The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Debate Your opinion on feminism? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=405526)

Thomas the Shinyhunter January 30th, 2018 2:42 PM

Your opinion on feminism?
 
"Hi, let's talk about feminism and it's place in the world in a way that is educational and respectful to both sides of the debate."

I'm pretty sure that's what he wanted to say.

Arsenic January 30th, 2018 2:59 PM

I prefer to call it female supremacy.

Anyone interested in true equality would be campaigning for equality for all, not just a single group. Same with things like BLM, LGBT, "Restoring white equality", so on and so fourth.

How about Humanism.

Sirfetch’d January 30th, 2018 3:23 PM

I moved this on over to Discussions and Debates since it fits here just a wee bit more.

Grey Wind January 30th, 2018 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arsenic (Post 9834127)
I prefer to call it female supremacy.

Anyone interested in true equality would be campaigning for equality for all, not just a single group. Same with things like BLM, LGBT, "Restoring white equality", so on and so fourth.

How about Humanism.

People focus on the marginalized (women, gay people etc) in these discussions because that's where the inequality lies, and to make that go away these inequalities need to be confronted. Blanket campaigns for "true" equality only result in these issues being glossed over and ignored.


e: Did the OP seriously quote from urban dictionary aksdjgkd

Nick January 30th, 2018 3:40 PM

Without going into too much detail because frankly I'm not interested in debating this, I find it incredibly inconsistent. There was once a time when feminism aligned with what it says it is, but that is very much in the past. At the root it stands for female empowerment, but there are multiple layers about it that construct it as the opposite, bullying. Feminism's primary objective seems to be pushing men down to pull women up. That is not equality. It is picking and choosing behaviors to suit its needs and desires. Unfortunately, feminism is coined with "pro women." If you aren't a feminist, you are against women and you are against women's civil and political rights. If you're a woman yourself who rejects feminism, you hate women. I am very much for women, and "women's rights", but I am very much anti-feminist.

Mr. Showdown January 30th, 2018 4:06 PM

This is the biggest piece of pysicducking turos muk that ever existed

The difference between feminism and sexism is this one wants equality and one is just superiority. Today they think that just being a girl gives you the right to act like your better then eveyone. New flash your not.

Somewhere_ January 30th, 2018 4:11 PM

I can only call myself a feminist depending on the movement and definition.
I'm 100% for equal rights and ensuring that women are safe from harassment, but the way modern feminism acts and the things they advocate for really rub me the wrong way and its where my disagreements with feminism begin.

One of my major gripes is when feminists fight so hard for "equality" in the US (which has been achieved), but not for women who are horribly oppressed in other countries. It leads me to believe that feminism is more about a political end then true equality. I think there should always be some sort of feminist ideas in our culture to ensure that progress in the past 100 years or so isnt reversed, but thats not what modern feminism is offering.

A second issue I have with modern feminism is the common belief that all women should be believed. This idea is very dangerous and ignores rule of law. It's innocent until proven guilty, and as a man, I dont want my career and life ruined over a false rape accusation. In the current day this problem is made worse by the fact that the standard for harassment seems to have been lowered significantly and the backlash for a low level of harassment being grossly disproportionate. I believe that sexual harassment and rape cases should be handled very seriously and that if the man is guilty, he should be punished. However, I think feminism has strayed away from this notion to the point where any man is at risk for having his life completely ruined.

Third, I also dislike how modern feminism fails to fight for men's rights in courts regarding divorce and custody of children. Men are terribly disadvantaged in these family courts because women are considered more trustworthy.

Fourth, modern feminism lacks any consistent standards or moral code. "its horrible to generalize anything remotely negative about women," but "men are oppressive." Regarding the abortion argument, they make moralizing claims without actually having a moral code to argue from. What is right? Wrong? Well, modern feminism is not going to give you a good answer. Another one would be their definition of consent. How do we as a society differentiate between verbal/nonverbal consent? What about the times when there is a grey area? How can consent be revoked? I often see modern feminists say that "explicit consent" is necessary, and it is, but the words "explicit consent" are vague at best.

Finally, I agree to an extent with modern feminists that its practical to have women in politics that can better represent female issues better than a man might. However, modern feminists often take this notion and argue that men cant even have any say in women's issues because we dont have the same experiences of women or just because we are men and cant possibly understand women's issues. First, men have just as much the right to vote on candidates representing different opinions as women do. Second, men can research statistics and rationalize just as well as women can. Identitarian politics is ridiculous.

In short, I'm a feminist and believe in equality between men and women and that female empowerment is important, but modern feminism has strayed far from this core belief and morphed into something entirely different. Please note that I'm not saying every modern feminist is like this at all- I'm just talking about the movement as a whole and why I can't get behind it.

silvershred January 30th, 2018 4:46 PM

The thing with feminism is that it does not stand for "women's rights" or "women only" and so on. It's called femnism because it encourages femininity. For everyone. Men are often seen as less emotional because it's a "feminine" thing, which seems to be something most want to avoid. Feminism is a movement for feminity to be seen as something that isn't weak or less superior to masculinity. It should be equal to it. People, be it men or women, should not be seen as weaker because they appear or act more feminine. It's not about women being better than men at all.

That being said, I do know that a lot of feminists go overboard (this goes for anti-feminists too of course), but you can't group everyone together. Feminism works in favour for everyone, or at least it's supposed to. I call myself a feminist, but I do not see any gender as superior, for example. Both men and womens rights are important of course, but women are the ones that right now face the most opression because of their gender.

Bay January 30th, 2018 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9834148)
One of my major gripes is when feminists fight so hard for "equality" in the US (which has been achieved), but not for women who are horribly oppressed in other countries. It leads me to believe that feminism is more about a political end then true equality. I think there should always be some sort of feminist ideas in our culture to ensure that progress in the past 100 years or so isnt reversed, but thats not what modern feminism is offering.

Something I like to add is while a lot of folks here talk about the imbalance between men and women in feminism (and that can be debated itself), modern feminism now actually focuses on white rich women. Women of color, the poor, and transgender women have their own set of problems, so yeah progress should be made on the minority too.

KetsuekiR January 30th, 2018 7:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gengar666 (Post 9834174)
This thread is the most pathetically blatant example of strawmanning I've seen in quite some time. You (yes, you, the OP) have taken the likeness if the most extreme examples of over-the-top cracked out Tumblr feminazi rhetoric and attempted to paint genuine feminism as such. There are plenty of feminist who want nothing to do with advocating the views of extremists (which by the way, get the most attention and give impressionable simpletons such as the OP this idea that feminism as a whole are this way), who simply strive for sexism from men to be a thing of the past. And, before you resort to your cheap rebuttal of "but women can vote now, feminism is no longer necessary," tell it to the majority of women who can't walk the streets without getting catcalled and harassed only to be called a ***** or even assaulted for not reciprocating with their barbarism. Or tell it to the girl who can't enjoy a drink at the bar without being hit on and worried she'll be chastised or even assaulted for not being interested.


Grey Wind already explained why the logic of your ignorant post was so flawed (and in a much nicer way than I would have). You're probably one of those "all lives matter" idiots judging by your evident opposition of the idea behind BLM. The fact that you're offended by the idea of women, people of color and LGBTQ people trying to resist oppression shows what a privileged out-of-touch biggot you are.

Also, you're acting like it's their obligation to speak for every social group and race. Just because you've chosen to join the fight for one group's battle doesn't mean you're hardpressed to actively invest yourself in a bunch of other group's battles too.

You can present and argument without name-calling and insulting rhetoric.

As for what you said, you're falling back on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Whether you agrer eith the extremism seen in modern feminism or not, it is what it is. Feminism has morphed into a mess of female supremacy. I wish it hadn't, and nobody here is against equality, but that's not what feminism is selling anymore.

gimmepie January 31st, 2018 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvershred (Post 9834160)
The thing with feminism is that it does not stand for "women's rights" or "women only" and so on. It's called femnism because it encourages femininity. For everyone. Men are often seen as less emotional because it's a "feminine" thing, which seems go be something most want to avoid. Feminism is a movement for feminity to be seen as something that isn't weak or less superior to masculinity. It should be equal to it. People, be it men or women, should not be seen as weaker because they appear or act more feminine. It's not about women being better than men at all.

https://i.imgur.com/jhEumu3.png

Feminism is and always has been about elevating the status of women in pursuit of equality. Let us not pretend, in any way, that it's something it isn't.


As for my own thoughts, I am all for the core belief behind feminism - equality of the sexes. I do not however consider myself a feminist nor do I support feminism as a movement for a few reason. I won't sit here and make outrageous claims that all feminists are feminazi sjw anti-man supremacist whatevers, because that simply isn't the case. The majority of the movement are probably perfectly normal people. Is there extremism in the movement? Yes, but it's not an extremist movement.

That being said, I do have problems with the movement. Firstly, I feel like it pushes beliefs that simply are not factual. The idea that there is a collective patriarchy oppressing women, the idea that there is a culture that encourages rape or sexual assault or that there is an ever-present wage gap (although I'm sure some assholes will go out of their way to under pay don't you worry - this is still too prevalent). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lot of injustice and inequality against women in our society, but I do not believe we have a society centred around the systematic oppression of women. Are women often marginalised, yes. Is there a patriarchal conspiracy against women, no.

Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I consider myself egalitarian. Not as a thinly-veiled way to do nothing and maintain the status quo like some conservatives use the term, I want equality for everyone and I think the sooner there is a global initiative for equal rights for all, the better.

Aliencommander1245 January 31st, 2018 1:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
That being said, I do have problems with the movement. Firstly, I feel like it pushes beliefs that simply are not factual. The idea that there is a collective patriarchy oppressing women, the idea that there is a culture that encourages rape or sexual assault or that there is an ever-present wage gap (although I'm sure some assholes will go out of their way to under pay don't you worry - this is still too prevalent). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lot of injustice and inequality against women in our society, but I do not believe we have a society centred around the systematic oppression of women. Are women often marginalised, yes. Is there a patriarchal conspiracy against women, no.

I think you're a little off the mark in what you think the whole idea of a patriarchal society, or what the idea of rape culture is?

The idea of the patriarchy thing is that our cultural attitudes skew towards helping men while diminishing women, and it's hard not to agree with that due to things like gender roles and sexism being the way they are? It's not that there's some concious conspiracy against women, it's that the culture we live in is skewed towards marginalising women in a variety of ways.

The idea of rape culture is the same, it's not that there's a culture of rape that's encouraging it, but in contexts like hollywood where it's a boys club and men have, historically and in the modern setting, been protected from the consequences of rape, or been in positions of power to do things like sexually assault women. It's what that whole #metoo thing is about, really. There's also cultural attitudes around rape that skew towards victim blaming, the whole "she was asking for it wearing those clothes" or "what did she expect to happen when she was drunk at a party" ect, those sorts of thing.

I mean, we live in a world where a man accused of sexual assault many times over his life, who openly admitted to sexually assaulting women, can just straight up become the president of the united states and have people not care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I kind of have to disagree wildly with this, you can't really delegitimise groups of people striving for civil rights just because they're not striving for all civil rights at once? Intersectionality and the fact that people are free to support all those things via groups focused on different areas of equality aside, I don't really like your idea that something is exclusive just because they're campaigning on one thing. You can't really have groups doing everything just simply because nothing has infinite resources?

BLM is focused on a pressing issue for african americans, but to say they're selfish or not truly striving for equality because they're not also picketing for trans rights- that feels kind of out of touch with the purpose of those organisations, and what they do in service of achieving their goals?

Nick January 31st, 2018 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9834320)
The idea of the patriarchy thing is that our cultural attitudes skew towards helping men while diminishing women, and it's hard not to agree with that due to things like gender roles and sexism being the way they are? It's not that there's some concious conspiracy against women, it's that the culture we live in is skewed towards marginalising women in a variety of ways.

A fundamental principle the majority of men are raised to believe is to protect women and children first and foremost. In hostage situations, women and children are grouped together and are pleaded for release first and foremost while the men are left. When it comes to parenting, society favors women to men and are much more likely to grant a mother custody of their child. In cases where a daughter is concerned, often times even if men are granted rights to their child, protective custody tends to be involved afterward to ensure the daughter has a female influence. Men are often granted rights to see their children with limited access and ruled to pay child support. In a single father household, gaining support from the community and from resources put into place is much more difficult, and in some aspects of aids, there aren't any available to single fathers. In addition, there is no such thing as a men's shelter. Society views men to be much more disposable compared to women, who must be protected.

Ultimately, this is a case of picking and choosing, which is also something that's common among the culture of feminism that dominates today. You can say that men are favored by society in some areas, but women are as well.

KetsuekiR January 31st, 2018 1:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9834320)
I think you're a little off the mark in what you think the whole idea of a patriarchal society, or what the idea of rape culture is?

The idea of the patriarchy thing is that our cultural attitudes skew towards helping men while diminishing women, and it's hard not to agree with that due to things like gender roles and sexism being the way they are? It's not that there's some concious conspiracy against women, it's that the culture we live in is skewed towards marginalising women in a variety of ways.

The idea of rape culture is the same, it's not that there's a culture of rape that's encouraging it, but in contexts like hollywood where it's a boys club and men have, historically and in the modern setting, been protected from the consequences of rape, or been in positions of power to do things like sexually assault women. It's what that whole #metoo thing is about, really. There's also cultural attitudes around rape that skew towards victim blaming, the whole "she was asking for it wearing those clothes" or "what did she expect to happen when she was drunk at a party" ect, those sorts of thing.

I mean, we live in a world where a man accused of sexual assault many times over his life, who openly admitted to sexually assaulting women, can just straight up become the president of the united states and have people not care.

I am all for equality and the abolishment of any sort of normalised sexual assault, but there is no sign that there is a "rape culture" in a society where rape when properly evidenced will send you to jail. I'm against the idea of "every woman should be believed". Listened to? Surely. Believed without any sort of evidence? No. Case in point; the recent case against Aziz Ansari. How is a bad sexual experience equivalent to sexual assault because the man couldn't read her mind, despite her giving verbal consent.

The core principle of feminism is one I can support but what it's become, mostly from third-wave feminism onwards is not quite agreeable.

As for your comment against the President, if you're referring to his "They let you do it if you're star" comment, I don't quite see it as a sexual assault at all. He's a sleazebag for saying it and even thinking it, for sure, but there's no evidence he's assaulted anyone. The entire statement of them letting him do it because he's a star is just that; them letting him do it. Women are free to have sex with anyone they choose, sleazebag or not, but regretting that later doesn't turn that into sexual assault.

If that's not what you based your point on, please do share!

Aliencommander1245 January 31st, 2018 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au bon (Post 9834322)
A fundamental principle the majority of men are raised to believe is to protect women and children first and foremost. In hostage situations, women and children are grouped together and are pleaded for release first and foremost while the men are left. When it comes to parenting, society favors women to men and are much more likely to grant a mother custody of their child. In cases where a daughter is concerned, often times even if men are granted rights to their child, protective custody tends to be involved afterward to ensure the daughter has a female influence. Men are often granted rights to see their children with limited access and ruled to pay child support. In a single father household, gaining support from the community and from resources put into place is much more difficult, and in some aspects of aids, there aren't any available to single fathers. In addition, there is no such thing as a men's shelter. Society views men to be much more disposable compared to women, who must be protected.

Ultimately, this is a case of picking and choosing, which is also something that's common among the culture of feminism that dominates today.

I don't think it's picking and choosing, you pretty handily outlined part of the societal view on women that i was talked about, just tinted through a different lens.

Your argument here, even if i'm not really sure you intended it to be like that, is that we live in a sexist society that screws over both men and women in parallel ways. I'm not really sure of the point you were making overall, but surely the fact that men and women aren't treated equally, to the detriment of both in different (and some similar) ways, is something that supports the idea of feminism more than it negates it? In a fully equal society we wouldn't even be having this kind of discussion, because we wouldn't have cultural values set up to infantalise/victimise women, and give cultural incentive the idea of male sacrifice

I don't really think there's any value on arguing back and forth with examples in a "no actually women's lives are valued less" "no actually it's men that're valued less" kind of way because both are kind of true depending on what metric you're using, but the statement at large is so vague that "proving" either one true is useless and unhelpful anyway.

I think we can all agree that whenever there's examples where people or their voices are valued less than others on the basis of their sex, that's an issue and it should be dealt with. I think feminism, intrinsically, is part of dealing with this sort of thing (regardless of the "i-support-the-ideas-but-don't-identify-as-such-because blah blah blah" sort of thing that's doggedly become a part of every discussion about feminism as a concept) and that it's more important to talk about sexism on the whole when we're discussing this topic rather than singling out individual microcosms of our culture

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834323)
I am all for equality and the abolishment of any sort of normalised sexual assault, but there is no sign that there is a "rape culture" in a society where rape when properly evidenced will send you to jail.

I can't really talk much about the Aziz Ansari situation since i haven't heard much about it, but i don't really think "it's illegal so it can't be a problem" is really a helpful frame of mind to have? It's similar to the whole "well lgbt people/african americans/other minority groups have the same rights as everyone else so how can they claim to be oppressed/worse off/whatever?"

We live in a society where Roman Polanski, despite drugging and sexually assaulting a child then fleeing america to avoid trial, can go on to have hollywood actors and acrtresses work with him, to go on to get standing ovations and awards. We live in a society where harvey weinstein's serial sexual harassment can be an open industry secret for decades. Even Alfred Hitchcock was known for sexual harassment, and he got off fine.

