• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

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

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
And could another cancer patient do that? How would you know whether all cancer patients have the same experiences?

Why would things like gender and cancer somehow be the only relevant properties? Everyone has a unique way of thinking. Under your system, nobody can know for sure what anybody else is experiencing and all similarities are just speculation in their minds. Which is fine per se but you need to use it consistently. It is absurd to say that all women can know how all other women feel but no man can know how any woman feels.

There are certain things that you can olny relate to if you have gone through them. Men don't have to walk down the street constantly worrying if someone is going to yell at them, just because they feel like it. A woman can tell a man all about it, what happened, and all the different emtions she felt, but a man might never *know* what that feels like.

This isn't saying that men and women can never relate on anything, or that two women will relate on everything, but how can two people relate on a thing that is as intrinsucally part of one person's experience as it is NOT part of the other person's?

And we're not talking about a 1:1 equivalence here. The fine details are different, no two experiences are identical, but they are similar enough to be relatable.
 
This isn't saying that men and women can never relate on anything, or that two women will relate on everything, but how can two people relate on a thing that is as intrinsucally part of one person's experience as it is NOT part of the other person's?
They're not. In the end, harassment is harassment, no matter the source or the interpreter. Everyone can feel harassed, everyone can feel awkward, etc etc. These emotions aren't "intrinsically female", and the base experience isn't anything that a normal human being would have trouble empathizing with.

And we're not talking about a 1:1 equivalence here. The fine details are different, no two experiences are identical, but they are similar enough to be relatable.
This is exactly the counterpoint to the position you've held here this whole time. Both genders experience similar emotions.

If one child has never seen ice cream but has felt that sadness of having dropped his popsicle and another child has never seen a popsicle but has dropped his ice cream, the two can relate despite having never shared the experience.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
There are certain things that you can olny relate to if you have gone through them. Men don't have to walk down the street constantly worrying if someone is going to yell at them, just because they feel like it. A woman can tell a man all about it, what happened, and all the different emtions she felt, but a man might never *know* what that feels like.

This isn't saying that men and women can never relate on anything, or that two women will relate on everything, but how can two people relate on a thing that is as intrinsucally part of one person's experience as it is NOT part of the other person's?

And we're not talking about a 1:1 equivalence here. The fine details are different, no two experiences are identical, but they are similar enough to be relatable.
Let me ask you one last time: how have you actually verified that the line between those who can understand and those who can't runs exactly along the line dividing the genders?

Or could it be that the world is not so clear-cut and you need to judge people's ability to understand the feelings of others at an individual level? If you lump all the experiences and feelings related to harassment into two neat piles separated by a wall, it is a poor representation of the diversity of individuals.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
Let me ask you one last time: how have you actually verified that the line between those who can understand and those who can't runs exactly along the line dividing the genders?

I'm bored and have time to kill, so I'll FINALLY respond.

Ok, first of all let's define what the street harassment phenomenon is:

Women find that whenever they are walking alone, or with other women (but rarely if ever with men), random men will start honking, yelling, whistling, making rude gestures, or in more extreme circumstances masturbate at them. This happens independently of time of day or what the woman is wearing. Often times if the woman tries to stand up for herself she will find that the man will get VERY aggressive, insulting her and possibly threatening her. Most of the time if she tries to talk to someone about it (whether man or woman) the response she'll get can either be condensed to either "Oh, that's just how things are." or "What did you do to provoke this reaction?"

Now, the biggest difference between street harassment and regular harassment is that in street harassment it's random people. You could be in California, or New York, go to England, then Canada, or Latin America, random men will still yell at women and harass them, and they will probably never see this person again in their lives.

With regular harassment, at least it's a specific person/group of people, and if need be, you can run away from them.

So basically what I'm saying is:

Prove that men *as a group* go through what I've outlined above. And I'm not talking about your pseudo-philosophical "Well men could go through it too. Every ones experiences are either completely unique with no similarities or completely identical." If you think that women don't face constant street harassment, look it up on google.

So, unless you can prove that men as a group have to put up with street harassment in the same way, then stop saying that men can relate to women on that, because they can't.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
Prove that men *as a group* go through what I've outlined above.
So, unless you can prove that men as a group have to put up with street harassment in the same way, then stop saying that men can relate to women on that, because they can't.
Why should we examine men as a unitary group if we are talking about whether individual men can relate to individual women?


