Rape Culture: Why Yes can mean No

[Darth Ovious]

I reported myself already. The profanity used seems to be used in an academic manner, discussing the use of the term, not in as a profane expletive. I will let the other mods decide and abide by their decision.

OK, well I have set up the thread in the padded room for clarification. I'm sure I have seen Nick do it as well so I just want to know what is allowed and what isn't as to insure I stay within the rules.

[Paprika]

I thought it was a fair assumption since it looked like he didn't have any stock in feminism

Well, you just returned so that's understandable.

[Darth Ovious]

Well, you just returned so that's understandable.

I'm forgetting that there were people who post here who you just can't reason with but I thought 2 out of the 3 of them were on my ignore list now. I didn't realise there were more than 3.

[Darth Ovious]

batman.jpg

[JonathanL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6503[/ATTACH]

"bats an eye"

I lol'd.

[fm93]

Deny...science? As in, science in general, not just some particular scientific finding? I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Negative way in what respects?

The apparently widespread fundamentalist mindset that holds that faith means blind belief in a proposition without any supporting evidence for it.

That depends on what you mean by society, actually. For a large portion of the African-American slaves who were imported to America throughout the 1700s and 1800s, the presence of Christianity was NOT compatible with their survival. Christianity, in fact, was used as justification for the horrendous abuse and dehumanization from which they suffered and died. And yet many modern African-Americans who are descended from slaves identify with Christianity as their religion. Despite all the evil that was committed against their ancestors in its name, and how so many professed Christians justified that evil in the name of Christianity, those descendants were smarter than to say things like "Christianity is responsible for all the rot in society." Instead, they realize that Christianity, like feminism, means something independent of what many of its adherents may or may not do, and that that something is noble and good and true.

I have no reason to doubt these quotes. I have talked to modern day feminists who believe these things.

And I have talked to modern-day feminists who don't believe those things.

Yes, this is actually the quote from one of her books. This quote actually needs a bit more explaining in order to understand it. At first you might mistake it for being innocent, except that this main character looks to actually be a reflection upon herself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women's_Room

That section you quoted from the Wikipedia article implies that "Mira" is the character who is a reflection of French herself. But in the same article's plot summary, we see the following:

While at college, Val's daughter, Chris, is raped. Following the rape of her daughter, Val states (over Mira's protests), "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."

So the character who said that line is not the character who appears to reflect French herself. Additionally, Mira (who apparently is that reflection of French) protests while "Val" is saying it. Finally, the part about "they rape us with their eyes, their laws and their codes" basically proves that "all men are rapists" is just a provocative and figurative way of saying some innocuous point, not a literal condemnation of all men for literally raping people. Obviously, men's laws aren't somehow becoming a physical entity and physically raping women.

It was feminists who conducted those studies first of all. Secondly if you really think that 1 in 5 women are raped around you then your perception on reality would have to be pretty low.

I already explained that I do not believe literally 1 in 5 women are forcibly raped.

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences. I, on the other hand, have never seen this; the vast majority of my interactions with people who identify as feminist have been positive. And really, it's become apparent to me that that's all this thread has turned into by now--anecdotes of individual experiences. For every feminist you find behaving badly, I can probably find one behaving rationally. That's why I ask that you try to separate the misbehaving adherents from the noble ideals.

You might find yourself in good company since a lot of anti-feminists I conversed with were also atheists.

I'm not an atheist.

What more do you want? Honestly please tell me.

For you to not say or agree with such idiotic statements like "Feminism is responsible for all the rot in our society." I mean, even if feminism itself and as a whole was somehow inherently bad, that statement clearly isn't even true--there are so many societal ills that have nothing to do with feminism.

[fm93]

I thought it was a fair assumption since it looked like he didn't have any stock in feminism. I think he understands that there are bad feminists but he is wanting to maintain that there are a lot of good feminists as well. I'm just wondering where he draws the line between the two.