Up until very, very recently in hollywood there was a boys club mentality of protecting your own, with open secrets abound. To use a recent example outside of hollywood, there was Nick Robinson of the site Polygon (and giantbomb, as well as having his own "brand") who's serial creep-ness and harassment of random women was an open industry secret and he was only hit with any kind of repercussions when someone went public with it.

Rape culture doesn't just cover the illegal, like actual rape, but things like harassment ect that being a famous and powerful person can just cover up by sheer force of fame alone. Even when we are talking about rape, the attitude around it can be pretty horrendous- Just look at the case of Brock Turner, it should've been open and shut (because he was caught in the act by passerby guys who chased him off) but he was given six months of jail time by the judge because the recommended six years would have “a severe impact” and “adverse collateral consequences” on him.

I mean, beyond that single case you can read about the culture around rape on campuses, how prevalent it is (and how low the rates of reporting it are) as well as how the rules around it discourage any real action.

It's not that rape culture means everyone is ok with rape, or that rape is said to be fine, rather it's how perpetrators are treated, with lenience given to perpetrators and victims given suspicion and blame, or even well meaning but tone deaf rules that end up discouraging reporting or muddling definiton


Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834323)
As for your comment against the President, if you're referring to his "They let you do it if you're star" comment, I don't quite see it as a sexual assault at all. He's a sleazebag for saying it and even thinking it, for sure, but there's no evidence he's assaulted anyone.

I mean- there is evidence and court cases and testimony that he has assaulted people historically (even raping his wife) but what you're talking about is definitely sexual assault?

Groping someone without their permission or consent is sexual assault, and even if they "let you do it" that's not equal to consenting to it? There's a lot of reasons, like shock or fear, that might stop someone from screaming no and running away when a hobgobling gropes them, but i don't think i really need to lay any out when it's just not consent to not say anything.

KetsuekiR January 31st, 2018 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9834337)
I don't think it's picking and choosing, you pretty handily outlined part of the societal view on women that i was talked about, just tinted through a different lens.

Your argument here, even if i'm not really sure you intended it to be like that, is that we live in a sexist society that screws over both men and women in parallel ways. I'm not really sure of the point you were making overall, but surely the fact that men and women aren't treated equally, to the detriment of both in different (and some similar) ways, is something that supports the idea of feminism more than it negates it? In a fully equal society we wouldn't even be having this kind of discussion, because we wouldn't have cultural values set up to infantalise/victimise women, and give cultural incentive the idea of male sacrifice

I don't really think there's any value on arguing back and forth with examples in a "no actually women's lives are valued less" "no actually it's men that're valued less" kind of way because both are kind of true depending on what metric you're using, but the statement at large is so vague that "proving" either one true is useless and unhelpful anyway.

I think we can all agree that whenever there's examples where people or their voices are valued less than others on the basis of their sex, that's an issue and it should be dealt with. I think feminism, intrinsically, is part of dealing with this sort of thing (regardless of the "i-support-the-ideas-but-don't-identify-as-such-because blah blah blah" sort of thing that's doggedly become a part of every discussion about feminism as a concept) and that it's more important to talk about sexism on the whole when we're discussing this topic rather than singling out individual microcosms of our culture

I can't speak for Nick, but based on their points and yours, my issue is that there is no coverage in the modern feminist movement for the issues they brought up that affect men. As GP provided, the definition of feminism is women-centric, and that's more prevalent than ever. With modern feminism, anything bad about being a woman is men's fault and anything bad about being a man is nobody's fault. As I stated earlier, I'm all for equality but that just isn't what feminism is about now, it's more about female empowerment above all else and, frankly, supremacy.

EDIT:

Quote:

Rape culture doesn't just cover the illegal, like actual rape, but things like harassment ect that being a famous and powerful person can just cover up by sheer force of fame alone. Even when we are talking about rape, the attitude around it can be pretty horrendous- Just look at the case of Brock Turner, it should've been open and shut (because he was caught in the act by passerby guys who chased him off) but he was given six months of jail time by the judge because the recommended six years would have “a severe impact” and “adverse collateral consequences” on him.
There are places in the world where actual rape cultures are quite prevalent, and misusing or morphing such a term to mean something less (let's be honest, what you've described is not quite on the same level as public rape that is encouraged) is not helpful to any movement, in my opinion.

Quote:

I mean- there is evidence and court cases and testimony that he has assaulted people historically (even raping his wife) but what you're talking about is definitely sexual assault?

Groping someone without their permission or consent is sexual assault, and even if they "let you do it" that's not equal to consenting to it? There's a lot of reasons, like shock or fear, that might stop someone from screaming no and running away when a hobgobling gropes them, but i don't think i really need to lay any out when it's just not consent to not say anything.
That's kind of the problem I have with modern feminism. If a woman doesn't like a sexual advance, she should be able to leave. You can't depend on non-verbal cues in that way because ultimately, men aren't mind-readers. This is what happened with Aziz Ansari as well. She let it continue and they had sex but turns out she secretly didn't want to. The problem with this being categorised as sexual assault is that now men are expected to make the decision, based on behavioural clues, of whether a woman is ready for sex or not, and that women are apparently not strong enough to make the decision to reject or walk out themselves.

As for the case against Trump, as I stated earlier, listening to women and believing them without sufficient evidence (as is the case) are, and should always be, separated by a clear line. I'm not defending how much of an ass the guy is, or that he's a pretty disgusting character, but that's not how any of this should work.

moon January 31st, 2018 2:41 AM

Feminism is definitely still needed in this world. However, I'm down for calling it equality of the sexes instead, it's the same thing, which I'll get to in my post.

Femininity is simply a word for what a society traditionally associates with the female sex. I'm going to take our western culture (Europe, America etc) as the reference point throughout my post, just so we're clear on that and nobody starts referring to cultures where women are normally strong angry warriors :)

The female sex is still the one heavily auto-associated with feminine traits, even though it's starting to become obvious in our modern society that it's not black and white. People possessing these traits are historically regarded as more fragile, less adept or more suitable to serve than lead, than those who don't. If those born as girls are expected to be sensitive, family focused, dress in pink and make up to not appear disgusting to the other sex etc, ("Traits traditionally cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity" - Wikipedia), while boys are encouraged to be strong, forward, competitive, raw (not needing make up in the same sense) or whatever masculine traits you can think of, then we have an unequal world. I say masculine, but what I mean is that those are powerful attributes that historically are associated with the male sex in many human societies. ("Traits traditionally viewed as masculine in Western society include courage, independence, violence[4], and assertiveness." - Wikipedia)

Until the day when femininity isn't automatically expected from girls in this society, and masculine powerful traits are allowed to exist in girls too without them being looked strangely at or harassed for not being proper girls, what we call feminism is needed . That being said, it's been brought to light that there are many boys in the world who wish they were allowed to express themselves with less masculinity and in a more feminine fashion without being looked at as faulty males. Our traditional gender roles slammed onto the respective sexes upon birth definitely works against them too, and proves that what we've called masculine and feminine aren't at all exclusive to either sex. Maybe biology makes it so that feminine traits are more common in the female sex (I mean, societal roles had to develop from some form of primal instinct, right?) and there's really no point in getting upset about that, but there is evidently no hard drawn line preventing females from possessing many or even most masculine traits, and the same goes for males possessing female traits.

Important point in all of this: I'm not going to pretend that super emotional and sensitive people will reach the same kind of power and positions in this world as headstrong, competitive people. That's just not how reality and humanity works, regardless of society. However, there are surely many ways in this world through which you can succeed without possessing masculine traits. For me personally, who am in a rather competitive science field, I need to possess or adopt some masculine traits in order to succeed, as do all who seek to do the same here, regardless of their sex. If you would rather be the best hairdresser or parent ever (IDK LOL I JUST PICKED SOMETHING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD) you should probably hope to have more feminine traits for greatest success. Again, regardless of your sex.

So, I don't think the goal should or even can be to try and make feminine traits equally worthy in irrelevant ways (although it is a pity if feminine professions pay less than masculine if cases where they actually require similar amounts of effort and intelligence to attain), but rather we need to let people be what they feel comfortable with being and don't force gender roles upon them based on what's between their legs. Ideally we'll eventually get rid of using the terms "feminine" and "masculine" when talking about personality traits, and just talk about the traits as-are instead... The world is multicultural, after all.

If you don't like the word Feminism, I get you. However, it can be called that because it doesn't have to refer to the traits. It refers to the sex that has historically been associated with them (like gimmepie points out) and seen as less powerful because of this, regardless of if the individual woman actually felt feminine or not, because society pushed that gender role onto her once they saw that she had two X chromosomes, pretty much.

Side-track: I guess this is why the gender debate has become so big. By labeling yourself as a certain gender, you announce to the world that you're not necessarily going to conform to what's "expected" of you, because it's totally up to you what kind of person you feel you want and need to be in this world.

Gengar666 January 31st, 2018 2:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834210)
You can present and argument without name-calling and insulting rhetoric.

As for what you said, you're falling back on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Whether you agrer eith the extremism seen in modern feminism or not, it is what it is. Feminism has morphed into a mess of female supremacy. I wish it hadn't, and nobody here is against equality, but that's not what feminism is selling anymore.

Ok first of all, I never claimed that anyone here was against equality. Second, I already denoted the extremists. You really need to actually read the posts you respond to or else don't even bother.

You speak as if the extremists who give feminism a bad reputation and attract the most attention in present day speak for feminism as a whole. You're obviously incapable of reading between the lines if you think that the bad apples that catch the people's eye the most are the ones who define an entire doctrine. You probably think Muslims are terrorists too judging by your so called "logic."

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

So what you're saying is "It's selfish to defend myself from being mugged in an alleyway. I need to defend ALL people being mugged at the same time!" If you truly think that oppressed groups should be hardpressed into taking up a civic duty to encompass other social groups, then you're clearly part of the problem. Do have ANY idea what oppression feels like? Do you have ANY idea what kind of work and uphill battling it takes to resist oppression of your own group alone? Surely not because it's easy for you to just sit on the sidelines gazing in from the outside and make such out-of-touch accusations that they are selfish for not worrying about other groups when theirs is under seige. Surely you must be white and privileged and probably cisgendered and so beginning to fathom the endeavor of resisting oppression goes right over your head. At least TRY to understand what it's like in others' shoes.

Aliencommander1245 January 31st, 2018 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834339)
I can't speak for Nick, but based on their points and yours, my issue is that there is no coverage in the modern feminist movement for the issues they brought up that affect men. As GP provided, the definition of feminism is women-centric, and that's more prevalent than ever. With modern feminism, anything bad about being a woman is men's fault and anything bad about being a man is nobody's fault. As I stated earlier, I'm all for equality but that just isn't what feminism is about now, it's more about female empowerment above all else and, frankly, supremacy.

I don't really agree with you here, i'm not sure what your sources are but you're making some pretty sweeping statements that i don't think are really accurate. I guess feminism can be called woman-centric because it's goals pertain to women specifically (although by default they have to also be about men- you can't exactly have equality by..... not being equal?).

I don't think there's any real substantial amount of people claiming that bad things for women are directly the fault of men, or any kind of concious conspiracy and i definitely don't think there's anyone saying that the bad things for men are "no one's fault" (I mean- i talked directly about this in the first part of my post and i'm pretty sure the position i took wasn't just something i made up as my own unique philosophy)

It kind of feels like a cop out to say "I agree with feminism, but also everyone who calls themselves a feminist is wrong and bad and wants things that aren't the things i agree with" and i think more exposure to and understanding of feminist perspectives and ideologies would help a lot, since i don't think your blanket statements are really accurate or helpful to furthering the things you agree with

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834339)
There are places in the world where actual rape cultures are quite prevalent, and misusing or morphing such a term to mean something less (let's be honest, what you've described is not quite on the same level as public rape that is encouraged) is not helpful to any movement, in my opinion.

Uh, I'm pretty sure rape culture has meant what i'm talking about for a pretty long time, at least in the context we're talking about it in? I don't get your argument here though, "things are bad in other countries so we shouldn't talk about these issues" ?

It doesn't really feel helpful to me to focus on the perceived semantics of a term i used rather than the things i talked about



Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834339)
That's kind of the problem I have with modern feminism. If a woman doesn't like a sexual advance, she should be able to leave. You can't depend on non-verbal cues in that way because ultimately, men aren't mind-readers.

Can we take a step back and think about what you're using as a launch pad, though? You're agreeing with me- that you can't depend on non-verbal cues- but you're framing this as somehow something that modern feminists are... against?

Surely, doing something without asking for consent, and then considering silence or inaction to be consent, is wrong and we can all agree that it's sexual assault?

I agree with the idea that if a woman- or anyone- doesn't like a sexual advance they should be able to leave, but it's a very simplistic view to say "well, if they don't it's their fault". It's a very complicated subject with a lot of variables, like intimidation and contextual power dynamics , fear or surprise, level of sobriety ect and just... victim blaming, i guess, by saying that in every situation someone who doesn't consent should (or can) just leave doesn't feel very useful or helpful to the discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834339)
This is what happened with Aziz Ansari as well. She let it continue and they had sex but turns out she secretly didn't want to. The problem with this being categorised as sexual assault is that now men are expected to make the decision, based on behavioural clues, of whether a woman is ready for sex or not, and that women are apparently not strong enough to make the decision to reject or walk out themselves.

I feel like this is both kind of a gross miscategorisation of what happened and the testimony of the woman that you're using as a blanket statement? I went and read up on the situation (not limited to this article, but it's the one that swayed me in the strongest way).

Rather than making weird blanket statements that directly implies (what you've said isn't a "this is what feminists think women can't do" you've outright said that, based on that example women in general can't do this) women can't consent "right" and are too meek or whatever to consent or not consent, why don't we just agree that proper consent needs to be taught? A situation of mutual trust where you ask for consent is how things should be done, and the fact that situations are arising where consent is murky at all isn't a good thing

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834339)
As for the case against Trump, as I stated earlier, listening to women and believing them without sufficient evidence (as is the case) are, and should always be, separated by a clear line. I'm not defending how much of an ass the guy is, or that he's a pretty disgusting character, but that's not how any of this should work.

I'm not sure what we're talking about here- do you mean the multitude of sexual assault claims and cases against Trump over his 70-ish years of life or do you mean the statement he himself made about sexual assault?

I don't really get what you're saying because it doesn't really fit either of those topics? Groping women without consent as he described himself doing is sexual assault. The claims he raped or sexual assaulted numerous women are substantiated in various amounts on a case by case basis, from his ex-wife's legal testimony that he raped her to the modern claims that were only made public during his campaign and also have varying levels of substantiation by outside parties.

gimmepie January 31st, 2018 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gengar666 (Post 9834355)
So what you're saying is "It's selfish to defend myself from being mugged in an alleyway. I need to defend ALL people being mugged at the same time!"

I'm saying we should work together to make sure muggings don't happen for any reason in essence. Rather just stop muggings that happen because of a single specific reason.

Quote:

If you truly think that oppressed groups should be hardpressed into taking up a civic duty to encompass other social groups, then you're clearly part of the problem. Do have ANY idea what oppression feels like? Do you have ANY idea what kind of work and uphill battling it takes to resist oppression of your own group alone? Surely not because it's easy for you to just sit on the sidelines gazing in from the outside and make such out-of-touch accusations that they are selfish for not worrying about other groups when theirs is under seige. Surely you must be white and privileged and probably cisgendered and so beginning to fathom the endeavor of resisting oppression goes right over your head. At least TRY to understand what it's like in others' shoes.
I think everyone as a whole should fight oppression and that it's important to stand up for the rights of others as well as yourself.

Now, you're making a lot of assumptions about me here, and quite frankly what you're doing is actually the same thing you're very happy to accuse others of. Since you seem so very interested though, I guess I should fill you in a bit. You are correct that I am white, male and cis-gendered but if you think that means I've never had to deal with oppressive behaviour or stigmas you're very, very wrong. Firstly, I suffer from two mental illnesses and a behavioural disorder and have been marginalised by people for both my entire life. Secondly, I am a man that works with children and for no other reason than me being male, people act like that makes me a paedophile or otherwise some sort of threat to their children.

You don't get to make assumptions about me based on my gender or my race. That in and of itself is sexism and racism and it is because of attitudes like yours that I have a problem with feminism. You have a lot to learn about the world.

Nah January 31st, 2018 6:54 AM

re: focusing on one group's rights/equality--it's fine. People do it for the same reason specialization became a thing in the first place millenia ago: it's not physically possible for anyone to do everything and do so to an adequate degree. So different groups tackle different issues so they can deal with that particular issue better. And then so hopefully when all groups succeed, we finally have that ideal of true equality become a reality.

It's like if you're putting together a team in some multiplayer RPG and some people are like "yeah I'ma be thief+tank+support". Maybe you'll make it through the dungeon, but it'll work out a lot better/go more smoothly if everyone dedicates to one role.

probably a shitty analogy but I was never good at explaining things

KetsuekiR January 31st, 2018 8:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9834379)
I don't really agree with you here, i'm not sure what your sources are but you're making some pretty sweeping statements that i don't think are really accurate. I guess feminism can be called woman-centric because it's goals pertain to women specifically (although by default they have to also be about men- you can't exactly have equality by..... not being equal?).

