It’s worth discussing rather than dismissing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3777053/The-feminists-turning-British-justice-against-men-writes-LAURA-PERRINS.html

What a load of rubbish; the kind of thing one would expect from the DM or “Conservative Woman” (?!).

Amid all the eagerness to celebrate the prosecution of offensive tweeters and misogynistic bloggers, the questions have to be asked: are similar resources being put into the fight against other crimes, such as theft and burglary?

Is the same energy devoted to incidents where men are overwhelmingly the victims? Grievous bodily harm, for example?

As a white middle class man I am more than happy for more resources to be aimed at crimes that have been utterly ignored basically for ever. The fact that things like marital rape were completely ignored, or not even illegal, until fairly recently suggests we still have an awful long way to go until domestic and sexual abuse are treated as seriously as they should be by the justice system and society in general.

Domestic abuse, not exclusively but overwhelmingly aimed at women, is so insidious it needs a lot more work to bring it to the surface; there aren’t many other crimes that can have such a massive impact on a victim’s life while at the same time making the victim not just reluctant to come forward but even blame themselves. Burglary and theft are minor irritants in comparison.

When such crimes are taken seriously by everybody, then we can start spreading the effort around a bit more. The existence of this article suggests we have a long way to go yet.

It’s the Daily Heil.

For several reasons, I consider their point to be entirely invalid.

However, I may start giving DM articles a cursory glance once they start paying their taxes properly.

Tax Avoidance.

I totally agree on the Dail Fail comment but I read this and it genuinely resonated. I wouldn’t normally link to it but this one I felt was an interseting piece.

Domestic abuse, not exclusively but overwhelmingly aimed at women

The problem is you have no idea that that is the case. Apart from the fact that there is growing evidence to suggest it’s not something that women predominantly experience, it also doesn’t really matter because crime is not a ‘mine’s bigger than yours’ contest, which is what you’re reducing the argument to. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, which is the point this barrister is making.

Burglary and theft are minor irritants in comparison.

Really? A bit of a generalisation there I think. I’ve dealt with burglary victims in the aftermath of them realising someone was in their house while they were asleep. It isn’t minor not feeling safe in their house. Whatever the reason.

Domestic abuse, not exclusively but overwhelmingly aimed at women, is so insidious it needs a lot more work to bring it to the surface; there aren’t many other crimes that can have such a massive impact on a victim’s life while at the same time making the victim not just reluctant to come forward but even blame themselves.

Wasn’t there a case (might even have been someone on here), where the husband was put in a cell for the night after being beaten and the police called, then told basically to suck it up and not make a fuss because there was no way the wife would be prosecuted and she’d just make tit-for-tat allegations?

Imagine if rape was treated the same way.

Imagine if rape was treated the same way.

This is the point of the article. It’s not about saying we should reverse the progress made on the way we handle crimes like rape and DV. It’s simply saying a) don’t do that in a way that unfairly prejudices a whole group of people and b) make sure that the laws you pass are symetric.

The recent example of Nottinghamshire Police classifying verbal heckling and harrassment of women a crime, but not it would seem, men, is a good example of the asymetry in the law.

The recent example of Nottinghamshire Police classifying verbal heckling and harrassment of women a crime, but not it would seem, men, is a good example of the asymetry in the law.

Yeah but heckling men is alright, cuz it’s taking back power.

http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/okay-to-objectify-men/1106317/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/08/why-we-objectify-men-without-guilt.html

Can Men Be Objectified by Women?

Totally makes all the female sex tourists in India and Africa all right then.

This is a thing in ‘Murica as well

http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/

Apparently it’s okay to harass people based on how they are sitting (I presure, so they don’t squash their balls/giant cocks).

Imagine her outrage, if I as a man, started photographing fat chicks on the underground because they took up too much space. Oh the body shaming!

Got to love the fact that she smashed up her grandfathers hunting rifle as well. Totally oblivious to the fact that she is alive because her ancestors could hunt.

A post from reddit

About a year ago feminists — apparently having nothing better to do — started whining about “manspreading.” Nevermind trivialities like male genital mutilation or fathers not being able to see their children; of far greater concern to these oppressed damsels was the sin of men sitting comfortably on public transport.

Bizarrely, the women who began the campaign claimed that manspreading is a “microaggression” against the fairer sex and a means by which men assert “patriarchal dominance.” Even more bizarrely, the patriarchal transport authorities took their theories seriously and spent $100,000 dollars of tax payer money on an anti-manspreading campaign in New York.

Since that time, police have been using the manspreading epidemic as a pretext to arrest inner city youth. Who needs stop and frisk when you have feminism?

MRA’s and other non-insane people pointed out that this is simply how men sit, and that harassing them for spreading their legs on public transport would be akin to harassing women for having larger breasts and buttocks. They also pointed out that 99% of the creep shot photos posted online by feminists were of men sitting alone; when women sit down next to these patriarchal beasts they actually try to make as much as room as possible, even at the expense of their own comfort (and sometimes, testicles).