I will listen and change my views if your evidence that "feminism is inherently bad" is good enough. Problem is, what good evidence do you have that women do not deserve to be treated as equals?

[Darth Ovious]

I will listen and change my views if your evidence that "feminism is inherently bad" is good enough. Problem is, what good evidence do you have that women do not deserve to be treated as equals?

I'm not saying women shouldn't be treated fairly. My point is that feminism in it's current order isn't about equality and I have already explained this. I will answer the rest of your post above when I have time to look it over.

[fm93]

I'm not saying women shouldn't be treated fairly. My point is that feminism in it's current order isn't about equality and I have already explained this. I will answer the rest of your post above when I have time to look it over.

The problem is that your argument for this is essentially "I've interacted with many self-professed feminists who act in a way that makes me believe they're striving for supremacy rather than equality," but I on the other hand have interacted with many self-professed feminists who act in a way that makes me believe they ARE striving for equality, rather than for supremacy. We can argue about our personal interactions, or we can (as I have continuously suggested) focus on what feminism itself inherently means, independent of what adherents may or may not be doing.

[Darth Ovious]

Deny...science? As in, science in general, not just some particular scientific finding? I have no idea what you're referring to here.

Both really. Particular findings but also they think of it as a tool for oppression. Here is an example of what I mean.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/85spp.html

The apparently widespread fundamentalist mindset that holds that faith means blind belief in a proposition without any supporting evidence for it.

That depends on what you mean by society, actually. For a large portion of the African-American slaves who were imported to America throughout the 1700s and 1800s, the presence of Christianity was NOT compatible with their survival. Christianity, in fact, was used as justification for the horrendous abuse and dehumanization from which they suffered and died. And yet many modern African-Americans who are descended from slaves identify with Christianity as their religion. Despite all the evil that was committed against their ancestors in its name, and how so many professed Christians justified that evil in the name of Christianity, those descendants were smarter than to say things like "Christianity is responsible for all the rot in society." Instead, they realize that Christianity, like feminism, means something independent of what many of its adherents may or may not do, and that that something is noble and good and true.

And I have talked to modern-day feminists who don't believe those things.

Perhaps you could point some of them out for me.

That section you quoted from the Wikipedia article implies that "Mira" is the character who is a reflection of French herself. But in the same article's plot summary, we see the following:

While at college, Val's daughter, Chris, is raped. Following the rape of her daughter, Val states (over Mira's protests), "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."

So the character who said that line is not the character who appears to reflect French herself. Additionally, Mira (who apparently is that reflection of French) protests while "Val" is saying it. Finally, the part about "they rape us with their eyes, their laws and their codes" basically proves that "all men are rapists" is just a provocative and figurative way of saying some innocuous point, not a literal condemnation of all men for literally raping people. Obviously, men's laws aren't somehow becoming a physical entity and physically raping women.

I already explained that I do not believe literally 1 in 5 women are forcibly raped.

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences. I, on the other hand, have never seen this; the vast majority of my interactions with people who identify as feminist have been positive. And really, it's become apparent to me that that's all this thread has turned into by now--anecdotes of individual experiences. For every feminist you find behaving badly, I can probably find one behaving rationally. That's why I ask that you try to separate the misbehaving adherents from the noble ideals.

I'm not an atheist.

My mistake I thought you were. I take it you are agnostic then?

For you to not say or agree with such idiotic statements like "Feminism is responsible for all the rot in our society." I mean, even if feminism itself and as a whole was somehow inherently bad, that statement clearly isn't even true--there are so many societal ills that have nothing to do with feminism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUna51rI_eQ

[Darth Ovious]

The problem is that your argument for this is essentially "I've interacted with many self-professed feminists who act in a way that makes me believe they're striving for supremacy rather than equality," but I on the other hand have interacted with many self-professed feminists who act in a way that makes me believe they ARE striving for equality, rather than for supremacy. We can argue about our personal interactions, or we can (as I have continuously suggested) focus on what feminism itself inherently means, independent of what adherents may or may not be doing.