Also, what people can experience in their minds is not limited to what they directly experience with their senses. People have this thing called imagination with which they can postulate things they have not directly experienced with their senses. It's a pretty important part of understanding other people because we can't look directly inside their minds. If we have experienced something vaguely similar, we can make an enlightened guess on what other, slightly different experiences feel like.


You said earlier:
Blazekickblaziken said:
There are certain things that you can olny relate to if you have gone through them.
But how could you possibly know this? If you can't look inside people's minds, how did you verify whether they can relate or not? Indirectly through people's description? But if people's descriptions are accurate, then why would men saying, "I can understand what women are going through," be less reliable than women saying the same thing?

This is particularly ridiculous considering that you said men can't truly understand through description what women experience. Then how did you as a man come to learn that women understand what other women experience? There are two ways I can see.

1) You observed women and their descriptions. You understood their experiences and ways of understanding. Then you compared their experiences and ways of understanding and noticed that women accurately understand what other women experience.

But this is impossible according to you because you are a man and men can't understand.

2) You heard women say that they can understand the experiences of other women.

But how do you know they are not mistaken? Only by assuming that women can understand what other women experience, but this is what you set out to verify in the first place, so it is circular reasoning.

Women understand what other women experience. → The testimony of women on other women's experience is reliable.

The testimony of women on other women's experience is reliable. → Women understand what other women experience.


In summary, you are just dogmatically assuming that women experience things similarly while men always experience things differently than women.

If a woman says, "I can understand what women are going through," you automatically assume it is correct.

If a man says, "I can understand what women are going through," you automatically assume it is incorrect.

But where's the proof of that? What is your empirical methodology for verifying it?


And I'm not talking about your pseudo-philosophical "Well men could go through it too. Every ones experiences are either completely unique with no similarities or completely identical."
I never said they are either completely different or completely identical. I said that the similarities and differences depend on a wide variety of factors, not just physical gender. They need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

You're the one who said that women always experience things similarly, while men never experience things like women. That is an incredibly strict statement with a heavy burden of proof. Have you really checked the minds of every man and woman for this? What is your empirical methodology for verifying it?


If you think that women don't face constant street harassment, look it up on google.
I never said women don't face street harassment. Whether it is constant depends on the criteria.
 
Last edited:
Prove that men *as a group* go through what I've outlined above. And I'm not talking about your pseudo-philosophical "Well men could go through it too. Every ones experiences are either completely unique with no similarities or completely identical."
I think the quoted part is more your stance than his or anyone's. People can relate to experiences despite never having experienced them, so long as the experience isn't so far out of the norm the relation to it would be impossible. In this case, it's completely relatable to understand how women might feel under these circumstances. In your cancer analogy, you can't possibly expect to relate to it entirely because it's so far out of the realm of any experience that most people have ever had that it can't be completely understood just through analysis.

Anyone who has ever been harassed can relate to these women. You prove this is true by placing a moral weight on the actions taken, don't you? You couldn't possibly call it immoral if you weren't able to relate to it.

So, unless you can prove that men as a group have to put up with street harassment in the same way, then stop saying that men can relate to women on that, because they can't.
I don't know about you, but I can sympathize, relate, and understand their problems. If you claim no one can, then you clearly can't. Since you can't, bothering yourself by claiming something you could never understand is a problem is both dishonest and intellectually foolhardy. It almost seems like you're trying to exclude men from criticizing the movement by merit of their gender.
 
I identify as a feminist and someone very passionate about social justice in general, however if I were to make any critique it wouldn't be that the premises behind feminism are faulty, but that social justice majors in general are aggressive and dogmatic as ****, and they take concepts that they barely understand fresh out of college and dump them onto their tumblr where they are ripe targets for mysogynists and racists to strawman and blow up into a vocal minority, ala the amazing atheist if you happen to have the misfortune to be familiar with that internet personality.

I once read someone say, and I don't lie, that gay men were oppressing black people by saying they have an "inner sassy black woman" which creates a caricature that is offensive and dehumanizing. (Cue someone that's actually going to take me up on that point) but these nonsensical applications don't exist in a vacuum. They're pervasive.
 

arized

#hsb
an "inner sassy black woman" which creates a caricature that is offensive and dehumanizing.

Seems right to me. Why does someone have to act like a member of another race? Especially reducing members of a specific race and gender to such a rude exaggeration for which they are mocked.
 
Last edited:

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
You're the one who said that women always experience things similarly, while men never experience things like women. That is an incredibly strict statement with a heavy burden of proof. Have you really checked the minds of every man and woman for this? What is your empirical methodology for verifying it?

