Feminism & Rape Culture 2014: My Post is Up Here Guys

[KantoPkmnMaster]

It's important to bring it up, because if you hate men you're not a feminist. The idea of feminism is equal rights and opportunities for both sexes, meaning you support both sexes and not just one. A lot of people on tumblr claim to be feminists and yet constantly bash men for being men -- often labeling them things such as 'scum'. It's hard to spread the ideals of feminism when people get the idea that it's about female superiority, and not equality of the sexes. Yes there are awful people in every political movement, however these "feminists" tend to be extremely vocal and present the wrong image of feminism, and because of this people shy away from an important movement that would normally be common sense.

Yep, sadly there are those in all circles and movements that comprise a loud minority that often overshadows the more rational individuals in a movement, and feminism is no exception because of radical feminism. That's my only negative view on feminism personally. It's just silly to assert that male supremacy is the result of all of the evils/problems in the world today, and that a patriarchal society continues to suppress women. Feminist ideologies such as cultural feminism and liberal feminism have been much more effective in my opinion.
Aside from that i'll say the same thing that i've said for gay rights that i will for women's rights. I'm not for special treatment and special rights, but i am for equal rights. If i was in the position of power in a company i'd be willing to pay a woman the same amount of money that a man would earn had she had the same experience, longevity in the company and same work ethic, production that the man had. I honestly don't give a damn what sex someone is. And i doubt most employers do either (i'm of the mindset that equal pay isn't as rampant of a problem as it is played out to be.). If they do the equal amount of work and give the same amount of effort, they should be equally rewarded. *drops microphone*

 

[The Federation]

This thread started around the same time reputation was re-implemented, so I got to hear all about how pure the average modern feminist was as they told me to "quit manslpaining" and confessed their undying love for "male tears". I can't ever really see the movement (as represented by online proponents) in the same light. As a feminist myself, it's hard to identify and harder to share ideas without being attacked, being accused of something I haven't done, or being run out entirely. If I don't share the same ideas 100%, I shouldn't speak at all- that's the vibe you get.

When you mix righteousness with extreme views that self-support and add a tagline like "equality for all" it's easy to hold views which are simply false.

 

[ven?]

Hello, I just wanted to weigh in here and state my point and walk away (mainly because I would rather just see where things go, if they go anywhere at all, possibly nowhere, but I'll not candir, also You can tear apart what I say, but it won't change anything).

After reading a few pages of this thread it seems to be rather apparent to me, the idea on Feminism is an extension of the thousands of years of unjustification towards women and it's slight amount of continuation towards women in the 21st century, and the issue isn't the government system which has been the long end of the stick since the beginning as it works hard to ensure equality for the whole it is more based off of peoples belief system more then there ideals towards it. If it takes 100 years from now for people to feel as though supporting one another verbally is better then yelling at eachother about there problems hoping to make a change when that guy or gal walking by is probably thinking "whatever" in general. We can't force people to change there opinion on things, we just have to make our point, make a website, sell cookies, hug random people and carry on because all we can do is say something about it, we aren't cops can't arrest people for sexual harassment.

Another note, alot of people have different opinions on this subject which I find interesting, is this a product of education, product of government, or a product of up bringing?

 

[Baba Yaga]

Apparently society only "slightly" defers to men when over 90% of all lawmakers and politicians are men, the people that do the whole "society thing." Lol, you guys are a joke. Go back to reddit or jerk each other off somewhere else.

 

[LDSman]

Hello, I just wanted to weigh in here and state my point and walk away (mainly because I would rather just see where things go, if they go anywhere at all, possibly nowhere, but I'll not candir, also You can tear apart what I say, but it won't change anything).

After reading a few pages of this thread it seems to be rather apparent to me, the idea on Feminism is an extension of the thousands of years of unjustification towards women and it's slight amount of continuation towards women in the 21st century, and the issue isn't the government system which has been the long end of the stick since the beginning as it works hard to ensure equality for the whole it is more based off of peoples belief system more then there ideals towards it. If it takes 100 years from now for people to feel as though supporting one another verbally is better then yelling at eachother about there problems hoping to make a change when that guy or gal walking by is probably thinking "whatever" in general. We can't force people to change there opinion on things, we just have to make our point, make a website, sell cookies, hug random people and carry on because all we can do is say something about it, we aren't cops can't arrest people for sexual harassment.

Change always takes a while to spread. You have to convince people that the change is a good thing and often times the best way to prove that is by example.

Another note, alot of people have different opinions on this subject which I find interesting, is this a product of education, product of government, or a product of up bringing?

