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

[Buttons]

Errr... no one is talking about rape right now. So I'm not sure what your indignant fury is all about.

I read the title of the thread into the vague 'expierence' that all the posts were refering to. Thought the current convo was related the the point of the thread.

men just need to actually inform themselves before participating because they have no idea what it's like being a woman.

Men and women need to actually inform themselves. Neither sex can 100% know what its like being from the opposite, thats kind of something that doesn't really need to be said. What we can connect on is the overall expierence of both genders and then we can get into speciffics of how to improve the lives/expierences of each individual person regardless of gender.

Or am I just overthinking the fact that people are people and shouldn't be steriotyped into gender roles?

 

[Aegiscalibur]

For the sake of clarity, let's write out our different views. My view is this:

Some men can understand what some women feel.
Some men can understand what some men feel.
Some women can understand what some women feel.
Some women can understand what some men feel.


While the opposing view is that:

All women can understand what any woman feels.
No man can understand what any woman feels.

And for consistency, I assume they also think that:

All men can understand what any man feels.
No woman can understand what any man feels.


The latter view has the burden of proof because it is making a very harsh statement. It is stating that physical gender is an absolute requirement for understanding and physical gender also gives understanding with absolute certainty.

But I have yet to hear of any empirical evidence of this, or even any methodology for obtaining the evidence. I asked Blazekickblaziken for it but didn't get any.

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

@Buttons
Please read the last few pages of posts. I'm not sure you know what anyone is talking about.

Also while I agree 100% that we shouldn't confine people into out dated gender roles, we also have to acknowledge that fact that they still exist and the influence they exert on everyone.


@Aegiscalibur

No one is arguing that men can understand a woman's experience as an individual. The argument is that there are certain experiences that are exclusively female. Therefore a man can NEVER understand these specific experiences to the same level a woman can, because he has no first hand experiences.

Now, if you assume that all of a woman's experiences are uniquely female (that is to say, experienced specifically because she is a woman) then that's another, equally wrong, story.

 

[arized]

For the sake of clarity, let's write out our different views. My view is this:

Some men can understand what some women feel.
Some men can understand what some men feel.
Some women can understand what some women feel.
Some women can understand what some men feel.

This would [pretty close to] be mine, as well, because psychological experiences are so complex an nuanced even to an individual level. You can only really understand what is a shared part of a living experience.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

No one is arguing that men can understand a woman's experience as an individual. The argument is that there are certain experiences that are exclusively female. Therefore a man can NEVER understand these specific experiences to the same level a woman can, because he has no first hand experiences.

What is debated here is not whether men have literally experienced the same things as women have. Every person only experiences first-hand what he experiences himself or herself. Even women are unable to experience first-hand what other women experience because they are separate individuals.

The question here is the criteria for people understanding each other's experiences in the way anyone understands anyone else's thoughts in the first place, same gender or not.

Therefore, I was asking for empirical proof of the link between facing discrimination first-hand and understanding the experiences of people who face discrimination. Do you have empirical proof that only women have this understanding?

This would [pretty close to] be mine, as well, because psychological experiences are so complex an nuanced even to an individual level. You can only really understand what is a shared part of a living experience.

Then shouldn't you judge people as individuals instead of strictly grouping them into experts and non-experts based on physical gender?

 

[arized]

Then shouldn't you judge people as individuals instead of strictly grouping them into experts and non-experts based on physical gender?

That is certainly the case when it applies. Gender is a vital aspect in gender-specific experiences. It is literally everything because it is the fundamental basis of that experience.

I think your use of the word expert is a bit strange, however. I would say that a friend of mine that works for Rape Victim Advocates and has a major in Women's Studies is more of an expert than a survivor of an attack. There is no doubt that one has certainly lived what the other has not & so one has an experience that the other cannot begin to understand. However, it is his expertise that can lead the survivor to wellness. Surviving an attack does not give you any sort of skill or (useful) knowledge other than what that experience is like.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

That is certainly the case when it applies. Gender is a vital aspect in gender-specific experiences. It is literally everything because it is the fundamental basis of that experience.

