Condemning normality, men and embracing aberrant behaviour

[Tsuujou]

45 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

I just spent a couple of hours looking into everything the Victorian government has on this along with media reports.

Every article I read on the program in Victoria - which is actually called Respectful Relationships in Schools - says that the program claims that men will naturally abuse women. As it is, Respectful Relationships in Schools points to research programs and studies conducted by Victorian, Australian, and UN commissions that say things like a large number of individuals from all age groups "believe that rape results from men not being able to control their sexual urges" and that "domestic violence against men results from weakness on the man's part."

Here's the report on a survey that the Victoria State Government provides to supplement all of the other hours worth of reading. The survey was of young and older Australians' attitudes towards gender roles and violence in relationships. It is one of those reports that suggest that ideas like "Rape results from men not being able to control their sexual urges" need to be corrected through programs such as Respectful Relationships in Schools.

If you've ever studied psychoanalytic, sociological, or feminist approaches to patriarchy, you would know that most schools of thought view the idea that men are inherently predatory and sexual and must maintain their machismo is a result of patriarchal structures that repress legitimate masculinity and male expression. Targeting patriarchal structures identified by such schools of thought - which is what the Respectful Relationships in Schools program appears to be doing - means eliminating, not propagating, those ideas.

According to their evaluations of the pilot program, the Victoria State Government found that ideas like "Sexual harassment is something that only happens to girls," "Domestic violence is a private issue and requires no legal action," and "Domestic violence against men results from weakness on the man's part," were reduced in students that participated in the pilot program in quite a few schools. Here's the final evaluation of the pilot, but they've released others. As that is so, if you're like Kevin Donnelly or Jeremy Sammut who told The Australian that "there’s little, if anything, in there that acknowledges the impact of violence on men and young boys" or that it is "taxpayer-funded indoctrination," respectively, you may want to read what the Victorian State Government has provided. It seems they haven't, or they choose to ignore it.

Even more, the Victoria State Government found that it was targeting gender roles and equality in relationships, but some students expanded what they were taught in that realm to the rest of their life. For example, one young woman that participated in the program related that, "In sports classes, the sports teachers kind of talk to the boys more than the girls… They constantly think that we can’t do it." A young man that participated in the program noted that boys are pushed towards roles in STEM fields, politics, and the military while in school, but girls are shunned away from those same roles.

I couldn't actually find anything on the Finland thing. Could I get a link to some government statements or even just news articles? I couldn't even find any Finnish language articles.

Besides finding this thread, looking up that exact statement leads me to a few articles trying to explain social constructionism in as concise a format as they can. I don't know if you meant that as a direct quote, but I can't find any English language sources with that statement anywhere but here.

If you are legit confused by social constructionism, this video is an okay introduction. It is by a high school teacher - I think - summarizing in-class studies, but it is decent. One would have to read Berger, Foucault, Wittgenstein, and on and on to understand what's going into its discussion and interpretation.

So what, say, is something like

?

 

1 hour ago, Butters said:

Your tears literally fill me with such joy, OP. <3

It's like All Lives Matter, Not All Men, #lockerroomtalk and "Why isn't there a White Entertainment Television?" all rolled up in one. 

 

And next to me, you will see we have a clear contrast in posting quality. MalletFace, as usual, actually rekindling discussion (albeit with a MASSIVE post) versus.......Great Value Jezebel.
Oh and there goes Toshabi being a fuck because he doesn't have the Good Luck™ with loot boxes like me.
Still looking for them Halloween skins, friendo?  :^)

[Revates]

My opinion of this is it would be neither hip or jiggy and thus a bad idea.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

I know that this thread is about crazy shit but this is the song I thought of when I read the title of the thread.

 

[WileyWarWeasel]

One of the most significant studies of the 20th century that inspired the "gender is just a social construct" garbage was the study done on David Reimer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

 

Summary on the above:

David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man born biologically male but reassigned as a girl and raised female following medical advice and intervention after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision in infancy.[1]

Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. Academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer failed to identify as female since the age of 9 to 11,[2] and transitioned to living as a male at age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He later committed suicide after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and a troubled marriage.[3]

 

There are a number of factors that have rapidly changed human behavior over the years.