Some variation of education and upbringing. I don't put much stock in it being a product of gov't.

Apparently society only "slightly" defers to men when over 90% of all lawmakers and politicians are men, the people that do the whole "society thing."

Correlation does not equal casuation. Many politicians are career politicians. Newcomers are forced to compete against people with experience and connections. As time goes on, and as female politicians work their way up, the numbers will change.

Lol, you guys are a joke. Go back to reddit or jerk each other off somewhere else.

What an interesting comment. Are you trying to imply that gay relationships are something to use as a slur?

 

[Peter Quill]

What an interesting comment. Are you trying to imply that gay relationships are something to use as a slur?

No. He meant it in a way where you guys are just gratifying each other and boosting each other's egos. So I'll stop that stupid question right here and now.

 

[The Federation]

Apparently society only "slightly" defers to men when over 90% of all lawmakers and politicians are men, the people that do the whole "society thing."

Men must be really stupid, to control gov't and the courts only to sentence overwhelmingly more men than women to jail time. We clearly conspired to control these areas of our society in an attempt to boost the Patriarchy's grasp on everyone's lives, but were unfortunately unable to follow through, since we forgot to plan anything after "get power".

Or wait, maybe our gov't now is a throwback to a time when there actually existed a western patriarchy, in the true sense? Maybe we still vote the way we do, in part, due to human psychology and trend tendencies. It could be that a larger portion of society, statistically, is female, yet they still tend to vote for males- likely because there are simply more male politicians than female politicians.

This can't be right, huh?

 

[Baba Yaga]

In other news, China declares it is, in fact, not an authoritarian regime. I mean yeah, you can't speak out against the government, but North Korea dude, it sends its citizens to concentration camps. Quit your whining and learn what a dictatorship actually is.

Tell me more about how you think rapists being able to sue for custody in 31 states is an isolated case. *googly eyes*

 

[LDSman]

How many times has a convicted rapist sued? All the articles seem to refer to the same three cases. Edit: And of the three only one mentions that the person was convicted. If the father isn't convicted of rape, then legally he has full parental rights. Innocent until proven guilty.

Have any convicted rapists actually won custody? I can't seem to find any.

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

Or wait, maybe our gov't now is a throwback to a time when there actually existed a western patriarchy, in the true sense? Maybe we still vote the way we do, in part, due to human psychology and trend tendencies. It could be that a larger portion of society, statistically, is female, yet they still tend to vote for males- likely because there are simply more male politicians than female politicians.

Yeah, we don't have a sexist power structure, we're just emulating a sexist power structure. That's completely different!

Also let's completely ignore the fact that oppressive power structures are self perpetuating and won't end until someone purposely ends it.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

Apparently society only "slightly" defers to men when over 90% of all lawmakers and politicians are men, the people that do the whole "society thing." Lol, you guys are a joke. Go back to reddit or jerk each other off somewhere else.

The problem isn't that over 90 % of politicians are men; it's that over 90 % of politicians are idiots. Or, more accurately, over 90 % of voters are idiots and politicians pander to them.

A population of smart people of any gender would have solved these issues long ago, but simply replacing male idiots with female idiots won't work.



I mean, come on now. Think for a second. If the number of politicians was split 50-50, do you really think gender stereotypes would vanish so easily? No. Why? Because, in case you haven't noticed, women themselves also enforce these silly stereotypes.

Which is why this ongoing comparison of raw aggregate social power is silly. Even if women had exactly 50 % power in society, it wouldn't fix everything or probably even most things related to gender, so it's a poor measure.

It should be obvious that society is more complicated than that. Surely we are not so lazy that we can only stare at this one variable and ignore everything else. ...Or are we?

 

[LDSman]

Interesting. A bill in CA to define what consent is.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-debates-yes-means-yes-sex-assault-law-144457610.html

I predict that if it passes, things won't change much. In most cases, it'll still be his word against hers.

 

[The Federation]

Yeah, we don't have a sexist power structure, we're just emulating a sexist power structure. That's completely different!

Emulation and exact replication are different things. Our gov't is similar in many respects to the 1950's gov't, but it is no longer the sexist patriarchy it once was.

If you want to continue pretending out gov't is sexist, at least provide a sensible case for it. As it stands, the courts are almost entirely stacked against men, and no other branch is actively trying to legislate against women's rights for the sake of "putting women in their place" as they did in the 50's. Nearly every bit of legislation that stands against women today is due to some demented morality derived from religious ideology. You can argue that religious bigotry was the primary cause of the 1950's debacle, and I wouldn't argue with you, but as it stands we aren't seeing the same anti-women gov't we saw in the past.

