Feminism: Hate and the Mechanism of Dehumanization
by Observing Libertarian
A delve into the underlying nature of hatred and the mechanism of dehumanization.
Please watch the video links LAST. They are the example of what this article articulates. the videos are collected examples of hate and dehumanization — in practice.
First however – a few things to clear your mind of a lot of misconceptions and propaganda.
Some facts for you:
Domestic Violence ~
Published in the “Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma”, the paper “CURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND PREVALENCE CONCERNING FEMALE OFFENDERS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE” written by Murray A Straus of the University of New Hampshire.
Straus cites over 200 studies conducted in the United States which determined no statistically significant difference in the frequency of violence against a cohabiting partner and no difference as to either minor or severe injuries dealt to the victim.
Simply stated: women are just as likely to severely injure their partners through domestic abuse as men are.
CDC Researchers discovered interesting facts when examining their own data.
The study, by CDC researchers Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD, found that a surprising 70% of cases of non-reciprocal violence were perpetrated by women.
The researchers studied 11,370 18- to 28-year-olds who had been in a total of 18,761 heterosexual relationships. They found that about 50% of cases of intimate partner violence were reciprocal, which they define as “perpetrated by both partners”, and 50% were non-reciprocal. Cases of violent women and non-violent men accounted for 70% of non-reciprocal cases, whereas cases of violent men and non-violent women accounted for 30% of non-reciprocal cases.
Thus: 50% of all cases of intimate partner violence among heterosexuals involve violence by both partners
35% of all cases involve a violent woman and an non-violent man
15% of all cases involve a violent man and an non-violent woman”
“Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010″ by Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., RTI, Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI, Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS, Michael Planty, Ph.D., BJS, Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI. March 7, 2013
The study “presents trends in the rate of completed or attempted rape or sexual assault against females from 1995 to 2010. The report examines demographic characteristics of female victims of sexual violence and characteristics of the offender and incident, including victim-offender relationship, whether the offender had a weapon, and the location of the victimization. The report also examines changes over time in the percentages of female victims of sexual violence who suffered an injury and received formal medical treatment, reported the victimization to the police, and received assistance from a victim service provider. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.”
The study concluded the following:
From 1995 to 2010, the estimated annual rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations declined 58%, from 5.0 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older to 2.1 per 1,000.
Which means the current popularized estimate of 1/4 women or 1/5 women will be raped: false far short. If a rape rate of 2.1 victimization per 1,000 populace were maintained that would equate to .2% of women being raped every year.
Rape – men always victimizer: women always victim… Or is that the case?
In “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions” written by Lara Stemple, JD, and Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, they came to the following conclusion.
“We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men.”
Further evidence: men being raped by women –
In “When Men Are Raped” By Hanna Rosin
“Data hasn’t been calculated under the new FBI definition yet, but Stemple parses several other national surveys in her new paper, “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions,” co-written with Ilan Meyer and published in the April 17 edition of the American Journal of Public Health. One of those surveys is the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.”
In July 2008 Mark B. Rosenthal wrote an article detailing data collected by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services“Child Maltreatment” reports, 2001-2006* Victims by Parental Status of Perpetrators“.
” The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers.
And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers.
Furthermore, contrary to media portrayals that leave the viewer with the impression that only girls are ever harmed, boys constituted fully 60% of child fatalities. (Table 4-3, p. 71, Child Maltreatment 2006,http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf, reports that 675 boys died in 2006 as compared to 454 girls).”
By taking a close look at the data collected by national organizations we find that women are more likely to abuse children than men, just as likely to rape men as men are to rape women and just as likely to commit domestic violence as men are. So why is the prevailing image of men one that it is a crime just to be male? If actual crime, survey data and collected records show us that women are no less likely to commit violent and or sedition crimes than men why are men depicted as the “Bad Guy” in so much rhetoric?
The first reason I would like to propose: patriarchy. Yes, I think the patriarchy at one time was real and that it’s left an indelible impact on society. However the second is far more malicious in intent: Feminism.
While patriarchy left us with the unmistakable ideal that women are beauty, pure, gentle and incapable of behaving in such inhuman ways – it is feminism which has tried it’s very “bestest” to dehumanize men. As where patriarchy taught us that all women are good: feminism has shifted the public paradigm into believing that all men are bad. Thus, we have ourselves a double edged sword.
Feminism however: has gone to great lengths, through lobbying and the publishing of propaganda to ensure that men could be vilified with false reports and fake research papers that often ignores it’s own research data.
Proof of concept: Mary Koss. In the above CDC report “Made to penetrate” having been added to their roster of classifications, we have Mary Koss to thank. She lobbied the CDC to exclude male victims of female predators as being classified as “rape.” Now if you ask the common person – if you are made to have sex with someone by being physically forced, or forced at gunpoint/knife point, coerced with threats of violence, you are unconscious, roofied, comatose or any other form of incapacitation whereby you are incapable of providing consent or the sexual activity is committed directly against your will – is that rape? The vast majority of people would say yes, that is rape. Anytime someone conducts sex with you either against your consent or while you are incapable of providing consent – it is rape.
