More than four in five men (80.7%) talk in ways that promote anxiety about their body image by referring to perceived flaws and imperfections, compared with 75% of women. Similarly, 38% of men would sacrifice at least a year of their life in exchange for a perfect body – again, a higher proportion than women.
“These findings tell us that men are concerned about body image, just like women. We knew that ‘body talk’ affected women and young people and now we know that it affects men too,” said Dr Phillippa Diedrichs, from the centre of appearance research at the University of the West of England. She conducted the study, of 394 British men, which was commissioned by Central YMCA and the Succeed Foundation, an eating disorders charity.
The survey revealed that men have high levels of anxiety about their bodies and that some resort to compulsive exercise, strict diets, laxatives or making themselves sick in an attempt to lose weight or achieve a more toned physique.
• 80.7% talked about their own or others’ appearance in ways that draw attention to weight, lack of hair or slim frame.
• 30% have heard someone refer to their “beer belly”, 19% have been described as “chubby” and 19% have overheard talk about their “man boobs (moobs)”.
• 23% said concerns about their appearance had deterred them from going to the gym.
• 63% thought their arms or chests were not muscular enough.
• 29% thought about their appearance at least five times a day.
• 18% were on a high-protein diet to increase muscle mass, and 16% on a calorie-controlled diet to slim down.
CLICK LINK FOR MORE
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get when you stand up to a man who beats his young girlfriend in public. Not the black eye, not the broken nose, but the sense of being a fucking great human being.
I’m sorry but I don’t think this story is true.
I’d like to believe it’s true! Trust me! I’d love a nice feel good story to make me feel good about the human race, but sadly, there are way too many things wrong with this story.
- Either you were headbutted by a man with the smallest head in the world, or a Legoman. Your “black eye” should be swollen, your eyelids should be somewhat closed and your temple on the side of your head should be swollen too. A black eye is a serious thing, man. Your body doesn’t let that slide. I know people who’ve hit their eye and within an afternoon it’s ballooned up.
The purple around your eye is the most suspicious part. Blood vessels don’t really adhere to one singular colour. There are yellows, reds, violets, and finally, purples. Your black eye looks like a very bad make up job.- You claim that the police got DNA from the headbutt to your nose. I’m not well versed in the practise of forensics, and I bet not a lot of people on Tumblr are, but a few things immediately stand out from your story:
- Your nose (and in extension, your face) goes through a lot of contaminates every day. Your face is exposed to the elements. Now, say you did have DNA on your face, who’s to say that wouldn’t be rubbed off by the rain? Or the wind? Or when you take off your clothes? How much DNA can you REALLY swab from a headbutt? Don’t you wear make up? Wouldn’t that contaminate it?
- Why are the police getting a DNA sample if there was a witness right there? Surely a witness is enough to convict this guy? DNA samples are also really expensive, and take a lot of time! Why would they use on you when there are rape cases, murder cases, etc.
- If you got hit in the nose, and this is my main point, wouldn’t you touch where you’d been hit, and therefore rub the DNA away? I don’t know about you but if I got hit, I would touch where I got hit to protect it. It’s a natural instinct.
- Looking at your previous photos, the most jarring thing occurs.
The top photo is taken merely FIVE DAYS after your broken nose post. Now, I’m pretty sure you’re not Wolverine, and you can’t heal a broken nose within five days.
As you can see, I’ve placed the broken nose picture over a recent one, and there is honestly no difference in your nose.
For something so prominent, it looks exactly the same. Where are the bandages? Where are the plasters? You’ve apparently broken your nose! Where’s the medical attention?- I don’t like the look of your court letter.
Why is such a serious document scrunched up so much? That’s a legal document that you need to keep hold of in your records, why does it look like you’ve ran it through your pocket a hundred and fifty times?
There’s also no official seal, and no signature on the document, which means…
Anyone could’ve written this.
Fire up Microsoft Word, select Helvetica, and off we go…
I understand you live in Weston Super Mare, and I know it’s a rough area, but still…You’ve linked newspaper articles that are related to you.
But, why are the police appealing for witnesses? If they have his DNA, if the woman in question was right there, if you were right there, they have enough to convict him. That’s two witnesses and straight up DNA evidence, right?
Then again, the newspapers you’re in aren’t exactly the BBC. You can submit stories to them with little to no evidence.- After talking to my medical student friend, she has the following to say on your “injury”. Please bear in mind that she’s going to become a doctor one day and has far more training that you and I.
