So when feminists finally decide to stop trying to shift the blame for what has happened to men in this society from feminism, and start actively challenging the misandry within their movement, then people, besides feminists and their supporters, will start taking a feminist approach towards solving male issues seriously.
Men are men and that’s all there is to it. You cannot be “less of a man” or a “real man” simply because someone says you are and there are no traits or qualities needed to accomplish this. Listing qualities and requirements that pertain to manhood is simply another way of someone stating what they consider to be a good man and what that man needs to do to be worthy of the title in their eyes.
A quick glance at this double standard operating procedure would not raise too many eyebrows among the general public. How could it? Men do indeed develop in such a way that the average man could do a large amount of damage to the average woman given a physical confrontation. This fact alone is what will run through the majority of minds when the issue of domestic violence is brought to their attention. However, the law is usually never so cut and dry or black and white when it comes to the imprisonment of the general public. There must be more to the nature of domestic violence cases that would make such an obvious gender oriented arrest mandate make sense, right? There indeed is more to the issue of domestic violence that explains the existence of the primary aggressor law, however, the facts do not shine a favorable light upon the law, let alone give it any justification.
Notice a simple contradiction. Feminists deny the fact that domestic violence and child abuse are two of many things women can use to win custody battles due to bias courts. At the same time they claim that the main reason women initiate divorce the most is because husbands beat their wives and abuse their children. Maybe the courts aren’t bias at all and men really do just beat the women they marry and children they father. That would explain away the explanations of the Men’s Rights groups and put a sound reasoning to the feminist reason behind the fact that mothers receive custody of the children nearly 80% of the time.
Of course to come to that conclusion one must ignore the fact that mothers are the primary abusers of children. However, feminists haven’t ignored this fact. Instead they have another solid explanation. More children live with their mothers than fathers so it would make sense that mothers abuse their children more.
The main focus point of this message is about how feminists use the fabricated theory of rape culture to excuse the sexual responsibility of women and help further their advocacy for not punishing women who falsely accuse men of rape. How do they do this? Enter the number one reason feminists believe women falsely accuse men of rape, slut shaming. That’s right, if I made stuff like this up I’d be making millions in book sales to feminist cult members too. What is slut shaming? Exactly what it sounds like. According to feminists if a woman sleeps with multiple partners on a weekly basis she is categorized as a slut. If a man sleeps with multiple partners on a weekly basis he is categorized as a stud. Basically, no man is ever called a slut if he has sex with lots of women as said by feminists.
The ideals and beliefs of feminists rarely concern me. However, this belief is a major reason why western legal systems have been contaminated with the infectious double standards of feminism. When a woman calls the police because her husband or boyfriend has hit her, the police will, race down the streets sirens blaring, and when they arrive will rightfully arrest the perpetrator of the domestic violence. However, when a man calls the police because his wife or girlfriend has hit him, the police will, creep down the streets making sure they don’t run any red lights. When they arrive they will, according to the primary aggressor section of VAWA, rightfully arrest the individual who can cause the most bodily harm to the other. When a man calls the police because his wife or girlfriend has stabbed and or hit him with several blunt objects the police will, race down the streets sirens blaring and when they arrive will, according to the feminist theory of gender socialization, arrest the man who knows from his indoctrination that he is superior to women and the only reason she could be trying to kill him must be because of something he did. Does this sound unconstitutional? It sure does. This is why feminist run domestic violence shelters are being sued and losing for discrimination against men.
One would wonder why if feminists believe in equality for the sexes as definition one states do they only advocate for the rights of women, clearly illustrated in definition two. Why is it that when legal discrimination against men is proven and protested, do feminists protest those who protest this discrimination? Why is it that every action politically influential feminist organizations take is in support of laws that give women legal power to imprison men with little to no physical evidence?