003). Another study found that between 70% and 75% of parents who were referred by the family court for counseling because of failed mediation or continuing disputes over the care of their children described marital histories that included physical aggression (Johnston & Campbell, 1988)."
"However, raising allegations of abuse often hurts the abused or protective parent more than the alleged abuser. An ongoing study funded by the National Institute of Justice study shows that women who inform custody mediators that they are victims of domestic violence often receive less favorable custody awards (Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). The investigators found that only 35% of mothers who alleged domestic abuse got primary custody, compared to 42% of mothers who did not. Father who were accused of domestic violence were given primary custody in 10% of cases, father not accused of domestic violence got primary custody 9% of the time. Thus, disclosing domestic violence hurt the women who disclosed being victimized; while alleged perpetrators suffered no ill effects - that is unless the mediator noted evidence of violence when the mother did not allege domestic violence. When this occurred, mediators recommended protected child exchanges twice as often. Thus women who were forthright with their domestic violence allegations secured less protection for themselves and their children."
"A recent study by the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle confirms these results (Kernic et al., 2005). The researchers analyzed documentation on more than 800 local couples with young children who filed for divorce in 1998 and 1999, including 324 cases with a history of domestic violence. They found that evidence of domestic violence did not appear to change how courts decided custody. In other words, fathers who were violent were just as likely to receive custody when they asked for it as fathers who were not violent. Only 17% of fathers with a known history of domestic violence were denied child visitation and they were no more likely than other fathers to be required by the court to have a third party supervise child visitations."
"Concerns about how family courts are handling cases involving abuse were also raised by the findings of Neustein and Goetting (1999). They examined judicial responses to protective parents' complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that in only 10% of cases where allegations of child abuse were raised was primary custody given to the protective parent with supervised contact with alleged abuser. Conversely, 20% of these cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent ( see, p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser."
"To better understand the problems that protective parents face in the legal system, researchers at California State University , San Bernardino , are performing an on-going national survey (Stahly et al., 2004). To date, over 100 self-identified protective parents have completed the 101-item questionnaire. The results are quite shocking. Prior to divorce, 94% of the protective mothers surveyed say that they were the primary caretaker of their child and 87% had custody at the time of separation. However, as a result of reporting child abuse, only 27% were left with custody after court proceedings. Most protective parents lost custody in emergency ex parte proceedings (where they were neither notified nor present) and where no court reporter was present."
"The vast majority of these mothers (97%) reported that court personnel ignored or minimized reports of abuse. They reported feeling that they were punished for trying to protect their children and 65% said they were threatened with sanctions if the "talked publicly" about the case. In all, 45% of the mothers say they were labeled as having Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)."
"The protective parents reported that the average cost of the court proceedings was over $80,000. Over a quarter of the protective parents say they were forced to file bankruptcy as a result of filing for custody of their children. Eighty-five percent of the protective parents surveyed believe that their children are still being abused; however, 63% say they stopped reporting the abuse for fear that contact with their children will be terminated. Eleven percent of the children were reported to have attempted suicide."
- An annotated overview of research documenting protective parents losing custody to abusers can be found at http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html
- American Psychological Association. (1996). Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, Washington , D.C.: Author.
- American Judges Foundation, Domestic Violence and the Court House: Understanding the Problem.Knowing the Victim, Forms of Emotional Battering Section, Threats to Harm or Take Away Children Subsection http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/page5.html
- Kernic, M. A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 991-1021.
- Jaffe, P. Crooks, C. V., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). Common Misconceptions in Addressing Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 57-67.
- Johnston, J. R. & Campbell, L. E. G. (1988). Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution of family conflict. New York: The Free Press.
- Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse , 4, 103-122. http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (page 109 of pdf)
- Saccuzzo, D. P. & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child Custody Mediation's Failure to Protect: Why Should the Criminal Justice System Care? NIJ Journal, 251, Available from the National Institute of Justice. http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf (page 21)
- Stahly, G. B., Krajewski, L., Loya, B. Uppal, K., German, G., Farris, W., Hilson, N., & Valentine, J. (2004). Protective mothers in child custody disputes: A study of judicial abuse. California State University, San Bernardino .
2) I would never buy or wear a "boys suck" or "boys are stupid throw rocks at them" or any similiar t-shirt, but I will get all up in arms about those shirts which are designed and sold by a man when men stop wearing these:
On the back it says: “Isn’t that why women have more than one hole?”
Her own past blogs show Jodi Kasten is an agoraphobe who has spent most of her life being supported by men. As such how can she have a realistic view of the misogyny that permeates the real world when she does not function in it?
The best words to describe Jodi Kasten are ill informed and naive.
Now this "feminist" is a conservative radio talking point.
Perhaps she should worry more the rights of her daughter. They are far more endangered and tenuous than those of her sons.
Unlike her, I work in the world, face misogyny daily and have provided sources for my assertions. No sweeping generalizations without citations here.
Ultimately just because a bunch of reddit boiz are sucking up to you because they really do hate women and you have provided them an opportunity to bash women, it doesn't mean you are right.
While I do not believe progress is a zero sum game for either gender, the incredible opression suffered by women around the world so far out weighs the t-shirt Jodi Kasten complains about that her premise that men are not equal is laughable and sad.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Chandra Kamaria
aoafedotcom
madmodo
liza Donnelly
rstiene
erica marie
Salon.com
Comments
But your personal remarks about Jodi are unkind and not called for. That's as abusive as anything about which you might have written. If you let the facts speak for themselves and went on to say you respectfully disagreed, no problem, but you've pushed it over the line. I've been over the line myself before and I'm guessing the post upset you. I'd advise rethinking the personal remarks as they are out of line.