Me: Is that a real black eye?
Her: No, not at all! It would be swollen. Not as even in colour, they start out red. Her nose is def not broken, she’d probably have two black eyes if it was. Bruises start red because it’s blood pooling, then as the iron in the blood changes it turn bluish black, then green, then yellow and not all at the same time - you get varying stages of colour. She wouldn’t even be able to open her eyes if someone headbutted her and broke her nose.
So, there we go. Someone who will one day look after us all, and reads medical books has deemed this a fake injury, nice one.- But let’s move on from what is, or what isn’t and onto the post itself.
Look, I get it. You’re a feminist, you want to fight for woman’s rights, you want to take down us men because we rule the world or whatever, but your post reeks of “Women are weak, I just stood up for a woman! I’m a woman! I fight! Men shouldn’t hit women! I sacrificed my body to prove a point!”
Here’s a much better message you could send to the world:
“How about no one hits anyone?”
It’s all well and good saying women shouldn’t hit men, but if Tumblr has taught me anything it’s that gender is entirely fluid and therefore the bodies we find ourselves in may not be the ones that we wanted, and as a consequence, a woman hitting a man may actually be a woman identifying as a man hitting a man and now we’re onto a huge debate onto who is what in what body doing what with who, but let me focus:
This story is false. The injury isn’t real. I’m highly doubtful of the events in question, and even if they did occur, screwing up your court letter and lying about what the police can do is not the way to make a name for yourself.
Surely preaching equality through, “Can we all just not hit each other?” Rather than, “Men are pigs and they hit women!” would be a better way to go, but then again, you did put make up on your face and fabricate a whole story…
Let’s get right into this one. Somehow this has become an acceptable response to any argument where the word “Reverse Racism” comes up.
First off, allow me to state how idiotic that phrase is. Reverse Racism. By using that phrase, young Caucasians of the world, you’re basically confirming only you can be racist. You’re not helping your point. It’s stupid. Stop saying it. There isn’t a skin-color based monopoly on race, you idiots.
For my people of color: Whenever the above is uttered, think about the context. Yes, there are several cases where you can speak up and say “Yo man, that’s not racist.” A good amount of the time, it’s not. But that goes both ways.
A good breakdown is…
Racism:
I hate that person because of they’re [Race] and would like to commit acts of violence against them.
I don’t hire people like you. You know, [Race].
Etc.
Racism Isn’t:
A girl at school said my hair was ugly!
A black kid picked on me once and called me a nerd!
Calling a perceived slight racism because the other person wasn’t the same race as you is not racism. Are we on the same page? Good. Let’s move into the next major point.
White People, like all of us with melanin in our skin, can experience racism too.
Racism isn’t a Non-PoC Thing.
Racism isn’t a Non-PoC Thing.Whenever you utter the above, I want you to play out the following scenario in your head:
An interracial couple, one black and one white, both enter a diner. Both are discriminated against by people who are and aren’t their race. Who is suffering from racism?
In two separate instances, a member of the couple is assaulted by those outside their race. Is it racism when the black member of the couple is assaulted? Is it not racism when the white member is?
If you answered yes for the first question, but no for the second, you are a disgusting human being and exactly why equality is out of our reach. By injecting an us vs them bias into a situation like this, you’re basically saying that no matter the circumstance, a person who isn’t of color is incapable of being discriminated against.
“But that’s not Racism! Racism is racial prejudice enforced by a power dynamic!”
No. Stop that. Stop. Stop trying to change a definition to better your argument. You know who else did that? Every person who ever needed to win an argument they were losing, that’s who.
Racial prejudice is racism. Just like prejudice against the poor is classist. That’s how it works. Institutionalized Racism is the term you’re looking for, and it certainly exists. Yes, we can admit, a white person is born with certain status advantages that keep them from being oppressed in the same way a black person can. There’s no denying that. But at the same time, changing the definition of racism does nothing to fix this. No one is more equal because you changed words so you could be more right. You just look like a child, you fucking child.