Two scientists have now debunked the feminist theory of manspreading, though it beggars belief that it required such extensive analysis in the first place.

Authors Ash Bennington and Mark Skinner wrote: “Our new analysis suggests that manspreading is something men do to adjust for their body proportions — especially their high shoulder to hip ratio — and not an act of transgression against their fellow passengers.”

They argued: “If a man sits on the subway with his knees together, and other passengers crowd in closely on both sides, then his torso likely won’t fit on the top half of the seat if his knees are positioned less than shoulder width apart.”

The final set of data looked at Kodak’s Ergonomic design studywhich found “a seated man’s knees extend forward much farther than a seated woman’s knees do.”

They used this to suggest that men’s knees can extend out as much as 4.3 inches longer than a seated woman’s would and he can reduce this distance by adjusting his legs outwards by 30 degrees.

How have feminists responded? Not well. Here is one feminist from the Telegraph, who laments that men are using that strange patriarchal sciencey thing to undercut her feelingz.

In this scenario the man is honourably trying to “avoid collisions in the aisles on crowded trains” – conveniently forgetting that by doing so he is colliding with the woman inevitably crossing her legs next to him.

As impressive as it is that so many studies relate to manspreading, it does still look like it isn’t a natural condition that affects only one half of our human species – it’s a societal habit otherwise known as chauvinism. [congratulations to the author for remaining oblivious to the fact that feminists, not men, are the chauvinist parties in this scenario]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/manspreading-when-men-use-science-to-excuse-chauvinism/

Chauvinism:

: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude

Another female chauvinist/feminist over at the NY Daily News is equally perturbed by this strange sciencey stuff, and in this case actually uses the word “science-y.”

A new “science-y” report researched and written by men claims men spread out on public transit because of their bodies’ proportions — so the dude taking up three seats on the subway is acting on his biology, not his bro privilege.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-mansplains-manspreading-science-article-1.2498986

Is is just me or do feminists these days have the mental age of teenage girls? And how in the world are these ladies being hired by major news publications? Their grasp of basic logic and their overall tone is straight out of Teen Vogue.

I LOL’d – science is cool if it confirms your preconceieved opinions, but not cool and part of the patriachy if it doesn’t. But nooo, perfectably acceptable for you to get your tits out because “biological necessity” but if I want to cool my balls off so my soldiers don’t die, make room or have my knees sticking out less – suddenly I’m a chauvenist.

Third wave feminists are batshit mental

Link

Third wave feminists are batshit mental

I’m trying to work out what colour her skin is, because unless my screen has gone mental, that image is a negative?

Manspreading is f***ing annoying, though – and I say that as a man with normally-sized genitals.

Manspreading is fine if you’re on an empty train but if someone – man or woman – needs to sit next to you, move them in. If your balls are genuinely so big that you can’t possibly sit comfortably, then stand up! If you don’t do this you’re either a creep or an arrogant prat…unfortunately they are both numerous on the Tube.

Tom_W1987 you’re coming over as a bit ‘MRA’ and unattributed woman-hating quotes from Reddit are not helping the cause…

What’s wrong with MRA?

What’s wrong with MRA?

It’s pathetic and whiny.

Everything is wrong with MRA. And I say this as someone who finds their feminist counterparts equally as tedious and bigoted.

Nahhh, I just find people who claim to hold an ideology but in reality hold a prejudice like the very people they claim to rail against – utterly irritating. Very few people are out to make a positive difference to the world, most are out to try and gain more power for themselves or their own social group – at the expense of others. There is less of a difference between this reality and the sodding walking dead series, than some people might believe.

In conclusion, **** everyone.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2016/sep/08/go-smoke-free-stay-pretty-the-health-campaigns-that-havent-heard-of-feminism

In other news, anti-smoking ads and the CDC are sexist, confirming that satire – is indeed dead and lying face down in a mass grave.

Next week, sugar and diet awareness ads in “body shaming” horror.

Good lord.

The problem is you have no idea that that is the case.

Yes we do. We don’t really know how much by, mind; domestic and sexual abuse is hugely under reported even now because of the massive taboo about coming forward for people who have been conditioned to think they are wrong and do not deserve help. Overwhelmingly, these people are women.

I’ve dealt with burglary victims in the aftermath of them realising someone was in their house while they were asleep. It isn’t minor not feeling safe in their house.

It’s not minor, but it’s still not really in the same league… long term serious psychological damage is far more common from domestic violence than burglary. It’s not hard to come out and say you were burgled; taking the first steps towards getting out of an abusive relationship is the hardest thing in the world, and there are far more women than men who never manage it.

Imagine if rape was treated the same way.