I don't think there's any real substantial amount of people claiming that bad things for women are directly the fault of men, or any kind of concious conspiracy and i definitely don't think there's anyone saying that the bad things for men are "no one's fault" (I mean- i talked directly about this in the first part of my post and i'm pretty sure the position i took wasn't just something i made up as my own unique philosophy)

It kind of feels like a cop out to say "I agree with feminism, but also everyone who calls themselves a feminist is wrong and bad and wants things that aren't the things i agree with" and i think more exposure to and understanding of feminist perspectives and ideologies would help a lot, since i don't think your blanket statements are really accurate or helpful to furthering the things you agree with

I'm not sure which part of that point you disgree with, so I'll elaborate. In the first sentence, I was talking about the serious lack of conversation on men's issues. I listen to the news a lot and I can't say I've seen much of anything on that topic. Then, if blaming men is not what's been done here, what is the concept of patriachal opression of women based on? Finally, It's not a cop-out to call out a movement that has gone askew from what it's meant to be about. That's me stating I am for what it once was but not what it has become.


Quote:

Uh, I'm pretty sure rape culture has meant what i'm talking about for a pretty long time, at least in the context we're talking about it in? I don't get your argument here though, "things are bad in other countries so we shouldn't talk about these issues" ?

It doesn't really feel helpful to me to focus on the perceived semantics of a term i used rather than the things i talked about
How are perceived semantic not important in any discussion? This is the same issue I have with feminism. Perception matters. It doesn't really matter feminism is "supposed to be" or "is truly", what matters is its perception in modern society. Right now, it's a mess.


Quote:

Can we take a step back and think about what you're using as a launch pad, though? You're agreeing with me- that you can't depend on non-verbal cues- but you're framing this as somehow something that modern feminists are... against?

Surely, doing something without asking for consent, and then considering silence or inaction to be consent, is wrong and we can all agree that it's sexual assault?

I agree with the idea that if a woman- or anyone- doesn't like a sexual advance they should be able to leave, but it's a very simplistic view to say "well, if they don't it's their fault". It's a very complicated subject with a lot of variables, like intimidation and contextual power dynamics , fear or surprise, level of sobriety ect and just... victim blaming, i guess, by saying that in every situation someone who doesn't consent should (or can) just leave doesn't feel very useful or helpful to the discussion
No, it's not about staying silent when sexually assaulted. It's about giving consent and then regretting it later, followed by blaming the man for going through with it even though deep down, you didn't want to. This is exactly what happened with the Aziz Ansari case. You can't really argue modern feminists are against the idea that non-verbal cues are unreliable when there was an entire, two-day mass conversation over this. As far as I'm aware, all cases against Donald Trump are similar.

As for the second part of your response, I don't think it's the woman's fault for not leaving, but it's not the man's fault for taking consent as consent either. You seem to have mistaken by support for actual evidence being necessary for support for victim-blaming. Like I said, every woman deserves to be listened to, but only those with evidence should be believed.


Quote:

I feel like this is both kind of a gross miscategorisation of what happened and the testimony of the woman that you're using as a blanket statement? I went and read up on the situation (not limited to this article, but it's the one that swayed me in the strongest way).

Rather than making weird blanket statements that directly implies (what you've said isn't a "this is what feminists think women can't do" you've outright said that, based on that example women in general can't do this) women can't consent "right" and are too meek or whatever to consent or not consent, why don't we just agree that proper consent needs to be taught? A situation of mutual trust where you ask for consent is how things should be done, and the fact that situations are arising where consent is murky at all isn't a good thing
No, I pretty much said, "this is what feminists think women can't do". To quote myself, "The problem with this being categorised as sexual assault is... that women are apparently not strong enough to make the decision to reject or walk out themselves."

In case that wasn't clear enough, it is a problem to classify that as sexual assault because it would mean women are not able to give consent on their own. If you re-read my earlier response, it's fairly clear I'm against that.

In the case with Aziz Ansari, proper consent was used. She said yes. Repeatedly. I'm not sure what more needs to happen. She went home and regretted it, but that's not really his fault, is it?


Quote:

I'm not sure what we're talking about here- do you mean the multitude of sexual assault claims and cases against Trump over his 70-ish years of life or do you mean the statement he himself made about sexual assault?

I don't really get what you're saying because it doesn't really fit either of those topics? Groping women without consent as he described himself doing is sexual assault. The claims he raped or sexual assaulted numerous women are substantiated in various amounts on a case by case basis, from his ex-wife's legal testimony that he raped her to the modern claims that were only made public during his campaign and also have varying levels of substantiation by outside parties.
I'm unaware of cases where evidence was substantiated. All cases I've looked into were not solid or similar to that of Aziz Ansari. Could you please cite your sources? I'll be happy to respond to this more in-depth once I've read through!

Gengar666 January 31st, 2018 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834430)
I'm saying we should work together to make sure muggings don't happen for any reason in essence. Rather just stop muggings that happen because of a single specific reason.

I think everyone as a whole should fight oppression and that it's important to stand up for the rights of others as well as yourself.

Too bad you'll never know what it's like to be among an oppressed minority enough to know what a single movement can mean to someone. Or what kind of time and energy can go into organizing or participating in a demonstration. Why would you? You've no inkling of what it's like in their shoes.

Also, a participant in one group CAN be part of another. A woman of color can be part of B.L.M. AND want equal and better treatment of women, which would make her a feminist too. It's not like X can't be Y, it's just that these movements are of different categories of the same overall cause that are resisting different categories of oppression. For example, BLM is a direct response to the many acts of police mistreating people of color that often resulted in death.

We differentiate these movements so we know which movement to respond to a different type of oppression with. Just because they have a different primary focus doesn't mean they're not playing an essential part in overall equality and it doesn't mean supporters of one can't support the other.

Overlooking that is prejudice because it shows how unwilling you are to even bother thinking about it from that side, which makes it easier to oppose the movements of groups that are genuinely facing danger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834430)
Since you seem so very interested though, I guess I should fill you in a bit. You are correct that I am white, male and cis-gendered but if you think that means I've never had to deal with oppressive behaviour or stigmas you're very, very wrong. Firstly, I suffer from two mental illnesses and a behavioural disorder and have been marginalised by people for both my entire life. Secondly, I am a man that works with children and for no other reason than me being male, people act like that makes me a paedophile or otherwise some sort of threat to their children.

Ok first of all did you just unironically not all men? "Not all men who deal with children are pedophiles! IIIIII'm not a pedophile!" Next, have you ever feared being killed or raped? Your problems do suck, but don't try to guilt trip me with incomparable comparisons to them. It's grossly downplaying the severity of these movements' causes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834430)
Now, you're making a lot of assumptions about me here, and quite frankly what you're doing is actually the same thing you're very happy to accuse others of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834430)
You don't get to make assumptions about me based on my gender or my race. That in and of itself is sexism and racism and it is because of attitudes like yours that I have a problem with feminism. You have a lot to learn about the world.

Actually, I didn't assume anything BECAUSE you're white. I assumed you WERE white based on the foggy viewpoint you tossed out, and I was right. Oh, you find that oppressive and prejudice towards white males? Well, perhaps privileged white males can spare a little bit of their ego to have a microscopic taste of what sort of oppression is happening to other social groups in question. Must be rough, dude.

gimmepie January 31st, 2018 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gengar666 (Post 9834475)
Snip

You've demonstrated multiple times in this post the exact sort of behaviour you apparently have a problem with. You again have repeatedly made assumptions based on my race and gender. I'm not going to bother continuing a pointless discussion with you because honestly every time you open your mouth you make a better case against yourself than I could ever hope to.

Gengar666 January 31st, 2018 9:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834480)
You've demonstrated multiple times in this post the exact sort of behaviour you apparently have a problem with. You again have repeatedly made assumptions based on my race and gender. I'm not going to bother continuing a pointless discussion with you because honestly every time you open your mouth you make a better case against yourself than I could ever hope to.

And I still say my assumptions about you based on your race and gender are nothing compared to what the movements you criticize are combating. You will never know what it's like to face that of such a caliber, and that's why I think your opposition to such movements are unreasonable.

If this post gets me banned, so be it.

Grey Wind January 31st, 2018 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmiepie
Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I consider myself egalitarian. Not as a thinly-veiled way to do nothing and maintain the status quo like some conservatives use the term, I want equality for everyone and I think the sooner there is a global initiative for equal rights for all, the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834430)
I'm saying we should work together to make sure muggings don't happen for any reason in essence. Rather just stop muggings that happen because of a single specific reason.

But what form does that take? How do we challenge deeply rooted inequalities in society if all we're promoting is a vague, egalitarian message? And do you have any examples of major social change being brought about that way? Because I can list a ton that's happened because of "exclusive" movements.

Saying that we need to include everyone or whatever is all very well and good, but in practice it's kind of ridiculous. If you're not addressing these problems at their roots and educating the public about the inequalities people face, then you're not getting anywhere. I don't see the problem with saying "hey, x group don't have equal rights and face discrimination - and that needs to change".

Star-Lord January 31st, 2018 12:54 PM

I feel like a lot I would have said has already been touched on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834474)
In the case with Aziz Ansari, proper consent was used. She said yes. Repeatedly. I'm not sure what more needs to happen. She went home and regretted it, but that's not really his fault, is it?

What do you define as proper consent? I read the story a while back and there were two separate instances where the woman in question wanted to "relax" or w/e language she used, only for Azis Ansari to put his fingers in her mouth. This happened twice. Should we as a society not set up a reasonable expectation that we understand that our sexual partners are uncomfortable, and therefor disengage in the act?

I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen.

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly.

KetsuekiR January 31st, 2018 6:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834572)
What do you define as proper consent? I read the story a while back and there were two separate instances where the woman in question wanted to "relax" or w/e language she used, only for Azis Ansari to put his fingers in her mouth. This happened twice. Should we as a society not set up a reasonable expectation that we understand that our sexual partners are uncomfortable, and therefor disengage in the act?

I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen.

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly.

I don't think Aziz Ansari acted appropriately, I think he should've picked up on it like a gentlemen. That said, she gave him verbal consent and him not reading her body language/tone and thus resulting in an awkward sexual encounter should not be put on the same level as sexual assault/rape, which is what 's been happening. I don't see that as helping the movement whatsoever.

Vragon January 31st, 2018 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834572)
I feel like a lot I would have said has already been touched on.

What do you define as proper consent? I read the story a while back and there were two separate instances where the woman in question wanted to "relax" or w/e language she used, only for Azis Ansari to put his fingers in her mouth. This happened twice. Should we as a society not set up a reasonable expectation that we understand that our sexual partners are uncomfortable, and therefor disengage in the act?

I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen.

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly.

The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.

Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."

Perhaps if consent was only for enthusiastic things then maybe less situations would happen, but that's not a reason in itself to set up a societal standard.

I don't think he acted like he should have or at least with respects to how she felt about it. The issue I have is that if you don't like something, "You need to get your message out". A common problem I see in society is that people misunderstand things, which leads into a false sense of them not wanting to do it when the person probably just didn't understand or get the message. Communication is a two way street and while I won't say he's scot free on it for not trying to make sure she was fine with it, but at the same time if what you're doing isn't working you need to step it up a notch to get your point across.

I don't think there is a more proper (or at least universally understood) consent than a firm "yes". Yes there needs to be better communication between the partners so that situations like this can be avoided in the future.

Star-Lord January 31st, 2018 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834681)
I don't think Aziz Ansari acted appropriately, I think he should've picked up on it like a gentlemen. That said, she gave him verbal consent and him not reading her body language/tone and thus resulting in an awkward sexual encounter should not be put on the same level as sexual assault/rape, which is what 's been happening. I don't see that as helping the movement whatsoever.

Did she really give him consent though? I think that's what the question really boils down to. Where she may not have said an explicit no, she certainly didn't give an enthusiastic yes. In fact, she made it very clear a few times during the encounter that she wasn't really interested at all, and yet he persisted. Is it not his responsibility to understand that?

I did a couple of quick lookups for definitions of sexual assault. To be entirely honest I didn't take a look to see what jurisdiction you live in, so I apologize in advance. Here's one sort of America-centric:

Quote:

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
Source: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

I bolded some keywords. Explicit is sort of tricky to understand in this situation-- It's very clear that we see it two separate ways. I feel that she didn't explicitly consent, due to the fact she rescinded her consent in later parts of their encounter. If I understand correctly, you feel that she did explicitly consent because she said it out loud. I bolded fondling because that seemed to be a very large part of what could have potentially made the encounter into a sexual assault.

Quote:

Sexual assault is an act in which a person sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.
Source: Cameron, P., Jelinek, G., Kelly, A-M., Brown. A. F. T., Little, M. Textbook of Adult Emergency Medicine E-Book p. 658.

I've bolded the word coerce so that it's used as a point of consideration in discussing this topic. When I read the situation regarding Aziz Ansari, it seemed clear to me that the woman was coerced. While she seemed to consent in parts, it seemed clear that she also did not fully consent in other parts. Is it fair to say that she was coerced in this situation? If she was, it certainly fits this definition of sexual assault that is used in a textbook meant to educate trainee doctors in Emergency Room settings.

I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I personally think that, considering the facts, it's fair to compare this to sexual assault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vragon (Post 9834711)
The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.

I personally can't see how it isn't society's job not to do that. The entire point of law (at least from what I understand from a Canadian and United States perspective) is establishing a set of guidelines which is meant to protect people in a fair and democratic society. We have laws which tell people not to harm others in the greater interest of protecting the overall population. How is this any different than establishing guidelines to protect people from being sexually assaulted? Even from a non-legal perspective, is it not our responsibility as a society to educate people from harming others? Is teaching proper communication cues during sexual encounters not beneficial in preventing harmful situations from occurring?

Quote:

Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."
I think you need to seriously re-examine what your definition of consent is. I deleted my post earlier, because I thought it was sort of inflammatory, but I think it rings true to what you're saying here.

https://i.imgur.com/2RWvtod.png

While sort of sassy, this was taken from a situation I had many years ago. To make a long story short, I got drunk and ended up going home with somebody. It was very clear that he wanted to have sex with me, but I wasn't entirely motivated and comfortable doing it. He goaded me until I eventually gave him consent to have sex with me, despite the fact I didn't want to have it in the first place. To use your language, I " was willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not.". Was I willing to carry it out? Absolutely, I used it as a mechanism that prevented me from having an argument despite the fact I didn't want it in the first place. Did I want it at all? No. I didn't want it whatsoever. in literally NO world did I want to have sex, but I had to so that I A) Didn't potentially get further hurt B) Get kicked out drunk and forced to make my own way back home. This isn't real consent. No amount of mental gymnastics anybody goes through will ever justify this being actual, legitimate, true consent, despite the fact I was willing to carry it out.

Refer back to the earlier definition that I gave. I was coerced into having sex. Do you know what a great way to understand whether someone wants to have sex with you or not? Enthusiastic Consent.

Quote:

Perhaps if consent was only for enthusiastic things then maybe less situations would happen, but that's not a reason in itself to set up a societal standard.
I am going to be very honest with you. How do you understand consent, even when it comes to non-sexual encounters? If you invite friends to go to a movie, but one of them seems apprehensive to go to a movie, do you feel comfortable taking them to that movie, or do you have the reasonable sense to try and compromise? The logic is really the same here. Enthusiasm is a very easy trait to recognize-- Friends can see that I am enthusiastic about playing rugby and continuing my studies. Is this not a characteristic that we should recognize in our interpersonal relationships? I can see my friend Amy is excited to go the movie, so I know my decision is sound! If Amy seems a little apprehensive about going to see this film, maybe I'll go find another one for her, or have a quiet night in.

---

I'm also going to be honest and say that I may not respond to you guys further. I don't spend a lot of time on this website, so your replies may get sidetracked to some of my other responsibilities. I certainly hope I gave you some food for thought though.

KetsuekiR January 31st, 2018 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
-snip-

Ultimately, my point of view is that perhaps as a society we should be encouraging women to say no if they want to say no, and that "no" means no and "yes" means "yes" instead of teaching men to become behavioural analysts who, if they misread a non-verbal clues are classified sexual abusers.

That isn't to say a man shouldn't try to pick up on these clues but if a woman says yes, you can't exactly blame the blame for taking that as a yes. In the moment, his enthusiasm was probably high enough to not notice her enthusiasm but she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly.

silvershred January 31st, 2018 10:58 PM

Doing a movement that supports everyone is that it does kinda ignore the group that is struggling. We don't have movements to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. The latter is already a thing, and doesn't need any support at the moment. At the same time most men don't face the same problems women face because of their gender. It doesn't mean that men can't face discrimination at all, but it's rare for them to be underestimated or seen as weak because of their gender identity. They face a differnt kind of problem with having more pressure on gender roles, which is a thing that should be dealt with on its own.

More rights for one group of people does not mean less for the rest.

Vragon January 31st, 2018 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)

Quote:

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.
Source: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

I bolded some keywords. Explicit is sort of tricky to understand in this situation-- It's very clear that we see it two separate ways. I feel that she didn't explicitly consent, due to the fact she rescinded her consent in later parts of their encounter. If I understand correctly, you feel that she did explicitly consent because she said it out loud. I bolded fondling because that seemed to be a very large part of what could have potentially made the encounter into a sexual assault.