Also let's completely ignore the fact that oppressive power structures are self perpetuating and won't end until someone purposely ends it.

Arguing that the status quo has causes rooted in human tendency to perpetuate past systems is ignoring the issue? Really? This is why today's feminism is often so toxic- it tries its very best to brand anything that doesn't declare the current society to be a hellhole of violence and maleficence against women a case of "ignoring the issue" or misogyny. Sometimes people simply want to paint reality for what it is.

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

If you want to continue pretending out gov't is sexist, at least provide a sensible case for it. As it stands, the courts are almost entirely stacked against men, and no other branch is actively trying to legislate against women's rights for the sake of "putting women in their place" as they did in the 50's. Nearly every bit of legislation that stands against women today is due to some demented morality derived from religious ideology. You can argue that religious bigotry was the primary cause of the 1950's debacle, and I wouldn't argue with you, but as it stands we aren't seeing the same anti-women gov't we saw in the past.

Sooo.... our government isn't sexist. It's just full of enough religious nut cases so that anti-woman legislation passes.

Ok then.

I mean if you want to talk about how women's rights are being ignored we could talk about hobby lobby, abortion restrictions, the fact that 31 states allow rapists to sue for custody if they impregnate their victim, the fact that when an abusive relationship ends the man can usually succeed in taking custody from the woman he abused and use the children as emotional blackmail to keep on abusing her, not to mention if a woman reports a rape (which she probably won't because nobody would believe her) her rapist is probably going to get off scott free. But you know, I can see how one could think that women are just making much ado about nothing.

Edited to fix link.

 

[The Federation]

Sooo.... our government isn't sexist. It's just full of enough religious nut cases so that anti-woman legislation passes.

Ok then.

Instead of snide sarcasm, how about you actually refute a claim for once? Sexism and anti-woman are not the same thing, at least in this case, because of how the religious mind works.

I mean if you want to talk about how women's rights are being ignored we could talk about hobby lobby, abortion restrictions, the fact that 31 states allow rapists to sue for custody if they impregnate their victim,

The first two are universally claimed to be religiously inspired, and the last is remnant from a time when people could get away with saying it was religiously inspired.

the fact that when an abusive relationship ends the man can usually succeed in taking custody from the woman he abused and use the children as emotional blackmail to keep on abusing her,

Did this have a link to a website proving the statement? I'm just getting errors, and I find it more than a little difficult to believe that a male EVER has the advantage in a custody battle. This is only magnified if woman seeking custody is able to show the man was abusive.

But you know, I can see how one could think that women are just making much ado about nothing.

I'm really going to have to start making up claims and attributing them to you, because you really do seem to love doing it to me. It's not that there is no problem, it's simply that the problem doesn't warrant the following statements:

"The gov't is a patriarchy!" and "Our gov't is sexist!"

As far as reality goes, almost everything that hurts women isn't designed to hurt women, but to reinforce the lawmaker's piety. The courts prove that the is no male bias.

 

[bobjr]

My friend got custody of his child pretty easily after the mother just up and left on him and the baby. I know that's just a personal story, but if you're going to make a statement that men are always at a disadvantage of a custody battle then that's just false.

 

[The Federation]

Just because we are seeing more men win custody today than 20 years ago doesn't mean men win sole custody more than women; quite the opposite, we see only 15-20% of men have sole custody of their child. As a societal viewpoint, men are seen as less competent than women. This is always a detriment, even considering all the other factors. Today's feminism usually loves blanket truths based on leftover social ideas, so why is it not the case when it harms men as well?

It's clearly a universal issue, this frame of mind, but what good is it to ignore it in favor of radicalization like "patriarchy"?

 

[Baba Yaga]

The problem isn't that over 90 % of politicians are men; it's that over 90 % of politicians are idiots. Or, more accurately, over 90 % of voters are idiots and politicians pander to them.

A population of smart people of any gender would have solved these issues long ago, but simply replacing male idiots with female idiots won't work.



I mean, come on now. Think for a second. If the number of politicians was split 50-50, do you really think gender stereotypes would vanish so easily? No. Why? Because, in case you haven't noticed, women themselves also enforce these silly stereotypes.

Which is why this ongoing comparison of raw aggregate social power is silly. Even if women had exactly 50 % power in society, it wouldn't fix everything or probably even most things related to gender, so it's a poor measure.

It should be obvious that society is more complicated than that. Surely we are not so lazy that we can only stare at this one variable and ignore everything else. ...Or are we?