Thank you.
Attacking Jodi was just low.
However that being said, one of the things that I wondered about after Ms. Kasten's blog and after your's is a problem I have had for years with many young women. When did it become fashionable to have words like "pink" or "juicy" embroidered or screen printed on the seat of sweats or shorts? I'm not using that to suggest that the young women are inviting rape. I suggesting that it is incredible tasteless and stupid. Much like when young men had to get University of South Carolina ball hats because they said "Cocks" across the front and so the young man could be a walking double entendre (although the young men with those hats probably had no idea of what a double entendre was). They like the females with Pink and Juicy apparently think that they're so damned clever and "all that".
Anyway, interesting post. Rated
Willfully misreading a personal opinion essay and then histrionically pointing out that it is not a footnoted comprehensive analysis of the history and effects of global patterns of violence against female members of the species homo sapiens would be one.
so ~ the men who agree with Jodi are misogynists, does that mean that you believe the women that agreed are also?
I realize Jodi Kasten is popular on this site and you feel the need to defend your friend. I took the time to skim the entire archive of Jodi Kasten's blog all the way back to August and what I wrote is based on what I read there. I stand by it.
Before I came back and read the comments over at her blog today that prompted this reply, I had no intention of writing this. That obviously changed.
What I have said here is an extremely mild rebuke compared to what was heaped on me over at reddit and in her comments.
I have no idea why people wear stupid sexual innuendo on their bodies. I support rights for the disabled and lived with a deaf boy for two years in high school. Stockholm syndrome and willful blindness to reality comes to mind when I consider all the women who think men have inferior rights to women.
well damn, just count me among the bitter then.
Your arguments went from well-researched fact to personal attack. The personal attack weakens your argument to the point of making it badly done. That you don't understand that is also problematic. But attacking someone personally doesn't make you brave. It makes you a bully. It reflects badly on you. It makes you guilty of having done something abusive.
It's also something that doesn't remotely contribute to your argument about equality but does make me wonder about what you think a well constructed argument looks like. Hint: It's not your post.
But you are one mean bitch for attacking her. I mean that in the nicest, feminist way. But it really was completely uncalled for. Jodi has a traditional life that she has chosen, and which shapes her perspective and beliefs. You have a very different life and perspective. And I have yet another. That diversity is exactly the goal of feminism, so please don't begrudge Jodi the world she has chosen. Enjoy that she gets to choose it, and so could you or I.
The truth is that both of you are right. Men are not monolithic creatures, and there is much subtlety and contradiction in human relations. And both sides are driven by and victims of gender-related cultural imperatives, which are often invisible to people (cue water in the goldfish bowl analogy).
I love men. Men rock. Men are also awful. But so are women. Women do evil things, too. Men don't drown their children in bathtubs, for instance (though, interestingly, I blame the overbearing and abusive religious husband for that one).
One thing no one is talking about is the patriarchy of sex. Women are saddled with 100% of the responsibility for sex, 100% of the pregnancies (duh), and 100% of the patriarchal sexual shame. Plus, women are deemed responsible for men's libido! It starts in the Book of Genesis, and goes all the way to burkas, and "the way she was dressed and acting, the bitch was asking for it," and responsibility for men's arousal in the workplace.
But for all that, most men are good people, and are as much victims of cultural gender imperatives as women are. I could never be a man. They have to live such strict and severe lives. It's like being in the army your whole life. And the hierarchy sucks for them. Every man in America is expected to be an alpha male. And it is women who expect it of them. Plus, they have such a narrow range of emotional and personal expression allowed to them.
In the end, men are the people their mothers raise them to be. Nothing happens in a vacuum. It's a giant, spinning galaxy of influences, most of which are invisible to us (cue fishbowl analogy again).
If only it were as simple as either you or Jodi put it. Unfortunately, it is not.
I am in a male dominated profession, in a business devoted to the struggle for power and domination between powerful men, I am the one who dominates them. Oh sure, their default position is to take me lightly, at first; but I quickly disabuse them of that quaint notion. I make it a point to cut off someone's balls in our first meeting, and from then on we all get along fine.
To a large extent, your world is what you make it. No man I know or work with would ever dare try to fuck with me. I will eat his balls for breakfast. So I get mutual respect, but I have to earn it. It's not simply bestowed on me for showing up. Should it be? Perhaps. And maybe someday women will find it bestowed regularly.
But you create your own reality, and in mine I am respected and liked (and feared). I don't need or want a man, so I have no interest in pandering to them. No man has dominion of any kind over me. And that gives me the freedome to be able to say...
I adore men. Men rock. Men are cool. Men are nice. Men are good.
See what I'm saying? I'm very frustrated here because good critical thinking doesn't include personal attacks. I tell my students, whenever you think of using a personal attack to win your argument, think about how that's not based in facts but in feelings--feelings which might be a bit biased.
Here, at OS, I might say, well, think of Rush Limbaugh and his personal attacks against politicians, attacks which extend to their children. For example, calling a young girl ugly. That didn't make him right; it just made him mean.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
I find your attack on Jodi abusive in itself, and unworthy of a woman who claims to be objective. Women like you scare me.