My overarching point when it comes to consent is getting your point across if you do or don't want to. It's up to you to ensure that you've done all you can to get the person to understand your position, it's on them to try and understand it and not brush it aside until they've confirmed with you. The fact you and I see how the consent thing differs is an example of how we both communicate differently (or observe such details in different ways). I'm not saying one is wrong or the other, just that it is important to be clear.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
Quote:

Sexual assault is an act in which a person sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will
Source: Cameron, P., Jelinek, G., Kelly, A-M., Brown. A. F. T., Little, M. Textbook of Adult Emergency Medicine E-Book p. 658.

I've bolded the word coerce so that it's used as a point of consideration in discussing this topic. When I read the situation regarding Aziz Ansari, it seemed clear to me that the woman was coerced. While she seemed to consent in parts, it seemed clear that she also did not fully consent in other parts. Is it fair to say that she was coerced in this situation? If she was, it certainly fits this definition of sexual assault that is used in a textbook meant to educate trainee doctors in Emergency Room settings.

Okay, I can agree that she wouldn't want to be in that situation all the time and she should try and convey her wants to get out. Coerced is a thing yes, but something that's important to touch up on is what I said prior, "Communication being clear". If he is coercing and it is affecting you then it would be advised to emphasize that it's something you don't want. Plus there's the definition of Coerce being for an "Unwilling" person. Now I can agree that she may have been unwilling, the thing is I don't know for certain since there was no conveying of "Unwillingess" or enough to be a signal to the guy. If he kept going on then yeah, he'd be going too far, but the issue lies in those two being able to communicate. Did she make it clear? Did he understand yet go ahead with it anyway? These things need to be understood and evidence to support them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I personally think that, considering the facts, it's fair to compare this to sexual assault.

Let be clear on my position. I believe that you shouldn't force anyone to do anything without their consent. Something I also believe is that communication needs to be established for things to get accurately across. I'm not contending any definitions, just wanted to say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
Quote:

The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.
I personally can't see how it isn't society's job not to do that. The entire point of law (at least from what I understand from a Canadian and United States perspective) is establishing a set of guidelines which is meant to protect people in a fair and democratic society. We have laws which tell people not to harm others in the greater interest of protecting the overall population. How is this any different than establishing guidelines to protect people from being sexually assaulted? Even from a non-legal perspective, is it not our responsibility as a society to educate people from harming others? Is teaching proper communication cues during sexual encounters not beneficial in preventing harmful situations from occurring?

I can understand if what I said might not have been clear so let me clarify my position. I do think society should have guidelines like the whole "yes means yes" and "no means no" and other things along with laws against assault and go into good detail what makes it assault. Now what I'm referring to hear is the couple's communication. No one really hears the same thing nor does everyone say things in the same way. It's more of how the couple would be able to convey such feelings that aren't in the guidelines that are set up by them. Society can have guidelines, but it can't go overboard or overly complex with them since many couples do things differently and not everyone sees/hears things in the same way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)

Quote:

Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."
I think you need to seriously re-examine what your definition of consent is. I deleted my post earlier, because I thought it was sort of inflammatory, but I think it rings true to what you're saying here.

Okay, so understand I'm not saying consent shouldn't be clarified by the other person nor am I saying that all consents given should be accepted as willing. My point is not about why you give consent, but that you did.
When it comes to consent, it's up to the consent to give consent. They can refuse to; they can clarify for the person to stop. I don't believe it coercing someone to get what you want, cause that is a childish tactic that is befitting of an adult. When I disagree that consent needs to be enthusiastic I refer not to the person giving consent but the person that is given the consent. I wouldn't know what goes on in a person's mind so how would I think that they would be less than enthusiastic for that specific reason, unless I asked. (an example of the other party trying to ensure they get the point) I'm not giving saying a person should consent after being constantly asked/argued nor am I advocating a quick solution. I know couples situations are different. So what I mean by consent, I mean once it's given there isn't an excuse to claim anything about "Forced to do something you don't want" Unless you slam that door to begin with or shut the door in the middle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
https://i.imgur.com/2RWvtod.png
While sort of sassy, this was taken from a situation I had many years ago. To make a long story short, I got drunk and ended up going home with somebody. It was very clear that he wanted to have sex with me, but I wasn't entirely motivated and comfortable doing it. He goaded me until I eventually gave him consent to have sex with me, despite the fact I didn't want to have it in the first place. To use your language, I " was willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not.". Was I willing to carry it out? Absolutely, I used it as a mechanism that prevented me from having an argument despite the fact I didn't want it in the first place. Did I want it at all? No. I didn't want it whatsoever. in literally NO world did I want to have sex, but I had to so that I A) Didn't potentially get further hurt B) Get kicked out drunk and forced to make my own way back home. This isn't real consent. No amount of mental gymnastics anybody goes through will ever justify this being actual, legitimate, true consent, despite the fact I was willing to carry it out.

Refer back to the earlier definition that I gave. I was coerced into having sex. Do you know what a great way to understand whether someone wants to have sex with you or not? Enthusiastic Consent.

With regards to your image, I disagree with the guy constantly bothering you about it. I don't think he should be pressing you for it and you have every reason to say "No". When it comes to law, if you do sex so that it won't become an argument, means it's out of anyone's hands to call "Forced" if you willingly do it. I wouldn't want you to nor do I think he is right, but at the same time there isn't much you can criminalize him for above just merely pestering you about it unless he did coercing.

Also, might I add that there is a society guideline that someone that is intoxicated is a factor to consider as well as others. Here's a link that explains them in order, feel free to treat it with scrutiny.
https://www.rainn.org/articles/legal-role-consent

In that situation I will say you weren't in a state to give consent if you were intoxicated. Look, I'm not trying to play devils advocate, I'm trying to analyze this from the perspective of someone outside of this scenario. If you were drunk to one of the intoxication levels, you legally can't give consent. Therefore what you gave to him wasn't consent and he could be charged for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
I am going to be very honest with you. How do you understand consent, even when it comes to non-sexual encounters? If you invite friends to go to a movie, but one of them seems apprehensive to go to a movie, do you feel comfortable taking them to that movie, or do you have the reasonable sense to try and compromise? The logic is really the same here. Enthusiasm is a very easy trait to recognize-- Friends can see that I am enthusiastic about playing rugby and continuing my studies. Is this not a characteristic that we should recognize in our interpersonal relationships? I can see my friend Amy is excited to go the movie, so I know my decision is sound! If Amy seems a little apprehensive about going to see this film, maybe I'll go find another one for her, or have a quiet night in.

---

And there is an example of you picking up the communications made by the person that they don't want to go. Let me make myself as clear as I can be in regards to what I'm debating on.

I'm not debating on the person's consent level of interest, because if it's given then there isn't anything legal that can be done if the consent is legally given. I have plenty of opinions on that and I keep them aside so I can treat this from a legal/in-biased (hopefully)/broad perspective. I hope I didn't come off too despicable since my opinions on consent and all aren't too far from what you're saying. I feel it's important to make sure everyone is on board and wants to be there and it's important to establish that first and foremost. But not everyone is like me and justice doesn't care for my definitions on the matter.
I don't say that to be condescending, but to keep things in perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834739)
I'm also going to be honest and say that I may not respond to you guys further. I don't spend a lot of time on this website, so your replies may get sidetracked to some of my other responsibilities. I certainly hope I gave you some food for thought though.

You certainly have provided your case well and in all honesty I don't disagree inherently with your points or opinions (some of them). I'm just trying to stay neutral in this and the evidence that supports it like a few others I believe are in this chat (albeit I'm probably failing but eh). So what I say here, please understand isn't my full opinion, but me trying to approach this rationally.

Thank you for the discussion and for being respectful with your response.

I wish you well.

luuma February 1st, 2018 9:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834744)
Ultimately, my point of view is that perhaps as a society we should be encouraging women to say no if they want to say no, and that "no" means no and "yes" means "yes" instead of teaching men to become behavioural analysts who, if they misread a non-verbal clues are classified sexual abusers.

In my opinion this is a comparatively terrible idea! The whole basis of the argument star lord is making is that someone may not always feel able to say no. His ideal scenario of "people always, always look for enthusiastic consent" works much better than yours.

Given this assumption, your supposed ideal scenario actually seems to make things worse in many casses! Let's say I've gotten pulled by a big scary geezer with tattoos all up their arm and they calmy ask someone if they wanna come back to the lad pad, go on it'll be fun, i promise it won't be awkward, etcetera. He's actually a tender hearted soul, but I am absolutely terrified, and also likely drunk. I am unlikely to be in a position to "say no if I want to say no" because training falls apart

In star lord's ideal world, where the responsibility lies entirely on the side of the person posing the question, I give unenthusiastic consent, the scary geezer uses his training and realises that his looks have spooked me out, and quietly reassures me that it's chill, I don't have to.
But people are flawed machines;. It's possible he pressures me more, and we spend the night together. I didn't consent enthusiastically, and I can make a case against him the morning after.


Now let's look at your ideal world, where responsibility lies upon me. I've been told to only say yes when I mean it, and say no for the rest. I say no. He graciously backs off.
But people, as I say, are flawed machines: It's possible I forget my training, get scared by him, and say yes. He's well aware of society's training, so to him this categorically means that I want to spend the night. So we do.
The morning after I have nothing to do. It was my fault. Why would I be able to get justice for myself when in the eyes of society it is my own screwup??

Do you see the difference? All we did was put the training on the victim rather than the accuser, and suddenly the bad scenario seems infinitely harsher on statutory rape victims.Unwanted intimacy, and I cannot stress this enough, Messes you up. We need a safety net for those affected. the training, and by extension, the blame, should lie with the person asking.

Also this issue is unrelated to gender politics unless we're discussing favorable treatment of women in the courts. gay guys have consent issues too. So do women asking men. Let's go back to feminism.

KetsuekiR February 1st, 2018 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9834874)
-snip-

I can get behind all of this except on the part where this is equivalent to genuine sexual assault. This is its own kind of problem and yes, perhaps society could be educated on it, but what good does it do for the people victims of serious sexual assault if these cases are treated the same?

Star-Lord February 1st, 2018 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834744)
she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly.

How terrible. Your complete refusal to engage with situations critically by boiling it down to a "She said yes so she clearly consented" mindset is insanely irresponsible and damaging to those who are too threatened to verbalize their refusal of consent and those who are unable to provide informed consent. My heart breaks for all the victims out there who have to listen to such insanely stupid rhetoric.

Shame on you.

Lipstick Vogue February 1st, 2018 12:17 PM

They've gotten rid of grid girls in F1. Feminism literally losing women good jobs.

Vragon February 1st, 2018 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834744)
Ultimately, my point of view is that perhaps as a society we should be encouraging women to say no if they want to say no, and that "no" means no and "yes" means "yes" instead of teaching men to become behavioural analysts who, if they misread a non-verbal clues are classified sexual abusers.

That isn't to say a man shouldn't try to pick up on these clues but if a woman says yes, you can't exactly blame the blame for taking that as a yes. In the moment, his enthusiasm was probably high enough to not notice her enthusiasm but she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9834931)
snip

First off, I wanna say that I don't think you are intentionally straw manning, however this is a mis-representation of KetsuekiR's opinion in your comment.
The law can only do what the law has and if consent is given within the law's stipulation nothing of legal action can be done unless proven illegal. It isn't heartless nor is it something to be shamed for in keeping that in realistic sense. I've read in this thread and KetsuekiR has already stated that KetsuekiR's opinion isn't too far off save for the "Legal" action done as a result of it. This isn't a case of playing devil's advocate, this is a case of perspective thinking and understanding how the law does things.

If a person gives consent that is within the law, there isn't any legal action that can be done until it's illegal. I personally have opinions on the matter that go beyond the law and honestly I do want both parties to be enthusiastic and want to do it with each other. The issue is that my feelings on the matter are not a reason to "Legally" press a accusation when if consent is given "legally" then I can't do anything in regards to legal action. I'm not saying I support it, nor am I saying I condone it.

The issue with this whole thing is that women and men aren't perfect and won't always understand each other's "communication" signals. I agree that society should try and make it simpler to understand, but you can't make it law based on that for reasons I gave earlier. If someone says a weak "yes" but the other only catches up on the "yes", then what more do you want? If the signal isn't clear and they don't get the message then what's the roadblock? I can agree that a person can give consent without wanting to do it and if the other person tries to clarify if the consent giver really wants to then that's all well and good, but not every person will do that first nor will every person see that there's something off by signals they don't recognize.

I get this isn't a comfortable topic, nor is taking a legal perspective pretty. However, I'm firmly against using "shaming" tactics on another for the sole reason of a difference in opinion. I'm not saying you should be okay with these things, but at the same time rules won't consider the factors outside it's jurisdiction.

That's all I have to say and Star-Lord I'm not trying to come off as condescending or attacking, but I'm trying to say that the legal perspective is a very neutral and cold perspective that can come off as heartless. It may be like that, but it's an important view point to understand, to avoid the lynching/shaming tactics that have been used to ruin people's lives.

I wish you well

Star-Lord February 1st, 2018 5:28 PM

I understand how the law works perfectly well which is why I chose not to respond to your earlier comment. What we as a society are able and unable to prosecute under the law is a talking point I've never brought up. It's part of why I elected to not talk about the legality surrounding my situation any further. While I think you had good intentions trying to unpack what happened to me with your perspective, I need you to understand that as this is a situation that happened to me, not yourself, and because of that I already did all the necessary research into the legality of it and my legal options. Honestly I was sort of dumbstruck at the fact you felt the need to try and "educate" me on it (for a lack of a better word). I mean no ill-will but it was an insanely bizarre experience for me.

As for what my actual goals and intentions are, I think I've made it clear that I'm trying to make us as a society think critically on the notion of consent in the first place. A theme that is present in this thread (that you yourself are not guilty of, actually) is that "Yes means yes and no means no". On paper that sounds great, and of course I agree with empowering people so that they have the ability to say yes and no clearly. That would be an ideal world, but the reality of the world we live in is that it's obviously not ideal. It's already been explained in this thread that context is important when analyzing behaviors in situations-- A woman saying"yes" to consent to sex because she's too afraid to be subjected to violence (despite the fact she doesn't want to have sex in the first place) needs to be examined critically. Can it be prosecuted under a statute? That's debatable, but I'm really not interested in debating in, as I've said.

We don't need to be able to prosecute a situation for it to be considered sexual assault, and I think that focusing it on this purely under the legal scope of the law is short-sighted to the fact that this is a societal problem. Many victims don't have the financial ability or are otherwise unable to pursue litigation against their assailant. Law in general doesn't always do what people feel is the most "fair" or "ethical" decision-- That's why I'm focused on broadening society's views on sexual assault in the first place. Through education I think we may have a shot of preventing further sexual assault. After all, if people have a better notion of consent through context (my goal!) then there will be less people who feel assaulted and violated.

I have very little patience for people who succumb to an context lacking and un-nuanced definition of consent. If this makes me a "shamer", so be it.

All the best.

Vragon February 1st, 2018 6:09 PM

Educating you was not the intention I wished to display, for that I apologize. As for the unpacking, it wasn't my intention either for education in that field and I can't blame you for feeling that way. I wasn't trying to "assert" into that nor claim that you didn't educate yourself in this or have knowledge in this area. I don't debate for a condescension or pride points for myself and I do apologize that I came off that way to you.

I do agree with that force (whether direct or indirect) is a violation of consent. I understand that it's an important detail to delve into and treat with scrutiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9835012)
We don't need to be able to prosecute a situation for it to be considered sexual assault, and I think that focusing it on this purely under the legal scope of the law is short-sighted to the fact that this is a societal problem. Many victims don't have the financial ability or are otherwise unable to pursue litigation against their assailant. Law in general doesn't always do what people feel is the most "fair" or "ethical" decision-- That's why I'm focused on broadening society's views on sexual assault in the first place. Through education I think we may have a shot of preventing further sexual assault. After all, if people have a better notion of consent through context (my goal!) then there will be less people who feel assaulted and violated.

I have very little patience for people who succumb to an context lacking and un-nuanced definition of consent. If this makes me a "shamer", so be it.

I understand your impatience with such "people" and assault and for that I respect you for. Perhaps this is merely a slight difference in opinion when it comes to the overall influence on society. I agree, the law is basic and won't always be "fair" and I don't contend your position on that.

My concern with what you are saying isn't the intention or motive. I'm concerned in exactly the effect in it. The reason I press the whole "communications" thing is that one sometimes isn't aware of the situation. I'm not using that as an excuse, but it's a real thing that exists. I sometimes don't know that I'm hurting someone and aren't aware of the influence and that takes "communication" from either me or the other person to bridge that gap. Inherently I don't think education in this is bad; I do think it's bad if it's treated as someone not "caring" or avidly "doing it intentionally" if they just fail to read the signs. I understand education would help, but not everyone would get that education always be on their toes on it, aware when something is wrong, will recognize it and I don't think it's reasonable for people that aren't intentionally trying to harm their partner should be scapegoated for it.

I'm not against your education nor am I against the reasoning. I only want to say that misreading signals shouldn't be "villainized" or people "scapegoated" as a result. That's the only thing I disagree with you on. Everything else, I'm fine with and makes sense, but in my own opinion that's where I differ.

I do believe that "context" is important and I understand that you aren't debating on the matter of law now and so I won't debate on that section further (or at least try not to, I'm only human).

