[rustynails]

It appears to be deeper than that. I'll try to illustrate using a modern example.

In Australia, the media (and the overwhelming majority of feminists) refuse to acknowledge that Donestic Violence has female perpetrators or male victims. Mission Australia (a large charity organisation) even ran a smear campaign saying that men refuse to acknowlege it happens (a sleight of hand to redirect focus back on males). Some feminists even argued that domestic (of the home) violence only refers to female victims (I found that gem on ANC news). It even got worse when channel 9 and 1800 respect (a government department) took an aggressive gender based campaign that explicitly put the blame on young boys. "It's a boy thing" was one of the charming lines in the ads that saturated print time TV in 2016. Not one single feminist (not one that I could find) raised a single objection against any of this, despite it being a fundamental breach of human rights.

In case you are wondering, the Australian Bureau of Statistics identified that 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence in New South Wales (our largest state) was male. These statistics are totally ignored by government, the media and feminism.

You will see similar trends worldwide. For example, the majority of feminists in the U.K. Refuse to acknowledge many women were voting well before many men were and that women were running successful businesses long before they supposedly were according to the modern media (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Wom...).

This doesn't come down to critical discipline, it comes down to blatant pathological lying and bullying on a mass scale. Places like The Verge (among many media outlets) have embraced and driven this prejudice.

The media is extremely manipulative. The bullying of little boys today by most media outlets and many businesses blows my mind. I can't imagine any period in the last 100 years has been so committed to such extreme sexism. Even educational material like Horrible Histories has joined in on the gendered attacks.

I'm not sure what to put this down to. I usually use terms like feminism and political correctness. However, it's also the apathy of most decent people. It's a collective social issue, not just of individuals. People desperately need to take a stand against feminism and political correctness.

This goes beyond critical discipline. This is a collective social disease.

[bergoid]

> I'm not sure what to put this down to. I usually use terms like feminism and political correctness.

This is sometimes called "cultural marxism". It is in my opinion the dominant ideology that permeates our thinking, our language and our behavior nowadays. That's why it is so hard to put our finger on it. We are like a group of goldfish discussing the concept of "water". Dr. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto does a great job at explaining how emancipation movements that were born with the best of intentions can transition gradually into tyranny. Though he uses just the word "marxism".

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-st...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

Of course there's also the fable "Animal Farm" by George Orwell which masterfully describes the cycle of emancipation from tyranny to a new form of tyranny.

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

[bruceb]

> I can't imagine any period in the last 100 years has been

>so committed to such extreme sexism.

I guess the fact women couldn't vote in a number of western countries in the early and mid part of last century or there were almost no women in charge corporations or govt power until the last 30 years (with a very few exceptions) doesn't qualify as extreme sexism?

One can decry the overreach and excesses of some "social justice warriors" without going red pill extremist. Do some women commit domestic violence? of course. But how many men have killed women vs women who have killed men? Save the extremism for some outraged subreddit.

[soundwave106]

I'm not sure why you are being downvoted here. I found the post you are replying to as way too shrill myself.

The truth is, I've seen several articles in the past concerning female domestic violence against men. Such as here: http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/ and here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-... So these articles do exist out there.

Generally speaking, I personally think there's a fairly easy biological explanation for the emotive difference in reporting and society: men are biologically stronger than women, and thus will have a greater tendency to injure / harm when they engage in domestic violence. This is noted in the Time article as well as several references in the Wikipedia article on domestic violence against men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#...).

This is not to say that domestic violence against men should be ignored (on the contrary, it shows that there is a blind spot, contributed by certain social stereotypes driven by the biological fact that in general, men are stronger than women). But in my view, turning this into a tired "social justice warrior vs. men's right's activists" Internet argument is a great way to get this issue ignored. When this happens, activists tend to entrench in their circles and shout at each other, and the rest of the population ignores them and continues onward with their standard assumptions.

[empressplay]

The point here is _everyone_ has an agenda.

_Everyone_.

There are "no clean hands".

_Never_ forget it. Learn to live around it.

[baq]

the point is that if it's only you that learns to live around it, you still lose.

[dhimes]

This is an important point- not sure why you're getting downvoted.

I'll rephrase: If you're in a game and you're the only one playing by the rules, you're going to lose.

[SomeStupidPoint]

My favorite flavor of this was all the extremely sexist posters next to posters decrying sexism at the Women's March on Saturday.