Here's an interesting study (and more accurate than the above) about the effects of overpopulation on mice. At least some of the behavioral changes shown in mice have parallels in human behavior changes over the years. It also has a picture of cute mice scurrying around:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1644264/

 

Here is an interesting analysis of the changes in the way humans interact with their environment and each other over the years and where this is likely heading if industrial society continues:

http://wildism.org/docs/tk-isaif.html#_introduction

Be sure to read everything including the postscript. It is unfortunate that the author resorted to various measures to get the media spotlight (briefly) on their analysis but the core of their analysis is sound.

 

 

Too bad none of the above will be taught in schools.

[Vallium]

12 hours ago, Snagged Cub said:

 

A gender identification is how your brain sees which gender you are. Your physical gender depends on what kind of genitals you have between your crotch.

I confess, there are situations where "the mind" (brain) of an individual identifies itself and the body it is commanding as opposite gender, e.g a mind of a woman in the body of a man. Previously in history, gender was only defined by your visible physical characteristics which was determined whether you had a vagina or penis. Nowadays, with the advent of advanced human psychology and knowledge of human biology, the line of a true gender is indeed blurred because you can have those mixed persons with unmatched physical gender and gender identification and all that without any surgeries. It all can come naturally. 

However, add in medical operations into the equation and you've got yourself a confusing mess. But, our medical technology is still limited. You can treat someone with hormonal supplements to make a person feel more like the opposite gender (the gender they identify as) but you can't yet surgically create a biologically correct opposite genitalia. 

A man that has a penis inverted to vagina may have issues with urinating and above all, they can't get naturally pregnant. Other means to fertilize a transfemale, like the operation of Ectopic Pregnancy carries a high risk of failure and are morally very questionable. So far no one has done that. 

Vice versa, a transmale can't have semen production because they lack an organ solely dedicated to produce it; The testicles. That same organ also happens to be primarily responsible for testosterone production so a transmale would have to rely on external hormonal supplements to keep their gender integrity in check. 

All in all, all the surgeries the world's most skilled surgeons could perform are nowhere near to create a perfect gender change. There will be always remnants to remind you of your origins and they will have an effect on your (sex) life in the world we presently live in

As long as a transgender person is unable to have artificially grown genital organs and have them successfully installed by surgeons and then actually have them work properly then you can always tell if a person is transgender because they have a physical abnormality in them, which also makes them neither a physical male or female, at least in today's world.

Hence I still support a term is needed for transgender people instead of going the stupid way of SJW and banning the words boy and girl. 

Also, a reminder that your physical gender and gender identification are not the same. If your brain is wired to expect high levels of estrogen, then you can take estrogen hormonal supplements to make yourself feel more comfortable in your own body. And that's okay for me. However, one does not simply physically change genders to opposite. There might be a middle ground known as transgender, depending on definitions but you can never fully complete the leap from male to female and vice versa with the technology and expertise available today. It will be only partial. You'd need reliable artifical organs and a way to neurologically connect them to your body (preferably without rejection reaction from the body) to do a complete physical gender change. Luckily, we are not that far away from the reality, which is what I think also contributes to the waking of the question "What to do with transgender people?" 

If I meet a transgender person, I will refer them by the gender based on their physical outlook, not based on how they feel because honestly, I cannot read anyone's mind. This is especially true if said transgender person is a person I just met. I will call them by the gender they feel like if they specifically request for it but my initial impression of the gender is always based on what I see with my own eyes. I might be inconsiderate by saying all that but how would I initially know? 

Luckily, my language is without a gender so it isn't that big of an issue outside of Internet. You English speakers, please adopt a third or even fourth gender or do like us Finns and simplify things: Adopt a genderless pronoun as a default. You might need it in the future more than you'd like to admit. 

Now someone please tell me why I wrote this nerdy essay about transgenderism on a furry forum? 

