As for the left-wing cherry-picking I'm going to provide a number of articles point out the nature and extent of the ideology, according to reputable scholars and mainstream media sources:
First, an article from Dr Murray Straus, professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, and one of the founders of domestic violence research,is a good start:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.5578&rep=rep1&type=pdfThe first part of this article summarizes results from more than 200 studies that have found gender symmetry in perpetration and in risk factors and motives for physical violence in martial and dating relationships. It also summarizes research that has found that most partner violence is mutual and that self-defense explains only a small percentage of partner violence by either men or women. The second part of the article documents seven methods that have been used to deny, conceal, and distort the evidence on gender symmetry. The third part of the article suggests explanations for the denial of an overwhelming body of evidence by reputable scholars. The concluding section argues that ignoring the overwhelming evidence of gender symmetry has crippled prevention and treatment programs. It suggests ways in which prevention and treatment efforts might be improved by changing ideologically based programs to programs based on the evidence from the past 30 years of research
^ 30 years worth of accounts of academic distortion in the name of an ideology, right there, from a leading scholar in the field.
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first women's refuge is another good source. She was ex-communicated from the feminist movement for saying men suffer violence too. Among other things, she calls feminism a
"terrorist organization". Among other things, because of the amount of
death threats she received for speaking outside the "approved doctrine". This need to destroy their own for stepping even 1 inch outside the approved doctrine is very much what religions do.
This article also makes good points:
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/10/when-feminism-becomes-a-religion/409585/Beginning in my late teens and for many years later, I would have called myself a feminist.
...
So I don’t think Feminism is a dirty word or should be gotten rid of. But I no longer care to describe myself as a feminist.
...
The feminist movement today has startling similarity to religious fundamentalism. There is the same dogmatism, the same zealous fervor, the same fear, the same clinging to certainty and the absolute conviction in one’s own correctness. Dissenters are marginalized, castigated, even cast out. The psychology is identical; all that differs are the goals.
Another striking similarity is the hostility towards science.
One of the cardinal sins is to disagree with the feminist doctrine that gender is entirely a social construction. Anyone the least bit familiar with evolutionary biology and the nature/nurture debate can see that it is not an either/or, and neuroscience has found subtle but interesting differences in the brains of men and women. But for some reason, ideas from the humanities (mostly critical theory) have been pitted against empiricism, and since the former must be correct, the latter can be dismissed ...
so, it's perfectly possible to have non-religious ideologies, that are vehemently anti-science, they just have a different rationalizations for it.
and then, there are articles written by self-professed SJW people that when they left those groups, they felt like they'd left a cult.
https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/on-leaving-the-sjw-cult-and-finding-myself-1a6769b2f1ffOn Leaving the SJW Cult and Finding Myself
...
I don’t yet know what to call this part of the left. Maajid Nawaz calls them the “Regressive Left.” Others call them SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) or the Alt-Left. The ideology is post-modernist cultural marxism, and it operates as a secular religion. Most are indoctrinated in liberal elite colleges, though many are being indoctrinated online these days. It has its own dogma and jargon, meant to make you feel like a good person, and used to lecture others on their ‘sin.’
They also have similar concepts to blasphemy and ex-communication, but it's more democratic than the church because it's mob justice against their own.
As for the other data on gender and sexuality, here are some examples why the gendered narrative fails everyone, including victims:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/Among adults who reported sexual contact with prison staff, including some contact that prisoners call “willing” but that is often coercive and always illegal, 80 percent reported only female perpetrators. Among juveniles, the same figure is 89.3 percent. Queer men and women were two to three times more likely to report abuse. “The disproportionate abuse by female staff members does not occur because women are more often staffing facilities,” the authors write. “Men outnumber women by a ratio of three to one in positions requiring direct contact with inmates.”
So, we see that women with power over other people are no better than men with power. In fact, they can be worse, given the situation. Additionally:
The authors also note a 2011 survey of 302 male college students. It found that 51.2 percent reported “at least one sexual victimization experience since age 16.” About half of the victims reported a female perpetrator.
