• 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
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.

I know I'm repeating John Madden, but I have this dying dream that maybe one day you two will understand this simple concept.

Cis-gendered Men cannot intimately relate, because they have no similar experiences. Also, sympathy/empathy are not magical experience transferring tool.

No one is saying men can't help solve the problem, we're saying that cis-men can't intimately relate to female experiences and therefore need to educate themselves that much more, and if you think that men CAN intimately relate or that their lack of firsthand experience is irrelevant to the situation, then you clearly haven't educated yourself enough.

Also, as I said before, appropriating another person's experience is just plain rude and dismissive.
 
I know I'm repeating John Madden, but I have this dying dream that maybe one day you two will understand this simple concept.
And I can only hope for the day when I won't have to put up with petty insults from either of you.

Cis-gendered Men cannot intimately relate, because they have no similar experiences. Also, sympathy/empathy are not magical experience transferring tool.
One doesn't need to have had an experience to be just as competent. This is true in most scenarios, from day to day relations to an understanding of personal freedoms and civil rights. If people are able to relate to one another in those areas, why is it that this thread's "feminist" proponents want to assume it isn't just for this special case? It is your job to show why relations can be made in other areas, demonstrably, but here it can't.

No one is saying men can't help solve the problem, we're saying that cis-men can't intimately relate to female experiences and therefore need to educate themselves that much more, and if you think that men CAN intimately relate or that their lack of firsthand experience is irrelevant to the situation, then you clearly haven't educated yourself enough.
No, not irrelevant, just not integral. You certainly have an advantage if you have firsthand experience, but that doesn't make your observations and opinions on the best ways to resolve the situation any less reliable. The most personal bits, sure, you can't understand. But does that mean you can't contribute at the same level as someone who has experienced it? Of course not.

Also, as I said before, appropriating another person's experience is just plain rude and dismissive.
And as I believe I have said before, it isn't in the realm of rude or dismissive if the use and understanding from another's experience is used to solve the issues...
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
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 there a reason you're referring to the humanities in particular?

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)?
You could use similar logic with my math example:

Some groups are more likely to produce flawed mathematical arguments.
Therefore, excluding those groups can mitigate the risk of flawed mathematical arguments.


You might say that mathematical arguments are less prone to personal background, and there might be some truth to that. It is all the more reason to examine how much the argument's premises rely on the properties of the person stating it.

If a premise relies on a person himself experiencing a specific thing, his experience is very relevant to whether the premise is true. That being said, he still might not make the best overall argument if his other premises or logic are inferior. You should properly examine the argument to be more sure.

If the argument relies on large-scale statistics, formal logic, and general understanding of morality, his experience has a much smaller significance, and it should be easier to spot any possible bias-induced flaws in the argument. Thankfully, there is a far more reliable method to check whether the argument is true: examining the argument itself.
 
Last edited:

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
Last edited:

John Madden

resident policy guy
Is there a reason you're referring to the humanities in particular?

Because it's simpler than saying "within the humanities and the non-psychological social sciences"?

You might say that mathematical arguments are less prone to personal background

I would actually definitely say that, having dealt with both formal-scientific and social-scientific arguments in a post-baccalaureate setting - Poe's Law is inherent outside of the formal sciences for a reason.

It is all the more reason to examine how much the argument's premises rely on the properties of the person stating it.

And I'm telling you, as a student of the social sciences, that in the situation of every discipline feminism is involved with except for the behavioral sciences, argumentation relies significantly on the properties of the person stating it (at the primary source level, which is largely the level seen in just about all of the specific examples I've named - though even a secondary source using large-scale statistics relies on the standardized properties of their primary sources as well as their own properties to determine their conclusions).

You seem to be continually trying to fit the 'circle' of the formal sciences into the much larger 'square' of the social sciences, and the difference in 'surface area' is really showing.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Last edited:

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
I can't wait to see the political ads against him. "Rep. Frank Wolfe is indeed a wolf. He's pro-rape. Not fit to not rape your children. Not fit for Virginia."

Um, just thought I correct that the guy who is actually running is named Dick Black. Frank Wolfe is the one who's retiring.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
Because it's simpler than saying "within the humanities and the non-psychological social sciences"?