Actually the issue is here, gender and sex are often used interchangeably but when discussing specifics of physical vs non-physical traits "sex" is more accurate to the physical which involves your karyotype and genitals, whereas "gender" involves anything that doesnt align with that, which is the person's gender identity. It makes these terms more accurate when theyre used properly because a transman or a transwoman cannot deny that on a physical level theyre sex is that of a woman or man, it's all there. Even if the distinctions in terminology is new, its very useful in current times.

While the second bolded is true, people of aberrant gendered traits didnt stop existing either, they just werent given much thought or consideration, the rise of psychology and looseness in social rolez tends to allow people more freedom in expressing sexuality and gender than before, when it was predominantly hidden and less reported. Also, as always, the rarer intersex conditions do actually exist where someone can have odd genitals or both genitals, so classifying a person like that is always more difficult. Other odd secondary sex traits arise as well in those of certain genitals, such as the man with breasts (gynecomastia) or the bearded lady, a fan favorite of ye old freakshow; secondary sex traits are often commonly attributed to those who have one genital or another, but when they start appearing on the opposite sex some still somehow see these folks as their birth sex, even if they do not look it from first encounter. All in all, what someone is depends solely on them, physical traits are loose indicators at times depending on other factors of makeup

 

Trust me no man or woman who's actually well informed is going to say they are exactly the same as a biological man or woman, that's just ignoring the facts. If you meet an average transwomen as a stranger (and not a friend) unless theyre tumblr tier crybabies they likely wont demand you say theyre a women fully bearded and muscled unless they go through steps to appear as a biological woman may appear or at least androgynous.

 

Edit: Looking back I took this the wrong way, you do have good points and I appreciate your outlook so Im not trying to debate you, simply wanted to clarify a few things

"Now someone please tell me why I wrote this nerdy essay about transgenderism on a furry forum? "

Oh fuck good question what the fuck did I just do lmao lets just go back to jerking it to animal people pls

[Butters]

7 hours ago, Toshabi said:

• Literally addresses nothing in OP.

• Takes pompous, superiority stance.

• Dismisses any concern from party that disagrees with them, despite OP citing studies showing negative effects on the control groups of said studies.

• Completely stereotypes the OP rather than rebuting their position with facts, earnest reasonings and contradictions.

 

This, ladies and gentleman, is what a man who has been pussy slapped into feminism submission looks like. The only thing missing is them apologizing for being male.

Hot. 

[Cingal]

Shit is fucked.

 

I guess I can only really hope for some sort of kick-back against all this non-sense before it goes too far.

 

Personally, I see Gender as being divided by chromosomes and stuff. It's not perfect, but, It's an arbitrary line anyway, so, that's where I arbitrarily draw it.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

9 hours ago, MalletFace said:

I couldn't actually find anything on the Finland thing. Could I get a link to some government statements or even just news articles? I couldn't even find any Finnish language articles.
 

 

Finnish ministry of education (Opetusministeriö) released this pdf, which entails the curriculum. It is in finnish though so that's a bit of a hindrance for you. http://www.oph.fi/download/173318_tasa_arvotyo_on_taitolaji.pdf

Primary news media for capital region people, rather credible http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1476763541102

Semi-trashy site working under the credible news outlet dealing with the topic, which brought the case to public knowledge  http://nyt.fi/a1476754398484

Tabloid based news outlet http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2016101922484357_uu.shtml

http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2016101922485210_uu.shtml

Worth mentioning now that they are backing out of the social media backlash by saying "We never meant to eradicate the terms boy and girl, it's just a guideline"

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, Butters said:

Hot. 