I hope this clarifies my opinion on the matter and sorry that I caused you frustration. It wasn't my intention to come off as "educating" you; I just fail at writing sometimes. I do think your intentions are honorable and your education if handled well can be a good thing. I've already stated where my own opinion differs and it's fine for us to disagree.

I wish you well

KetsuekiR February 1st, 2018 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star-Lord (Post 9835012)
As for what my actual goals and intentions are, I think I've made it clear that I'm trying to make us as a society think critically on the notion of consent in the first place. A theme that is present in this thread (that you yourself are not guilty of, actually) is that "Yes means yes and no means no". On paper that sounds great, and of course I agree with empowering people so that they have the ability to say yes and no clearly. That would be an ideal world, but the reality of the world we live in is that it's obviously not ideal. It's already been explained in this thread that context is important when analyzing behaviors in situations-- A woman saying"yes" to consent to sex because she's too afraid to be subjected to violence (despite the fact she doesn't want to have sex in the first place) needs to be examined critically. Can it be prosecuted under a statute? That's debatable, but I'm really not interested in debating in, as I've said.

I'll avoid responding to your earlier comment on my previous response. You've perhaps misunderstood/conflated my ideas and I think Vragon explained that well.

Moving on, my point actually goes fairly well with yours. The world is not ideal. This is exactly why I'm against someone misreading a situation to be put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault. As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful?

Psychic February 1st, 2018 11:13 PM

Wow, there sure is a lot of strawmanning feminism in this thread. It's interesting that so many people are defining feminism by ideas they dislike. I wonder how many people have in good faith gone out and read a variety of feminist literature written by different feminists. If you want to learn some feminism 101, there is no shortage of blogs, YouTube videos, podcasts and more to learn about this stuff in 2018.

Let's be clear: feminists are not a hive mind. We don't all agree. The same way you get tons of Christians with different ideas about what Christianity means and how to practice it, with plenty of well-meaning people and a minority of loud obnoxious people making the rest look bad, so do you have the same with feminism. I don't assume all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church; imo it's ridiculously naive to believe such things about any group, feminists included. There are plenty of crappy feminists with beliefs I don't agree with, but it's silly to define it from that alone or pretend nothing good has come out of the movement.

Anyhow, here are a few feminist ideas that I like, agree with, and think benefit our society:
  • All genders deserve equality and equity
  • Sexism is a powerful institutionalized part of our society that needs to be removed
  • Anyone of any gender can have sexist beliefs, often subconsciously
  • Sexism creates double-standards that hurt all genders
  • All genders face different problems
  • Intersectional feminism explains how we need to understand other forms of bigotry (racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, abelism, classism, ageism, etc.) to solve these problems
  • These problems are unique to different groups and need specific solutions
  • These problems are all worth combatting, and you get to choose what battles you want to fight
  • The struggles of one group does not cancel out the struggles of another (but be tactful for goodness' sake)
  • Most societies function under patriarchal systems that value the masculine over the feminine and are deeply unfair and problematic
  • Most societies unfairly uphold and value certain voices over others - usually not the marginalized
  • Rape culture is real and results in "victim blaming, 'slut shaming', sexual objectification, trivializing rape, denial of widespread rape, refusing to acknowledge the harm caused by some forms of sexual violence," etc
  • Transgender and non-binary people are valid and face unique struggles
  • Sex positivity is important and people should be empowered to make their own decisions about their sex lives without stigma
  • All people deserve bodily autonomy - we should teach consent from an early age
  • Pregnant people should be able to decide what happens to their bodies
  • Femininity is not inherently good or bad
  • Gender and sexuality is a spectrum
  • Earlier waves of feminism were deeply problematic, but that doesn't mean nothing good came from them

I think most of this is pretty common sense and not all that radical or controversial. I imagine most people here will agree with most of them; a lot of these ideas are already mainstream (because of feminism). I came to some of these conclusions through feminist texts and perspectives, which I have found eye-opening and empowering.

It's super edgy these days to be anti-feminist/anti-SJW. There's a popular narrative of how those fighting feminism are real progressives, defending society from oppressive man-haters who want to turn society into a dystopian matriarchy. To which I say...you caught us, that's the real feminist agenda, and we've already won; that's why Hilary Clinton is President and Oprah is the head of the CIA, intersectional feminism is beloved and accepted (and understood) by the entire galaxy, we're the oppressive Empire and you're the plucky Rebels, you figured us out.

~Psychic

PS: For the love of all that is good, don't have sex with people who are not clearly enthusiastic about having sex with you. Especially if it means you might mentally and physically harm someone, and possibly face criminal charges and everything that entails. Getting some lackluster sex is very little reward weighed against some pretty significant risks. This is a ridiculous thing to defend imo.

Vragon February 2nd, 2018 12:03 AM

Fair enough, Psychic. I'm pretty sure anyone with a lick of sense (or wit enough to be observant) would be able to conclude that not all peeps in a group are the same and not a couple of a group speak for the group as a whole.

I can say I do agree with some of your list not all of it, but let's agree to disagree. Just one thing though I do want to mention.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Psychic (Post 9835105)
PS: For the love of all that is good, don't have sex with people who are not clearly enthusiastic about having sex with you. Especially if it means you might mentally and physically harm someone, and possibly face criminal charges and everything that entails. Getting some lackluster sex is very little reward weighed against some pretty significant risks. This is a ridiculous thing to defend imo.

I'm pretty sure no one is defending having sex with someone that isn't enthusiastic as a good thing. If something about what I said or someone else said seems that way, let the person know and we'll try to clarify if we are of merit.

But overall, I think I've made my points clear and see no reason for myself to continue unless I'm asked to clarify something. I wish you all well.

withheld February 2nd, 2018 2:31 AM

I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice.

silvershred February 2nd, 2018 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by withheld (Post 9835143)
I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice.

Pro choice isn't just in favour for the mother. If a woman is pregnant and know that there's no way for her to give the child a good life, it's hard just living with that knowledge. That's a whole other discussion though, but forcing women to have a child they can't care for or a labour that might kill both mother and child isn't really pro-life.

luuma February 2nd, 2018 7:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by withheld (Post 9835143)
I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice.

Read up on the famous violinist argument, it explains my beliefs on pro-life versus pro-choice better than I ever could.


Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834877)
I can get behind all of this except on the part where this is equivalent to genuine sexual assault. This is its own kind of problem and yes, perhaps society could be educated on it, but what good does it do for the people victims of serious sexual assault if these cases are treated the same?

I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to here, so I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick in your argument.

Unwanted sexual contact IS sexual assault in the eyes of the law, so BOTH the bad cases I've give here are defined as a form of "genuine" sexual assault. Suggesting this is not a form of "genuine" sexual assault is both false and probably harmful to its victims.

How do you suppose "sexual assault" being an umbrella term rather than a narrow one actually causes some form of harm? We are fundamentally debating semantics here! Seriously.

If you're suggesting that victims of more serious sexual assault will somehow be degraded or maltreated by having the term cover a broad range of crimes rather than a narrow one, I genuinely don't know why or how that would ever be the case? If I'm a victim of assault and battery and I came away badly bruised, I doubt I'd feel degraded by the fact that assault and battery also covers people who got nasty things shouted at them. I also doubt that my injury case would be treated the same as the others' shouting match case, even if the two come under the same legal terminology.

Law courts aren't full of idiots blind to nuance, sentencing isn't done based off the title of the offence, and cases have ALWAYS been treated on a case by case basis. In the real world, the cases I gave are NOT being "treated the same" as more serious forms of sexual assault, and for my part I have never suggested they should be. I don't think you've identified any issue here.

KetsuekiR February 2nd, 2018 8:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835217)
-snip-

I made a response earlier to a different user that is applicable to your statements as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835039)
... Moving on, my point actually goes fairly well with yours. The world is not ideal. This is exactly why I'm against someone misreading a situation to be put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault. As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful?

----------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Read up on the famous violinist argument, it explains my beliefs on pro-life versus pro-choice better than I ever could.
I think I can address this without it going too far off topic seeing as it's a big part of modern feminism.

To start off, the entire argument is full of holes in its incomparability to pregnancy. Being connected to another adult human is not quite the same as having a baby. I think we can safely agree it's vastly less inconvenient (which is such a bad word to use when discussing life) to have a baby than connected to walking, talking individual. I don't know how you can see this argument as a very valid one, in all honesty.

Let's move on imagining it is valid though. I'm not actually sure what your stand on it is, but seeing as the violinist argument is one for abortion, I'll go with that (correct me if I'm wrong). If this violinist was connected to you, and you knew that unplugging them would be killing them, would you really unplug them? Really think about it. This living human, who has done nothing wrong, and doesn't deserve to die, should die because it's inconvenient for you?

If it were me, the answer would be no. I wouldn't be okay with unplugging the violinist.

luuma February 2nd, 2018 8:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835221)
... I'm against someone misreading a situation to be [B]put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault.

I just explained that this isn't the case in the very comment you quoted.


Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835221)
As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful?


Of course it sucks, but in this case one man's screwup has resulted in someone's personal space and intimacy being compromised, in a way that has various psychological impacts. Manslaughter is a crime, even if it is a mistake. It sucks, but something obviously should be done in this case to dissuade people from screwing up in the same way.

Now, as I spent my first comment explaining, it is better that we come down on the assaulter rather than the victim. You need to come up with an alternative. There is no perfect solution, but the current solution is better than your one of "just put more of the responsibility on victims", because that one does not work.

Final thing, aziz ansari's career and life have not been ruined. Those who commit this crime do not have their life ruined. You need to stop making false equivalences.

KetsuekiR February 2nd, 2018 9:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835225)
-snip-

I don't see how this was a man's screw-up and only a man's screw-up. Both of them screwed up.

I'm not saying Aziz Ansari couldn't have read the situation better, or that it's fair to say it's all her fault. However, I don't think to label him a sexual predator for misreading it is fair either. This isn't a false equivalence, this is something multiple feminist media sources did. I will digress, however, that later on, most media outlets agreed this wasn't sexual assault, but rather a jerk and a bad date.

The alternative you asked for is what I've been pushing here; put more responsibility on both parties to ensure they know what they're doing.

luuma February 2nd, 2018 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835235)
I don't see how this was a man's screw-up and only a man's screw-up. Both of them screwed up.

The alternative you asked for is what I've been pushing here; put more responsibility on both parties to ensure they know what they're doing.

But that's not really an alternative, is it? That's just a compromise midway between a view I put forward as better and a view I explained was worse. Why on earth would incorporating facets of a worse system do anything good? In my mind this supposed alternative is merely partially removing power from victims rather than doing so fully.

Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose.
In continuation, out of respect, I would accept blame for the whole thing. Our opinions just differ fundamentally here, and I'm not going to try and convince you of this personal belief, but I think my points about punishment only falling on one party work well regardless of what your feelings may be.

Then we go about telling people not to drop boxes on other people's feet. We could tell people not to drop boxes on their own feet, but as I say, dropping a box on your foot is bad enough. People intuitively don't want to drop boxes on their own feet anyway, it's bloody obvious. Let's return to the analogy. TW:
Spoiler:
If I was sexually assaulted, that is a lesson in giving precise consent. It is not a bearable, forgettable thing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835235)
aziz ansari stuff

He shouldn't have been heavily defamed, no. but A: his career is fine, B: only niche outlets and angry twitter mobs were bothered, and C: what he did was sexual assault under many accepted legal definitions, because (regardless of whether she gave verbal consent) it was against the other person's will.
What a great example for my points! He's not being persecuted for it because (as I have explained) most people aren't dumb as hell, and understand some forms of sexual assault are more serious than others.

anastasija February 2nd, 2018 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arsenic (Post 9834127)
I prefer to call it female supremacy.

Anyone interested in true equality would be campaigning for equality for all, not just a single group. Same with things like BLM, LGBT, "Restoring white equality", so on and so fourth.

How about Humanism.

We already adopt humanism in modern society.

eeveetree9 February 2nd, 2018 12:30 PM

Feminism is (or should be) campaigning for gender equality and working to bring down the patriarchy. And bringing down the patriarchy should mean making the world an equal place for all genders, not placing women on top. I am a feminist, but I definitely don't hate men, as the stereotype seems to be. And, yes, there are probably a lot of women like that, but that's not was feminism is. Anyone who thinks that really needs to go and read Holly Bourne. And if you don't, read her books anyway. They show feminism pretty accurately.

Miss Wendighost February 2nd, 2018 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
https://i.imgur.com/jhEumu3.png

Feminism is and always has been about elevating the status of women in pursuit of equality. Let us not pretend, in any way, that it's something it isn't.


As for my own thoughts, I am all for the core belief behind feminism - equality of the sexes. I do not however consider myself a feminist nor do I support feminism as a movement for a few reason. I won't sit here and make outrageous claims that all feminists are feminazi sjw anti-man supremacist whatevers, because that simply isn't the case. The majority of the movement are probably perfectly normal people. Is there extremism in the movement? Yes, but it's not an extremist movement.

That being said, I do have problems with the movement. Firstly, I feel like it pushes beliefs that simply are not factual. The idea that there is a collective patriarchy oppressing women, the idea that there is a culture that encourages rape or sexual assault or that there is an ever-present wage gap (although I'm sure some assholes will go out of their way to under pay don't you worry - this is still too prevalent). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lot of injustice and inequality against women in our society, but I do not believe we have a society centred around the systematic oppression of women. Are women often marginalised, yes. Is there a patriarchal conspiracy against women, no.

Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I consider myself egalitarian. Not as a thinly-veiled way to do nothing and maintain the status quo like some conservatives use the term, I want equality for everyone and I think the sooner there is a global initiative for equal rights for all, the better.

I agree with you. Thanks for being logical in your response.

KetsuekiR February 2nd, 2018 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835238)
Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose.

Here's a slightly more accurate scenario.

If me and someone else are lifting a box and I wanted to drop it, I'll check with them to see if it's okay. They say give me consent to drop the box and I drop it. Turns out they hadn't moved their foot and perhaps I didn't double check because I figured when theybsaidbyes, they would've made sure to move it.

Also, all I've been saying is that the fault lies in both parties. I don't think I ever said the woman should be punished.

luuma February 3rd, 2018 1:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835411)
Here's a slightly more accurate scenario.

If me and someone else are lifting a box and I wanted to drop it, I'll check with them to see if it's okay. They say give me consent to drop the box and I drop it. Turns out they hadn't moved their foot and perhaps I didn't double check because I figured when theybsaidbyes, they would've made sure to move it.

same principle applies

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835411)
Also, all I've been saying is that the fault lies in both parties. I don't think I ever said the woman should be punished.

First off, stop treating consent as a FEMALE ONLY THING! my GOD! Men can be asked for sex too.

No you're right, you didn't say the woman should be punished, you said education should fall on both parties. That is what I am addressing in the next paragraph. The bit you quoted is not my entire point, it is the basis of my entire point, as you can see in the subsequent seemingly unread parts I've quoted below

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835238)
Then we go about telling people not to drop boxes on other people's feet. We could tell people not to drop boxes on their own feet, but as I say, dropping a box on your foot is bad enough. People intuitively don't want to drop boxes on their own feet anyway, it's bloody obvious. Let's return to the analogy. TW: If I was sexually assaulted, that is a lesson in giving precise consent. It is not a bearable, forgettable thing.

For the love of god please read, man. it's such a drag having to repeat myself like three times to get you up to speed on why I think you're wrong.

KetsuekiR February 3rd, 2018 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835509)
-snip-

Mybpoint was that your analogy implies the party that asked if they can drop the box and did, only for accidentally land on the other's foot, is as bad as the person who slammed it onto another's foot on purpose.

I think we came to an agreement when you stated that the blame should go to both parties and that both sides should be more educated.

I'll end this here, seeing as we've begun to say the same thing back and forth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835509)
For the love of god please read, man. it's such a drag having to repeat myself like three times to get you up to speed on why I think you're wrong.

I apologize that that's too much of a bother for you, but seeing as I've had to repeat myself as many times, if not more, I'm sure you'll survive.

luuma February 3rd, 2018 5:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835558)
Mybpoint was that your analogy implies the party that asked if they can drop the box and did, only for accidentally land on the other's foot, is as bad as the person who slammed it onto another's foot on purpose. .

This is not something I feel like I implied here at all. Where does this suggest it was done on purpose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835238)
Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose.



Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9835558)
I apologize that that's too much of a bother for you, but seeing as I've had to repeat myself as many times, if not more, I'm sure you'll survive.

thanks so much for being so cloyingly civil. Every time you've "repeated yourself" thus far I have just been forced to quote the part of my previous posts where I addressed that point. You haven't "had" to repeat yourself, you've just done so anyway.


But not gonna lie, we are both kinda ruining a thread here, I am indeed going to drop it now. I'm sure you'll survive : ) ) )

Vragon February 3rd, 2018 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KetsuekiR (Post 9834681)
I'll end this here, seeing as we've begun to say the same thing back and forth.
I apologize that that's too much of a bother for you, but seeing as I've had to repeat myself as many times, if not more, I'm sure you'll survive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luuma (Post 9835573)
thanks so much for being so cloyingly civil. Every time you've "repeated yourself" thus far I have just been forced to quote the part of my previous posts where I addressed that point. You haven't "had" to repeat yourself, you've just done so anyway.


But not gonna lie, we are both kinda ruining a thread here, I am indeed going to drop it now. I'm sure you'll survive : ) ) )

I'll say you both kinda ruined it, and not because you've had to repeat your points over and over, but that you both didn't seem get that perhaps, "What I'm saying isn't being received as the exact same way."