Not only that, but once we start slinging around the term “white privilege and how it’s automatic, we completely overlook the magical word known as circumstance. A white kid may be born with a silver spoon in his mouth in your eyes, but if they’re homeless and starving with a poor set of clothing, I’m guaranteeing you they’re looked down more than the well dressed black person carrying the briefcase to wall street.A white person’s privilege can go out the window due to the circumstances. A white girl assaulted by persons of color because of her color is still racism. Hell, racism can be found within the same ethnic groups, no matter how subtle. How many black readers can name a time when they were told “You’re so white” by other blacks because they didn’t conform to a stereotype? I can personally attest to hearing a coworker from the Dominican Republic declare his hatred for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.
Racism isn’t colorblind, people. Us vs Them Mentality doesn’t make you any more right. When I was much younger, I brought a white girlfriend to my house and my mother flat out told me “She wasn’t my girlfriend” and “I won’t have biracial babies in my house.”
Years later, she apologized because she realized how racist that was. She understood, and she lived during that era in history where hatred was natural. Why can’t the rest of you understand it?
Yes… let’s put some perspective on the “information” provided us by [vbfy]. As the OP was unable, or unwilling, to provide references to the figures used, we have researched those that we found somewhat suspect. Concluding comments are at the end.
People killed in the 9/11 attacks= 2985
LGBTQ* suicides in the US each year = 40,000
The only reference we could find to the above figure of 40,000 suicides in the LGBTQ community was an extrapolation of information gathered by The Trevor Project mentioned in a Wikipedia entry that was cached by Google. Both the original wiki entry and the link that were provided are now broken and offer no re-direct. The facts are:
- The U.S. does not collect statistics on the sexuality of deceased persons, therefore it is impossible to determine a valid count of suicides of LGBTQ persons.
- The Trevor Project fields calls from LGBTQ youth covering a range of concerns from bullying, acceptance, crisis prevention, and suicide intervention. Any figures that they have collected regarding suicides can only be applied to the youth that they serve.
People killed in the Hiroshima bombings = 66,000
The OP neglected to include the deaths as a result of the second bombing, of Nagasaki, which increases the death total to 105,000. It should also be noted that these are only deaths directly associated with the 2 bombs that were dropped; this figure does not include later deaths due to illness, disease, or environmental effects (hunger, radiation, social collapse) suffered after the initial impact.
People killed in the holocaust = 11,000,000
Additionally, there were civilian deaths of ~30 million in WWII: 25.4M Allied countries and 5.1M Axis countries. If the OP intended to drive the point of death as a result of war, these civilian deaths must be counted.
Children that die of starvation each year = 15,000,000
According to statistics collected by UNICEF in 2006, the actual number of children — 5 and under — dying from starvation annually is 5 million. This is one-third the total of the OP and represents approximately 8.3% of the projected total deaths for 2012 of 55 million. A real-time total of many world stats can be found here. The OP might also be interested in the fact that we are replacing the population at a rate of 2 to 1 births for every death.
Civilians killed in Iraq war = 118,224
People killed by Kony and the LRA in the last 20 years = 2,000,000
African slaves killed on american soil = estimated 20,000,000
There are widely varying estimations available here which range from 6 to 60million. It is nearly impossible to arrive at accurate figures for several reasons:
- Varying percentages of slaves died crossing the Atlantic (10 - 18%) and may or may not be included in “totals”.
- Some historians and scholars include those that died in the first “seasoning” year in the Americas; others may not.
- Accurate figures may not have been kept as slaves had the same “value” at the time of any other cargo that was carried. They were not “persons”; they were property.
Animals killed for human consumption in the last 24 hours = 410,958,904
And… whammo. After slowly, while not discreetly, building up our combined horror, guilt and shame, we are finally presented with the intended purpose of itemizing all these death figures. However, the OP has, once again, neglected to provide any reference for the daily figure of over 410 million animal deaths—which would equate to 102.5 billion annually, given 250 working days in the year. That’s slightly over 14 “animals” per currently living human per year.
No population break-down for “animals” is given. Does this figure only include domesticated (farm) animals? Are animals hunted as part of an established culture included? Are insects, small mammals, and other non-mammals included? We are only told these are “animals killed for human consumption”.
Why is it that the injustice with the highest number of casualties is the only one that most people will try to justify and defend the continuance of?