I would actually definitely say that, having dealt with both formal-scientific and social-scientific arguments in a post-baccalaureate setting - Poe's Law is inherent outside of the formal sciences for a reason.



And I'm telling you, as a student of the social sciences, that in the situation of every discipline feminism is involved with except for the behavioral sciences, argumentation relies significantly on the properties of the person stating it (at the primary source level, which is largely the level seen in just about all of the specific examples I've named - though even a secondary source using large-scale statistics relies on the standardized properties of their primary sources as well as their own properties to determine their conclusions).

You seem to be continually trying to fit the 'circle' of the formal sciences into the much larger 'square' of the social sciences, and the difference in 'surface area' is really showing.
Then what was this about?
To anyone reading this, I would like to point out that I don't look down on science, but social sciences (and philosophy too) do not rely on empirical evidence as directly as natural science, so that is why I insisted on it more.
Every social science I've had direct involvement with has relied primarily on empirical evidence to come to their conclusions; that's why they call themselves the social sciences.
I was referring to the greater role of semantical argumentation over mathematics and formal logic, and the impossibility to directly measure mental states.

Now, technically what you said isn't in contradiction with what I said at all, but it was written as if it was a counterargument. So, I can only read it as "social sciences rely on empirical evidence using equally direct methodology as natural sciences." You even bolded the word "science," as if all fields of science operate with the same methodology.



But even I never meant that you are supposed to argue in social sciences heavily based on the properties of person. You are always calling people out on lack of empirical evidence and mock semantical argumentation, yet your empirical evidence is this? The gender of the person stating the argument, coated in vague speculation?

...

Well then. I have suddenly found myself in possession of new empirical evidence. For example, I could say something like this:

Sociologists have chosen to define the word "oppression" the way they do because they are biased due to socially constructed trends within sociology. The definition is detached from morality because of its statistical nature, but the word chosen has strong moral connotations and is therefore used to create the illusion of different moral implications than the analysis actually yields. The same applies to "patriarchy" and so on.

For example, they choose to say "Women are oppressed by men" instead of "Women face gender discrimination in society because of socially constructed gender roles" because the former produces an impression that focuses on women as the ones discriminated against and men as the ones carrying out the discrimination, even if other forms of discrimination exist. It also gives too much focus to statistical power difference and not enough to what causes the power difference in the first place: people's tendency to passively absorb traditional gender roles and inability to treat each other as genuine individuals.


Actually, I think this reasoning is far better than just appealing to simple gender bias because it is based on a deeper understanding of social processes and analyzes the actual expressions used to demonstrate the bias.


she's not saying "a figure of authority says so, so it's true"

she's saying "through observations conducted in a rather well-established scientific field, it has been repeatedly and predominantly demonstrated that this is so, so it's true"
If mocking arguments due to the gender of the person stating them really was the universal level of "observation" and "demonstration" in sociology, I would feel sorry for the field. It studies an important subject, so it should be handled properly. But it is more of a problem with individual sociologists rather than all of them. It is all the more reason to use critical reading when reading sociology reports though.

But really, don't call people out on lack of empirism and mock semantical analysis so often if this is the extent of your empirism.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Um, just thought I correct that the guy who is actually running is named Dick Black. Frank Wolfe is the one who's retiring.

Okay. I fixed my post. How could a person like Black even have a political career in this day and age? It's no surprise that he's part of the GOP though.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
Either way, it's kind of impressive that this probably won't be political suicide.

Is it impressive or sad?

Either way, even though it has such convoluted reasoning, it still seems like good, old-fashioned **** shaming. Except instead of accusing a woman of being a ****, they are "defending their reputation".
 

The Admiral

the star of the masquerade
Is it impressive or sad?

Either way, even though it has such convoluted reasoning, it still seems like good, old-fashioned **** shaming. Except instead of accusing a woman of being a ****, they are "defending their reputation".

It's impressive in how sad it is.
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
Is it impressive or sad?

Either way, even though it has such convoluted reasoning, it still seems like good, old-fashioned **** shaming. Except instead of accusing a woman of being a ****, they are "defending their reputation".