You made a far more cogent and well-researched case than I did in responding to Jodi. It's damn well impressive. A lot of other posters have commented that you've attacked Jodi. I read over what you said carefully and what you've said is either verifiable as fact or simply a comment on her argument. The worst thing you said is that she's ill informed and naive, which I think is pretty reasonable, given that you've made the effort to systematically refute her points.
I should say that I feel badly, because I did say in my comments on her post, "I'm not saying you don't get out much..." and I didn't realize she actually was an agoraphobe. I really regret saying that.
I hope Jodi doesn't feel personally attacked. I don't think anyone wants that. But I do hope that she engages in this debate intellectually. I think this has been a good exchange. From her post and the comments I learned that the problem of male sexual and physical abuse may need a lot more attention. On the other hand, I think your post pretty effectively refuted most of her arguments and helped to put issues of gender equity in a more realistic perspective.
While you amassed important and sad "facts" to counter Jodi's OPINON, putting the two together was (at best), in poor taste and showed a troubling lack of respect and more than a lapse in simple, HUMAN judgment.
You might consider looking inward and cleaning up the angry mess in your own house before you decide to foul someone else's. I respect the First Amendment and your right to free speech but I certainly don't understand your intent to choose Jodi as the victim of what might otherwise been a very interesting, if not compelling post. It seems you almost got too much pleasure building up your arsenal of facts just so you could then use them to hit an obviously happier person than yourself below the belt.
This post makes me wonder if you are angry at and dislike everyone, or just yourself?
Change Agent, you did a great job of marshaling a blizzard of facts and citations to man's inhumanity to man and, as many others have pointed out before me, diminished the lustre of your argument by offering them in the service of an ad hominem attack on someone who'd written what amounted to little more than a pithy rant.
My guess is that you were motivated less by a desire to set the record straight than by jealousy over the attention Jodi's post got. But if you'll refer back to the All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten handbook, you will realize that when you go out in the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.
I wish the many people who have been critical of your post would turn the same critical eye to Ms. Kasten's post - and to her responses to those with whom she has disagreed - as well as the many openly misogynistic posts with whom she has not disagreed. I wish I could rate this twice.
Jane, if you really are fond of me then why cast shame on me for speaking my mind? Can I not attribute jealousy to what I see as the vehemence of Change Agent's nuclear response to what I viewed as Jodi's summer trifle without such attribution also being laden with CATTINESS?
I never thought of or meant to imply a CATTY angle to Agent's jealousy, but I suppose because I am attributing motivational jealousy to a woman, then it also must bear an implication of CATTINESS.
As it turns out, men are also capable of jealousy and are routinely motivated by it to do all sorts of shameful things, and yet, somehow, one rarely hears of a man being described as CATTY.
In my experience, as a matter of fact, women are routinely far more throat-rippingly insane toward their sisters than - again, this is my experience and I don't personally know any neanderthal wife beaters or child abusers - women can be far more casually vicious toward one another than men are toward women.
So, when I say I believe Change Agent was jealous over the attention Jodi's post got, the only implication of CATTINESS therein is the one you assign to it - it didn't come from me.
I don't personally find it difficult to treat people, all people, men and women, rich and poor, haves and have-nots with basic human kindness and respect. But then I understand I have long been in the minority on that score.
You wrote: "those two facts are not fair. but they so so so so so so so are outweighed by what men do to women and to children, that it hardly matters."
I disagree. They matter a lot, just as much as men's abuse of women matters. There seems to be a tendency to blame all men for things that "men" -- in general -- do and have done. And you excuse as "hardly matters" things good men are saddled with because other men have done bad things to other women. That makes no sense to me.
In fact, women do terrible, terrible things to men. They tend not to be physically violent things, because that is generally not our nature, and we are at a disadvantage in a physical contest. But the emotional abuse and other things women do to men are outright horrible, and they can destroy men.
In our culture, because it is a patriarchy, we tend to create laws and "wrongs" that are focused on male behavior. We tend to dismiss female bad behavior, and not criminalize or stigmatize it, because the patriarchy sees women as weaker, and that "real men" should not acknowledge harm from them. To some extent, the fact that we see men as being worse to women than women are to men is a result of our buying into the gender stereotyping of culture.
Oh sure, women don't do anything so *physically* horrific as the photos posted above (except for the occasional pissed off wife who runs her husband over with the car -- six times). No, we don't. We do other things to men. We do things that are more in our female nature, things that are not as obvious, things we can get away with in our (generally) weaker positions. But if you think women are any "better" toward men, I think that's a value judgment based on your disapproval of one set of behavior and your acquiescence to (or approval of) another set of behavior. And that, in itself, is buying into the cultural gender imperatives and the very structure that creates and allows the conduct of men that you complain of.
I am loathe to be put in the position of defending men, here, but ask any man whose cheating wife has used his children against him in a divorce and taken him for every penny she can get, or who has been the victim of a woman who has falsely accused him of rape or child molestation, whether he thinks women can be just as cruel as men.
I will admit (god, why am I doing this?) to having been molested as a child by a man, and raped as an adult by a man. Me. One person, in one of the safer, saner countries on earth, violently victimized by two separate men. And in any office or internet discussion about it, you will find multiple women who have been victims of physical abuse at the hands of men. So, yeah, the numbers are significant, and bigger than we as a culture want to own up to.
But for every one of the men who raped me, there are thousands -- perhaps millions -- of good, decent, wonderful men. And to bash men in general is no better than bashing Muslims in general for the acts of terrorists, imho. I do NOT believe that the violent and abusive men in America are in the majority. Patriarchal, fer shure. But abusive or violent? No effin' way.