Ok, here is what my position into neat little points.

1) There are somethings that you can only ever know what it feels like if you go through it.

2) There are certain experiences that are unique to the female experience.

3) A man can't know* what going through female only experiences is like, because he's not female

4) Women can relate to each other regarding (specifically) female only experiences because they have both gone through them because they are female

*A man can empathize and understand that the experience causes certain emotions, but this is not the same as knowing in this context. Which I get can confuse the issue a little bit since we're talking about two different meanings of the same word.

I once read someone say, and I don't lie, that gay men were oppressing black people by saying they have an "inner sassy black woman" which creates a caricature that is offensive and dehumanizing. (Cue someone that's actually going to take me up on that point) but these nonsensical applications don't exist in a vacuum. They're pervasive.

While agree with the point you're making, I feel your example is weak. Maybe oppression (probably a better word would be appropriation of black culture... or stereotype?) is a strong word to use in that aspect, but it's still generally true. Especially when you consider the fact that the "Sassy black woman" is a more acceptable version of "The angry black man".

On a different note. I saw one of those "hilarious" over protective dad memes on facebook and it got me thinking about how creepy the whole overprotective dad trope is. I mean sure, there's the whole "a daughter is her father's property until she gets married and then she is her husband's property" thing going on.

But more than that, it just skeeves me out when parents become *that* invested in their child's sexuality. It's (almost) like they're claiming ownership over their daugther's sexuality (specifically I mean) and that's just weird. Why would you want your daughter's sexuaity, it's kind of incestuous.

Not to mention, it kind of works under the assumption that women only ever have sex because men want it, not because women want it. Which is ridiculous.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
I identify as a feminist and someone very passionate about social justice in general, however if I were to make any critique it wouldn't be that the premises behind feminism are faulty, but that social justice majors in general are aggressive and dogmatic as ****, and they take concepts that they barely understand fresh out of college and dump them onto their tumblr where they are ripe targets for mysogynists and racists to strawman and blow up into a vocal minority, ala the amazing atheist if you happen to have the misfortune to be familiar with that internet personality.

It doesn't help when there are people that seriously belive this:

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.
 
1) There are somethings that you can only ever know what it feels like if you go through it.
True, but most if not all experiences can be empathized with at some level, and gender doesn't change this.

2) There are certain experiences that are unique to the female experience.
This changes men's ability to understand how? Once again, if men can't understand, neither can you, so you would be a hypocrite to say you can make a moral judgment on the issue. You clearly believe men can understand what women are going through, and to go this far to invalidate men's views shows just how weak your position on this subject really is.

3) A man can't know* what going through female only experiences is like, because he's not female
Philosophically, neither a man nor a woman has any special insight into their peers' thoughts. We can't "know" what others feel, only empathize at certain levels.

4) Women can relate to each other regarding (specifically) female only experiences because they have both gone through them because they are female
No doubt they can relate more, but that doesn't mean men can't relate at all. You have failed to prove this time and time again, both on my request and Aegis's.

*A man can empathize and understand that the experience causes certain emotions, but this is not the same as knowing in this context. Which I get can confuse the issue a little bit since we're talking about two different meanings of the same word.
It's not two definitions, but one that you are purposely skewing to exclude men. Get over the idea that men can't have an opinion on women's issues simply because they can't relate to the exact scenario (which I would hasten to add no one really can).
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
True, but most if not all experiences can be empathized with at some level, and gender doesn't change this.


This changes men's ability to understand how? Once again, if men can't understand, neither can you, so you would be a hypocrite to say you can make a moral judgment on the issue. You clearly believe men can understand what women are going through, and to go this far to invalidate men's views shows just how weak your position on this subject really is.


Philosophically, neither a man nor a woman has any special insight into their peers' thoughts. We can't "know" what others feel, only empathize at certain levels.


No doubt they can relate more, but that doesn't mean men can't relate at all. You have failed to prove this time and time again, both on my request and Aegis's.


It's not two definitions, but one that you are purposely skewing to exclude men. Get over the idea that men can't have an opinion on women's issues simply because they can't relate to the exact scenario (which I would hasten to add no one really can).

1) Of course you can empathise, empathy is recognizing other people's feelings. But empathy only goes so far.

2) Somethings are as intrinsically part of the female experience as they are intrinsically not part of the male experience. You can recognize that they exist and understand that they make people feel a certain way (this is what is known as empathy). However this is not the same thing as *knowing* what certain experience is like. You should never claim to know what an experience is like unless you actually know what it's like, because it's a mix a of dismissive and patronizing and just serves to alienate people.

