Left-wing progressive social justice warriors will always argue that men, particularly of the caucasian variety, do not need a “rights movement.” In fact, they often mock the idea as being the product of the demented minds of a bunch of knuckle-draggers who have nothing better to do than keep brilliant smart talented women down. At the same time as women complain about things that don’t exist (like the favorite lie of getting paid $0.70 for every dollar a man makes) there is something even more startling going on in this country that’s getting very little play: men are actually demonstrably being treated differently by the government and its systems, and we’re A O K with it.
Let’s start at the beginning. In spite of the argument by feminists that they simply want equality, they are making no effort to be equal in certain areas.
The chart above represents every service offered by the government that can be denied to males 18 or over for not registering with Selective Service. At age 26, they lose all opportunity to register and cannot ever receive these benefits. Women, however, are never kept from any of these things, nor are they ever required to register for the draft. One attorney (one who, admittedly, I find annoying but who I agree with here) is trying to change that but can’t find any of the equality crowd to try and get in on the suit. Surprised? Of course you’re not. I’m not, either. The equality crowd would never stand for equality in this case, would they? So instead, men must become wards of the state at the state’s whim in order to avail themselves of the benefits provided to taxpayers while women can simply receive the benefits solely by benefit of existing and, I might add, while they continually argue for “equality” and being allowed to hold front-line positions in the military; the same military they’re not required to submit to should there ever be a draft.
It wouldn’t be so bad, however, if this was the extent of the inequality, but there are examples of it being far worse than this and more systemic.
In case after case, women are given lighter sentences for crimes where male offenders would have the proverbial book thrown at them. Time and time again, in case after case, women will commit an act of sexual assault, then serve little to no time.
Take, for instance, the case of Andrea Mears. Suspecting Austin Haughwout was trying to film people on a beach in Connecticut with his drone, she assaulted him. She pinned him to the ground, stuck her fingers in his mouth, groped him, and took some big swings with the arm that wasn’t holding him down. When the police came, they were set to take her word on the story until Haughwout produced video that clearly showed that Mears was the aggressor. Her punishment for this assault? Probation.
Or maybe you’d prefer to hear about a Lancaster lunch lady who was convicted of having sex with two boys, both 17 years old, and both special needs children. Her sentence was a possible 180 days. She got 3.
Or maybe you think there’s a chance that Hachat, the woman from the story above, actually didn’t do anything wrong and it was consensual, so let me introduce you to Charlotte Parker, a teacher from the UK. She had a two-year affair with a 14 year old student, an age well below the age of consent in every civilized country in the world. She plead guilty to sexual contact with a child, but copped a “depression” plea. Her penalty? 10 years on the sex offender list, a lifetime ban on teaching, and a suspended sentence. No jail time whatsoever.
Maybe you would like a really obvious and disgusting example of bias when it comes to female offenders. How about a married couple who got a 15 year old babysitter high, then had sex with her? That surely couldn’t be more cut and dried, right? In fact, in this case, the husband of the couple only watched. The wife had actual intercourse with the babysitter. The sentences? 3 years for her, 4.5 for him. It isn’t even like they’re different cases in similar circumstances: this is the same case, the most vile part of it done by the woman, and she still gets a lighter sentence.
Or maybe you would like to hear about a coach abusing players on a basketball team. Oh, but don’t worry: this is a female coach and a male student. Megan Mahoney is alleged to have committed criminal sexual conduct with a 16 year old student and faces 30 counts of Statutory Rape. She was released without bail pending trial. She goes to court again on December 2nd, but notice how you barely heard about that story and how there’s next to no outrage over it?
Not a bad collection of stories, is it? It’s ironic that we’re still talking about “equality” like it’s some high-minded goal we’re all seeking, and yet I don’t see one single feminist arguing that any of these women should be sentenced more harshly. Not. A. Single. One. And if you need proof that these stories are treated differently, check out the wording when the teacher is a man.
He didn’t “have a relationship that was inappropriate,” my friends. He molested those boys.
But it’s worse than just some incidences of inappropriate touching and the crappy punishments and idiotic reporting of them.
A while ago I wrote about a piece of trash on the internet named Frogman. Frogman made big waves when he came out a few months ago, after the Berkeley shooting, said that the idea that men dared defend themselves and not accept their summary judgment, was crazy, telling men that they should imagine the situation if a bowl of M&M’s had 10% of their number poisoned, then take a handful. The idea, in his mind, is that if you think men aren’t all dangerous predators, you should still have to be judged because some others might be, like it or not. I demolished that argument here, but I’m bringing it up again because Frog Man is out and about, yet again, being a hypocrite.
In a thread on his blog about victims, watch as he turns sexual harassment and assault into victim blaming with such ease it would make the happiest spinsters in Washington DC Blush:
This is the guy who’s so pro-women that he thinks no men are to be trusted, and yet here he is clearly victim blaming, but this is nothing new, and male victims of this sort of thing are often blamed, belittled, or minimized by a society that simply doesn’t give a damn enough about men to even offer services to them should this kind of thing.
Before I go any further with this, it’s important to note that I don’t necessarily think governments should be providing these services at all to anyone, however if they are going to provide them, they should provide them to everyone. That isn’t showing any sign of happening any time soon, either. In fact, according to a recently-released NIH study, not only is that not happening, but the exact opposite seems to be happening and men are getting the short end of the victim services stick.