I don't know what the numbers are of women who abuse men. We simply don't get those things reported, nor do men admit to them.
Let's decry the violence, not men.
To "Change Agent"
I might get flamed, but screw it. I thought a few of those shirts were funny! (the one with the rooster, and "blow here") Anyway, While you make your point, using some of the most horrible extremes to "paint" an entire gender is wrong, period. And to back up what incandescent said, "punishing the son for the sins of the father" sure as hell will not improve conditions for women or even better, people in general.
All I gleamed from this post was an angry bitter rant, mixed with an unjust personal attack, with some facts tossed in.
I'm sorry for what may have been done to you in the past, but using the broad brush isn't fair.
amen on that one- ok, now everyone attack me, since that seems to be the way you all operate
god it's good to be a girl
and that makes this entire post sad. you're clearly hurting, and i'm sorry for whatever has happened to you. but what kind of person chooses to inflict their suffering on millions of nameless strangers?
not a person i'd listen to, that's for sure.
But I think the personal attacks against Jodi in your post were unkind and uncalled for. Get mad at inequality and injustice around the world, don't get mad at Jodi. She really didn't deserve that.
NOT rated.
"I've missed OS for the last couple of days so badly. To come back to the lynching was almost physically painful. Why women don't get ahead- this would be a prime example. If we support men then we get tons of affirmation, if we are say what we mean or defend ourselves the bandwagon with be there with the ropes almost immediately (and that's the female bandwagon- hell the men don't even need to get on the damn field- it's women defending the status quo of men first)
god it's good to be a girl"
I ache today. That's it. That's all. I ache.
You resorted to the basest of attacks just because you were all fired up about the topic or your argument. You realize, don't you, that this is all a 'mental' thing? All arguments amplified in your head based on words that Jodi wrote. You don't know Jodi or what she's like or how she thinks. She wrote an essay, an essay, that you happened to find fault with, and you lashed out at her.
It is so ironic that we're talking about equality among the sexes when it is women that are their own worst enemy, as exemplified by the tenor of your response.
denese
The attack on Jodi diverted some from the real argument. That's too bad. But the truth is that women are a long long way from having any kind of equal rights. Just look at the Ledbetter case. Just look at so mamy countries around the world. Righteous indignation needs to be placed properly.
I suspect Jodi can take care of herself and her own opinions. She put her post out there for comment, yes? But let's not forget the reality of too many women's lives.
Thank you for your post, sincerely.
If I may ask you a question, seriously-- why are you out for vengence? Why not just work to make it stop? For everyone?
Women should not be raped. I'm with you on that one.
Women should have equal access to opportunties. I'm with you on that one too.
Women should have equal renumeration for work performed in equitable circumstances. You got me there as well.
Darfur, Sudan, Congo, and all the worlds troubled places-- I'm right with you-- let's get the fuck out of Iraq and do something worthwhile for a change.
How about we don't stone *anybody* -- for anything!
Or throw acid in their faces. That's just poor taste. Custard pies though-- can we still keep those?
How about we actually investigate family issues and make the best call possible-- why not get a JURY involved? Get some more "reasonable" people who don't have a dog in the fight and haven't "seen and heard it all" to form biases, one way or the other?
Let's get together and *BURN* all of those stupid shirts. Every one of them. They're stupid, they're hurtful, they're insensitive, and frankly, IMO, they're right on the hairy-edge of being a hate crime. Let's ban 'em all.
Anything else? If I was king of the world, I'd gladly wave my wand and make *ALL* of this happen, and probably more if I knew about it. (Tossing hands up) You may not believe it, but I'm just a man-- one guy-- who is right there with you in wanting ALL of that stuff to stop, to go away-- forever. So we could see a NEW day, a NEW dawn, a NEW future, with equity and equality-- for everyone.
I'm sure you're going to go right back to stomping your feet and calling me a troll and a sexist pig again-- that's your perogative I suppose -- but thanks anyway for letting me add my comments to your post. I hear your pain. I'm sorry for your pain. But *I* did not cause it, and *nobody I know* cause it. And yet it happens, and you blame me.
http://open.salon.com/blog/mr_e/2009/05/29/people_abuse_people_given_the_opportunity
NOW can we get on to the part where we FIX these problems?
You mention male on male rape as a "prison" crime. This is evidence to me that you really are not aware of the truth about that situation. While a large number, possibly a majority of those crimes are committed in a jail or prison location, that does not justify or lessen the crime. Speaking as a survivor of male on male rape I find the comment offensive. Male on male rape happens in all areas of life not just prisons. There is no system in place to deal with so much as tracking the crime and the shame involved for male rape victims is so great that a huge number go totally unreported. It's victims go untreated and they live with the results with no network of support. Does your statement mean that you feel that men who are raped in prison have somehow "asked for it" or "deserved it"? Don't cite statistics on this matter to me I know personally how wrong they are.
That men commit most of the domestic violence and sexual assaults is not in question to me, they do. When the number is attributed to only the gender of the perpetrators. The actual number of men who are rapists is altered when it is taken to the individual level. Domestic violence and sexual assaults are also high in same sex couples as well. The ABA numbers are interesting to me since it would seem that in same sex couples that the female/female pair is significantly more likely to result in DV than opposite sex couples(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) 39.2% vs.21.7% what does this mean? Are women on an individual basis at least as likely to commit acts of domestic violence as men?