Butters, it's behaviour like yours which is why nobody can stand modern feminism.
The best you can apparently do when presented with challenges to your ideas is accuse other people of having character flaws or responding in trite and childish ways that are essentially meaningless.
It's like talking with a trump supporter, who just says 'kek' or 'but you are cuck' to every point of contention you raise. :\

Malletface's response is a little better, but has its own flaws.
His post at least clarified that the picture was more of a mixed bag than the OP portrayed it to be, because at least some positive effects of the pilot study could be identified. However, the tome he has written is essentially impenetrable as well as condescending; he knows nobody is going to read 3 authors about social constructionism in order to broaden their understanding of an internet rant thread; their names are merely mentioned to flatter his ego and provide an impression of intellect.
Indeed, a much simpler and easier point is neglected, which is that existence of the two sexes is biological reality, rather than a shared assumption about reality; so they are 'necessarily biological' and not 'social constructions'.

So these are the two criticisms I have of modern feminist ideas. They are often defended solely through character attacks and playground insults, and the actual literature they refer to is mutton-dressed-as-lamb, being all flowery language and very little substance.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Malletface's response is a little better, but has its own flaws.
His post at least clarified that the picture was more of a mixed bag than the OP portrayed it to be, because at least some positive effects of the pilot study could be identified. However, the tome he has written is essentially impenetrable as well as condescending; he knows nobody is going to read 3 authors about social constructionism in order to broaden their understanding of an internet rant thread; their names are merely mentioned to flatter his ego and provide an impression of intellect.

So these are the two criticisms I have of modern feminist ideas. They are often defended solely through character attacks and playground insults, and the actual literature they refer to is mutton-dressed-as-lamb, being all flowery language and very little substance.

I actually liked Malletface's response. I am currently taking notes of the original Victoria curriculum and I was going to do some reading on the authors later.

It's not to flatter one's ego if you provide citations to an argument that has science as basis for a debate, but to offer a chance for the other side to understand where his ideas come from, and also to educate others.

Just because he chose to write a post about something and he's done hours of research on it, doesn't mean he's just trying to give off an impression of intellect. If anything, you trying to criticising his post for being credible speaks of your own intelligence and willingness to put in effort.

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

I actually liked Malletface's response. I am currently taking notes of the original Victoria curriculum and I was going to do some reading on the authors later.

It's not to flatter one's ego if you provide citations to an argument that has science as basis for a debate, but to offer a chance for the other side to understand where his ideas come from, and also to educate others.

Just because he chose to write a post about something and he's done hours of research on it, doesn't mean he's just trying to give off an impression of intellect. If anything, you trying to criticising his post for being credible speaks of your own intelligence and willingness to put in effort.

IMO
It's like insisting that 'you need to read these three papers about why the earth is flat,' when you're already aware of categorical evidence that shows it is round.

No amount of extra study is going to change that conclusion, so it is confusing that this is presented as if it is a valid counter argument.

That's why it is mutton dressed as lamb. Ideas which are easily shown to be wrong, but which wear a cloak of academic words, are treated as if they are equal in merit and need to be extensively studied before their dismissal.

 

[Spot]

Most seem so caught up with equality these days they often forget the morality of their actions. So sad to see that the concept of live and let live is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

[Troj]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

IMO
It's like insisting that 'you need to read these three papers about why the earth is flat,' when you're already aware of categorical evidence that shows it is round.

No amount of extra study is going to change that conclusion, so it is confusing that this is presented as if it is a valid counter argument.

That's why it is mutton dressed as lamb. Ideas which are easily shown to be wrong, but which wear a cloak of academic words, are treated as if they are equal in merit and need to be extensively studied before their dismissal.

However, it may be helpful to read those three papers in order to properly understand the flat-earther world view and it's main arguments.

You can't properly or competently debunk or argue against what you don't correctly perceive in the first place.

Not understanding these core concepts is how we get some people screaming about how the feminists want to forbid genders, make men wear shock collars, or create safe spaces where people snuggle in a playpen all day, and how we get naive young Tumblr SJWs thinking that, hey, that sounds like a neat idea.

I mean, hell, Foucault himself would disagree with many modern popular interpretations of his core arguments.