I think your use of the word expert is a bit strange, however. I would say that a friend of mine that works for Rape Victim Advocates and has a major in Women's Studies is more of an expert than a survivor of an attack. There is no doubt that one has certainly lived what the other has not & so one has an experience that the other cannot begin to understand. However, it is his expertise that can lead the survivor to wellness. Surviving an attack does not give you any sort of skill or (useful) knowledge other than what that experience is like.

Then why would a man's argument on discrimination against women be incorrect if it does not hinge on first-hand experience? If a man has understood discrimination against women through means other than first-hand experience, his arguments are not invalid because of properties irrelevant to the argument, such as first-hand experience.

You said earlier:

You are as qualified as your knowledge and experience. So, if you have not experienced something, then you are clearly less qualified. If you receive knowledge from someone that has experience, you are less qualified than them because, while you have the same knowledge, you lack the same experience.

For gender-related issues, you are innately qualified based upon your gender. As a woman, you know what it's like to live as a woman every day. As a man, so do you about everyday life as a man. When exchanging information about these life experiences, you only comprehend what you have decoded from their message about that discrete experience. You don't really understand what it is to live as a woman.

If you are a woman speaking about women's issues, then you are certainly more qualified than a man speaking about those issues. As a man speaking about women's issues, it should be more like asking "will this help?" instead of saying "this will help". You don't know for certain and you will never experience it, so, it is right to ask those that do. If a man spoke against gender oppression, they should ask, "Is this oppression? Is this a solution?" They should not simply speak their thoughts as if they are fact and offer a solution. That is actually another method of oppression. This is different for textbook knowledge, but, gender is very complex, so I would tread lightly.

This is underestimating the human capability for rationally understanding things beyond first-hand experience. If first-hand experience was the only means of attaining information, we might as well shut down the whole debate forum because nobody would be capable of knowing anything beyond their direct sensual inputs.

If a man makes an argument about discrimination against women in which he by no means relies on first-hand experience, it is a logical fallacy to dismiss it on the grounds of lacking first-hand experience. For example, if there are certain criteria for using the word "oppression" correctly, anyone who understands the criteria is capable of analyzing whether something is oppression, regardless of irrelevant properties such as first-hand experience.

 

[arized]

Then why would a man's argument on discrimination against women be incorrect if it does not hinge on first-hand experience?

I don't think I said it was incorrect. If I did, that was my mistake, but I think it's clear in the two posts you quote that I say someone is less qualified when they lack knowledge and/or the living experience. Not incorrect, but, under-qualified.

Certainly, anyone that understands what oppression means should understand whether or not something is oppression. Still, some do not. That is also because of their knowledge and living experience.

 

[John Madden]

No one is arguing that men can understand a woman's experience as an individual. The argument is that there are certain experiences that are exclusively female. Therefore a man can NEVER understand these specific experiences to the same level a woman can, because he has no first hand experiences.

more specifically, and to shy away from gender-binary language: there are certain experiences that are exclusively "feminine" and certain experiences that are exclusively "masculine", such that cisgendered people adhering to socialized gender roles as most people actually do will never understand those specific experiences in a way that someone of a different gender can, because the perspective from which they live life renders it extremely unlikely, if not completely impossible.

Then why would a man's argument on discrimination against women be incorrect if it does not hinge on first-hand experience? If a man has understood discrimination against women through means other than first-hand experience, his arguments are not invalid because of properties irrelevant to the argument, such as first-hand experience.

absolutely no one in this thread is arguing that a [masculine] man's argument on discrimination is "incorrect", we're arguing that it's going to be less reliable given that he's less likely to have experienced said discrimination firsthand - he will be a secondary source at best. there is a very real non-semantic difference in phrasing there that you don't seem to be comprehending.