I am a lifelong supporter of equal rights. I will not change that based on what either you or Jodi says. She was trying, I believe, to make the point that we are all equals and need to treat each other as such. Not that this was already the case.
I can only agree with you about the stonings and the acid throwing and beheadings that are done to women for sexual behaviors. They are wrong and must be stopped. You don't mention the fact that these are generally religious punishments meted out by imams in what are generally muslim countries. To stop them will require drastic changes in islamic law. Islam is to say, at best, unwilling to accept secular law in these matters. I'm open to any ideas on how to acheive this.
Global culture is not easy to change. This doesn't mean that I don't work in some way every day to bring it about. It isn't a matter of women alone standing up for their human rights, it will take all of us.
We've all lived what changeagent writes here. I came home from a night of playing backgammon at Burger King with a pal of mine from work, a girl, to find my father, drunk, the only light in the house coming from the ash of his cigarette, asking me, "Where the hell have you been, you whore?" I watched him beat his girlfriend that summer (she was a gorgeous, fun lady, well educated and ran huge military budget offices), demand that she abort their child, and felt how he used his power to make our home and our lives feel dark, empty, cold, desperate.
I remember after getting one of my first jobs, in a prestigious government office, hearing gossip about how I got the job repeated to me. A very smart, sane female coworker told me. It was one despicable man, paid more than most of the rest, who did very little work and what he did not make life better for anyone in our region, opening his yap to the entire office, that I'd slept with a bald, zit-faced creep to get the job. Doesn't matter where the rumor came from, it was untrue, there was not a thing anyone could ever have even guessed at to substantiate it, and hearing it made every day at that place thereafter bleak, and pathetic.
I don't need to give any graphic details of the times I was sexually abused or beaten. It happened.
Women have hundreds of these stories to share. Lashing out is not only not going to make us shut up and go away, it's going to take what was already done to us, and make it worse.
Of course there are wonderful men and wonderful women out there, but there are far more who are sleazy, unethical, conniving and not just unsupportive but undercutting, in the workplace, in our communities, and in our homes.
People who have to oppress others do so because their own personal power is threading. Why is that? They chose what they thought was the easier, guaranteed path to power, because they believe in lies and run a script in their heads that comes from darkness. And men who have control/power over women because the women, daughters, wives, mothers, co-workers, are afraid to be psychologically or verbally abused, beaten, or abandoned, possess no power. They possess nothing.
Check this out: the fullness of manhood is found in man's humanity toward another fellow human being. Hearts do not swell with admiration or grief at the funeral of a man whose only contribution to his wife's well-being was that he kept her in nail tips, lite beer and tennis lessons. Women and men need to support each other, and equally important is support within the genders. We are responsible and accountable to each other.
Don't any one of us ask where the mantle of the prophet rests. It is firmly placed across your shoulders, and mine.
Well said.
I thought I wrote, but guess I didn't, that I was with you before the personal attack on Jodi. I also didn't mean to say that you shouldn't be fired up by the inequities you see. You should be. We all should be (Lisa). But, getting personal was not warranted. I meant to say, if I didn't, that the drawback of passionate anger is that it often gets misplaced.
And how are her positive experiences with men any less "realistic" then all the negative ones you have experienced?
In her words: "I suppose all I really want to say here is that it is wrong to judge any sex as a whole. Men and women are individuals."
Maybe instead of insisting that Jodi lives in fantasy land and that in the real world all men are terrible, you can take this as an example of how not all men are as terrible as you think they are. Even if 1/3 of men are rapists, I don't see how there could be more rapists then victims unless there is a lot of tag-teaming going on, the 2/3 that haven't are still part of the "real world".
There are plenty of bad men in the world, they deserve every ounce of criticism you give them, but there are plenty of men who haven't done anything to deserve being grouped with the rapists and child-abusers of the world.
You may not be a cruel human being. In fact, without knowing you, I'd venture a guess that you are not a categorically cruel woman. But you have allowed for your beliefs and experiences to become an excuse for your own cruel behavior. I believe we simply regard that as ignorance. I could go on, but it would be cruel.
If Jodi's post was titled "Equal Rights for Whites" or "Equal Rights for Straights" would our attitudes be different? Are women somehow fair game, unlike blacks or homosexuals?
If someone had said the exact thing in an "Equal Rights for Straights" and another took offense, would the response be, "Wow. You must have had some really bad experiences with straights in your life. I hope one day you heal."
Are we allowed to admit that gays have seen some horrific abuse at the hands of straights or is that straight-bahsing? What about blacks?
What about a t-shirt that says "it ain't lynching if he blinks twice for yes"?
Seems as though men are sacrosanct, women are fair game.
You make some valid points about the abuse women suffer.
It was possible to make them without making a personal attack on Jodi.
I am amazed at your knowledge of her entire life. I have met her and I don't know as much.
Your tone and the personal attack undermine the valid points you have to make.
And isn't it just too ironic that there is a word, "misogyny" used by men, meaning "hatred of women", yet no word for "hatred of men" used by women in a world where women and children are victims of male violence and injustice on a daily basis, worldwide, and where men own the governments, the militaries, the media, the land, the banks and money, the courts, the police departments, the colleges and universities, the school boards, the professions, the churches and religions, on and on?
For those who commented something along the lines that it was all great until I "attacked" Jodi Kasten, you need to get beyond the fact that you "like" Jodi Kasten and read what she wrote without glossing over the dross and inaccuracies because she is the "nice girl" you have bonded with online. Pretend her blog was written by someone you don't know and exercise some critical thinking skills. Before you get hot under the collar for me calling Jodi Kasten a "nice girl" realize that is how she describes herself in her bio.