It's truly sad :(. And a part of the culture that's been ingrained time and time again. If a woman goes on dates with a few different men, she's called a ****. But if a man does the same, he's praised for it. It's an old double standard. As for what Huckabee did, he considers it to be defending a woman's reputation. Women shouldn't have to be 'defended' over their own sexuality. And they most certainly don't deserve to be raped. Mike Huckabee is an idiot, pure and simple. Shame on him for saying that women use birth control to control their 'libido'. How about we turn it around? Have men have to control theirs?

That brings up the whole, 'They brought it onto themselves' excuse, that men tend to use over and over again. Whether it's over what a woman wears or how she holds herself.

They figure it's her fault that the man raped her.
 
Last edited:

matt0044

Well-Known Member
That brings up the whole, 'They brought it onto themselves' excuse, that men tend to use over and over again. Whether it's over what a woman wears or how she holds herself.

They figure it's her fault that the man raped her.

This makes me tear out my hair so much. WHY on Earth are there sexual assaulters who are excused? Is the idea of teaching them to NOT RAPE WOMEN so damn complex? Does common sense even apply anymore? To put it simply...

It's even more ridiculous when they say something like the men "couldn't control themselves," implying that men are sexual predators by nature.
 
Mike Huckabee said that democrats hate women for allowing them to have the choice of getting birth control.
He also said that women can't control their libido... and said it in such a way to imply women agreed. The fact that people still acknowledge him as a fellow human baffles me.

Is the idea of teaching them to NOT RAPE WOMEN so damn complex?
Great, another implication that sexual assault only occurs in the form of male attacking female. The very idea that you should teach men not to rape is unique to the feminist subculture on the internet, because most others would prefer a more equal approach along the lines of "let's teach everyone about rape and sexual assault and the harms it has on society". But not on the internet, where everything is mind-numbingly black or white with no tolerance for the in-between. So, to answer the question, yes, it is.

It's even more ridiculous when they say something like the men "couldn't control themselves," implying that men are sexual predators by nature.
Almost as bad as implying that only men need to be educated on sexual assault?
 

matt0044

Well-Known Member
Almost as bad as implying that only men need to be educated on sexual assault?

No. Why? Because that's the root of the problem: the police (among others) blame the female victims most of the time as it never occurs us that the rapist might be the one who should be blamed and be educated on the concept of "no means no."
 
No. Why? Because that's the root of the problem: the police (among others) blame the female victims most of the time as it never occurs us that the rapist might be the one who should be blamed and be educated on the concept of "no means no."
Not sure you chose the correct portion of my post to respond to, because this doesn't even address the quoted text.

Also, if you are going to make a blanket statement like "the police and others blame the victims of rape and sexual assault" you are going to need to evidence this. It certainly exists, but not to the totality you or anyone here suggests it does.
 

matt0044

Well-Known Member
Also, if you are going to make a blanket statement like "the police and others blame the victims of rape and sexual assault" you are going to need to evidence this.

Lucky for us we're in a thread chockfull of it. There are link way back you can check out. Or, here's a funny thought, look it up on google and you'll find no shortage of news articles and essays on the "Rape Culture" phenomenon. Stop plugging your ears and open your eyes.
 
Last edited:
Lucky for us we're in a thread chockfull of it. There are link way back you can check out. Or, here's a funny thought, look it up on google and you'll find no shortage of news articles and essays on the "Rape Culture" phenomenon. Stop plugging your ears and open your eyes.
This issue has been hashed and rehashed but ultimately no one has been able to show even a modicum of proof that this phenomena exists. As for Google, you can search for "proof of (insert thing here)" and you will find some idiot willing to post it, right or wrong.

If you look back you'll see that none of the issues that I had a part in (aka the ones where this thread's feminists didn't just agree with one another incessantly over blatantly obvious crap) never really ended with a sound conclusion and instead trended towards non-resolution. The only people who had logical thoughts to add have been Persian and Psychic, and even then the discussion never really took off. I would welcome you to take the challenge, but judging by this post and the last, I don't think it would get very far at all.
 
Top