 

[EmphaticPikachu]

Just poking around the front page here (have my pages set up so the last displayes first) and it seems like none of you have actually been raped. Trust me its not something you go around arguing about prespectives on. It is something that needs to be stopped in its tracks.

I might be able to vouch for at least huge sexual harassment, if not rape (I don't think it counts as it because there was no penetration (though he tried...he tried really damn hard. I just would not let him in cause I was too scared of what might happen to me...) and the opposer gave up in the end once he had "cummed" (I was surprised he gave up...)...Then I ran far far away and never came anywhere near that guy. (Hiding in the bathroom at school, woooo, works everytime!)

I haven't commented much I guess but I think you're a little to into that rage. I've at least experienced something very close to it.

This is really good time to ask this I guess. It's a bit personal but...It's related to rape in general. Took me a while to be able to bring such a debate up because last time I was furiously disassembled by wall of texts...


How much of a trigger word is rape? I don't know, maybe I just sucked it up and dealt with it better then others, maybe it's because I managed to eventually escape from that, but in my experience the word "rape" does not trigger anything much from me. If a girl is pregnant sure, I can understand it and wouldn't say anything about it, but if they're not, I just don't get it mentally. It doesn't upset me that other people use that word...

I'm just curious because I've been attacked for my unwillingness to avoid the word rape when a chance for a joke about it came along. In fact having people go on self-righteous rants about how I'm so horrible for such a thing pisses me off way more then anybody saying the word. Lastly, saying it's because I don't know what it feels like is for the most part, incorrect.

Are there studies linked to trigger words that I can read? It would be a lot more helpful then getting wall of text'd about how I'm a horrible human being for saying the word rape.

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

@EmpathicPikachu

I suppose how triggering the word "rape" is depends on the context in which it was said, how it was used, and the individual in question.

What I mean is:

Someone who was raped years ago and got adequate help listening to a conversation regarding rape

Is a very different situation from

Someone who was raped recently, hasn't gotten help and is hearing two people argue and one of them yell to the other "I hope you get raped" (ok, terrible example, but I hope you get my point.)

As far as rape jokes go, In my opinion you have to be very careful with them. They can be done right (the wanda sykes joke about leaving her vagina at home, Ever Mainard's joke about how every woman is taught to fear rape to the point where they wait for their own rape to happen.) But they can very, very easily be done wrong (Tosh.O's rape "joke").

Also, while I'm not sure what you went through is rape, it is definitely sexual assault. (Not harrasment)

 

[Aegiscalibur]

absolutely no one in this thread is arguing that a [masculine] man's argument on discrimination is "incorrect", we're arguing that it's going to be less reliable given that he's less likely to have experienced said discrimination firsthand - he will be a secondary source at best. there is a very real non-semantic difference in phrasing there that you don't seem to be comprehending.

Even if you replace "incorrect" with "less reliable," my point still stands. Why would a man's argument be less reliable if it isn't relying on first-hand experience in any way? For a man's argument to be less reliable, there would have to be a logical connection between first-hand experience and the argument.

For example, if a man and a woman are in an argument over statistical data or feminist terminology (something repeatedly done in this thread), how does having first-hand experience on discrimination make any difference if neither side is relying on it? The capability to perform the analysis depends on the person's capability for reasoning, not first-hand experience on discrimination, and if there are flaws in the person's capability for reasoning that affect the argument, they will be visible in the argument itself.



Why do you so often try to judge whether an argument is correct based on the qualities of the person instead of the argument itself? Your reasoning is constantly relying on the gender, scientific degree, or other property of the person stating the argument when you should be focusing on the argument itself.

Now, it is entirely possible that some groups have a statistically lower chance of being correct in some arguments, but it doesn't mean we should be biased against their arguments or dismiss them off-hand.

For example, if I were to dig up some statistical fact that women are on average less capable at some field and use it as a blunt instrument to arbitrarily undermine their arguments, people would be outraged and rightfully so. This should not be done against men either.