I am not a "nice girl" and would never want to be. I stopped being a girl in middle school. I am no more a girl than a grown man is a boy. To me, being told to be nice is akin to being told to be a door mat. I wrote this blog in response to something I vehemently did not agree with and saw no reason to be "nice" about it. Women are too often told to be nice as a way to shut them the hell up.
Similar to what Dana Douglas describes in her first comment, I get along great with most men which is convenient because I have frequently been the only woman in my professional and leisure pursuits (derby was a big exception). But also like Dana Douglas, I stand ready to cut a man's balls off metaphorically the instant he attempts to put me in my place because I lack a penis and he thinks his privilege makes me lesser.
My getting being able to compartmentalize and get along well with the men I interact with daily does not mean I am blind to the realities of life for most women in the world. Women are grossly unequal to men. My first paragraphs in this blog lay that out. Men owning 99 percent of everything while women do 66 percent of the work? How is that equal? None of you have refuted me.
In her comments to the blog I disagree with Jodi Kasten has now tried to excuse herself by claiming her blog is merely personal feelings. All well and good that she admits that now, but that is not what she wrote in the blog. In the blog she put herself out as knowing all about how men are the victims of child custody courts and rampant female gossip in the workplace.
I have clearly shown she is woefully ignorant on the subject of child custody decisions and that what she wrote about child custody and mothers caught with crack pipes is factually incorrect. So much for her feelings.
I could now continue to rip her blog apart point by point, but Bill Michtom has already done that for the most part so I will place a copy of his comment below this and not waste my time.
For those who think I am being abusive, not nice, mean spirited, unkind, histrionic, a bully, an evil human being, a bitch or what ever terms you used because I pointed out things from Jodi Kasten's life that make her particularly unqualified to opine on gender inequality in the work place (all of which I gleaned from her own blog archive), tough. Welcome to the internet.
Jodi Kasten put herself out there as versed in the inequities of child custody and knowing what happens in the man bashing break rooms of America. I took the time to read her older blogs and other than two months as a counselor at a woman's health clinic, there is no indication she has ever been out in the world competing with men for pay and promotion. There is reference to working in high school at a grocery store and a fast food chain to earn the small amount needed to pay for auto insurance and have pocket money, but no other work history. Her bio states she is a professional mommy. As Jodi Kasten has not bothered to refute this and has relied on others to defend her here who have also not refuted this, I refuse to back away from my assertion that she has never had to support herself. This point is important.
It is ludicrous for a woman who works at home schooling and caring for her children and therefore does not have to face the daily discrimination and slights so aptly described by Odetteroulette over at RenaissanceLady's blog to make the unflattering assertions Jodi Kasten did about women in the workplace. It is like a hair stylist who knows nothing about cars other than driving one saying he or she knows all about how an automotive garage is run. If Jodi Kasten has not worked to support herself outside of the home, how can she think that when she tosses her "feelings" about women in the work place and what she perceives to be reverse-sexism in that work place out into the world that she will not be criticized? It was not a low blow for me to point out her lack of experience in this area.
It is also in her past blogs that Jodi Kasten describes her anxiety issues and not wanting to deal with friends and family or think about death. She mentions not having had a guest for dinner for six years until her recent hosting of another Open Salon blogger. What she presented as her symptoms and her drug regimen indicates agoraphobia. If I am wrong, Jodi Kasten is free to come here and correct me. Her health problem is relevant because it again indicates she does not have the life experience to back up what she writes in her blog. If your time with other people is so limited by your anxiety that it has been six years between dinner guests, how can you possibly know anything about the sexism out in the world?
I notice none of you Kasten cheerleaders said I was wrong about what you characterized as personal attacks. You just assailed me as evil for daring to write the obvious which I will repeat (yet again): Jodi Kasten's life experiences as she has presented them in her blog posts have hardly put her in the position to know anything about gender discrimination and equality in the work place.
For those who felt the need to pointedly indicate you did not rate this, bully for you. I did not write it for your approval and knew many of you would be very unhappy with what I wrote. Unlike many people who write here on open salon, I am not looking for your affirmation and could care less about ratings.
For those who felt the need to speculate about my life and how I became what you describe as broken and bitter and evil, you are making assumptions with no hard data. Unlike many here, I have not exposed the details of my life to this corner of cyberspace. Your speculation is just that.
One thing has happened due to Jodi Kasten writing her blog. She has now run across men who think she is a lesser persona because she has a vagina. The blog comments at her post are chock full of them.
If all Jodi Kasten had written was the title, "Equal Rights for Men," my reaction would have been pretty much the same. Men's rights are so far superior to women that Kasten's "feeling" that men suffer from a lack of equality with women is ludicrous.
A few thoughts for specific people:
@ incandescent. That you deny sexism is alive and well in the United States shows your willful ignorance. Tossing up wage gap denial talking points with no citations, ditto. Not being able to widen your perspective to the horrific abuse women suffer daily world wide, again ditto. My blog was obviously not confined to only US injustices. I agree with RenLady that comments you made over at Jodi Kasten's blog are misogynistic. I am also curious how many female CEOs you have run across in all your years in corporate America. That corporate America you insist is sexism free over at RenLady's blog.