This looks like a pretty convoluted response to what was a fairly simple rebuttal. You can't resist mocking the notion that the U.S. is a patriarchy by claiming society only very so slightly defers to men, when taking into account number, this isn't the case. It's glaringly obvious that males overwhelmingly hold most positions of power. The Federation attempted to counter this by bringing up that females vote more than men, but fails to realize that pointing out x, y, or z place where women aren't being oppressed doesn't mean that society doesn't have males largely in charge of a societal power structure at the expense of women. Or in other words, a patriarchy. A person can theoretically use this tactic to say patriarchy isn't a thing even in the most brutal patriarchies, i.e. Saudia Arabia isn't a patriarchy because women can drive now! It would do you both good to realize that "The patriarchy is weakening" isn't the same thing as "There is no patriarchy."

Clearly, numbers matter. You ask me if anything would be different if it were split 50/50 between male and female politicians/lawmakers as a rhetorical question, but your rhetorical question subtly assumes that I'm for tipping the scales in favor of women. Not so. I believe that if feminism was truly successful in changing the way we think about gender, the statistics would speak for themselves. They clearly don't, which speaks volumes. The fact you can accept that status quo and think utterly no difference would be made is baffling.

m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/

There's also some statistics in relation to rape culture that I'd love to share.

Apparently, 1 in 3 men would commit rape if they could get away with it. 43% of college men have admitted to coercive sex. 51% of men and 41% of women thought that rape was alright if money had been spent on the girl.

Read more,

www.uic.edu/debts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

But I imagine you'll find a way to twist the numbers and insist that rapists are just isolated cases of big fat meanies perpetuating random acts of evil.

 

[ellie]

This looks like a pretty convoluted response to what was a fairly simple rebuttal. You can't resist mocking the notion that the U.S. is a patriarchy by claiming society only very so slightly defers to men, when taking into account number, this isn't the case. It's glaringly obvious that males overwhelmingly hold most positions of power. The Federation attempted to counter this by bringing up that females vote more than men, but fails to realize that pointing out x, y, or z place where women aren't being oppressed doesn't mean that society doesn't have males largely in charge of a societal power structure at the expense of women. Or in other words, a patriarchy. A person can theoretically use this tactic to say patriarchy isn't a thing even in the most brutal patriarchies, i.e. Saudia Arabia isn't a patriarchy because women can drive now! It would do you both good to realize that "The patriarchy is weakening" isn't the same thing as "There is no patriarchy."

Clearly, numbers matter. You ask me if anything would be different if it were split 50/50 between male and female politicians/lawmakers as a rhetorical question, but your rhetorical question subtly assumes that I'm for tipping the scales in favor of women. Not so. I believe that if feminism was truly successful in changing the way we think about gender, the statistics would speak for themselves. They clearly don't, which speaks volumes. The fact you can accept that status quo and think utterly no difference would be made is baffling.

m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/

There's also some statistics in relation to rape culture that I'd love to share.

Apparently, 1 in 3 men would commit rape if they could get away with it. 43% of college men have admitted to coercive sex. 51% of men and 41% of women thought that rape was alright if money had been spent on the girl.

Read more,

www.vic.edu/debts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

But I imagine you'll find a way to twist the numbers and insist that rapists are just isolated cases of big fat meanies perpetuating random acts of evil.

while i agree with/like the majority of your post, the vic.edu link you posted leads to a 404 error so you might wanna fix that

 

[The Federation]

The Federation attempted to counter this by bringing up that females vote more than men, but fails to realize that pointing out x, y, or z place where women aren't being oppressed doesn't mean that society doesn't have males largely in charge of a societal power structure at the expense of women. Or in other words, a patriarchy.

The rebuttal was not that women voting more is simply a point against patriarchy, it's proof that either
a), women are electing officials that oppress women and could stop doing so at any given time, or
b), that patriarchy doesn't actually exist as a system that has an effect on our gov't.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear when I explained last time.

A person can theoretically use this tactic to say patriarchy isn't a thing even in the most brutal patriarchies, i.e. Saudia Arabia isn't a patriarchy because women can drive now!

First of all, much of the middle east actually qualifies as a patriarchy because males hold power in the theocratic gov't system and use that power to oppress and harass women. In the U.S. there is no such system. We elect candidates, the common man has the power. If women didn't approve of a candidate, being the majority demographic, they could simply vote him/her out.

Which one of these definitions matches a patriarchy? Or, are you twisting a definition so that feminism can still claim to be oppressed by the dirty male "Patriarchy"?