3) This isn't about philosopically whether anyone can "truly relate" to anyone. This is about similar experiences being similar and dissimilar experiences being dissimilar.

4) My argument is that men can certainly empathize (that is acknowledge and recognize their feelings) but they can't relate.

Get over the idea that men can't have an opinion on women's issues simply because they can't relate to the exact scenario (which I would hasten to add no one really can).

This isn't about exactitude, this is about similarity.

As I said above, similar experiences are similar, dissimilar experiences are dissimilar. Men do not go through anything similar to street harassment so therefore they cannot relate, only empathize. Now I am not saying that men can't have an opinion on women's issues, I'm just saying that they are severely disadvantaged in being knowledgeable in the female experience because it is a completely different experience. Also as a man you have to be aware that your opinion comes from a place of "not knowing" so obviously it might not be as applicable as you think it is. i.e. That conversation we had a few pages back about dressing less revealingly so as not to get harassed. Men seem to think that the harassment is about how revealingly women are dressed even though women keep saying that no, dress doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
If men can't understand women and women can't understand men, discussing gender is a completely pointless endeavor. In fact, you should never discuss a group that doesn't include you. We need to add a disclosure to some of the debates to tell who can post in it. " Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century" should only have LGB members and politicians. "Minimum Wage: Who needs a comfortable life anyway?" should only have poor people. "United States Gun Control: Let's fight fire with fire!" should only have people who want to shoot others.

Do you see how absurd that is?
 
1) Of course you can empathise, empathy is recognizing other people's feelings. But empathy only goes so far.
Far enough to rationally examine and make conclusive decisions regarding the effects of "intrinsically female" experiences as a male? Or are you just saying this to sound reasonable?

2) Somethings are as intrinsically part of the female experience as they are intrinsically not part of the male experience. You can recognize that they exist and understand that they make people feel a certain way (this is what is known as empathy). However this is not the same thing as *knowing* what certain experience is like.
Is there any reason why any given person can't understand? You say that anyone can understand the effects of how certain actions make people feel.

3) This isn't about philosopically whether anyone can "truly relate" to anyone. This is about similar experiences being similar and dissimilar experiences being dissimilar.
Then the entire argument falls on your end. Even the most "intrinsically female" experience can be understood by a male, which you and I prove by acknowledging sexism is disgusting.

4) My argument is that men can certainly empathize (that is acknowledge and recognize their feelings) but they can't relate.
Then you misunderstand the definition of empathy.

em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\
: the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings
No one has shared an exact experience with another, ever. That experience is "intrinsic" to them. We can only relate by understanding similar experiences, and almost any emotional experience can be shared simply by imagining hypotheticals. Exclusionary tactics like this serve no one.

This isn't about exactitude, this is about similarity.
Wait, so are you saying that females (and only females)can understand one another's problems, and that isn't a perfect example of exactitude? Men can share similar experiences. Even if men had no way to share experiences, there would still be a level of empathy which would allow input.

As I said above, similar experiences are similar, dissimilar experiences are dissimilar. Men do not go through anything similar to street harassment so therefore they cannot relate, only empathize.
Webster disagrees with this distinction, but ok.

Now I am not saying that men can't have an opinion on women's issues, I'm just saying that they are severely disadvantaged in being knowledgeable in the female experience because it is a completely different experience. Also as a man you have to be aware that your opinion comes from a place of "not knowing" so obviously it might not be as applicable as you think it is.
So as a male, I can go ahead and claim that men are disadvantaged and the only ones who can truly disagree would be men? Really? Even men that may have never suffered anything in their lives?

Wrong. At any level of empathy beyond "I wish I experienced something remotely similar", you can make judgments. Not perfect judgments; no one can, like I said before.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
If men can't understand women and women can't understand men, discussing gender is a completely pointless endeavor. In fact, you should never discuss a group that doesn't include you. We need to add a disclosure to some of the debates to tell who can post in it. " Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century" should only have LGB members and politicians. "Minimum Wage: Who needs a comfortable life anyway?" should only have poor people. "United States Gun Control: Let's fight fire with fire!" should only have people who want to shoot others.

Do you see how absurd that is?

Not what I'm saying. At. All.

What I'm saying is that if you aren't part of the oppressed group, you have to be aware of your lack of firsthand experience.