Not according, to the CDC. Due to the actions taken by Mary Koss “made to penetrate” was created so that male victims of female predators could be discluded, by definition, from being “raped”. Therefore she could tout feminist statistics on female rape victims while completely excluding figures of males having been raped by women.
According to the CDC a man cannot be raped by a woman even if he is physically forced, forced at gunpoint/knife point, coerced with threats, comatose, intoxicated, passed out, roofied or otherwise incapacitated by any other means. By legal definition he cannot be raped by a woman – no matter what. It’s instead referred to as “made to penetrate” and is therefore constituted as a form of sexual assault – but not rape.
Once again this was done strictly so that Koss could publish intentionally tampered and gender biased research data on the rate at which victims are raped. You see, having a number of males victimized equal to that of women doesn’t look good when you’re trying to talk about “patriarchy” and the inherent “rape culture” found in it, which has a narrative that all men are potential rapists and all women are potential victims.
This by the way, is not the first time Mary Koss has used such tactics. Most people are unaware – the commonly quoted “1/4 women will be raped” statistic comes from her study. In this study 73% of the women she claimed were raped explicitly said that they were in fact NOT raped. 40% of those same women continued to have relationships with the person the survey data exclaimed had raped them. If you control the definitions of terms you can get any answer you want – no matter how bogus.
Are Feminists simply always about hating men or do they support women’s rights while they’re at it?
Well, we run into an interesting thing when it comes to women’s rights: Feminists hate independent, empowered women. If a woman takes self defense classes, carries mace, attains a concealed carry weapon license or even recently: nailpolish that can detect the date rape drug in your drink – Feminists don’t like it.
They refer to all of the above subscribed behavior as “victim blaming”.
Feminists don’t like that. Anything that would prevent rape diminishes the feminist narrative of “rape culture” as females with firearms pointed out. Also, if you have truly strong independent empowered women capable of defending themselves, it takes away from the feminist paradigm of the patriarchy – which asserts that all women are victims and all men perpetrators. Feminists don’t like that either.
See if you can follow the feminist logic on this….
Anything that helps prevent crime is “victim blaming” women who were victimized by that same crime. So apparently – it’s bad if we try to prevent crime that would victimize women…. So to prevent victims from feeling bad – we shouldn’t try to prevent other women from being victimized….
That’s their logic, that’s their argument: they would rather more women be victimized than allow women who were victimized feel bad about having been victimized. Feminists -want- women to be raped, so that other rape victims will not feel bad about having been raped.
Sad and sorry to say – feminism isn’t about protecting women and hasn’t been for a very long time. It’s about enforcing the narrative that a woman is a victim and a man is a victimizer. At one point feminism may have been about equal rights for women – it used to be pro-woman: now it’s simply anti-male. And feminists don’t like anything that empowers women.
More to the point: TRULY strong, independent self empowered women who dare to disagree with feminist’s sisterhood hive mind face ridicule and even death threats to try and shame them or scare them into line. So while feminism claims to want equality, their activities add up to being nothing more than social terrorists. Suppressing women’s freedom of speech should they ever dare to step out of line, and disagree with the sisterhood.
Why would feminism stoop to such fantastically underhanded tactics? Well, two reasons. One is hatred: the other is systematic dehumanization.
If you look closely at the things feminists say and do – you’ll be shocked by just how obvious it is. Below are some useful bits of information on hate and the process of dehumanization, written by world authorities on the subject.
Feminists are not pro-woman, they are anti-male. Spreading hate-speech and that hate speech is active dehumanization. Through dehumanization – group B feels guiltless about doing inhuman things to group A. They even feel justified, that it’s the righteous thing to do. By dehumanizing men, they can justify any action, no matter if it’s an atrocity or not.
The science of hatred
Posted in Science by Jen Robinson onOctober 19, 2009
“Professor of Psychology Ervin Staub has been studying hatred and violence for almost 30 years. In a recent article entitledThe Origins and Evolution of Hate, he extends Penguin’s definition, pointing out that hate is more likely to occur when we view another person as having either equal or greater social or economic value rather than less. Humans may feel things like pity or distain for people they view as inferior to them, but true hatred typically comes about when the other is seen as equal or superior. Often, the hated person or group is seen as having more than they deserve, and that these fortunes have been acquired at the expense of the hater.“
The Seven-Stage Hate Model: The Psychopathology of Hate
Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people.