Right I have had enough of you ignoring what I am saying. You know fine well that I linked to studies that skew results against men. I have argued a lot more than just my personal experience and I even linked a youtube video SHOWING YOU feminist "scholars" rejecting scientific data just by hand waving it away. These are the same people who teach this message in their classrooms to all their feminist students. Sheila Jeffreys is an other example of this who teaches at Sydney University.

Where do you think this leads to? What happens when they keep trying to force this 50/50 outcome that is never going to happen? We already know because it has already happened. We end up like the Soviet Union. Our society collapses and we have to start again.

[fm93]

Both really. Particular findings but also they think of it as a tool for oppression. Here is an example of what I mean.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/85spp.html

Er...I admit that I'm not entirely sure if I'm understanding that article correctly, but it seems to me that the author's mostly arguing that science tends to be too male-dominated.

Why? I'm specifying that I don't like a specific element that's seeped into modern Christianity but isn't inherently part of Christianity--since we know that faith actually means something like trust or loyalty to a patron who's established trustworthiness.

The difference is most religious people are not harmful, not to mention we need family values to survive.

I disagree. The idea that faith should be blind is what allows dangerous religious cult leaders to succeed--Jim Jones, Koresh, etc. Even if it's not on a suicidal cult level, that misconception of faith still leads to many Christians undergoing a crushing world of cognitive dissonance, distrust, etc.

I'm aware of that, but it's also true that many slaveowners tried to use Christianity to justify slavery, is it not?

Perhaps you could point some of them out for me.

For starters, pretty much every female college student (and many Millennials in general) identifies as feminist. At no point have I seen anything while talking and interacting with them that indicates a genuine hatred of men--especially considering the fact that many of them have boyfriends.

I suppose it's possible that some people could be deliberately lying, but as I said, I find it far more likely that most people spreading that statistic are just uncritically passing along something they've heard, rather than consciously trying to "make men look bad." After all, the myth that Christians taught the idea of a flat Earth until Columbus set sail has been debunked for a long time, but I still hear some Christians themselves spreading the idea--are they deliberately trying to sabotage their own faith?

Also, I've never thought of that "1 in 5" claim as making men look bad. What it makes me think is "Wow, human beings are capable of engaging in monstrous evil"--which applies even if the number is actually closer to 1 in 53.

Then the fact that I don't believe men are evil or should be put in subjugation to women would mean that most feminists I've met also believe that men aren't evil and that they shouldn't be put in subjugation to women, logically speaking.

Come on. Is it really that hard for you to believe that many feminists simply aren't that irrational, that they for the most part are perfectly decent people?

My mistake I thought you were. I take it you are agnostic then?

No. I still consider myself a theist of sorts. It's just that at this point in time, I'm not sure if I really know what the divine is like.

Earlier in this thread, Jedidiah said "Feminism is responsible for all the rot in society" and you responded by posting "Agreed."

It is responsible for a lot of things though. Pat Robertson might not be the best pastor in the world but he was right when he said "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

And how do I square that with the existence of the feminists I know who are happily married to their husbands (or wives, as that includes male feminists) and by all indications are straight, would never dream of having an abortion, do not practice witchcraft (and quite a few are Christians, in fact) and are not socialist?

Seriously, that quote is much too vague to be of any use. What part of feminism is necessarily anti-family or encourages socialism or witchcraft? I've heard that most divorces are initiated by women, but there ARE cases in which a woman is perfectly justified in filing for divorce, and feminism might've helped them--for instance, in older times women might've been force-fed the societal message that their function in life was essentially to serve a husband no matter what, but then the feminist message of female empowerment leads women who live with unrepentantly abusive or irresponsible husbands to save themselves and their children from that toxic situation and into better lives. Meanwhile, that part about "becoming lesbians" (as if all lesbians consciously chose to be attracted to women) is just silly.