I've just been observing since I made my points and left out of disinterest, but I might as well as point out that both of you have been saying stuff and that both of you are interpreting each other differently. In any case, I have to say that about 2 comments in, perhaps the idea of "clarification by questions" would have clicked or something.

Okay so turning off my annoyance. You both mean well and I think I get the brunt of your arguments. However, amid that I can say that both of you misunderstood to the point that is seems like you both were taking each other out of context. Do whatever you will after this, but I thought it fine to point out that explaining your points can only go so far and sometimes you need to other person to ask questions/tell what they hear.

and no, it isn't only on the speaker but the listener too. Both of yo- no everyone in this entire thread should practice reading a comment more than thrice to ensure they get the message. If there are parts that are unclear/don't make sense, then clarification may be needed and that's done by asking.

And let me point out that I'm against peeps having condescending attitudes towards their fellow speakers. (If you bring up my thing from earlier, I apologized that wasn't the intention and that if I did I apologize for)
I think you both bring up good arguments, but that's only after I read this thread like "Five times" to try and make sure I understood what you both were saying. Overall, it's fine, but please can we all stop treating miscommunication as the other person "Not getting it cause they can't think" or "are illogical and/or simple minded" instead of I dunno, actually trying to make sure we're on the same page.


Pardon the rant, I wish you both and everyone in this thread well.

Gigadweeb March 10th, 2018 7:06 PM

Alright, so I fall into the situation where people would call me an extreme feminist, SJW, 'third-wave' (using it as a derogatory term instead of its actual definition), whatever.

It's honestly really disappointing looking at this thread and the misconceptions of modern feminism, and also a bit funny considering people seem to like the 'older' feminists, which is really weird considering second-wave is where a lot of the actual man-hating feminists and TERFs fall into.

No shit we support the equality of both sexes. Along with the recognition of minority women, trans women and non-binary people. There's a reason third-wave is known as intersectional feminism.

Personally, I have no problem with men, as I am a guy myself, and pretty much every feminist I've talked to on Leftbook and the meta+left circle of reddit is the same. The reason discussion tends to focus on women is because there is still a shitton of imbalance between men and women. The Hollywood rape accusations that have come out in full force in the past 6 months or so is a good indication of that. Men in positions of power are protected by other influential men. It's as simple as that. Women are threatened that they'll be kept out of the industry if they don't have sex with them, have their life ruined, whatever. This isn't new, and happens everywhere on smaller scales. That's just one example.

My point is, legal rights don't mean shit when it comes to the culture of a society, and pretty much all of the world is still heavily dominated by wealthy men. That's why I'm a feminist. Not because I want to see all men castrated, toothbrushes seized, white genocide, whatever like a lot of reactionaries like to delude themselves into believing.

Vragon2.0 March 11th, 2018 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigadweeb (Post 9852281)
Alright, so I fall into the situation where people would call me an extreme feminist, SJW, 'third-wave' (using it as a derogatory term instead of its actual definition), whatever.

It's honestly really disappointing looking at this thread and the misconceptions of modern feminism, and also a bit funny considering people seem to like the 'older' feminists, which is really weird considering second-wave is where a lot of the actual man-hating feminists and TERFs fall into.

I hate to be that guy, but what things in Second-wave if you can elaborate on them. This isn't sarcasm or a counter, I just would like to know which ones in particular you are referring to. Also, yeah I'm not for guilt by association or that everyone in a thing has the same opinions on every matter so I agree on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigadweeb (Post 9852281)
No muk we support the equality of both sexes. Along with the recognition of minority women, trans women and non-binary people. There's a reason third-wave is known as intersectional feminism.

So I read up a little on intersectional feminism from the Wiki (While it is prone to be written by anyone I doubt highly that it's been tampered to the point of blatant lying). It's an interesting concept that does have its share of criticism that also have good points to them. Also, I'd like to pose a question to you. "What is equality of the sexes in your eyes?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigadweeb (Post 9852281)
Personally, I have no problem with men, as I am a guy myself, and pretty much every feminist I've talked to on Leftbook and the meta+left circle of reddit is the same. The reason discussion tends to focus on women is because there is still a mukton of imbalance between men and women. The Hollywood rape accusations that have come out in full force in the past 6 months or so is a good indication of that. Men in positions of power are protected by other influential men. It's as simple as that. Women are threatened that they'll be kept out of the industry if they don't have sex with them, have their life ruined, whatever. This isn't new, and happens everywhere on smaller scales. That's just one example.

So anecdotal testimony of talking with peeps on your end aside, I'd like to address all your points with, "where's your proof?". Call it a cop out if you will, but I honestly would like to see evidence of these claims you're making. I won't say anything you say is doesn't exist, that would be stupid of me, however if it is as frequent as it is preached, it's important to discuss it and know how prevalent it is. Not every rich person bangs a girl often and not everyone focuses on protecting ones that do. Also, if this is an issue with higher ups in business, then how is it a cultural issue on the scale os basics? I mean, rich people do things and have an easier time of getting away with it. I don't condone the actions nor do I think justice shouldn't be served, however I fail to see enough reason to say that "Not wanting to have sex is the reason women won't go into the industry".

Like, I hate to have to drive this, but where's the measures of this. How many women do go into the field and is it an increase? It's not so simple as 1 reason why this would be a thing, so I honestly find it kinda generalistic to say that for "Women" to be out of the "Industry".



Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigadweeb (Post 9852281)
My point is, legal rights don't mean muk when it comes to the culture of a society, and pretty much all of the world is still heavily dominated by wealthy men. That's why I'm a feminist. Not because I want to see all men castrated, toothbrushes seized, white genocide, whatever like a lot of reactionaries like to delude themselves into believing.

Okay, so men tend to have the higher levels in industry. Okay, so I have to ask why is that? I mean, sure we can go with that, but what are the factors for why more men are seen in the wealthy aspect compared to women? I think your question is fair and deserves to be talked about, however I think the basics of "more men are in the wealthy positions" isn't really a bad thing unless it's used for bad purposes. Like, more of something in one spot doesn't mean it's bad because there isn't a good parsed amount of other things across it.

I mean, yeah I could believe a lot of bad men are at the top, but the idea of there being more men up there isn't inherently bad likewise if more women were up there. Frankly, that's also saying that it requires cultural change when if you're talking about suites being in control would mainly focus on that higher class (if not a select few of them).

My point is that what they say does have merit to a degree, however I think both sides are overblowing the issue and honestly it hurts both of the sides credibility. I don't believe the feminazis are a true face of feminism (hell, I just get a laugh out of them), but at the same time, I can't really say I'd be a feminist. I agree in equality of the sexes, I just disagree with a bit of their agenda and ways of solving the issues that we still need to determine are at what level if even the right issues.

Yoshikko March 17th, 2018 3:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchisou Yutohru (Post 9834140)
Without going into too much detail because frankly I'm not interested in debating this, I find it incredibly inconsistent. There was once a time when feminism aligned with what it says it is, but that is very much in the past. At the root it stands for female empowerment, but there are multiple layers about it that construct it as the opposite, bullying. Feminism's primary objective seems to be pushing men down to pull women up. That is not equality. It is picking and choosing behaviors to suit its needs and desires. Unfortunately, feminism is coined with "pro women." If you aren't a feminist, you are against women and you are against women's civil and political rights. If you're a woman yourself who rejects feminism, you hate women. I am very much for women, and "women's rights", but I am very much anti-feminist.

Vehemently disagree. People who say they are for equality but against feminism always make me laugh. I think the part about feminism having become something else than what it was intended as is debatable, but your idea of what feminism is, is incorrect. I feel that feminism is necessary in this world, where women are still treated as lesser. Had it been the other way around, there would have been a male-focused variant. Feminism is not about putting men down, it's about pulling women up to the same level. It is definitely about equality. The problem with modern day feminism is that it's everything but inclusive, and so it's failing. Gay women, trans women, black women (and any women of colour, but black women in particular) are more often than not excluded and so these days it really seems to be about having a notch on your belt, rather than actually fighting for equality. So I understand your contempt, except it's in the wrong direction.

Feminism at its core is about equality. Speaking generally, if you're not a feminist, you're not against women, but you are definitely for upkeeping the current standard. Or else, you have your definitions all wrong.

Logically you should have the same feelings about LGBT movements or BLM movements, since they put their focus on a particular group. Why doesn't feminism fit in here? It's the same principle. Seems to me like you just want to avoid being grouped in with the negative idea people have of feminists.

Vragon2.0 March 17th, 2018 7:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoshikko (Post 9855027)
Feminism at its core is about equality. Speaking generally, if you're not a feminist, you're not against women, but you are definitely for upkeeping the current standard. Or else, you have your definitions all wrong.

Logically you should have the same feelings about LGBT movements or BLM movements, since they put their focus on a particular group. Why doesn't feminism fit in here? It's the same principle. Seems to me like you just want to avoid being grouped in with the negative idea people have of feminists.

I severely disagree with this statement. I don't have to be a feminist to still be for women's rights. Feminism doesn't own the concept of equality of the sexes, if just is the most vocal group about it. I disagree with a bit of the policies they put as well as some of their doings so I don't attribute myself to feminism (that and I don't care to). This doesn't make me any less of a equality of the sexes supporter, nor does it mean I have definitions wrong.

Regarding LGBT and BLM, understand not everyone agrees with movements in general. I disagree with a bit of what both do, does that mean I'm against their freedoms, no. I think there's a fine line between association and advocacy. I'm fine with them all bringing their own problems to the table, however I have an issue with the current movements status for my own disagreements with them.

Aliencommander1245 March 18th, 2018 3:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vragon2.0 (Post 9855126)
I severely disagree with this statement. I don't have to be a feminist to still be for women's rights. Feminism doesn't own the concept of equality of the sexes, if just is the most vocal group about it. I disagree with a bit of the policies they put as well as some of their doings so I don't attribute myself to feminism (that and I don't care to). This doesn't make me any less of a equality of the sexes supporter, nor does it mean I have definitions wrong.

Regarding LGBT and BLM, understand not everyone agrees with movements in general. I disagree with a bit of what both do, does that mean I'm against their freedoms, no. I think there's a fine line between association and advocacy. I'm fine with them all bringing their own problems to the table, however I have an issue with the current movements status for my own disagreements with them.

My issue with this is that you can't really call feminism a movement in the same way you can call BLM one, given that "feminism" is an ideology rather than a singular collective of people who share an idea. I take similar issue with the idea of "lgbt movements" being boiled down to a single thing.

I probably shouldn't have started with "my issue with this" when i had multiple issues with it is having issues with a movement's actions and excusing yourself from being part of said movement even if you share those views, and as such are inherently a part of the movement is that attributing the actions of a few in what amounts to an organisation with no power structure or prevailing singular policy/set of actions and damning everyone who prescribes to that ideology because of it (even if it's in that lame implicit way that's like "i don't agree with what feminists do but i agree with feminism") is absolutely useless in every respect.

"I don't agree with some guy who said he was part of blm doing a bad thing so i don't agree with blm as a whole, but i agree with their core ideology of 'Hey Maybe We Shouldn't Murder People'" doesn't say anything at all beyond that you attribute the actions of someone/multiple someones who have an ideology with the actions of everyone who shares that ideology.

The vagueness of your disagreements (despite it actually being useful to air those in this discussion) aside, Feminism does own the concept of equality of the sexes because that's literally the ideology at play, and while BLM might actually not own the concept of "hey police brutality is bad and a problem" disagreeing with what some people who agree with BLM do in service of that concept isn't "having issues with" BLM, it's just perceiving BLM to be a hivemind that acts in unison rather than an umbrella label for people who agree with the core ideology

LadyJirachu March 18th, 2018 8:03 AM

I like the idea of woman (and all people, really) having equal rights and am a strong fan of 'girl power'.

I really dislike feminists who take their point too far, though. Like, the ones that act like girly girls don't belong in this world. I'm a girly girl, myself, so it anger's me when people are against who I am. I'm not weak! I even stood up for other people like me on another forum with a friend today, and it was a forum i've always been afraid of getting in trouble on. This show's I can be a very brave, and strong person. Feminists who would think otherwise of me are in the wrong.

I don't know if I count as 'feminist' or not. I don't really quite understand what the term means. I have nothing against males, though. I have male friends who I see as some of the easiest people ever to talk to. I don't get all scared talking about my childhood, for one, with males unlike with females. Because I don't care as much if they didn't grow up 'girly' as much.

And, in my book, females should feel EMPOWERED by liking 'feminine' and 'girly' things. If those things are refered to as those terms, there's a good reason, not a bad one.

Vragon2.0 March 18th, 2018 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9855410)
My issue with this is that you can't really call feminism a movement in the same way you can call BLM one, given that "feminism" is an ideology rather than a singular collective of people who share an idea. I take similar issue with the idea of "lgbt movements" being boiled down to a single thing.

Dude, all movements have an ideology they are pushing, that's nothing new. When I'm talking about feminism, I'm taking about the collective, current active group in the matter. Not every feminist agrees with what their group does yes, but support the over idea that "equality of the sexes" exist. Now, feminism to me is a movement, since it started back then and is still strong now. The idea of "equality of the sexes" and it is activity of said movement I'm talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9855410)
I probably shouldn't have started with "my issue with this" when i had multiple issues with it is having issues with a movement's actions and excusing yourself from being part of said movement even if you share those views, and as such are inherently a part of the movement is that attributing the actions of a few in what amounts to an organisation with no power structure or prevailing singular policy/set of actions and damning everyone who prescribes to that ideology because of it (even if it's in that lame implicit way that's like "i don't agree with what feminists do but i agree with feminism") is absolutely useless in every respect.

Not really, I just disagree with a lot of the more focused ones. I'm not square enough to damn the entire group for the collection of a few mind you and I understand not everyone in there is the same nor is everyone in their going to agree on the same thing. I just personally don't care to affiliate due to the idea of "equality of the sexes" being something I personally believe in and go with rather than everything else in there. I think there's is a fine line between the idea of a movement and the movement in general and since both our arguments build on that, that's probably where the bull horns are clashing.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9855410)
"I don't agree with some guy who said he was part of blm doing a bad thing so i don't agree with blm as a whole, but i agree with their core ideology of 'Hey Maybe We Shouldn't Murder People'" doesn't say anything at all beyond that you attribute the actions of someone/multiple someones who have an ideology with the actions of everyone who shares that ideology.

I could list the reasons, however I think something to point out is me not going with the group doesn't mean I can't agree with the group on some things, even if it is their core ideology. I don't need to prescribe to BLM to believe peeps shouldn't murder. Call it unhelpful, but I'm not trying to help the movements since I do disagree with them on things as well as have other life things going on that have priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 (Post 9855410)
The vagueness of your disagreements (despite it actually being useful to air those in this discussion) aside, Feminism does own the concept of equality of the sexes because that's literally the ideology at play, and while BLM might actually not own the concept of "hey police brutality is bad and a problem" disagreeing with what some people who agree with BLM do in service of that concept isn't "having issues with" BLM, it's just perceiving BLM to be a hivemind that acts in unison rather than an umbrella label for people who agree with the core ideology

I'm glad you think it's useful for airing discussion and I understand you think it is vague. And no, feminism doesn't own that ideology since it is what it is, "an ideology". Movements change and evolve unlike ideas. If core ideologies indicate being a part of the group, than any person that prescribes to the notion that "Everyone is responsible for their own place in society" would then be a Republican in whatever country they're in, since that is a core belief they center around. Also, I'm curious why you say Feminism does own their core concept, while BLM might not? How do you measure that or what is the "requirements" for owning an ideology your group pushes.

I want to make one thing clear. I'm not against the groups, nor do I have the single headed mindset that they have hiveminds. It all comes down to my concern for the "owning the ideology" in your argument. My views on the stuff and all are irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have to list them all, since regardless I'm a human being that makes decisions on his opinion and ideals. Feminism is a movement of peeps that are more outspoken on the issues regarding "equality of the sexes" and until you can prove that it is the ideology rather than just a group of activists basing their actions on that ideal, I can't really give you ground there.

Course, even if that was the case there's the issue on the level of "what is equality in our day and age?" which would be an interesting discussion on the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jirachu (Post 9855505)
I like the idea of woman (and all people, really) having equal rights and am a strong fan of 'girl power'.

I really dislike feminists who take their point too far, though. Like, the ones that act like girly girls don't belong in this world. I'm a girly girl, myself, so it anger's me when people are against who I am. I'm not weak! I even stood up for other people like me on another forum with a friend today, and it was a forum i've always been afraid of getting in trouble on. This show's I can be a very brave, and strong person. Feminists who would think otherwise of me are in the wrong.

I don't know if I count as 'feminist' or not. I don't really quite understand what the term means. I have nothing against males, though. I have male friends who I see as some of the easiest people ever to talk to. I don't get all scared talking about my childhood, for one, with males unlike with females. Because I don't care as much if they didn't grow up 'girly' as much.

And, in my book, females should feel EMPOWERED by liking 'feminine' and 'girly' things. If those things are refered to as those terms, there's a good reason, not a bad one.

It shows you can do a moment of standing up for your ideals for that instance. Peeps change and certain circumstances influence decisions to be fair.