For example of something outside of feminism:

If you aren't gay, you might think the solution to gay discrimination is for gay people to act less stereotypically gay. But you aren't aware of the fact that when you are growing up gay, the only visible gay rolemodels you have are flamboyantly gay men. You aren't aware that society is constantly telling you that *THIS* is how gay men act, so therefore if you're gay, you should act that way.

If you're white, you might not understand what growing up hearing "you don't have good hair"(or in my case, "you don't have white hair") is, and all it implies. So you don't understand why it might rub a person who isn't white the wrong way when you harmlessly ask them why they don't straighten their hair.

The point is, when you don't have first hand experience being part of an oppressed group, you need to be aware that you need to do much more listening than you do talking and that you shouldn't argue with someone of that group about their experiences because you don't know what it's like.
 
Not what I'm saying. At. All.
No? Just insinuating it?

Saying that people who haven't experienced something just can't truly make a comment on the subject is essentially saying that we should keep discussions about discrimination exclusive to those who are being discriminated against. After all, what can people who haven't had first hand experience really add, being ignorant and all?
 

arized

#hsb
I'm fairly certain that the point being made is that you cannot comment from a woman's point of view if you are not a woman. You may understand the issue and/or empathise (or not) but you won't understand what it is like to live their experience. This is a really basic comment that can be said for any one person that is not yourself, but that seems to be disregarded when talking about another gender or another race.

If you are not the party being oppressed and you offer a solution to end the oppression that is not expressly agreed from the point of view of the oppressed then you are actually just another oppressor. If you are not the victim then you should be listening.
 
I'm fairly certain that the point being made is that you cannot comment from a woman's point of view if you are not a woman.
I hope you are right. It almost seems like he's saying men are less capable of commenting on women's rights issues because they haven't had some of the female-only experiences, despite the fact that it's absolutely possible to understand the issues in question.
 

arized

#hsb
I hope you are right. It almost seems like he's saying men are less capable of commenting on women's rights issues because they haven't had some of the female-only experiences, despite the fact that it's absolutely possible to understand the issues in question.

Men are certainly less capable of commenting on the female-only experiences unless the comment is made with express knowledge gained from a female. [Some] Men understand that women face street harassment. Men don't, however, understand what it's like to face and live with street harassment from a woman's experience.

Blaziken is basically saying a typical solution from men is "wear less revealing clothing." Men should find this as offensive as women do, but, for different reasons. This shifts the blame onto the women who are receiving harassment unwillingly. This also oppresses women and says that they cannot make a choice because men will harass them and endanger them. This statement also assumes that men are incapable of self-restraint or self-moderation in the face of temptation which is a heavy-handed insult to men.

Sometimes, men do not understand that this is oppressive to women because they see that this remedies the harassment. If women don't wear revealing clothing in public, then men won't harass them (which actually isn't true. Women are harassed for being women.), but, again, this oppresses women from having the freedom to make choices. Men should just be taught not to harass women -- and, yes, taught, because some do not learn unless explicitly told.

Hopefully, the dichotomy of why that statement is offensive helps to illustrate better what it means to comment on sex-specific issues from viewpoints of either sex. Gender issues are very complex. Another brief example is that women's reasons for [supporting] abortion are often different from men's simply because they have different concerns as they experience the issue from different sides.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Not what I'm saying. At. All.

What I'm saying is that if you aren't part of the oppressed group, you have to be aware of your lack of firsthand experience.

For example of something outside of feminism:

If you aren't gay, you might think the solution to gay discrimination is for gay people to act less stereotypically gay. But you aren't aware of the fact that when you are growing up gay, the only visible gay rolemodels you have are flamboyantly gay men. You aren't aware that society is constantly telling you that *THIS* is how gay men act, so therefore if you're gay, you should act that way.

If you're white, you might not understand what growing up hearing "you don't have good hair"(or in my case, "you don't have white hair") is, and all it implies. So you don't understand why it might rub a person who isn't white the wrong way when you harmlessly ask them why they don't straighten their hair.

The point is, when you don't have first hand experience being part of an oppressed group, you need to be aware that you need to do much more listening than you do talking and that you shouldn't argue with someone of that group about their experiences because you don't know what it's like.
Those examples you gave kind of go against your point. Even though you are straight, you understand that gay people to act less stereotypically gay is not a solution. Even though you are white you understood why it might rub a person who isn't white the wrong way when you harmlessly ask them why they don't straighten their hair. I'm not white, so I don't know what you were talking about in your hair example.

Even though I'm not a woman, I still have a general idea of what it's like.
 
Top