@ bobbot. You read so much into one sentence that was not there that I am amazed. My mention of prison rape in no way stated it was a minor issue or claimed prison rape is the only way men are raped. I wrote the sentence about prison rape because when a woman mentions rape statistics some troll inevitably shows up and accuses the woman of discounting prison rape whether she addressed it or not. Of course the troll never acknowledges that women do not control the political, corporate and social apparatus that allows prison rape to happen. Or that it is once again men who are the abusers.
I am very aware child sexual abuse happens far too often to both boys and girls, but more often to girls. Most molesters of boys and girls are men. (Trolls, don't bother jumping up and down about female molesters and rapists. Yes, they exist, but they are an incredibly small percentage of molesters and rapists.) I firmly believe molesters and rapists be they women or men should be imprisoned in most cases for life. The recidivist rate is incredibly high.
I am to take from your comments that because you think acid attacks and stonings only happen in Muslim countries they do not count? Abuse caused by religion gets a pass?
Another thing for you to consider is infanticide. There is rampant female infanticide in China (and India.) Last I checked China is not a Muslim or Hindu country.
How about sexual slavery in Europe and America? Is that also caused by Muslims and Hindus?
Did you ever stop to consider how American policies support regimes and religions that abuse women? Saudi Arabia is a perfect example and I could list dozens more. Of course most politicians are men.
I don't want to hear about Hillary or Condi or Madeliene. The Secretary of State implements the policies of the President and the Congress. Last I checked all the presidents have been men and 99 percent of the Senators and Congressional Representatives in the history of the US have been men.
I am sorry that you were sexually assaulted by a man, but in no way did I dismiss all male rapes as prison crime.
I'd also like to point out that sentence was not addressed specifically to you, but was a preventive strike on potential trolls. Everything is not about you. Do you see your login ID in my blog? I certainly don't. Your taking that one sentence personally is not my fault.
@ Kent Pitman. How could you possibly know I "attacked" Jodi Kasten if you didn't read the rest of the blog? My statements about Jodi Kasten are at the end of the blog. Do you routinely jump to the bottom of blogs and read the paragraphs there first? You sound like a disingenuous idiot.
@ Dana Douglas. I did not make the comment about kinks/paraphelias. That was SoapBoxAmy.
Your equating emotional abuse to physical abuse is mind blowing and wrong. While I do not condone emotional abuse, there is no comparison.
@ Lonnie Lazar. I provided a blizzard of facts about man's inhumanity to woman. Think about the difference between that and the sentence you wrote. Man's inhumanity to man is a different topic.
I addressed the substance of Jodi Kasten's arguments and produced ample evidence showing she is wrong with citations. If a small part of that evidence consists of her lack of life experience in the work place which is certainly germane, it it not ad hominem for me to point that out.
I am not jealous of Jodi Kasten. Her life as described in her blogs is the very antithesis of mine. It would be a living hell for me. I am not jealous of the attention her blog received. Having misogynists flock to agree with and praise what you write and being asked by conservative talk radio for an interview is a sure indicator what you wrote is wrong and damaging to women. No thanks.
@ Will someone feed the cat? I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with your comments.
@Renlady. I really liked this comment of yours and in case it was missed by anyone who bothers to read this blog I place it here so it has a second chance to be read:
If Jodi's post was titled "Equal Rights for Whites" or "Equal Rights for Straights" would our attitudes be different? Are women somehow fair game, unlike blacks or homosexuals?
If someone had said the exact thing in an "Equal Rights for Straights" and another took offense, would the response be, "Wow. You must have had some really bad experiences with straights in your life. I hope one day you heal."
Are we allowed to admit that gays have seen some horrific abuse at the hands of straights or is that straight-bahsing? What about blacks?
What about a t-shirt that says "it ain't lynching if he blinks twice for yes"?
Seems as though men are sacrosanct, women are fair game.
@SoapBoxAmy. The same:
...men own the governments, the militaries, the media, the land, the banks and money, the courts, the police departments, the colleges and universities, the school boards, the professions, the churches and religions, on and on...
That pesky 99 percent of everything.
If anyone reads this and replies, it will be a while before I get back to you. Unlike many on OS, I do not spend much time here and see no reason why I should have to prove to the sexism deniers or OS that sexism still exists in the US and the rest of the world or that women are in no way equal to men.
Jodi: Over all, I think this is a very simplistic view of history, male-female relations, and the changes that happen when people start seizing power for themselves. Its problems are also compounded by pull-'em-out-of-my-ass statistics.
You typed: unless Jane lights up a crack pipe in the courtroom she will get physical custody." Women, unequivocally, have custody much more than men, but this is deeply misleading hyperbole.
Go to the link for more than I show here.
Custody in Single Parent Families by Poverty Level
Father Mother
Number Percent Number Percent
(1000s) (1000s)
White Below 194 13.1% 1,287 86.9%
poverty
level
Above 991 26.7% 2,716 73.3%
poverty
level
Black Below 108 10.2% 952 89.8%
poverty
level
Above 187 14.3% 1,122 85.7%
poverty
level
Hisp. Below 85 16.2% 439 83.8%
poverty
level
Above 191 26.8% 522 73.2%
poverty
level
Source: U.S. Census, America's Families and Living Arrangements 2004 Current Population Survey, March 2005. Table FG-6. (Figures combine never married and divorced families; numbers in thousands)
You then typed: "If you drive by a house with a dying lawn, is your first thought about what a crappy homeowner the WOMAN is who lives there?"
Actually, I don't give a shit what shape someone's lawn is in, though I would much rather see whomever get rid of the lawn and put in plants.