Think about it. The divorce rate is now 50%.

Actually, it appears that the divorce rate has been decreasing.

Boys get treated in school like they are a disease and that they need indoctrinated with feminity and boys are struggling in school.

What sort of schools did you attend? I was certainly never treated like I was a disease, and I'm fairly certain that I wasn't "indoctrinated with feminity," whatever that even means.

It's true that many feminists support abortion, but the premise that's actually feminist in nature is that women should have individual freedom over their own bodies--and technically, that's something completely uncontroversial. Most pro-lifers (and I consider myself one) do agree with that; it's just that they see one exception when it comes to abortion, because they believe that a developing fetus qualifies as a human person and as such has freedom over its own body as well. Meanwhile, people who are pro-abortion simply believe that a developing fetus has not yet qualified as a human person. The issue of whether a fetus counts as a human person is an issue of philosophy/biology much more so than feminism.

Besides, if anything, genuine feminism that benefits women should naturally reduce the number of abortions, by improving women's financial and social circumstances so that they won't feel that they can't afford to bring a baby into the world.

Male domestic violence victims get ignored. Male rape victims get ignored.

But as I said, true feminism is supposed to help with this. And that's not my own radical idea. Consider this popular illustration from a feminist, entitled "Sexism goes both ways. Feminism helps both." I highly encourage you to read the whole thing. As the user's commentary says:

A lot of time feminism is seen as man-hating at whatever. I did not consider myself a feminist for a long time because of this. However, the majority of feminists, the feminists that aren't all up in yo face are not looking to hate your manness. We are merely trying to make the world a little safer for everyone. That means I will treat women the same for sexual harassment as I do for men. That means I will not belittle a man's sexuality and masculinity. Everyone should feel free to be who they are in a safe environment.

And hurting men is seen as funny even to the point that men who get physically assaulted get laughed at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUna51rI_eQ

Since when did Sharon Osbourne's reaction to something become representative of all women who identify as feminist?

Where do you think this has come from?

I think it comes from Sharon Osbourne channeling her husband's reputation for being a provocative shock jock.

[Darth Ovious]

[Darth Ovious]

Er...I admit that I'm not entirely sure if I'm understanding that article correctly, but it seems to me that the author's mostly arguing that science tends to be too male-dominated.

He also argued that those men were wrong because they didn't come to female perspectives. However everybody knows that the truth doesn't rely on what gender you are.

Why? I'm specifying that I don't like a specific element that's seeped into modern Christianity but isn't inherently part of Christianity--since we know that faith actually means something like trust or loyalty to a patron who's established trustworthiness.

Yes indeed. However what's left for you in terms of feminism? When do you give that mantle up?

I disagree. The idea that faith should be blind is what allows dangerous religious cult leaders to succeed--Jim Jones, Koresh, etc. Even if it's not on a suicidal cult level, that misconception of faith still leads to many Christians undergoing a crushing world of cognitive dissonance, distrust, etc.

OK, so you are against those things but why would you still consider feminism to be legit then? Do they not have blind faith in some magical patriarchy that doesn't exist?

I'm aware of that, but it's also true that many slaveowners tried to use Christianity to justify slavery, is it not?

And they were wrong. However notice it was other Christians who told them they were wrong. So what doesn't feminism sort out their own house as well while they are at it. How come the radicals are still the ones controlling the narrative?

For starters, pretty much every female college student (and many Millennials in general) identifies as feminist. At no point have I seen anything while talking and interacting with them that indicates a genuine hatred of men--especially considering the fact that many of them have boyfriends.