The study sought to examine how men who were victims of IPV (intimate partner violence) felt with regards to the services offered to male victims and how they were treated throughout the process. Some eye-grabbing facts were made apparent in the study, which is the largest ever done of its kind (302 samples of male victims of IPV). Here are some of the highlights (if you can call them that).
- Statistics show that men are as often the victims of IPV as women, but because of societal and systemic biases the help is often hard if not impossible to find.
- Men who called domestic violence help lines were often told that they could not receive assistance, that it was only available for women, or they outright accused the men of being the aggressors. Some men seeking help were referred to batterer’s programs (programs designed to help batterers stop).
- Male victims who were fathers lost custody of their children to the battering mother even when evidence corroborated their story.
- “In 54.9% of cases, the partner was determined to be the primary aggressor. Among those 62 men, 41.5% said the police asked the helpseeker if he wanted his partner arrested; 21% reported the police refused to arrest the partner, and 38.7% indicated the police said there was nothing they could do and left. The coding of the qualitative accounts found that 25.4% of the men told stories of the police doing nothing and ignoring or dismissing them.”
You can read the study here.
What’s shocking about this, to me, is that we continue to see a push for more services for female victims, while it’s increasingly clear that men are not only regular victims of the same violence, but that because of societal norms, they are not treated equally when it comes to seeking help.
I guess that shouldn’t surprise me, however, because as soon as you bring up the topic, people get hyper defensive.
A few months ago a bunch of celebrities got together to make a video decrying domestic violence, only instead of decrying domestic violence, they turned it into a PSA about violence against women. It’s normal to see those two things (domestic violence and violence against women) used interchangeably, which essentially erases any male victimization whatsoever and frames the issue as men assaulting women. I wrote about it then and called it a missed opportunity to shed light on all victims of domestic violence, male or female. When a relative posted the video on Facebook, I chimed in because I felt that while the video was good, it was a missed opportunity. I was immediately shouted down.
Notice the tone and the inherent biases in what she says? “The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are man against women,” in spite of the article linked right above her comment saying that not only is that not true, but the numbers are almost equal. Once I pointed out that the video would’ve been more meaningful had it been more inclusive, she turned to mockery and straw-men, proving that in the end, she had no argument and her position was not backed by meaningful research or facts. She chose, like most others do, to take the tack that if you’re arguing that we have a problem in the lack of support systems in place for men, you’re clearly saying women have it easy and benefit from being assaulted.
I don’t know if she truly believes that or if she was being hyperbolic to make her weak emotional argument stronger, but in the end, her attitude is the pervasive one, and the difference is only a matter of degree. I would love say she’s the only one that feels this way, but I’m not able to. In fact, not only am I not able to, but I can find an even more egregious example.
Ray Rice, running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was roundly attacked in the media for assaulting his fiancee (at the time) Janay Palmer. His actions, along with other cases that came to light at the time, caused a major uproar in the sports journalism game where it was alleged that this was a deep problem covered up by teams and leagues and that professional athletes shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this just because they’re famous, a point I find valid.
However, it’s clear that the people calling for “no special treatment” for professional athletes didn’t really mean it. At the same time this story was percolating around the water cooler, another story started making the rounds. In a cut-and-dried case of domestic violence, US Women’s Soccer player Hope Solo was arrested for a domestic violence incident involving her nephew and sister. She has suffered no ill-treatment for her actions. She has not lost an endorsement deal, not been suspended, and if you merely mention her name in a conversation about domestic violence, something she will stand trial for, you’re persona non-grata, something Roland Martin learned very quickly. According to Mediaite:
Citing ESPN “lauding” Solo during a women’s soccer highlight reel, Martin asked, “Domestic violence is a national issue, should we not be questioning why Hope Solo is still playing on the women’s soccer team, and Nike — who dropped Adrian Peterson — has said nothing about Hope Solo?”
“Whoa,” panelist Katty Kay interjected. “I’m a little skeptical of that. Look, that’s one example of one woman beating another woman, with countless examples of men beating women.” She added that Solo should face the same “retribution” as her male counterparts, “but let’s not try and use that as an example to suggest that women are as guilty of domestic violence as men are.”
Ms. Kay, we don’t need that as an example. We already have statistics to prove it.
What’s ironic is that for the whole conversation, Kay and others were rampantly vigorously against domestic violence, but that was when the aggressor was a man. Make the aggressor a woman and, well, you see the result.
All of the collected research, double standards, and abuse stories I posted can only draw one conclusion as far as I’m concerned: we need a men’s rights movement. Not because men don’t have enough power in society or because women need to be kept down from the advances their making. Simply because the double standard in treatment that created the feminist movement to begin with has now swung so far into the over-compensating end on the other side of the spectrum that it should give us pause.
When I hear feminists argue that they want equality, I have hope. I’ve met a lot of feminists (real ones, not the social justice warriors who get all the attention) who recognize that being the oppressor isn’t the same as victory or equality. The problem is that the discussion on men’s rights and equality has been taken over by radfems on one side who think all men are scum (particularly “white cishet males”) and a compliant and terrified media that cowers every time they hear the name Gloria Steinem. We’re told time and time again that men control the “power structures” and that women are “systematically discriminated against” and yet, when we step outside the “everyone knows” idea of what that means, we often find that the grass is greener crowd simply isn’t taking a fair look at both lawns.
We need a men’s rights movement as much as women need real honest feminism. The two do not, by default, conflict, and equality is a great goal. Maybe one day we’ll stop discussing issues in terms of “everybody knows” and start discussing them in terms of the reality on the ground so that we can really achieve equality that’s thorough and benefits everyone.