I think it's a good question to ask "what is a feminist?" since that's an important question to answer "me and Aliencommander have different perspectives after all". I'd like to say that feminism isn't supposed to be against males. If it's about equality of the sexes from raising women up, it shouldn't be used as a means to "tear men down" in the process, "some things I notice in some of their activist"
Well, women can like whatever they like and all. I do see there is a psychological difference between male and female that needs to be kept in the equation. Men and Women behave and do things differently. Sure they're exceptions, but those aren't the rule. I do think there's Masculine and Feminine behavior that exists and both sexes can have a collection of those traits. Men tend to have more masculine than feminine traits and vise versa. There are exceptions, but they don't constitute the rule.

I do agree that femininity is an important thing in our society and isn't a tool to keep women down. And Masculinity has its own fair share of weak traits. Males and Females can like what they like and act how they act and it doesn't mean they aren't male or female or more male if they're more manly. It just means they're a specific type of male and likewise for females. There's nothing wrong that.

Treecko March 18th, 2018 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigadweeb (Post 9852281)
Alright, so I fall into the situation where people would call me an extreme feminist, SJW, 'third-wave' (using it as a derogatory term instead of its actual definition), whatever.

It's honestly really disappointing looking at this thread and the misconceptions of modern feminism, and also a bit funny considering people seem to like the 'older' feminists, which is really weird considering second-wave is where a lot of the actual man-hating feminists and TERFs fall into.

No shit we support the equality of both sexes. Along with the recognition of minority women, trans women and non-binary people. There's a reason third-wave is known as intersectional feminism.

Personally, I have no problem with men, as I am a guy myself, and pretty much every feminist I've talked to on Leftbook and the meta+left circle of reddit is the same. The reason discussion tends to focus on women is because there is still a shitton of imbalance between men and women. The Hollywood rape accusations that have come out in full force in the past 6 months or so is a good indication of that. Men in positions of power are protected by other influential men. It's as simple as that. Women are threatened that they'll be kept out of the industry if they don't have sex with them, have their life ruined, whatever. This isn't new, and happens everywhere on smaller scales. That's just one example.

My point is, legal rights don't mean shit when it comes to the culture of a society, and pretty much all of the world is still heavily dominated by wealthy men. That's why I'm a feminist. Not because I want to see all men castrated, toothbrushes seized, white genocide, whatever like a lot of reactionaries like to delude themselves into believing.

This is essentially my opinion as someone who identifies as an intersectional feminist. There's a big misconception that feminism is just man-hating and that's not at all true. However, society is still a very male-dominated culture and male privilege is real and prominent. The fact that men have been allowed to harass ,assault, and abuse women for years and women are only now getting the courage to come forward, really proves that. Until women can feel like their career wont be at risk for speaking up against men in power or they're not discriminated against just for being women, feminism will continue to focus on women's rights. This mean ALL women's right, not just white men's rights. This means trans women are treated as women and women of color are given the same right as white women. But this in no way means feminist hate men, I just think we have to acknowledge that men clearly have more privilege and power than women in most industries and that is not fair. Personally I think the radical and extreme feminist who actually hate men, don't seem to understand that feminism is about them too.

Alexander Nicholi April 12th, 2018 8:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
https://i.imgur.com/jhEumu3.png

Feminism is and always has been about elevating the status of women in pursuit of equality. Let us not pretend, in any way, that it's something it isn't.

As for my own thoughts, I am all for the core belief behind feminism - equality of the sexes. I do not however consider myself a feminist nor do I support feminism as a movement for a few reason. I won't sit here and make outrageous claims that all feminists are feminazi sjw anti-man supremacist whatevers, because that simply isn't the case. The majority of the movement are probably perfectly normal people. Is there extremism in the movement? Yes, but it's not an extremist movement.

This is a very common fallacy ascribed by feminists, making the classic in-group error that was so rampant with BLM. Every time some BLM supporter went awol, the whole organisation would deny association and after a point it was just impossible to deny the fact that they were associated, often right until they went berserk. It's a really convenient way for radical groups to take advantage of the legitimacy of a similar group of moderates by saying "we're just like them, really," while in reality going and doing whatever and terrorising people at random.

There is a Chinese poem that shows how the logic goes, with someone advocating that white horses are, in fact, not horses, even though brown and yellow horses are. You should definitely give that a read. Also, the dictionary is written by human beings and is not an irrefutable source of truth on anything.
Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
That being said, I do have problems with the movement. Firstly, I feel like it pushes beliefs that simply are not factual. The idea that there is a collective patriarchy oppressing women, the idea that there is a culture that encourages rape or sexual assault or that there is an ever-present wage gap (although I'm sure some assholes will go out of their way to under pay don't you worry - this is still too prevalent). I don't for one second doubt that there is a lot of injustice and inequality against women in our society, but I do not believe we have a society centred around the systematic oppression of women. Are women often marginalised, yes. Is there a patriarchal conspiracy against women, no.

There are a lot of problems when it comes to facts and reason, and it has poisoned science itself. A good example of this is the ironically unscientific view some people have on climate change, because they think that a vast majority consensus of scientists equals truth or fact. The very foundation of a scientific hypothesis or theory is that it must be falsifiable, and if it is not, it might as well be gospel from the heavens and we know how that goes.
Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9834306)
Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I consider myself egalitarian. Not as a thinly-veiled way to do nothing and maintain the status quo like some conservatives use the term, I want equality for everyone and I think the sooner there is a global initiative for equal rights for all, the better.

That's arguably the biggest problem with many purported egalitarians, is that they actually don't care at all, and want more for themselves just like you say. With the way these movements are approached, it has been demonstrated that they don't foster equality at all, and actually only have a significant effect on those who are already well-off to begin with. Because everyone wants to see some big black movie star make it and don't really care that he was born to parents of millionaires or whatever. Across the board, those who are poor and/or in need suffer the most, as they always do. It's really misguided.

Even Flow April 21st, 2018 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoshikko (Post 9855027)
Vehemently disagree. People who say they are for equality but against feminism always make me laugh. I think the part about feminism having become something else than what it was intended as is debatable, but your idea of what feminism is, is incorrect. Feminism is not about putting men down, it's about pulling women up to the same level. It is definitely about equality

Incorrect according to what authority? Moderate, Inter sectional, radical, marxist feminists, terfs, 2nd wave, 3rd wave, materialist feminists etc? What im getting at, as with any ideology its pretty subjective and very much open to interpretation, it doesnt have a concrete guidelines and i feel the turf wars within feminism really highlights this. Plus all the aforementioned self identify as feminist. In addition some of the aforementioned sub groups/people do hate men btw and numerous lovely things such as "#killallmen" on twitter dont help this argument. Off the top of my head recently i read an article by a feminist professor (Lisa Wade ) whom made the ridiculous assertion that "she rejects the notion of "toxic masculinity," saying it is time to recognize that "it is masculinity itself that has become the problem." and "argued that men must renounce their masculinity and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. There is plenty of other evidence too.

Also implied; https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/75/Definist-Fallacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Feminism by definition alone =/= equality or egalitarian, simply on the principle that they're only pushing for one genders rights and ignoring others which is rather self serving. https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/why-the-dictionary-definition-of-feminism-fails/, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Feminism explain it better.

Quote:

I feel that feminism is necessary in this world, where women are still treated as lesser.
That would require begging the question and a whole lot of ignoring law and legislation amongst various other things (see: very anecdotal and subjective) etc. You may have a point about non western countries however or exceptions in places such as Hollywood but the latter of which is in its own little fantasy bizarre world bubble so i wouldnt say its reflective of society as a whole and is very much an outlier in that respect alluding to the scandals etc.

Quote:

Had it been the other way around, there would have been a male-focused variant
.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/106/Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact

There is btw called MRA etc and they dont have anywhere near the exposure of feminist groups get and have been demonized (by feminists, shock) when they campaigned for things like male suicide rates, unfair family courts and the like. Even then there is still the same issues within it as with any other ideology as i mentioned above.

Quote:

Feminism at its core is about equality. Speaking generally, if you're not a feminist, you're not against women, but you are definitely for upkeeping the current standard. Or else, you have your definitions all wrong.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

Quote:

Logically you should have the same feelings about LGBT movements or BLM movements, since they put their focus on a particular group. Why doesn't feminism fit in here? It's the same principle. Seems to me like you just want to avoid being grouped in with the negative idea people have of feminists.

Most of these groups have similar issues actually and have very toxic sub groups/people within them that self identify as such, (more so in BLM) (see: demonizing white cis people or killing cops and can be very dogmatic etc).

I think user gimmepie sums it up perfectly with this response and words it better than myself;
Quote:

Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

Enpatsu Shakugan April 22nd, 2018 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eeveetree9 (Post 9835290)
Feminism is (or should be) campaigning for gender equality and working to bring down the patriarchy. And bringing down the patriarchy should mean making the world an equal place for all genders, not placing women on top. I am a feminist, but I definitely don't hate men, as the stereotype seems to be. And, yes, there are probably a lot of women like that, but that's not was feminism is. Anyone who thinks that really needs to go and read Holly Bourne. And if you don't, read her books anyway. They show feminism pretty accurately.


You shouldn't phrase it like that, 'bringing down the patriarch'.

That is the aspect of rampant feminism I dislike, that "We need to topple down the men"; that goes against what you are actually saying about how you feel. But that terminology is more than just that to some extremists who really feel anti-men; ironically being sexist in their fight against sexism.

Someone else posted more rights for others doesn't mean LESS for others. I agree with what you wrote, but I hate that phrasing more than anything.

Ninetales April 22nd, 2018 1:12 PM

As a female, I wouldn't call myself a Feminist, however, I fully support women's rights and I truly believe in the strength that women possess. I disagree with Western Feminism. Feminists nowadays complain about the most irrelevant issues, and attack and degrade men which is extremely hypocritical. Feminism is supposed to be female empowerment, not male belittlement. Moreover, feminism has become incredibly political and it seems to cater to a certain type of woman. If you don't fit that mold then you will often be ostracized by callous, hardcore feminists. REAL Feminists should concern themselves with issues such as women's education, sexual harassment, and the rights of women in countries where women are treated as second class citizens and face discrimination. However, things such as "mansplaining" aren't real problems, and feminists who whine about these make-believe issues are giving feminism a bad rap. It saddens me that so many women lose sight of what's really important. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Period.

Even Flow April 22nd, 2018 5:01 PM

https://youtu.be/k-AHLibO2rQ

Speaking of the patriarchy, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Enpatsu Shakugan April 23rd, 2018 5:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales2000 (Post 9867905)
As a female, I wouldn't call myself a Feminist, however, I fully support women's rights and I truly believe in the strength that women possess. I disagree with Western Feminism. Feminists nowadays complain about the most irrelevant issues, and attack and degrade men which is extremely hypocritical. Feminism is supposed to be female empowerment, not male belittlement. Moreover, feminism has become incredibly political and it seems to cater to a certain type of woman. If you don't fit that mold then you will often be ostracized by callous, hardcore feminists. REAL Feminists should concern themselves with issues such as women's education, sexual harassment, and the rights of women in countries where women are treated as second class citizens and face discrimination. However, things such as "mansplaining" aren't real problems, and feminists who whine about these make-believe issues are giving feminism a bad rap. It saddens me that so many women lose sight of what's really important. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Period.

I wish I was as smart as you at 17.

evilishan April 24th, 2018 4:00 AM

I think with the advent of media as we have it it's really easy to just find the worst exams of any particular group and have it broadcast to the world. I think this is what's happened with feminism. It's gotten a bad rap, which I don't think it (entirely) deserves. Christina Hoff Sommers for example is exceptional at the self assessment of her own movement.

However there are some things I think are not just needed but necessary in order not just to help feminism but all identity based groups.
  • Talk with people directly, as in real life. At the start of one of my major projects I had a team-mate who strongly identified as a feminist. Although we definitely had a war of ideas we'd run along each other, this only helped our relationship and in the end we both learnt something. She's one of my closest friends now. Key was that we both listened to each other without presumption.
  • Don't just stick to your group; every group has the potential to become a hive-mind if it becomes too insular. There's 4 main groups I can name off the top of my head that are suffering from this issue.
  • Try not to ascribe things you have seen online to people you know in real life who might fall under that category. They might have no idea about the only movement at all.
  • Genuinely listen and try to relate to others. Too often I see people just waiting for a chance to retaliate.
  • Never become anti-<something> nor should you let anyone try and define you that way.

Sorry if I was vague there but in my opinion this discussion is ultimately about a wider issue that hasn't just been hurting feminism, but many others too.

Drakenstar78XD April 25th, 2018 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninetales2000 (Post 9867905)
As a female, I wouldn't call myself a Feminist, however, I fully support women's rights and I truly believe in the strength that women possess. I disagree with Western Feminism. Feminists nowadays complain about the most irrelevant issues, and attack and degrade men which is extremely hypocritical. Feminism is supposed to be female empowerment, not male belittlement. Moreover, feminism has become incredibly political and it seems to cater to a certain type of woman. If you don't fit that mold then you will often be ostracized by callous, hardcore feminists. REAL Feminists should concern themselves with issues such as women's education, sexual harassment, and the rights of women in countries where women are treated as second class citizens and face discrimination. However, things such as "mansplaining" aren't real problems, and feminists who whine about these make-believe issues are giving feminism a bad rap. It saddens me that so many women lose sight of what's really important. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Period.

amen, couldnt have said it better

Hikamaru June 17th, 2018 3:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticalNinetales (Post 9867905)
As a female, I wouldn't call myself a Feminist, however, I fully support women's rights and I truly believe in the strength that women possess. I disagree with Western Feminism. Feminists nowadays complain about the most irrelevant issues, and attack and degrade men which is extremely hypocritical. Feminism is supposed to be female empowerment, not male belittlement. Moreover, feminism has become incredibly political and it seems to cater to a certain type of woman. If you don't fit that mold then you will often be ostracized by callous, hardcore feminists. REAL Feminists should concern themselves with issues such as women's education, sexual harassment, and the rights of women in countries where women are treated as second class citizens and face discrimination. However, things such as "mansplaining" aren't real problems, and feminists who whine about these make-believe issues are giving feminism a bad rap. It saddens me that so many women lose sight of what's really important. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Period.

This is extremely spot-on. I am incredibly disgusted at the state of what feminism has become, in that it's all about making men feel bad while women get to be perfect. It's even worse in pop culture when beloved films and shows have their existing characters changed (such as fitting an LGBTQ orientation) or worst of all, an iconic male character getting replaced by a badly-written female who's always "in your face" and blatantly obvious as to what purpose they were made for. The fact that feminism has now pretty much become mansplaining and trying to knock down men (especially white, non-LGBTQ men) as many pegs as possible.

Both genders deserve equal treatment, but I only accept it if it doesn't come at the cost of one gender. That is why I now have grudges against greedy companies that think toxic feminism is a quick cash-grab... Mattel, Disney and Marvel Comics have all fallen to it, and becoming more anti-consumer just because they want to join in the male-belittling club. It's also why I despise the Me Too movement, because it only exists just to bring male-belittling in the spotlight.

Sothis June 18th, 2018 5:50 PM

If you're a man you shouldn't even be talking about if feminism is needed.
It's a woman's issue, not your issue.

LDSman June 18th, 2018 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891069)
If you're a man you shouldn't even be talking about if feminism is needed.
It's a woman's issue, not your issue.

There is so much that is wrong with this comment.

Enpatsu Shakugan June 18th, 2018 6:39 PM

Despite a few extremist exceptions, it's relieving to know that so many women still have their heads in the right place. :)

Vragon2.0 June 18th, 2018 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891069)
If you're a man you shouldn't even be talking about if feminism is needed.
It's a woman's issue, not your issue.

This honestly made me want to close my laptop to start laughing. Isn't the whole point of feminism about equality between males and females? So then why wouldn't males be involved in that? Or at you of the idea that it's all just about putting women up there and not getting any of the drawbacks and all that happens? Isn't equality about the two being on the same playing field, so why can't males join in this talk about equality of the sexes? Unless you follow what I think modern feminism is about and is merely a means to get females (of specific bits) as high as they can and bring others down/remove any of the downsides along with them.

Is feminism needed? Vague comment aside, perhaps you should look into the things regarding males and females and see the differences and if they are indeed equal, unfair, justly the way they are. Also, it depends on what you exactly mean. If you're talking about equality of the sexes, yeah there's some things that can be looked into, a lot of international stuff needing fixing. Some stuff to analyze and see if it truly is unfair and separate the truth from fiction in many things.

It's not so cut and dry to say something that doesn't look even and say "that's unfair or wrong" without looking at the context or the plausible reasonings behind it.

Also, following your logic, that'd mean females don't have a say regarding MRA. Or hell, BLM on BlueLM. Perhaps other things and all that. You see what I'm getting at? this little segregation thing you're implying only really helps adding to some kind of "Us vs. Them" when in reality peeps are willing to work things out together as it has always been.

Like dude, be reasonable. (Though I'm honestly debating if this is sh**posting or whatnot heh)

Enpatsu Shakugan June 18th, 2018 7:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vragon2.0 (Post 9891113)
(Though I'm honestly debating if this is sh**posting or whatnot heh)

Definitely serious, sadly enough. I've read enough of her posts to confirm that.

Incineroar June 18th, 2018 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891069)
If you're a man you shouldn't even be talking about if feminism is needed.
It's a woman's issue, not your issue.