Published on March 18, 2011 by Jack Schafer, Ph.D. in Let Their Words Do the Talking
“Stage 1: The Haters Gather
Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself
Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target
Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target
Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons
Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons
Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target”
The Individual Psychology of Group Hate
“Revenge is often taken against people who were not perpetrators of the original offense, provided that they belong to the perpetrator’s group. People react as if they believed that if one member of a group attacked, then they all did or would. Groups are culturally defined, though the tendency to relate to them is universal. It is proposed that “the enemy” is an inherited category while the identity of the groups placed into that category is learned. Enemies are subject to hate, fear, and coldness (the inhibition of empathy). We are prepared to experience an entire outgroup as “enemy” if any of them attack us. We anticipate the same reaction in outgroups by experiencing them as “enemy” when any of us attack them. We mirror fellow ingroup members’ hatreds.”
Now that we have identifying behavior which should be interpreted as hatred: nothing more, nothing less. Hate is hate. You can dress it up however you like. How does hate feed itself? Dehumanization: when you subscribe to the idea that all of group A are evil and all of group B are innocent. So let’s examine dehumanization.
“At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non-comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.
Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.
Michelle Maiese is a graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium.
What it Means to Dehumanize
Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.
We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.
However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, “the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant.”Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one’s moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.
Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one’s enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one’s fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.
The Psychology of Dehumanization
Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an “enemy image” of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.
An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one’s own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one’s own group with the vices of the “outside” group. In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.
Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one’s opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives. One’s own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one’s opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one’s opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.
Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a “diabolical enemy,” the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil. Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.
Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of “projection,” in which people “project” their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one’s own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.
Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated. It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one’s opponents.
Dangers of Dehumanization
While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.
Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.
Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one’s opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives.
Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people. Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia.
It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.”
According to Baron and Richardson (1994), dehumanization occurs when an individual views another person in negative ways, which leads to the belief that they are undeserving of the respect and kindness usually afforded to another person. It is as if that individual is compared to being nonhuman (Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner 2008). In comparing groups under the same situation, Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, and Mihic (2008) state that, for example, if group B is seen as failing to uphold values belonging to group A, then group B must be immoral and less than human. This results in group B being less deserving of humane treatment. The fate of the members of group B is less relevant to group A, and their interests may be ignored. The implication is then that dehumanization of a target increases aggressive behavior because dehumanized group members have no moral standards applied to them (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006). Bandura (2002) adds that strangers can be more easily depersonalized than acquaintances because of a lack of moral obligation to try and comprehend a stranger.
There are three different ways in which people are dehumanized. Haslam, et al. (2008) points out that people can be compared to animals, in which uniquely human attributes are denied and the person is described as being coarse, uncultured, amoral, irrational, and childlike. Bandura (2002) adds that attributing demonic or bestial qualities to a person also makes them less than human. A second way in which people are dehumanized is by comparing a person to a machine (i.e., “mechanistic dehumanization”), in which human attributes are removed, and the person is perceived to be unfeeling, cold, passive, rigid, and lacking individuality (Haslam, et al., 2008). By doing this, the person is denied of emotionality and desires (Haslam, et al., 2008). Controlling or manipulative interpersonal relationships have been identified as one antecedent of mechanistic dehumanization (Moller & Deci, 2010).
The third way that a person can be dehumanized is by perceiving the other person as being the enemy. Esses, et al. (2008) state that the enemy is constructed to exemplify manipulation and is described as being opportunistic, evil, immoral, and motivated by greed. The enemy is shown to take advantage of the weak, which in turn justifies any action taken against the enemy (Esses, et al., 2008). Esses, et al. (2008) go on to describe the barbarian image, which includes the perceptions of a ruthless, crude, and unsophisticated individual that is willing to cheat to reach glory.
The consequence of constructing these dehumanizing forms is the inequality that is brought on as a result. It can be seen that those who support the existence of social dominance view the world as a competitive place where only the toughest survive and are willing to discriminate against other groups in order to reach or uphold group dominance. What this does is legitimize entitlement and the dehumanization of others (Esses, et al., 2008).
In order to combat dehumanization, it is essential to do the opposite of what it takes to instill dehumanization. Moshman (2007) states that in dehumanization, individuals are interpreted as containing elements of a subhuman, nonhuman, or anti-human group. In order to not view others in those terms, then the two groups must unite and be intimate with one another so as to see the humanistic qualities that each possess. The reason for this is because it is difficult to mistreat humanized people without risking personal distress (Bandura, 2002).
Another way to counteract possible conflict is to keep both groups separate. Moshman (2007) states that there is no need to try to dehumanize another group provided that that group stays in one location, and the other group stays in another. The only problem with this suggestion is that no matter how hard it can be tried, there is bound to be trouble. This is because human groups often get in each other’s way and fail to meet each other’s expectations (Moshman, 2007).
Now, a look at what goes on in the world out there as a result of this hatred and active campaign of dehumanization.
Still think feminism isn’t hate speech?
JB here: reading all the dehumanization tactics is actually rather upsetting. I think I will go and hug all the men and boys I love. Maybe you should too.
And then get ready for war.
Lots of love,