Wow, you have an anecdote! Shit like this happens ALL THE TIME to women, and it doesn’t get reported at all. This is the problem; it’s been under the radar getting totally ignored for so long it needs to be prioritised until it’s treated the same, not ignored because oh it’s just those women getting uppity again, they need to get back to the kitchen sink and start thinking about kittens again.

There will always be people out to make a name for themselves for a cause; it doesn’t mean the cause is wrong.

Phil you’re confusing two different points. No one is saying that bad things don’t happen to women and the barrister who wrote that article isn’t saying that either.

What is being argued here is that in addressing those bad things that happen to women you in turn prejudice men and create an unequal justice system that discriminates against men in favour of women, then that is a bad thing.

And there are lots of people who feel that this is what’s happening Phil and I think you at least to acknowledge.

That DM article seemed to be almost entirely froth based!

The author just chucks out a lot of emotive accusations without actually substantiating them. Requiring the accused in a rape case to demonstrate evidence of consent overturns the notion of innocent until proven guilty? I’m not a lawyer, but even I can see that statement is just nonsense. Accusing Alison Saunders of “adherence to a doctrinaire brand of feminism” is just a lazy attempt at a smear. It makes it sounds as if Saunders belongs to some sort of radical organisation, but again, it doesn’t actually mean anything.
The rest of the article is similar. Once you strip away the outrage and the “feminism is really bad, OK?” stuff, there is nothing really there.

Let’s have some real evidence that the law favours women over men and we can discuss the “issue”. I’m not seeing it in that article.

Accusing Alison Saunders of “adherence to a doctrinaire brand of feminism” is just a lazy attempt at a smear.

the whole article is essentially one giant smear campaign. Fairly typical DM fare.

A lot to properly discus in her article some of which I half agree with but she lost a shed load of credibility by banging on about blind justice on the Bailey British justice is not blind and she does not have a blindfold on .

The author just chucks out a lot of emotive accusations without actually substantiating them. Requiring the accused in a rape case to demonstrate evidence of consent overturns the notion of innocent until proven guilty? I’m not a lawyer, but even I can see that statement is just nonsense. Accusing Alison Saunders of “adherence to a doctrinaire brand of feminism” is just a lazy attempt at a smear. It makes it sounds as if Saunders belongs to some sort of radical organisation, but again, it doesn’t actually mean anything.

How does one produce evidence of consent? A notarized contract? Consent can be revoked at any time, and you can’t prove the signature wasn’t coerced – so that’s out. There’s only one solution then. All heterosexual sex must take place in a court of law, in front of a judge, jury, and both people’s lawyers and for good measure their therapists (just in case anyone feels a little bit upset – the poor little darlings).

I take some comfort in the fact that the majority of STWers are savvy enough to have seen through the article for what it was – a frothy editorial from conservativewoman.co.uk arguing that feminism is skewering the justice system in favour of Millie Tant-esque angry wimminz, because some men really get confused at the notion that a woman might actually be a human being and want to be treated with some semblance of respect.

Anyone with sisters/daughters/female drinking buddies ought to see it for what it is.

Same author as the OP’s but a much better article – the Mail one is crap to be fair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10319902/Did-you-know-the-legal-definition-of-rape-and-consent-is-changing-Heres-how.html

It seems a rather complicated issue, I don’t think her point of view can be dismissed out of hand.

its never worth discussing third rate DM trolling as can be seen by those who seem to agree with her

Its amusing its on trolling though and they are trolling.

I just find people who claim to hold an ideology but in reality hold a prejudice like the very people they claim to rail against – utterly irritating.

you have a fairly well documented trouble dealing with female bosses. However I am sure its just them and not you

there are lots of people who feel that this is what’s happening Phil and I think you at least to acknowledge.

i acknowledge some men [ any chance you could define many ?] of men are threatened by assertive women and want to pretend we[men] are somehow discriminated against in the quest for equality and the rightful prosecution for rape and beating women. Then then use the most ludicrous of ill conceived arguments to justify their “claim”

in addressing those bad things that happen to women you in turn prejudice men

What a load of bollocks it is its just frightened men who struggle to deal with the modern world

I dont know which is greater my pity for you or my shame we are the same gender

FFS we are trying to end DV and increase rape conviction rates- its hardly the most oppressive thing i can think off and its not feminism gone mad

Some men really are dicks

The law is not a monolithic entity:

If you thought rape is where a man has sex with a woman without her consent – you would be right but consent is not black and white. A man could be guilty of rape if he ‘tricks’ a women into bed; if he agrees to use a condom but then removes it or damages it; or, if he agrees to withdraw from her but refuses to at the end

I’m forty-two. I’ve lived, have enjoyed the company of numerous partners but I don’t see that abiding by the above is in any way unreasonable. The fact that the article has been shared by the Telegraph doesn’t exactly make it any less bollocks.