As well, “a 2014 study of 284 men and boys in college and high school found that 43 percent reported being sexually coerced, with the majority of coercive incidents resulting in unwanted sexual intercourse. Of them, 95 percent reported only female perpetrators. The authors defined sexual coercion broadly, including verbal pressure such as nagging and begging, which, the authors acknowledge, increases prevalence dramatically.”
And “a 2012 study using data from the U. S. Census Bureau’s nationally representative National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions found in a sample of 43,000 adults little difference in the sex of self-reported sexual perpetrators. Of those who affirmed that they had ‘ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will,’ 43.6 percent were female and 56.4 percent were male.”
Here's a long list of academic citations on female sexual assault/male victims. If the genders were flipped, it would be a clear injustice, however many people who've been indoctrinated into the "weak women / strong men" thing, which is
clearly a patriarchal myth, will be inclined to reject any data that goes against that, and they do. So ... these particular strands of feminism rail against the patriarchy, but they refused to think outside it's bounds. e.g. they appropriate the myths of the patriarchy, when it suits them, and selectively reject them, also when it suits them. This shows clear "motivated reason" e.g. "lying to oneself".
https://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/^ One of the bay12 forumites refused to read this whole article once, on the basis that the author has short-cropped hair, therefore he's a Nazi skinhead. Thus, proving the whole point about it being a dogmatic ideology and confirmation-bias on the left. e.g. if some article says things you don't want to hear, make up "reasons" not to actually read it, no matter how idiotic they are. Then, you're never ever wrong, because you only read things that agree with you.
Also this:
http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
Yep, when they de-gendered the CDC rape question (by making a nearly identical question for men who were e.g. drugged and had a woman jump on top), the forced sex rates in the American national survey
equalizes. However, only the women get mentioned in the official report summary, despite the vast and unexpected number of male victims when this question was first added in back in 2010.
So yeah, ideology 1: facts 0. If facts
were more important than ideology to feminists, then literally every feminist organization should be talking about this research and what it means for gender relations, rather than trying to bury the inconvenient research as deep as possible.
In fact, psychologist Steven Pinker talks here about a related phenomena:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6CkwBasically, he's saying the left, especially the college-left, have a lot of ideas that
cannot be questioned. However, several of them turn out to be false or questionable, so you can easily convince many people that these "unquestionable" ideas are in fact
untrue. e.g. if you say something is absolutely, always unquestionably true, then even a single source contradicting it proves you to be either wrong or lying. Therefore, you can recruit them to another ideology. And since they now don't fucking
trust the left, they can be swayed to the anti-left, e.g. the Alt Right. e.g. left-wing dogmatism, resistance to disagreeing facts, and cherry picking of data
is in fact one of the leading recruiting tools of the Alt Right.
Naturally, for questioning the True Left, Pinker's words are now being distorted to claim he supports the Alt-Right. So, you can't point out anything they're doing wrong, without yourself being accused of being a Nazi. The whole point Pinker was making is that the extreme dogmatism is turning people away from the Left, and for saying that, he questioned the Revealed Doctrine, therefore he must be ex-communicated, and be accused of being the enemy, therefore proving the point he was making about the extreme dogmatism: "your doctrine is so extreme that it's driving people so far the other way, they become Nazis!" => "No it's not, perhaps
you are the Nazi!".
e.g. for example, I'll bet you that everyone in the MRA or Alt-Right groups are pretty much well-versed in the CDC rape/penetration figures being equal between males and females. The Left just
pretends that data doesn't exist as their response. But you only need to show someone the original figures for them to start questioning everything else they're told. That's what the "red pill" stuff is all about: you're not converting someone back from the Alt-Right to left-wing by just pretending data
they already read doesn't exist. you
need to own that data and incorporate it into your worldview, otherwise anyone can just point to the incongruous data and say "if they can't get that right, why would you trust them on anything bigger?"
Author
Topic: Things that made you laugh today: some people notice when 1 change the title (Read 1567367 times)