Actually wrong. The identity of feminist is actually at a low amongst women and it's because of feminisms bad image that this is the case. The following link is for Britain but you can find similar studies for America that show most people believe in equality but don't identify as feminist.

https://www.onepoll.com/36-of-britis...as-a-feminist/

I suppose it's possible that some people could be deliberately lying, but as I said, I find it far more likely that most people spreading that statistic are just uncritically passing along something they've heard, rather than consciously trying to "make men look bad." After all, the myth that Christians taught the idea of a flat Earth until Columbus set sail has been debunked for a long time, but I still hear some Christians themselves spreading the idea--are they deliberately trying to sabotage their own faith?

So in others words you think they are idiots instead for not knowing the basis of their own beliefs and how they actually ground those factually?

Also, I've never thought of that "1 in 5" claim as making men look bad. What it makes me think is "Wow, human beings are capable of engaging in monstrous evil"--which applies even if the number is actually closer to 1 in 53.

Funny how it's only men who come off looking monstrous from it. Meanwhile female rapists and abusers are totally forgotten about.

Then the fact that I don't believe men are evil or should be put in subjugation to women would mean that most feminists I've met also believe that men aren't evil and that they shouldn't be put in subjugation to women, logically speaking.

Come on. Is it really that hard for you to believe that many feminists simply aren't that irrational, that they for the most part are perfectly decent people?

What's so hard to understand about it? They belong to a hate movement against men. I don't see what's hard in believing that a hate movement attracts those who hate. Would you think so lightly of a white supremacist movement? Would you try to argue that they weren't all so bad? I don't think so, so I'm not sure what you expect me to concede here. We both know that hate movements are possible so why is this even an argument?

No. I still consider myself a theist of sorts. It's just that at this point in time, I'm not sure if I really know what the divine is like.

OK

Earlier in this thread, Jedidiah said "Feminism is responsible for all the rot in society" and you responded by posting "Agreed."

Well it is responsible for family break down and a lot of other things.

And how do I square that with the existence of the feminists I know who are happily married to their husbands (or wives, as that includes male feminists) and by all indications are straight, would never dream of having an abortion, do not practice witchcraft (and quite a few are Christians, in fact) and are not socialist?

Do they themselves consider themselves feminists? Have you asked them what they identify themselves as?

Seriously, that quote is much too vague to be of any use. What part of feminism is necessarily anti-family or encourages socialism or witchcraft? I've heard that most divorces are initiated by women, but there ARE cases in which a woman is perfectly justified in filing for divorce, and feminism might've helped them--for instance, in older times women might've been force-fed the societal message that their function in life was essentially to serve a husband no matter what, but then the feminist message of female empowerment leads women who live with unrepentantly abusive or irresponsible husbands to save themselves and their children from that toxic situation and into better lives. Meanwhile, that part about "becoming lesbians" (as if all lesbians consciously chose to be attracted to women) is just silly.

Well for a starter a lot of the second wave radical feminists argued for a goddess rather than a god. Mary Daly argued a lot about this in her books. So argued that a goddess was real but the patriarchy distorted it with their teachings. A lot of the radical feminsts that are the ones who spoke out against marriage. They thought that marriage was akin to slavery for women. They argued that for women to be truly free then they need to destroy marriage in it's totality. As for lesbians well that is what radical feminism is about. It's separating women from men completely.

Radical Feminism: Radical feminists believe that the biggest oppression at work in our society is based on gender. Some believe a married woman can't be a feminist or that straight women can't be feminist. All-in-all it comes down to the argument that any dependence on men will equal the oppression of women. Although not all radical feminists are lesbians, this is the school of thought that has been influenced by a lot of lesbian separatist groups. Radical feminists believe patriarchy will only end when women are freed from the physical and emotional violence inflicted by men in the classroom and the playground.

Actually, it appears that the divorce rate has been decreasing.

Well that would be good news. However my comment was in regards to the fact that it used to be something like 10% back in the 40's or 50's and then started to increase during the 60's and 70's onwards. If it's decreasing now then perhaps that is a good indication for the future.

What sort of schools did you attend? I was certainly never treated like I was a disease, and I'm fairly certain that I wasn't "indoctrinated with feminity," whatever that even means.