[Zaraphayx]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Butters, it's behaviour like yours which is why nobody can stand modern feminism.
The best you can apparently do when presented with challenges to your ideas is accuse other people of having character flaws or responding in trite and childish ways that are essentially meaningless.
It's like talking with a trump supporter, who just says 'kek' or 'but you are cuck' to every point of contention you raise. :\

Malletface's response is a little better, but has its own flaws.
His post at least clarified that the picture was more of a mixed bag than the OP portrayed it to be, because at least some positive effects of the pilot study could be identified. However, the tome he has written is essentially impenetrable as well as condescending; he knows nobody is going to read 3 authors about social constructionism in order to broaden their understanding of an internet rant thread; their names are merely mentioned to flatter his ego and provide an impression of intellect.
Indeed, a much simpler and easier point is neglected, which is that existence of the two sexes is biological reality, rather than a shared assumption about reality; so they are 'necessarily biological' and not 'social constructions'.

So these are the two criticisms I have of modern feminist ideas. They are often defended solely through character attacks and playground insults, and the actual literature they refer to is mutton-dressed-as-lamb, being all flowery language and very little substance.

Are you actually criticizing someone else for writing too long of a post???

What planet am I on.

[Saxon]

32 minutes ago, Troj said:

However, it may be helpful to read those three papers in order to properly understand the flat-earther world view and it's main arguments.

You can't properly or competently debunk or argue against what you don't correctly perceive in the first place.

Not understanding these core concepts is how we get some people screaming about how the feminists want to forbid genders, make men wear shock collars, or create safe spaces where people snuggle in a playpen all day, and how we get naive young Tumblr SJWs thinking that, hey, that sounds like a neat idea.

I mean, hell, Foucault himself would disagree with many modern popular interpretations of his core arguments.

I think that at best it's a middle ground fallacy, and bringing up the original literature when nobody you're arguing against believes in that version of ideas is just...irrelevant. It's like citing Richard Dawkins if somebody asks what an internet meme is. 

[Victor-933]

The thing that arrogant and hateful people like @Butters always forget is the farther you push the pendulum, the harder it swings back at you.

 

Keep spreading your bigotry and hatred, @Butters -- someday it'll blow up in your face and the faces of everyone like you and you'll be forced to come to terms with how, in your quest for Equality!™, you've done nothing but create division and sabotage minority rights for decades to come.

 

And I'm gonna be laughing my ass off at you when it happens.

[Sidewalk Surfboard]

There's a reason nobody likes talking to you, Butters. This is the reason.

[Saxon]

41 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

The thing that arrogant and hateful people like @Butters always forget is the farther you push the pendulum, the harder it swings back at you.

 

Keep spreading your bigotry and hatred, @Butters -- someday it'll blow up in your face and the faces of everyone like you and you'll be forced to come to terms with how, in your quest for Equality!™, you've done nothing but create division and sabotage minority rights for decades to come.

 

And I'm gonna be laughing my ass off at you when it happens.

To be honest, I think that's an exaggeration; I don't think Butter is actually a hate-filled bigoted person.

There's a reason nobody likes talking to you, Butters. This is the reason.

Not having that. I like Butters.

 

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, Zaraphayx said:

Are you actually criticizing someone else for writing too long of a post???

What planet am I on.

A planet with a molten volcano will skull shaped rocks where from a dark skull shaped castle the light puffs of smoke emanate from the posting machine as the posts are lovingly made and waft through the air past the burned remains of all the UPS trucks filled with bad dragon products that didn't make it up the side of the volcano. 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

I spent three or so hours of my free time to go through the curriculums, their self made research and came up with a tonne of notes, concerns and some good points of it.

Having dug in deeper into the subject matter, I can say that not nearly all of it is bad. There is a LOT of good stuff in there, but most of that comes after the first years obviously. The first two years are the worst, focusing on gender differences and inequality etc a lot more than the latter years, which focus more on generalised concepts and mental health, which I think is very important to go through. Literal privilege checks aside, it's not that bad.

If someone is interested of the notes, I can put them up somewhere on request. It's a lot of words, citations and reactions to things mentioned in the texts themselves.

[#00Buck]

7 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

I spent three or so hours of my free time to go through the curriculums, their self made research and came up with a tonne of notes, concerns and some good points of it.