An important part of treating people equally is judging them as individuals and not as average members of their groups. Your tendency to argue against the person rather than the argument goes against that.

 

[The Federation]

You're still not making any sense. How can men be equally qualified about things they cannot experience? Maybe if a women doesn't experience them, then she's as qualified as a man?

By qualification, I mean ability to speak with understanding of a topic. Both can understand the situation well enough to be equally qualified in making an observation about the effects of an action. Women are, of course, more qualified in making observations about the nature of the action. That's about as specific and clear as it gets.

No one is arguing that men can understand a woman's experience as an individual. The argument is that there are certain experiences that are exclusively female. Therefore a man can NEVER understand these specific experiences to the same level a woman can, because he has no first hand experiences.

He can, however, understand well enough to form valid opinions and reasonable thought processes, to the level that most observations are equally as valid coming from a man as the come from a woman.

 

[John Madden]

Why would a man's argument be less reliable if it isn't relying on first-hand experience in any way?

Why are you automatically presuming that first-hand experience cannot be relevant to a feminist debate?

Why do you so often try to judge whether an argument is correct based on the qualities of the person instead of the argument itself?

You are habitually misunderstanding the tone and content of my posts on this board - I am not judging whether an argument is correct on personal bases, I am trying to judge whether a person's arguments are likely to be reliable on personal bases, and generally will non-facetiously respond if there is no major mitigating factor. The factual basis of their argument will generally speak for itself in the responses of everyone 'debating' against them - if, of course, their argument has factual basis and isn't just a self-masturbatory exercise equivalent to a college 'philosophy 101' class.

An important part of treating people equally is judging them as individuals and not as average members of their groups.

And unless a cisgendered man is so substantially genderqueer that he can no longer call himself cisgendered, the individual will not be far enough from the average member of the group so as to render their argumentation on trans* issues as reliable as someone who's actually trans* - if that's a non-controversial position to take, why then is it controversial when applied to the gender binary and by extension, feminism?

 

[Kiruria]

@Buttons
Please read the last few pages of posts. I'm not sure you know what anyone is talking about.

Actually, if you think about it, what Buttons had to say ties in perfectly to what has been recently discussed. The recent discussion was, in a nutshell, about whether people who aren't female are able to truly understand the situation of those who are. Buttons' rape talk emphasized the inability of people who haven't been raped to fully understand the situation of those who have. You see? The two topics ultimately boil down to the same type of thing: the inability of one group of people to fully understand the situation of a group of very different people. And both conversations tie in with the main topic of the thread: feminism (expanded to include gender roles) and rape-related stuff.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

You are habitually misunderstanding the tone and content of my posts on this board - I am not judging whether an argument is correct on personal bases, I am trying to judge whether a person's arguments are likely to be reliable on personal bases, and generally will non-facetiously respond if there is no major mitigating factor.

What do you think the point of a debate is? Is it

a) Trying to determine which side has the correct argument

or

b) Analyzing the people involved for tangentially related group properties that do not provide conclusive evidence of which side has the correct argument?

What has happened in this thread is that people are doing b) but act as though they are doing a). Gender is used as a blunt instrument to try to undermine men's arguments without actually presenting proper counterarguments.

Would it be possible to show that some group is less likely to be correct in some arguments aka be less reliable at them? Possibly, even though it can be hard to measure empirically in some cases. But this in no way shows that an individual among that group is less reliable or that his specific argument is incorrect. The latter is kind of what debates are all about.

And unless a cisgendered man is so substantially genderqueer that he can no longer call himself cisgendered, the individual will not be far enough from the average member of the group so as to render their argumentation on trans* issues as reliable as someone who's actually trans* - if that's a non-controversial position to take, why then is it controversial when applied to the gender binary and by extension, feminism?

It is equally silly in the other example. You should look into the actual arguments.

Why are you automatically presuming that first-hand experience cannot be relevant to a feminist debate?