Simply put, because homo sapiens sapiens (HSS - modern humans) have developed an omnivore diet as a result of evolutionary adaptation. The specifics of this adaptation — and the arguments surrounding this topic — are too numerous to detail here on PoN. We invite the OP, and other interested parties, to research the many scholarly articles and debates for themselves. Highlights include:
- Brain size, and its evolution, has been linked to the diet of the species
- Herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores have evolved at differing rates based on a large part according to their primary diet: herbivores diversify fastest, carnivores next, omnivores are the slowest to diversify.
- HSS chose/adapted to an omnivorous diet in response to the evolution of the species from earlier hominid and proto-hominid species.
What makes their suffering less important?
The personal choice to eat whatever sustains us — provides energy to continue living — has little or no correlation about one’s reaction to suffering. Why did the OP categorize the deaths above in more or less increasing numbers that imply degrees of suffering and a hope to elicit specific emotional responses?
Why is it that as soon as the species differs from yours, you stop caring?
When you consume meat you contribute to the largest means of systematic oppression in the world.
Stop appropriating and supporting this daily genocide and
It’s interesting that extreme vegans make a clear, and very present, distinction between the death — implied murder — of animals and that of plants.
Has the OP considered that the vast tracts of farmland throughout the globe were once forests, open grassland, temperate tundra, water-sheds, and other ecological habitats that had to be modified for their use as farmland? Does the OP consider that species native to those ecological areas were removed (killed) in order for the grains, fruit trees, vegetables and other plants that humans consume have large areas to be harvested easily and economically? Has the OP researched scholarly debate on the difference in which proteins and other metabolic nutrients present in both plants and animals are processed at different rates by HSS? Has the OP accounted for the differing opinions within the vegan community on the issue of raw v. cooked plant material?
Finally, it would appear that the OP is equating the death of animals with those of HSS in a way that is designed to elicit a reaction of, “We are better than animals and should know better than to eat other animals in order to survive.” This is disingenuous to the very heated, and larger, important discussion about our general eating habits: e.g. high fat/sugar content, rising obesity rates, illnesses associated with eating (starvation, disorders, diabetes), food consumption and waste. It is also disrespectful to the very choice that HSS enjoys as part of the very evolution that resulted in us becoming an omnivorous species. Choice, and adaptations to those choices, are part of the process.
The OP is, one would assume, vegan, and proudly so. Other HSS are not. Virtually beating those of us that are not in the manner in which the OP has, with this post, does nothing to further the conversation of healthy living resulting from a healthy diet.
so i’m sitting here thinking to myself
“oh hey, there are two big bulky guys next door and they were super friendly to me when they were moving in. i should get to know them a little more and explain the situation to them so i have someone to call and come over or a place to go if i’m scared.”
immediate next thought:
“how can i trust two big men i barely know? i wouldn’t feel much safer there either, who knows what could happen.”
welcome to never feeling safe - aka, welcome to being a woman
Welcome to reframing more serious sexism. Men are more likely to be victims of violence. That’s a fact. Your feeling unsafe is completely illogical and irrational, and frankly quite sexist. It’s particularly interesting that you see these men as falling into one of two categories — protector or attacker — yet never once, for a moment, consider thinking of them as just “your neighbours”. I’d say this says a lot more about your own bigotry than it does about anything else.
lmao you can get fucked
the point of the matter is that two big, burly jocks could do a better job physically defending themselves against this giant skinhead of a fuck across the hall than i could. incidentally, if there were two giant women living next to me, i’d JUMP at the chance to let them in on what’s been going on.
if you’re not a dude i apologize for the assumption, but i will assume you are since you clearly can’t comprehend the fear of knowing that two strange men could overpower you easily. you don’t understand the fear of knowing that more than 1 in 3 women in canada will be raped or sexually harassed. you don’t understand the leers, or having a man follow you down a dark street at night. you don’t understand the terror of having a man nearly pound down your door and threaten you, intimidating you and calling you a bitch because they know you can’t fight back.
basically, fuck you.
as for “men are more likely to be victims of violence” - citation needed, but guess what? women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence. THAT is a fact. and men are more likely to be the perpetrators. i’ll direct you to statistics canada if you wanna verify that claim.
so i will be nervous, i WILL be afraid, and you can fuck off.
Citation granted. As well as here, here, here, and here.
Anyways, you are correct that women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence outside of prison. We’re not arguing with you in this matter. However, in general men are the majority of victims for most types of violence. Also, that one in three figure is bullshit and men and women get raped at roughly equal rates outside of prison, with 40% of rapists being women.