I may be a man, but I think it's needed. Why the fuck do we need to still be discussing whether women should be treated equally to men? Why do we still have to discuss what a woman can do with her body? It's 2018, and we still have to discuss equal rights amongst sexes. There's very much something wrong with that statement.

I may be a man, but if a woman wants to work the same jobs a man does, who am I to say she shouldn't? If she wants to work that job, let her at it, and while we're at it, you'd also better be paying her the same as I'm being paid, no more, no less.

I may be a man, but if a woman wants to abort an unborn child, who am I to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body? If she doesn't want to carry that child to term (say, rape) why does the boys club have the right to decide what to do? What if it's a health hazard to the mother?

I may be a man talking about a woman's issue, and honestly, I have every right to do so, because if change is going to start somewhere, it's going to be with the people that started this in the first place.

Ninetales June 18th, 2018 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891069)
If you're a man you shouldn't even be talking about if feminism is needed.
It's a woman's issue, not your issue.

I think this is just a tad ignorant, hunny. As a young woman myself, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. You simply can't silence an individual or a group of individuals because of their gender, that's not right. Feminism involves both genders because it involves equality between BOTH men and women collectively. To be frank, it's immature to dismiss someone's opinion based on a factor that they can't control, being gender. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you have absolutely no right to deny someone of that right. Please think carefully before you say something so ignorant.

I don't believe that you meant any harm with your post, however, I encourage you to be more open-minded, and perhaps, rather than blatantly shaming men for offering an opinion, maybe you should respectfully listen. You seem to be reinforcing the stereotype of passive-aggressive, closed-minded feminists.

Vragon2.0 hit the nail on the head.

gimmepie June 19th, 2018 4:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891069)
If you're a man you shouldn't even be talking about if feminism is needed.
It's a woman's issue, not your issue.

Gender inequality affects everyone and this mindset is exactly why I have a problem with feminism.
Having a penis should not bar me from talking about any topic, speaking of which.

Sothis June 19th, 2018 6:30 AM

Sorry, I was in a rush and family irl stuff. But what I meant to say is that in some aspects it's better left to women? ie like abortion stuff?
Though I feel feminism could be beneficial for men too, actually.

I'm actually not even a woman myself, I'm nonbinary so ^^

Vragon2.0 June 19th, 2018 8:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891250)
Sorry, I was in a rush and family irl stuff. But what I meant to say is that in some aspects it's better left to women? ie like abortion stuff?
Though I feel feminism could be beneficial for men too, actually.

I'm actually not even a woman myself, I'm nonbinary so ^^

I disagree, yes there are some you could say are more experts, but again, peeps shouldn't be left out of the conversation just cause they have a dick. Also, it's coming to the point where it honestly should just be called, "Gender Equalization" since feminism is too focused on what it initially was and has achieved, thus now being able to address both gender issues instead of well, women being able to do anything.

Anyone that brazes into the topic can form an opinion, and anyone that can form an opinion on it can back it up. We can debate on whether the opinion or idea is well-founded, but opinions cannot be right nor wrong. They just are perceptions and they are based by the limits of our viewings. Course, that doesn't stop us from thinking we're right and that's a perfectly fine thing to think so long as you don't allow it to engulf your ability to see or at least listen to other perspectives.

In short, I disagree. Anyone that does their damndest to research and look into a topic with getting as many sides and stuff as possible should be able to comment on said topic. Abortion is no different. This is after all, a debate place and the like.

professor plum June 19th, 2018 8:21 AM

To me, feminism is extremely important for both men and women. We live in a society where to be feminine [for men or women] is often associated with being weak/lesser. The term feminism, unfortunately, does have a negative connatation for many, but a lot of times its due to bad apples trying to take things to the extreme, or trolls who pretend to be feminists.

We also, unfortunately, live in a time where pseudo-white-feminism exists, which translates to white cis feminism for white cis women by white cis women. This leaves out the more disenfranchised minorities - LGBTQ+/POC/etc. True feminism is for all of the above.

The way I interpreted Jokers original post is not that men should not have input re: feminism whatsoever. The real message, to me, was that men should not be able to dictate that feminism is not an actual issue/dismiss feminism as a nonissue/etc. And, thats true - the oppressors cannot dictate whether or not someone is being oppressed.

Vragon2.0 June 19th, 2018 9:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peridot (Post 9891288)
The way I interpreted Jokers original post is not that men should not have input re: feminism whatsoever. The real message, to me, was that men should not be able to dictate that feminism is not an actual issue/dismiss feminism as a nonissue/etc. And, thats true - the oppressors cannot dictate whether or not someone is being oppressed.

And who's saying that peeps are? I get peeps that are saying feminism is all crazy right now, but no one aside from Incels really are. Peeps are critiquing the stuff about feminism and honestly giving points in regards to how it is functioning and how it is going on.

Even if we take the point that "Oppressors cannot dictate whether or not someone is being oppressed" (which while I agree, at the same time is not what is at play here). By this, I'm not saying women don't have problems caused by men nor vica versa, however I will say that if you're going to call attention to oppression, you should show it and anyone can look at it and critique what you brought.

Dismissal isn't so cut and dry as to "dismiss the person" but the basis being brought and right now that's what's going on here. Debates are all about that. From what a lot of peeps have inputted, a critique of feminism is that it's too focused on it's own agenda and peeps and not taking in the whole aspect of "Equality" which is kinda where you're going, but if feminism is truly about equality of the sexes then you should probably just add all the types of guys to it as well since well, equality of sexes.

So, while your thing is more lax, I have to say "No s*** sherlock" to peeps not forcing others what to do. I mean, you have the freedoms <-- emphasis on this word
to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. We're talking about issues and the validity of many things and the common critique I've seen in this thread regarding feminism is still there and isn't being addressed.

So let me ask you this then.
I agree that feminism is about equality (though I went on a big rant on how it doesn't own the idea I believe in this very thread), so then riddle me these things,

1) If feminism is about equality and you agree men should have input, then shouldn't they also have a say in critique and how things are? Not saying imposement, but this is a movement to bring up issues that should be discussed, so wouldn't it be better to all sides sit down and look at these things and issues?
2) To your feminine comment earlier, femininity is associate with weaker/lesser to a degree by society, doesn't mean that everyone thinks every woman is that way. Not to mention femininity isn't a bad thing, since both males and females share both masculine and feminine traits. Also, masculine traits are also viewed as irrational and other things, angry and whatnot. So, if feminism is about equality of the sexes, why focus on just women? I'd understand brining up issues that regard women more, but this is no more a campaign for citizenship rights anymore, but brining up other issues and from what I've seen, haven't been living up to what their legacy would imply.

I respect your civility though.

gimmepie June 19th, 2018 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker (Post 9891250)
Sorry, I was in a rush and family irl stuff. But what I meant to say is that in some aspects it's better left to women? ie like abortion stuff?
Though I feel feminism could be beneficial for men too, actually.

Feminism can't benefit men because it is entirely focused on women. It's a movement that constantly paints men negatively, some intentionally and others not intentionally. Hell, someone in this very thread just described the entire male gender as "oppressors". This is ignoring the numerous other inequalities in the movement that have also been brought up numerous times here. You can't have equality if you're focus is only on the disparities against one group.

Why should abortion be left entirely to women? I mean, I don't agree with it in most circumstances anyway, but while ultimately the final call has to be the woman's since she's carrying the baby, a man present in the relationship should still have every right to have his say since it's his child too.

Lipstick Vogue June 19th, 2018 12:13 PM

Because feminists are always demanding more men in nursing, teaching and social care. I also love their recent campaigns focusing on the huge disparity between male and female suicide rates. Not to mention them demanding men get a fairer look in when it comes to child care after marriages break down. Also related to courts I hear they want harsher sentencing when on trial.

Feminism is about female issues and always has been, not so much equality any more now that women are you know - equal.

Also before you put me down as another alt righter, feminism absolutely still has a place in the world (even the western world where women do have at least equal opportunities). Just wish there were more Christina Hoff Sommers and less Anita Sarkeesians at it's forefront. If that were the case it might actually be achieving things right now.

TaviTurnip June 19th, 2018 2:36 PM

As a woman (because somehow I have to preface my thoughts with this to have feminists pay attention to me) feminism has never helped me in any fashion since birth, and I'm hitting 28 this year. Modern feminism, and women, are two completely different groups of completely different people. They do not speak for one another and at this rate probably never should.

Individuals are strong based on their own merits and force of heart/will. If I'm abused in the workplace, in public, at school, in gaming, or online, it's my responsibility to deal with and overcome it. That's got nothing to do with gender or identity in any fashion. It's basic human function. It's a single human's responsibility to make sure they succeed in the places they want to be.

Sothis June 19th, 2018 3:24 PM

I'll clarify
Feminism can benefit men in that young boys are often taught that anything deemed as "girly" (ie, overtly showing emotions, being sensitive, being nurturing) are just women's things that she should not do, this is harmful to men.
It's harmful in that now society thinks men can and should "just get over" or "man up" with any issues they face. Men can be abused, yet how many men are open about their abuse? They aren't because they will be ridiculed instead of helped, and that's not right.

With abortion, I think it's mainly a women's issue because it's a woman's choice about her body that's being effected. Sure, if there are supportive men and OBGYN men who perform it/know about it they should def help!

Also, if a woman is trying to use feminism to paint men negatively, she is not using it right. I believe that feminism is about empowering women to be all they can be, and changing society's toxic view that womanly/girly things are inferior.

MortalPhoenix June 19th, 2018 4:03 PM

There is a distinction between Feminism the concept, and people who call themselves Feminist. If you are asking my opinion about Feminism the concept, then I support it. If you are talking about people who call themselves Feminist and advocate for Feminism, then my opinion is more mixed on the matter.

If you look at the History of Feminism, it has done much to help women out. Feminism has helped change laws to ensure that Women are treated as equal to Men.

Now, as stated earlier, my issue is not with Feminism but with Feminist. For example, there was backslash from Feminist when people didn't like the new Ghostbusters movie. They argued that Men didn't like it, because they were sexist. There is too much of a knee-jerk reaction, and there is no way to force people to go see a movie that don't want to see.

Another problem I have is when Feminist complain about Sexism in video games, but they don't work to create their own video games. Maybe create a video game that has your ideals you want to see in Female Heroines?

As a person who has sometimes engaged in creative writing, one of the issues I've also had with Feminist is in regards to how a Female character is dressed. The issue I have is that Feminist have a tendency to see any woman dress sexy in fiction as a way to appeal to men. When, in fact, women could dress sexy as they are proud of their body and want to show it off. I would point to Star Trek: The Original Series. It can out in the 60s, and the women wore miniskirts. It was a form of empowerment as, during the 50s, women wore long skirts. Just watch the Donna Reed Show which aired from 1958 to 1966, and notice how the women on there wear long skirts. Fast forward to today, and miniskirts aren't the symbol of female empowerment. It is appears to be pants.

Finally, Feminism is just too individualist right now. If you asked 100 Feminist their opinion on a subject, you will get 100 different answers. It is hard to be a Feminist when no matter what you do, some Feminist will argue you did nothing wrong, but another group will claim you are sexist.

However, despite that, I do agree that Feminism does have a place in today's society. I just think that Feminist are barking up the wrong tree. They should be more focused on ending sexual harassment, encouraging women to ask for better pay, and be less condescending when talking to men about Feminism (Just to name a few examines). Calling a person sexist is just going to make them become defensive. It is basic psychology here.

Trev June 19th, 2018 4:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9891358)
Why should abortion be left entirely to women? I mean, I don't agree with it in most circumstances anyway, but while ultimately the final call has to be the woman's since she's carrying the baby, a man present in the relationship should still have every right to have his say since it's his child too.

Chiming in wholly and entirely on this alone: I think what joker meant to say was, "Women should be in charge of making laws about abortions."

In terms of actually choosing to have an abortion, obviously the couple as a whole should make a decision. In terms of the laws regarding abortion and women's health in general, I think women should be making the decision there. Just as I believe men should be making decisions exclusively for men's health. To me, it's never made sense that male politicians are making decisions about women's health laws.

Sothis June 19th, 2018 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trev (Post 9891486)
Chiming in wholly and entirely on this alone: I think what joker meant to say was, "Women should be in charge of making laws about abortions."

In terms of actually choosing to have an abortion, obviously the couple as a whole should make a decision. In terms of the laws regarding abortion and women's health in general, I think women should be making the decision there. Just as I believe men should be making decisions exclusively for men's health. To me, it's never made sense that male politicians are making decisions about women's health laws.

Yeah like that! Like I said I've been unclear because I am sick today, but I'll try and leave replying for when I'm better

Desert Stream~ June 20th, 2018 1:00 PM

Idk if I posted here already but
my opinion is pretty much:
Feminism is a good thing, but a lot of feminists take it too far or advocate for things I don't approve of etc. so kinda the same as a few other people in the thread

Edit: A few notes; I think being concerned about a group not trying to help everybody is valid, but I think that equality for everyone is the end goal, not the means to that goal. Blacks got the right to vote first, and then women, and then LGBT+ people got their respective rights. We gotta take it one step at a time. Trying to get everyone there at the same time isn't going to accomplish anything, as nice as that would be.

2. I do think that concerns about men are also valid, but at the same time it's not quite as urgent. If a man says that a woman raped him, noone will believe him because "women don't rape people", which is entirely untrue. It might not be quite as common, but it does happen and it is an issue that should be addressed at some point.

3. Consent is kinda tricky because there's a lot of loopholes when it comes to that, such as asking someone multiple times so they give in, getting them to consent to something smaller and then proceeding to do things they didn't intend, etc.
I think it's important that we teach people that it's ok to say no, and we need to teach people how to get out of situations like that (safe words are a good example, if you want someone to stop, you say it and if they don't then that would be counted as sexual assault). I don't think people who explicitly consent to the act that the other person is doing, and make no action to attempt to get out of that situation, that shouldn't be counted as sexual assault.

4. Finally, feminism is fine but I really hate it when people generalize, saying all men are bad, etc. because that's simply not true. We should stop bashing everybody for what a few people do.

LusoTrainer June 20th, 2018 1:52 PM

I'm for equality of rights and duties of individuals under the law (because that's what each and every one of us are: individuals).

I'm not for some supposed equality of any specific group of people with a certain immutable trait or attribute that's used for the purposes of identity politics and tribalism. And it's sad that feminism became that very thing.

twocows June 22nd, 2018 4:37 PM

"Feminism" is a broad term used to refer to a variety of different ideologies. Some of these are good, some of these are neither good nor bad, and some are bad. In the broadest sense, feminism is about advocacy for women's issues, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that on its own, just like there's nothing wrong with advocacy for men's issues on its own.

There's only one thing I can really say about feminism as a whole: words have meanings, and the fact that feminism isn't called egalitarianism also has meaning. I think saying anything more than this would be making generalizations about a collection of ideologies that vary greatly and in some cases are even contradictory. If you want my thoughts about an individual ideology, about individual feminists, or about things some feminists say, I can offer my thoughts on those, but I don't think it would be fair to say any more about "feminism" as a whole.

I will note that I've had bad experiences with certain feminists in the past and that this obviously colors my opinions on the subject greatly. Take that as you will.

777ID777 June 24th, 2018 4:02 PM

Women and men deserve an equal chance at happiness. We should all have equality of opportunity - not outcome - throughout life.

3rd/4th Wave Feminism today has stripped the original of its meaning. It would take too long to explain all of the issues with modern feminism - but it is undermining our society in a very dangerous way.

As for abortion issues -
Why do headlines always say "Beyonce's new twin babies in this pregnant photo!" - "Chelsea Clinton pregnant with second child" instead of "twin feti" and "a collection of cells"?

We selectively humanize things. At some point there needs to be a drawn line for when something is considered a human. The scientific consensus is that it is a human being when it is formed - just in an embryotic phase.

Now that means the government has an obligation to stop abortions if it has an obligation to protect the life of its citizens - which it does.

HOWEVER - in personal philosophy, most rationalists/objectivists/et al. would say that one ought to do the best thing possible for their success. This would require that - should killing the child be beneficial to you because your life would be ruined by it, you should have an abortion. Then, however, I also think that the problem here is some people say "oh I don't think I'd be a good parent / the child wouldn't have a good life" - People don't have the right to decide the death of other people, even if they're an embryo. It's a very complicated issue. When I was in high school I was very "pro-choice," but now as I understand the issue/logic/science more of both sides, I'm generally pro-life except for cases where it is very clear that the mother ought to have a right (incest, stillborn, rape, etc.).

gimmepie June 24th, 2018 11:21 PM

Just a reminder that this thread isn't to discuss the issue of abortion itself and we shouldn't go into it beyond any relationship the topic has to feminism.

LadyJirachu August 27th, 2018 2:19 AM

In all honesty, I like reading stuff about feminists, just cuz it shows me tomboys too can be real jerks.

I mean, telling people they shouldn't be a certain way cuz its 'weak'? Or 'pleases a man'? I doubt thats a nice way to treat people....

I'd say leave people alone and let them like what they want. Still, i'm happy these fundemental feminists exist. Someone needs to show that being a person who appraises violence in media and dressing in a darker manner surely isn't 'butterflies and rainbows'.

If the feminists can be those people, so be it, they have a good reason for existing for this very reason.

.....though i feel awful other people have to be picked on for being 'girly' just so i feel better about myself too though i'm not sure that makes me sound like a good person why am i so insecure :(


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.