The burden of showing the logical connection is on the one whose counterargument hinges on it. Or what, are you saying anyone can rely in a debate on any tangentially related property that may or may not have any connection? Imagine a math debate where people try to show each other's calculations wrong by citing statistics on which groups are best at math. It's ludicrous.

The factual basis of their argument will generally speak for itself in the responses of everyone 'debating' against them - if, of course, their argument has factual basis and isn't just a self-masturbatory exercise equivalent to a college 'philosophy 101' class.

Yes, insulting the other party always speaks for the quality of argumentation. Why bother with actual counterarguments?

I still haven't seen that empirical proof of men's arguments being unreliable, either. This is all the semantical argumentation you dislike.

 

[John Madden]

What do you think the point of a debate is?

In the real world? To determine if a correct argument exists for a given issue, and to determine who in that debate has it.
On this forum? To show off to everyone all the cute buzzwords and concepts you learned in undergraduate philosophy.

Imagine a math debate where people try to show each other's calculations wrong by citing statistics on which groups are best at math. It's ludicrous.

No, I'm pretty sure what's ludicrous are the following:

• analogizing a hypothetical debate where both sides will have the relevant background to contribute meaningfully to discussion to a real debate where one side will not have meaningfully experienced situations such as denial of bodily autonomy, street harassment, and (except for racial minorities, though in this case minority women will still get the worst part of it) employment discrimination
• your insistence that in the latter debate, failure to experience those situations doesn't impact the veracity of argumentation from that side in any way
• your insistence, further, that I should consider the possibility (in determining said veracity) that a white cisgendered male has been denied the right to medically induce a natural process in his body because of state and/or federal legislation, that a white cisgendered male has experienced sexual assault and/or harassment in public solely because of his gender, and/or that a white cisgendered male has seen his performance scrutinized harder (or his wages raised less) than his co-workers based solely on difference of gender, just to give one example of each situation
• your failure to consider that perhaps the fact-based content has already been scrutinized in depth by myself and every other like-minded poster over the course of the more than 110,000 posts on this forum (certainly in the approximately 5,000 posts of women-centric threads on this forum), such that this examination is the only thing [not enforced by staff] keeping the entire forum from becoming an infinite loop of BigLutz vs. Maedar
• your definite insistence that the ability to sympathize (examples not already given: women with men regarding how painful it is to get kicked in the balls, men with women regarding how painful menstrual cramps are) is semantically equivalent to the ability to experience
• your continued insistence that all arguments are created equal, everything that might make them unequal based on the veracity of the previous point be damned because you want to win internet points on a Pokemon forum

What's somewhat less ludicrous but still kind of hilarious:

• your implication that all anyone ever does on this forum is "examining the person" and that apparently, no one except you ever makes fact-based counterarguments

Yes, insulting the other party always speaks for the quality of argumentation.

Once again, you misunderstand: the only party I'm insulting here is you.

 

[The Federation]

On this forum? To show off to everyone all the cute buzzwords and concepts you learned in undergraduate philosophy.

I find some people enjoy inflating their ego by subtly and personally attacking those they disagree with every chance they get.

analogizing a hypothetical debate where both sides will have the relevant background to contribute meaningfully to discussion to a real debate where one side will not have meaningfully experienced situations such as denial of bodily autonomy, street harassment, and (except for racial minorities, though in this case minority women will still get the worst part of it) employment discrimination

If you can show why this makes men less able to make pertinent and logical observations on the subject that would be great. Racial issues can't be understood by outsiders, but I doubt you would argue that that makes the discussion from non-insiders invalid. Further, while men (or a race outside of the group, for consistency,) can't understand an experience directly, we very clearly can understand well enough to relate.

your definite insistence that the ability to sympathize (examples not already given: women with men regarding how painful it is to get kicked in the balls, men with women regarding how painful menstrual cramps are) is semantically equivalent to the ability to experience

I don't think this is what anyone is suggesting. The point being made is something along the lines of "direct experience isn't necessary if you are able to intimately relate with similar concepts and their repercussions". Being able to sympathize shows the ability to understand, morally and ethically, what is going on and allows a rational individual to help solve the problem.