I think it's after our time as such. I am in my 30's now and it was just starting to happen when I was going through school. It got worse after I left I think. I guess the biggest indicator that you need to look for is the high rates that children, epescially boys are put onto drugs for what is normal behaviour for most boys. Boys tend to run about a lot when they are younger but now they are getting diagnosed with rubbish disorders like ADHD, etc and then getting put onto drugs. Boys are also getting pulled up for other kinds of normal behaviour like kidding on they are shooting a gun at bad guys, etc. It's normal for boys to do this but they are treated like they are potential future school shooters. Essentially, there is this idea that boys are bad and they need to behave more like girls who are considered good instead of just accepting the differences.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...police-schools

Specific examples I have seen on this include.

1) A young boy written up for sexual harassment because he hugged her after breaking up a fight

2) A young boy who chewed his pop tart in a gun for playing given into trouble and expelled.

3) A young boy expelled for singing a song he heard off the radio that the teacher considered sexist and thus sexual harassment

4) A boy sent juvenile detention for getting into a fight. When he returned the principle sent back to juvenile detention for not wearing matching socks because apparently the principle has the right to also be in command of the fashion police.

I have seen others but these are the ones that come to mind.

It's true that many feminists support abortion, but the premise that's actually feminist in nature is that women should have individual freedom over their own bodies--and technically, that's something completely uncontroversial. Most pro-lifers (and I consider myself one) do agree with that; it's just that they see one exception when it comes to abortion, because they believe that a developing fetus qualifies as a human person and as such has freedom over its own body as well. Meanwhile, people who are pro-abortion simply believe that a developing fetus has not yet qualified as a human person. The issue of whether a fetus counts as a human person is an issue of philosophy/biology much more so than feminism.

Besides, if anything, genuine feminism that benefits women should naturally reduce the number of abortions, by improving women's financial and social circumstances so that they won't feel that they can't afford to bring a baby into the world.

Here is a question. If it's a womans choice that whether she keeps a baby or not and the man doesn't have a say then why is the man financially responsible for something that is not his choice? Shouldn't the man be able to walk away if he wants?

But as I said, true feminism is supposed to help with this. And that's not my own radical idea. Consider this popular illustration from a feminist, entitled "Sexism goes both ways. Feminism helps both." I highly encourage you to read the whole thing. As the user's commentary says:

A lot of time feminism is seen as man-hating at whatever. I did not consider myself a feminist for a long time because of this. However, the majority of feminists, the feminists that aren't all up in yo face are not looking to hate your manness. We are merely trying to make the world a little safer for everyone. That means I will treat women the same for sexual harassment as I do for men. That means I will not belittle a man's sexuality and masculinity. Everyone should feel free to be who they are in a safe environment.

Interesting, the artist is from Japan from what I can see.

Since when did Sharon Osbourne's reaction to something become representative of all women who identify as feminist?

I didn't even say she was a feminist in the first place. However, you also forgot the other women on the panel and the AUDIENCE all laughing along. However it's a valid point that this sort of thing would NEVER be accepted if it was reversed. If it was 5 guys and a male audience it wouldn't even get to TV in the first place. It just wouldn't happen at all. However this was perfectly fine for some strange reason to put on air for view of millions of viewers. None of them lost their job either. Even though they got complaints and apologised, the apology was pathetic as well as they sniggered through it.

I think it comes from Sharon Osbourne channeling her husband's reputation for being a provocative shock jock.

I don't ever think Ozzy waqs sexist towards women when he being shocking. I thought he did it the old fashioned way and bit the head of a bat.

[Darth Ovious]

This also made it's rounds around a few places. It even made it's way onto navy ships. Isn't it funny how feminists argue that most rapes happen by a person you know and also are not necessarily by knife/gun point yet this info graphic seems to suggest that men just rape women constantly and deliberately target them because they can't control themselves.