You are in some ways correct that men do not understand a woman’s fear. Through evolutionary pressures, men were (and are) viewed as more disposable than women. Men put themselves in harms way all the time while women were protected from harm, and so it made sense that men were less prone to fear of violence than women were because they were expected to put themselves in more danger. In the same way it makes sense that women were more prone to fear of violence than men because they were expected to keep themselves from danger. However, this evolutionary programming no longer makes sense in the present. So yes, while it may be true that men may not be able to understand a woman’s fear of violence, it is more or less a mute point because the fear is irrational and due to evolutionary programming that no longer makes sense.
If you would like to continue being fearful, go right ahead. Just know that this fear is not rational and that you’re essentially obeying evolutionary instinct rather than logic.
Rebloggable by request.
*sigh*
This commentary is directed to “Anonymous” that provided PoJ with such a clever, witty, and well thought out “ask”.
It fills my heart with joy that they are still teaching writing skills, sarcasm, and maintaining anonymity in today’s schools of higher learning. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the OP is female (gender or biological sex), on the young side, and attending university. I feel safe making these assumptions because:
- In my experience, men are generally laughed out of any “women’s history” university class or “taken under the wing” of some self-sacrificing, well-meaning feminist that is only too happy to help the “poor soul” out. You see, men can’t understand any history other than that of men.
- If the OP wasn’t on the youngish side, then one would hope that she’s read something outside of the restricted curriculum that her school of higher learning offers.
- There are very few, to my knowledge, schools below the level of college or university that teach “women’s history”. Quite simply there isn’t time with all the other things that are “required” of HS graduates.
That said …. to the OP: Is your class focused on the triumphs, trials, struggles, accomplishments, and contributions of women throughout the expanse of recorded history? Does it include the stories of women living 2500 BCE? Does it include scholarly review of the status of women in societies pre-dating that time period?
No? You say that it concentrates on the plight of women over the past 150 years? Well then …. you are not studying “Women’s History” then; you are “studying” a history of the “Women’s Rights Movement”. They are not, in any way, the same thing at all.
Have you learned about Merit-Ptah—considered to be the first recognized female medical practitioner? She last breathed oxygen in 2700 BCE. How about Madame Marie Sklodowska-Curie—the first woman to win a Nobel Prize (in two fields)? Do any of the Queens of various countries, past and current, ring any bells? Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scotland and the Irish Isles, Queen Mary of England? Are you familiar with any of the female warriors, soldiers, healers, writers, artists, and other profession that literally fill up shelf after shelf in any modestly appointed library?
Oh …. the Egyptians don’t count? Oh …. yes …. those darn Queens … they’re Royalty, therefore their contributions don’t matter. Well … Mme Curie … maybe.
How about Indira Ghandi (1917 - 1984) who was, unless everything I’ve learned was incorrect, the Prime Minister of India for 12 years (66-77)? Mother Theresa? Joan d’Arc? Florence Nightingale? What? Oh you say these women don’t matter ….they did good works …. but …?
Aaaahhhh …. now I see. You’re looking for examples of women throughout history, handed to you on a silver platter, that are known for “being women” secondary to any work that they’ve done. You’d be happy with a murderer perhaps? Well there’s Daria Nikolaevna Saltykova, Isabella I of Castile and Leon, Belle Gunness. Oh …. that’s too extreme …. sorry.
What you want is a “normal” woman who has somehow contributed to the history of humanity … not too good, certainly not bad, preferably middle of the road.
You have heard the aphorism that says in various forms, “History is written by the victors.”? Perhaps the problem is that your “women’s history” class is just a tad too selective in the content that it covers. You might want to discuss that with the Dean of that department; perhaps even take it all the way to administration.
It would be horrible spending all that good money on a poor quality education. Alternately, you could always pick up a BOOK and read about the history of women on your own.
….Damn.
milksheikh asked: I just read your description and I've been going through posts on your blog and I'd just like to say THANK YOU for existing and blessing this website with your presence. We need more people like you on here. (:
Thank you for your kind words! :)
talu-la asked: I really like reading your post on your blog! :) they're so interesting haha
I’m glad you find my posts interesting! :)
Most of them believe that men created the gender binary, men alone enforce it, and so they don’t believe that men can complain when they are effectively just hurting themselves. This is wrong firstly because a social group can oppress itself - or rather, one portion of a social group can oppress the other portions, because ‘men’ are not all telepathically linked and identical. Secondly, it is wrong because men aren’t behind sexism in this way.