Don't overinflate your e-ego.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

No, I'm pretty sure what's ludicrous are the following:

• analogizing a hypothetical debate where both sides will have the relevant background to contribute meaningfully to discussion to a real debate where one side will not have meaningfully experienced situations such as denial of bodily autonomy, street harassment, and (except for racial minorities, though in this case minority women will still get the worst part of it) employment discrimination
• your insistence that in the latter debate, failure to experience those situations doesn't impact the veracity of argumentation from that side in any way

• I have an idea. If you think that the lack of first-hand experience has an impact on the soundness of an argument, you could simply show which premises in the argument are false or which logical steps are incorrect. It should be a task easy enough. That way you could easily prove your points in every situation in which the opposing argument is unsound, instead of appealing to nebulous and speculative psychological analysis of your debate opponents that does not address any specific argument.
  
  

  your failure to consider that perhaps the fact-based content has already been scrutinized in depth by myself and every other like-minded poster over the course of the more than 110,000 posts on this forum (certainly in the approximately 5,000 posts of women-centric threads on this forum)

  I never doubted that it has been scrutinized; I was only doubting whether it has been scrutinized correctly.
  
  

  your definite insistence that the ability to sympathize (examples not already given: women with men regarding how painful it is to get kicked in the balls, men with women regarding how painful menstrual cramps are) is semantically equivalent to the ability to experience

  I never said that. Recall this, for example:

  What is debated here is not whether men have literally experienced the same things as women have. Every person only experiences first-hand what he experiences himself or herself. Even women are unable to experience first-hand what other women experience because they are separate individuals.
  
  The question here is the criteria for people understanding each other's experiences in the way anyone understands anyone else's thoughts in the first place, same gender or not.

  
  

  Once again, you misunderstand: the only party I'm insulting here is you.

  The prosecution rests.

 

[John Madden]

I find some people enjoy inflating their ego by subtly and personally attacking those they disagree with every chance they get.

That was subtle?

I don't think this is what anyone is suggesting. The point being made is something along the lines of "direct experience isn't necessary if you are able to intimately relate with similar concepts and their repercussions".

And if you are unable to intimately relate with similar concepts?

But I digress, because all of this is actually tangent to the point I was making to begin with:

absolutely no one in this thread is arguing that a [masculine] man's argument on discrimination is "incorrect", we're arguing that it's going to be less reliable given that he's less likely to have experienced said discrimination firsthand - he will be a secondary source at best. there is a very real non-semantic difference in phrasing there that you don't seem to be comprehending.

If you can show why this makes men less able to make pertinent and logical observations on the subject that would be great. Racial issues can't be understood by outsiders, but I doubt you would argue that that makes the discussion from non-insiders invalid. Further, while men (or a race outside of the group, for consistency,) can't understand an experience directly, we very clearly can understand well enough to relate.

And if you can definitively show that A) the bolded is actually the case and, more importantly to my point, that B) understanding of the 'similar' concepts in question bestows an understanding (of the systemic oppression faced by those with direct experience) sufficient to indicate that this person is a primary source for argumentation - the point I contended was not the case in my very first post in the current subargument - that would be great.

I have an idea. If you think that the lack of first-hand experience has an impact on the validity of an argument, you could simply show which premises or which logical step in the argument are invalid.

Is it not true within the humanities that as you get further away from primary sources you run a higher risk of misinterpretation (i.e., counterfactual spin and conclusions)? Is it not true that a cisgendered male will not be a primary source for just about all of the mentioned issues in my last post? Is it not true that if both of these statements hold, that a cisgendered male runs a higher risk of misinterpretation of women's experiences? Is it not then true that if all three of these statements hold, that said cisgendered male can mitigate the risk of misinterpretation by deferring to a cisgendered or transgendered female (i.e., primary sources for debate)?