^This. Read it. Then read it again. Then hang it up on your fridge, and staple it to your dog's collar.
Of course. It's definitely not easy, but I think that it's a push that should be made, if only to point out that the extremists do not speak for the whole.
I guess that people who are led to believe that all feminists are man-haters are probably too set in their ways to convince, though.
I'm just not sure how you expect this to be done. I consider myself to be a moderate feminist and I distance myself from extremists whenever possible, explaining my beliefs (as I did in my first post) and making it clear that they do not speak for the whole. Is there something else you feel I should have said?
Well most cases yes. I have seen Muslims having to defend their religion because of Muslim terrorists who make a very small number of the whole Muslim community. Feminism would also have to defend itself because of the actions or words of a small minority of the whole group.
You also forget that organized religion is just that - organized. It has a hierarchy where leaders are chosen and are able to speak for the group. Feminists are just a bunch of people who share similar ideals and values - many of which are very diverse - and there is no official leader who can claim to speak for everyone. In the same way, there is no official leader of the gay rights movement who can purport to speak for all gay rights advocates. Some feminists are more in the public eye, but they're not necessarily leaders. Who are we supposed to get to make these statements? Where are we supposed to say them?
I think about it like this. Feminists have no problem arguing and dealing with a sexist pig who hates feminism but struggle or just ignore a sexist pig who says they are a feminist.Why the double standard? Is feminism in that such a need for members that they let people say sexist things and be openly hateful to one sex just because they say the are feminist even if they don't follow what the word feminism is meant to mean? If I was a member of a group and that groups reputation was being ruined because of a small few I would have to say or do something. Either to the person(s) or to say sorry to people who were targeted by that person(s). If you really cared about something you would defend and protect it no matter what even if it meant having to turn on other members if they are causing harm to what you believe in.
The idea that all feminists argue and debate sexist pigs is entirely false. Not all feminists make it their duty to correct and argue with every jerk they meet for a multitude of reasons. For instance, aside from it just being an unpleasant experience, it's simply not all that productive. Not all religious people busy themselves with debating atheists - some of them make positive contributions to society or seek social change. Feminists are the same.
How do you know that feminists don't argue and debate one another? Take a look and you'll find some pretty heated stuff. I certainly do not welcome those kinds of feminists and avoid associating with them, and I'm not the only one.
Well, yes, there are lots of stupid politicians, I was just trying to make a point about how the word has started to lose its meaning. I agree with your definition, however, there's a bit of dispute over what consent means. For example, saying yes while intoxicated is not considered giving consent (rightfully so), but somehow if both people are equally drunk and, in their intoxication, decide to have drunken sex, the guy is still considered to have "raped" the girl, even though neither party could have given consent. Why is this?
True, consent can get sticky regarding intoxicated individuals, but the definition can be used pretty much across the board otherwise. It's also ridiculous that two drunken people having consensual sex can result in only the man being accused of rape - this follows the idea I have mentioned above, where "only men want sex and women never do," thus the assumption is that the woman was coerced or raped. Heaven forbid a woman wants to have consensual sex!
Not every time, but if you notice most Christians, for example, have done a great deal to distance themselves from the Westboro Baptist Church. Simply telling them that not all men are evil rapists would be a good start. I do kind of see your point here, though.
As I mentioned above, if feminism had an organized hierarchy this might be simple, but we have no elected officials who are meant to speak for all of us. Who are we supposed to get to make these statements?
Misandry absolutely exists in mainstream culture.
I'm not sure the example you gave is misandristic (is that even a word?) or simply sexist. Regarding that specific video, it's the same male representation as the recent TV shows with incompetent fathers. The reason for this is because it's a backlash against the sitcoms from around the 50's-70's where the trope was that "(the hardworking) father knows best." To subvert this in more modern times the father figure is shown as incompetent/lazy.
Either way, this really just looks like more of the double-edged sword of sexism we keep talking about. We have sexist notions about both men and women, which pervades everything from our expectations and assumptions to our cultural narratives. Again
feminism doesn't want this - we want to end
all sexism and discrimination against
all sexes.
Also, I see you have made no comment about my explanation for why women might be wary of men in public. If you'd like further information about our experiences, please do not hesitate to ask.
Meh, wearing little to nothing in the way of clothing is definitely going to effect the way you're perceived by your peers, society, and even family. While this doesn't mean it's fine or acceptable to harass someone wearing skimpy dress, it does mean that you accept the implications of how you dress. This is true for any style of dress, but it's pertinent here.
You do realize that rape is more than an "implication," correct? It is something that
affects a victim for the rest of their life. It hurts their willingness to trust, to form relationships, to have any kind of faith in themselves. Hell, even the public harassment I was talking about can ruin someone's day, never mind affecting the way they live their day-to-day life. And keep in mind that
1 in 4 women gets harassed in her lifetime, and we are told from day one that preventing harassment and rape is our responsibility, and ours alone.
