![]() |
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. |
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. |
I moved this on over to Discussions and Debates since it fits here just a wee bit more.
|
Quote:
e: Did the OP seriously quote from urban dictionary aksdjgkd |
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.
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
Quote:
EDIT: Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If this post gets me banned, so be it. |
Quote:
Quote:
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". |
I feel like a lot I would have said has already been touched on.
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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." 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. |
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
Quote:
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:
--- 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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
Thank you for the discussion and for being respectful with your response. I wish you well. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Shame on you. |
They've gotten rid of grid girls in F1. Feminism literally losing women good jobs.
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
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. |
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:
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 |
Quote:
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? |
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:
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. |
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:
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. |
I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 : ) ) ) |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
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. 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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
https://youtu.be/k-AHLibO2rQ
Speaking of the patriarchy, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
Quote:
|
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.
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Despite a few extremist exceptions, it's relieving to know that so many women still have their heads in the right place. :)
|
Quote:
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) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Having a penis should not bar me from talking about any topic, speaking of which. |
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 ^^ |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
"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. |
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.). |
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.
|
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. |
![]()
© 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.