Having dug in deeper into the subject matter, I can say that not nearly all of it is bad. There is a LOT of good stuff in there, but most of that comes after the first years obviously. The first two years are the worst, focusing on gender differences and inequality etc a lot more than the latter years, which focus more on generalised concepts and mental health, which I think is very important to go through. Literal privilege checks aside, it's not that bad.

If someone is interested of the notes, I can put them up somewhere on request. It's a lot of words, citations and reactions to things mentioned in the texts themselves.

@Rassah someone can post a text wall for you to rage against. 

Let em know if you want it posted up. 

[Guest]

A nuanced topic that requires an unbiased and scholarly sentiment and unbiased views brought to phoenixed. What can go wrong? Lets see if I regret thoughtfully replying to something today. 

Article confirming OP  Lessons on ‘male privilege’ in $21.8m Victorian schools program

definition of feminism via google: 'the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.' 

Quote

 

Victorian students will be taught about “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women, as part of a mandatory new school subject aimed at combating family violence.

The Victorian government will push ahead with the rollout of its $21.8 million respectful relationships education program, despite claims the program fails to consider the multiple and complex drivers of family violence, ignores male victims and amounts to the brainwashing of children.

Evidence has emerged the program risks alienating men — by presenting all men as “bad” and all women as “victims” — a point highlighted in a report evaluating a pilot of the program in 19 schools last year.

 

The bit above is from the Article.. and that's fucking disgusting. Women, as they are equal to men, can be the violent aggressors in relationships. Teaching young children that girls are hapless victims and boys are brutish aggressors is horrendous. The article goes on to say how the curriculum is implemented K-12, and its this kind of ultra-leftist, uneducated bullshit that is going to severely damage these young children. How appalling. 

I was going to write more, but I know how you people are. 

Basically, this is ultra-liberal bullshit and I hate how modern feminism has 'matured' in 2016. Sure, inform about male privilege in places that it makes sense, like by way of how homeless women have to deal w periods vs men don't, or other instances where that privilege is applicable, alongside white privilege, female privilege (its a thing, see: child custody court cases), basically, teach all kinds of privilege in constructive environments. Don't teach young boys to hate themselves and young girls that they're only supposed to be victims. 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

Here are my thoughts for the interested. http://dropcanvas.com/#nDVOm69F392jYV

@#00Buck

[#00Buck]

34 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Here are my thoughts for the interested. http://dropcanvas.com/#nDVOm69F392jYV

@#00Buck

I actually read it. You make some good points. 

[Victor-933]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

To be honest, I think that's an exaggeration; I don't think Butter is actually a hate-filled bigoted person.

Not having that. I like Butters.

 

You have way too much faith in humanity, I think.

[Troj]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

I think that at best it's a middle ground fallacy, and bringing up the original literature when nobody you're arguing against believes in that version of ideas is just...irrelevant. It's like citing Richard Dawkins if somebody asks what an internet meme is. 

I assumed the references were posted to shed light on how other people (like certain feminists) think about the topic, if people were interested in donning that hat. That's how I interpreted them, anyway.

Well, and if these ideas were so self-evidently wrong, you'd think almost nobody would buy into them. Yet people do, and their reasoning is sometimes surprisingly nuanced, weird, and complicated, so you've got to be prepared for those curveballs if you're going to debate them effectively.

[Saxon]

16 minutes ago, Troj said:

I assumed the references were posted to shed light on how other people (like certain feminists) think about the topic, if people were interested in donning that hat. That's how I interpreted them, anyway.

Well, and if these ideas were so self-evidently wrong, you'd think almost nobody would buy into them. Yet people do, and their reasoning is sometimes surprisingly nuanced, weird, and complicated, so you've got to be prepared for those curveballs if you're going to debate them effectively.

To be honest I don't like Malletface and was looking for an opportunity to have a shot at him.
I don't like it when other people do that to me, so I figure I'm going to just say that's what I was doing and apologise for doing it.

[#00Buck]

There are some people on the forum that I don't like very much but when they make a valid point and state it well It's hard not to give them some likes. 