The idea that women should "accept" that they will be harassed if they dress a certain way is disgusting, especially since
women get harassed anyway, no matter what they're wearing. This includes
minors, for goodness' sake. The idea that we should tell some, but not all women "it's not your fault" is severely problematic and pretty disgusting.
This is false. You are perceived as more vulnerable the less clothing you wear, something I might have never considered unless it was presented to me in the gaming feminism thread. You are seen as a more emotional object the less you wear. A rapist already has something mentally wrong with them, so moral evaluation isn't something that is going to be considered when they pick their victims. Knowing this, clothing plays a big part.
It's sad, but this is fact. Dressing modestly might actually help women in avoiding harassment and even rape.
You're saying that a potential rapist will simply choose a different victim to rape. Someone still gets hurt, someone still gets traumatized for the rest of their life. So I ask again:
how does this solve the problem of people being raped?
Let us say that all of a sudden, our entire cultural clothing choices shift, and all women are now dressed more conservatively. Will this alone lower the number of rape cases?
Absolutely not. Someone who is bent on raping an individual will not be dissuaded by clothing alone.
Lastly, a vulnerable person may wear X type of clothing, but not all people who wear X type of clothing are more vulnerable than people who wear Y clothing. Vulnerability is defined far more by a person's self-confidence, willingness to stand up for oneself, willingness to set strong boundaries, and whether or not they are alone. A victim who looks weak, defenseless and alone is a far superior target than someone who doesn't look that way, regardless of their clothing. These are the types of traits serial killers look for, for instance, and for good reason. But does that mean we should blame rape victims for not being self-confident enough, for not being surrounded by others at all times (never mind that most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows)? You must admit that this would be ridiculous.
Yes, it can and does happen to women of any dress, but that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to a rapist's choice of victim.
Do you have any evidence that clothing seriously impacts a rapist's decision? Women of all ages and in all types of clothing, even women who go out of their way to look unattractive, still get harassed.
The sentiment that "women had it coming" is wrong, but the message might just be right. How you dress has an effect on how you are treated and how you are perceived, as a victim or an authority. If a woman is raped wearing very little clothing, you have to understand that it probably contributed to the likelihood of rape.
In no way does this mean it's ok, or that it could have been avoided, because we don't know if it could have been, but it is a factor that needs to be examined.
This brings up another point: that judging people solely based on how they dress isn't right. Plenty of rape victims have not been taken seriously by cops because "you were wearing X, what did you expect?" They have been entirely dismissed on this basis alone.
Why do we think this is an acceptable way to treat anyone? This is the problem with s
lut-shaming that we keep going back to - when you deem it is acceptable to treat someone in X dress a certain way, it does nobody any service.
Society considers bashing men ok, but bashing women is completely amoral. For proof, walk into a public area and ask if people want to hear a joke, then tell one that's anti-female and one that's anti-male, and see which is accepted.
I'll just repeat that this is sexism that feminism is not okay with, as I have mentioned over and over previously.
I've talked with Psychic about this before, and just be aware that everything I say here is based on what I've seen. I'm not very good at moral / society issues because I don't tend to let things like this get in the way of my life. This is all as far as I've read, seen and heard.
I would like to question the main goal of feminism - making both men and women equal. My question is this: how do you expect to achieve gender equality when society does the following:
1. Violence between the opposite sex is more controversial. According to society, it's perfectly fine for men to hit other men. Brawls, competition, all these things. Woman hits a man? Also perfectly acceptable. But when a man hits a woman? You'll be sure to whip up some real controversy. Honestly, all forms of violence should be controversial. If it were equal, it would be equally as wrong for a man to hit a man as it is for a man to hit a woman. Same goes for women hitting men.
2. Age of Consent. Here's a copy-paste regarding the age of consent in my country (The United Kingdom, it's similar for other western countries).
So as it is, you can't have gender equality because society introduced laws and morals like this. I'd like someone to explain how we can achieve gender equality when while we're sending boys to prison for having sex with underage girls we're letting girls off with just a prosecution.
You're missing the point. You point out the injustices of being treated differently on the basis of gender, and in the same breath "question the main goal of feminism - making both men and women equal." Did you read my first post at all?
Feminism agrees with you that society is sexist, and it wants to end that sexism. The entire point of feminism is to end discrimination based on gender, which
includes women getting better treatment than men.
The point of feminism is to
change society. The laws and morals we currently have are sexist and wrong, and we have been slowly changing them over time. As I told you over VM, women used to be unable to vote or own property. We have come a long way, but the job isn't done.
I don't need to. You need to prove to me that Rape culture exists as it is your original post that implied its existence despite the fact I see no proof of its existence.
Edit: Ah, an Infraction. I find it hilarious considering my post contains just as much substance as the claims in the original post. Gotta love biased moderation.
If you think Moogles made a bad argument in the OP, then debate it. If all you're going to do is post a statement with zero argument to back it up, don't bother posting. This is how the Debate forum is run. If you don't know what to debate, see PP's post.
~Psychic