Anyone with sisters/daughters/female drinking buddies ought to see it for what it is.

Most of my drinking buddies are women, however the amount of times I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard them say “oh he’s too wet/shy, he doesn’t take charge”.

Well, that’s because he doesn’t want to get accused of being a rapist or pervert. Lot’s of men are a little bit autistic and poor at reading social cues, so we are getting to this weird place where the sexes are becoming increasingly alienated from each other. If we don’t want men to make women feel threatened then we have to change to a culture in which women proposition men on the whole, I have no issue with this – I think it would be fun.

However, a friend of mine from Spain utterly loathes British men because they aren’t forward enough and have to get blind drunk to talk to women. I’m not sure all women would find such a change in dating culture, palatable.

It’s all getting a bit silly.

The crucial question is, are these decisions an accurate reflection of the public’s understanding of what the offence of rape truly is?

indeed what we need to know here is how ignorant the general public are and they go with their view

A man could be guilty of rape if he ‘tricks’ a women into bed; if he agrees to use a condom but then removes it or damages it; or, if he agrees to withdraw from her but refuses to at the end.

SO you are free to do as you pleas when they consent to an act and when they dont or you do something they dont agree to its rape- hardly surprising or controversial

Its an appeal to ignorance and stupidity

Of course, it’s rape Junkyard – but the question is whether courts can actually effectively arbitrate such cases.

the amount of times I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard them say “oh he’s too wet/shy, he doesn’t take charge”.

BS

TOm take charge give her a slap and make her do as you say – woman love that shit 🙄

FFS
And your anecdote is clearly made up BS

Nope.

Stuff like 50 Shades of Grey doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists because westeners have become increasingly confused over how to relate to one another without resorting to lawyers or therapists.

It’s like living in a world where everyones EQ is in total **** freefall.

It’s all getting a bit silly.

Getting?

I’ve been that guy, criticized for not “taking control” because a woman giving off mixed signals hasn’t felt assertive enough to make her intentions clear. You know what? I’m quite happy forgoing the meaningless notches on my bedpost because I wasn’t sure what she wanted either. Remember, I’ve also been the first friend on the scene, who’s had to pick up the pieces and deal with someone’s resulting self-hatred and psychological damage because the messages they were sending out were so ambiguous that their date simply took what they wanted anyway.

I agree, it would be fun if more women took control – but then they’d also have to deal with stuff like rejection in an overly sexualised culture that still sees them as somewhat subservient.

It’s still bollocks.

I agree PMJ, I think most of what she says is bollocks but I do think that she has a point when it comes to whether courts can effectively arbitrate some types of cases.

What is being argued here is that in addressing those bad things that happen to women you in turn prejudice men and create an unequal justice system that discriminates against men in favour of women, then that is a bad thing.

You see “unequal”, I see “paying more attention to those who, historically, have been at best ignored and at worst abused further by an unequal system”. Men have made this problem for ourselves, and will have to accept the consequences throughout this period of transition. If that means being more careful when asking for consent or sitting with your legs together on public transport that’s not really much of a burden.

There are many other areas where the benefit of the doubt errs towards the weaker party; this isn’t really any different.

Men have made this problem for ourselves

The set of ‘men’ is an abstract concept, it’s not a single entity. Show me where the unified body representing 100% men, all of whom agreed with the decision made is and I will agree with. Until then if you feel guilty yourself and feel the need to some how make reparations by positive discrimination (which is what you seem to be advocating) then that’s your choice but please don’t include me in your plans or your set of ‘men’ that caused the problem because I am not one of them.

Men Muslims have made this problem for ourselves, and will have to accept the consequences throughout this period of transition. If that means being more careful when asking for consent getting stop and searched or sitting with your legs together removing veils on public transport that’s not really much of a burden.

Got to love Guardian readers – define consent and what counts as adequate proof of consent please.

There are many other areas where the benefit of the doubt errs towards the weaker party; this isn’t really any different.

Oh so it’s a “he said, she said” deal? We don’t believe in beyond reasonable doubt, anymore then?

but please don’t include me in your plans or your set of ‘men’ that caused the problem because I am not one of them.

Neither am I, but whether we like it or not we are members of the group that currently has all the power, so must bear more of the responsibility.

The same does not apply for your Muslim analogy; again, non-muslims are the ones with the power foisting their will on the minority knowing that they can’t do much about it.

We don’t believe in beyond reasonable doubt, anymore then?

This kind of case is full of a million shades of grey, there’s nothing that can be done to avoid that… but when historically the balance has been extremely one sided, the least we can do is pull in the other direction hoping we can correct it.

Is it so different from a thousand court decisions where a dead cyclist probably had it coming, wasn’t wearing visible enough clothes and should have been wearing a helmet? The balance is off, and realistically the only way it is ever going to change is to make the more powerful party shoulder a bit more of the responsibility.