The myth is that men are serial killers, going around shooting all of the women, and then complaining about the recoil of their weapons. Misandry is just a side-effect of the misogyny that men themselves create, so how can men whine about it? The reality is that nobody is shooting at anybody. We all built automatic defence systems, in tougher times, and they helped us survive. We’ve all maintained those systems. Now, when we don’t need them, our own security systems are turning against us, and shooting on sight. Many women have forgotten that we built the system all of those millennia ago, and so when they see women getting shot, they can only assume that it is men that are doing it. They fix this assumption in their head, and make it dogma. When they see men shot, then, they assume that these men have simply been hit by their own ricocheting bullets. No amount of evidence of men’s suffering will change their mind, because they are convinced that men are behind the suffering in the first place. Men are the perpetrators, women are the victims. This campaign to stop men shooting women is early feminism.
Many men then came to the realisation that they were also getting shot at, looked at this feminist group - which was unfairly accusing men for something they hadn’t done - and put two and two together. They assumed that it was these feminists who were shooting men, because they were obviously deranged man-haters. Just like the feminist assumption that men were shooting women (because they are obviously deranged women-haters), this was an assumption drawn out of ignorance.
Now, a few of us are discovering traces of the old security system, realising that everybody is getting shot, and figuring it out. The difficulty is persuading the others to leave this battle of the sexes, to leave this dogmatic blame game, and look at the evidence with a clear perspective.
When they say “it can’t be oppression of men, because men have all of the power”, that’s them looking at women and seeing that none of the women have guns, noticing that somebody is shooting at them, and therefore assuming that the men have all of the guns. “Men can’t be getting shot, because men have all of the guns”. As if men couldn’t shoot each other, as internalised misandry. That’s the first mistake. Look up the Apex Fallacy, for example. The second mistake is that men don’t have the guns either. We’re not in a patriarchy because men are in power (and created it for their own benefit), men are in power because we’re in a patriarchy. Somebody had to fill that gender role, and the women were busy doing more evolutionarily important things, like creating the next generation. Men have no more choice over the gender binary than women do. Saying it’s ‘different’ on this basis, then, is an uninformed cop-out. There are no good resources to read up on lies.
And once again, we’re having to ask “What about men?” Many think it’s funny that people ask this question, as if the answer is always going to be some silly way of including men where they don’t belong, but it’s often used as a silencing tactic. Ironically it’s all from a group that claims to want equality, but very few of them really do.
Women commit half of all partner violence and are just as controlling as men.
The same research which is used to say that a woman is severely assaulted by her husband/boyfriend every 15 second in this country, also indicated that a man is severely assaulted by his wife/girlfriend every 14.6 seconds.
Women are more likely than men to “stalk, attack and abuse” their partners. (also here)
While men are less likely to report violence, which distorts crime data, virtually all randomized sociological surveys show women initiate domestic violence as often as men and use weapons more than men, that men suffer one-third of injuries, and that self-defense explains only a small portion of domestic violence by either sex.
Lesbian and bisexual relationships are more violent heterosexual relationships.
Women are more likely to abuse their children, which only further proves that women are more violent than they’re made out to be.
And despite all of this, we still have people believing that men are more violent than women. We still have people jumping to protect abused women, while ignoring female on male violence, cheering for abusive women, or laughing at abused men, and this can mostly be attributed to feminist causes only representing the side of the issue that they care about, not the full picture. The Federal Government, under feminist pressure, still pays grants to police departments in proportion to the number of men jailed under VAWA legislation, leading to an incentive for police to expand the defintion of ‘domestic violence’ to absurd extremes, and when a man who calls the police to report domestic violence, he is three times more likely to be arrested than the woman who is abusing him, leaving any possible children between them alone with the violent parent. Where’s the child advocacy in that?
Anybody that participates in this “awareness” week is not raising awareness of domestic violence, but once again reinforcing the “women are weak and innocent, men are strong and violent” stereotype by ignoring that domestic violence goes both ways and is more often perpetuated by women than men. All this bullshit says is that men aren’t the ones that need to learn how to walk in someone else’s shoes. Really, how goddamn hard is it for feminists to take the focus off of women, walk and mile in men’s shoes, and look at the bigger picture here?