You continue: "How about at work? Women can openly talk ... about the hot new guy ... What kind of pigs are the men who talk about ... a woman? If a woman asks a male co-worker out on a date, the worst that can happen is rejection. For a man, the worst that can happen is the loss of his job and a sexual harassment suit. Is that gender equality?"
This is, in my experience, almost completely true. But, you ignore history. While I always feel I can say "yes" or "no, thanks" (or "Oh, god, I thought you'd never ask!"), I am a man. Why we have this difference is a long, ugly history of sexual harassment that goes vastly in one direction and is nowhere near over.
Then, Jodi, comes the fear of male sexual predators: "Imagine you’re in a toy store and a woman shopping alone comments on what a beautiful little girl you have. You are pleased and flattered. [and the opposite for the assumed creepy guy]" Being worried about male child abusers is an unfortunately all too accurate reading of history. OTOH, I, a 62-year-old man have done and do things like this (making comments about children to their parents, or engaging the kids in conversation) often and am still out on the street to tell the tale. I don't think it's as common as you feel it to be. Most people, in my experience, do not leapt to the conclusion you claim for them.
You refer to men as "lazy assholes and women as "bitches" in your next example about women-bashing men. And, while I call women on male-bashing, the words asshole and bitch tell a story, too. There are many woman-specific derogations. There are few for men. There is a long history, again, of attacking women though language. Anyone can be an asshole, but only a women—or a man being put down by being compared to a woman—is called a bitch. This, too, continues to be entirely too common today.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics women are about six times as likely as men to experience intimate partner violence. So, it's a lot more common then most of us think. I would not think a man who is afraid of his wife is a wussy, but I may be unusual. On the other hand, returning to the previous topic briefly, where does "wussy" come from: wimp and pussy. "Pussy" is a put down. WTF?
You clam that "Men are now often the stay-at-home parent." According to the best numbers I could find, 0.2% of fathers are stay-at-home parents. I know it is up considerably from the time I was a single, custodial father, but there's a way to go before it gets to often.
Onward you type: "I must say, I don’t know a single man, NOT ONE, who thinks I am a lesser person because I have a vagina. The men I know see women as mysterious, alluring and even holy."
I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you (well, obviously, if I were you, I would be so sure, but you get the idea). Plus, this whole "mysterious, alluring and even holy" thing reminds me of the mother-madonna-whore trope—not something that has worked real great for women.
On this: "There should be no 'price' on intimacy" I am totally with you. Once again, however, reality rears its ugly head. People are massively screwed up about sexuality. Part of that problem manifests in "putting a price" on it. I was involved with a woman decades ago who expected me to have sex with her because she cooked me dinner, and expected me to buy her meals when we went out together. This, too, is also a holdover from history. Women, until fairly recently in the so-called West and still in many other places, were property; didn't have money for themselves; were expected to provide sex for things, even if not overtly.
I completely agree with you about the T-shirts: “Boys Suck!” – and my personal favorite “Boys Are Great, Every Girl Should Own One!” I don't like either one, because, while the boy's version is recognized for the ugly sentiment it expresses, the girl's version seems cute. Ultimately, however, it causes the same alienation for both girls and boys. Just as male bashing does.
You make the powerful statement that "We will only have equal rights as women when we FULLY recognize that each person is a human being, regardless of sex, with the same wants, needs and feelings as everyone else."
But, as Frederick Douglass said, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the awful roar of its mighty waters. power concedes nothing without a demand!"
Or, in my own feeble interpretation, the recognition is not going to convince those still in power (that would be men) to go along with your sentiment. There has to be struggle because privilege is not something people easily let go of. There has to be (at least) a little ass-kicking (metaphorically, of course).
Though I mostly disagree with you, thanks for the thought-provoking post.
The world needs more people like you who care so very much about what happens to the marginalized and abused and aren't afraid to show the pictures and tell the facts that people need to know. The truth is often ugly, and sugar coating does no one a favour.
There have been a lot of incredible comments here, some ugly ones, and some that miss the point. But...the pictures and the numbers cannot be ignored. Brava! You are fearless.
Ground rules for participating comments in the open dialogue on race:
1. ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
2. NAME-CALLING OR FINGER-POINTING ARE PROHIBITED
3. READ COMMENT(S) THOROUGHLY BEFORE RESPONDING
4. STANDARD OPEN SALON RULES APPLY
5. VIOLATORS WILL BE TOWED
Being relatively new to OS, I had no idea that I was legislating against having a high volume of comments.
Your presentation of the facts in your argument is nearly flawless and virtually unassailable. It would have been more than sufficient to stop at that and let your case stand on its own and speak for itself.
There are people here who are threatened by highly organized, logically constructed and forcefully articulated argumentation.
Constructive criticism is met with all manner of contempt and disregarded as disrespectful....
Your personal attack simply gives those who would haven chosen to ignore the truth and validity of your assertions, and the strength of the way in which they are presented, a justifiable reason for doing so....Your work would have caused pain enough for those who would rather not be required to think their way through a discussion/argument. Hence, fewer comments.
If numbers were all you wanted, you succeeded. However, you damaged the intellectual integrity of your post by indulging yourself in an unnecessary emotional rant and a gratuitous personal attack.
People here flock to this kind of stuff like pigeons on popcorn in a park. Your numbers would have been lower, but your case would not have been vulnerable to the kind of commentary it has attracted....Most either miss or ignore your points altogether.
That is why we won't allow it in the Open Dialogue On Race despite the fact that there is a very low participation rate for a so important a topic.