[Troj]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

To be honest I don't like Malletface and was looking for an opportunity to have a shot at him.
I don't like it when other people do that to me, so I figure I'm going to just say that's what I was doing and apologise for doing it.

Hey, at least you're honest.

Now I feel less crazy, wondering why we were arguing over that.

[MalletFace]

9 hours ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

~stuff~

Thanks. I was really confused by the lack of worldwide outrage as usually happens with things like this.

They link to the same Australian article I keep seeing, so I at least know it is on the same topic.

5 hours ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Here are my thoughts for the interested. http://dropcanvas.com/#nDVOm69F392jYV

I'm not sure what the final evaluation means by "international evidence," but the program as a whole cites UN studies and Australian, UK, and US national statistics efforts.

My best guess is that they're referencing that which was compiled by the World Health Organization's World report on violence and health. The report pulled together nearly three hundred articles, surveys, reports, and all kinds of other things addressing the causes, prevalence, and results of just sexual violence anywhere from the Xhosa to New Yorkers. I've had the time to look at all of three.

The report as a whole comes to the same conclusion as the Victoria State Government, and the statement made within the final evaluation of the pilot really sounds like a paraphrasing of what the WHO's report said.

The WHO World report on violence and health addresses at least some of the rest of your concerns, I think.

5 hours ago, Lemon said:

Article confirming OP

I believe that article is meant to trigger that kind of response. It never actually quotes the actual reports, just outside critics who themselves fail to address what is actually within the program.

As I've said before, the program points to surveys that seek to display the prevalence of and suggest solutions for ideas like "Domestic violence against men results from weakness on the man's part," "Rape results from men not being able to control their sexual urges," and "Sexual harassment is something that only happens to girls." It actively targets those views, and the final evaluation noted that it decreased the prevalence of such views in students that participated.

I don't even have any idea where any of the quotes besides from the specific individuals they've given come from, and I think the article is a good lesson on when one should avoid quotation marks for clarity. 

Quote

“male privilege” “masculinity” “bad” “victims” “whole-of-school” “privilege” “equity” “hegemonic masculinity"

I don't even know where the word bad appears in the final evaluation, some of the course materials, or in the summary of the program.

Doing that really just sounds like,

I'm not trying to connect you to the article doing that, I'm just saying I'm imagining Paul Whittaker, editor-in-chief, reading the article to me and making air quotes the whole damn time.

Edited October 20, 2016 by MalletFace
"Would" "is" "not" "a" "subject."

[Saxon]

The WHO's reports on sexual violence pulled together hundreds of articles, yet they failed to document the widely known abuse of 'chai-boys/bacha bazi' in southern Asia, whereby paedophiles surround themselves with young boys to molest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

So their report may not be as comprehensive as it first appears, if widespread abuses with a multi-century history can be neglected from the report entirely.
Indeed if you search the WHO database for 'bacha bazi' there are no results, and if you search it for 'chai boys' the results pertain to boys on chairs.
The WHO's definition of Rape also precludes the possibility of boys being sexually taken advantage of by women, because being made to penetrate without consent isn't listed as a form of rape.

So I think the WHO's approach is probably symptomatic of a wider 'women are the victims and men are the perpetrators' narrative. Indeed, genital mutilation, an issue which affects both sexes, is presented as a gendered issue which only affects women, despite the existence of circumcision rituals in Southern Africa that have caused 853 recorded deaths since 1995, but the real figure is probably more than twice that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulwaluko
Men who aren't circumcised, or who complain that their circumcision was botched have been known to be beaten to death.

Is any of this mentioned in the WHO report? Pfft. Of course not.

Even if you specify 'circumcision' the only type the WHO report mentions is 'female circumcision'.

 

[ZorroValdez]

DICKS

[Rassah]

I think this is why alt-right was started...

[Vallium]

Oh my gosh what the fuck happened in here...

[Sourdough]

11 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Oh my gosh what the fuck happened in here...

Run, Vivaldi! It's terrible in here D: