Rape Culture: Why Yes can mean No

[Darth Ovious]

You're the one obsessed over the sex of the ones getting blamed; all I've blamed are feminists.

To be fair there are men who are referred to normally as white knights included. These men don't usually identify them as feminists as such but have a need to "protect" women even in circumstances that don't make any sense.

[fm93]

This is like saying that the BNP are only a political party and has nothing to do with racism apart from it's racist members of course.

I don't know British politics nearly well enough to comment on that. But if you'd object to atheists identifying Christianity as a religion of pedophilia, adultery and hatred because of its many pedophilic, adulterous and hate-mongering members, then logical consistency necessitates that you show a little more rationality and graciousness towards feminism as well.

The truth of Christianity rests on the claims of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Feminism is an ideology like communism where it's truth claims are decided by those who follow it.

No. Christianity is a term that covers a diverse and multifaceted system of ideas--some of which are good and some of which are bad--that ultimately derives from the belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That central belief is a good thing, and so rational people understand that it's unfair and illogical to condemn Christianity itself on the basis of a few bad branches. Likewise, feminism is a term that covers a diverse and multifaceted system of ideas--some of which are good and some of which are bad--that ultimately derives from the belief that women are people and as such are inherently equal to men in human worth. That central belief is a good thing, and so rational people understand that it's unfair and illogical to condemn feminism itself on the basis of a few bad branches.

[Sparko]

I don't know British politics nearly well enough to comment on that. But if you'd object to atheists identifying Christianity as a religion of pedophilia, adultery and hatred because of its many pedophilic, adulterous and hate-mongering members, then logical consistency necessitates that you show a little more rationality and graciousness towards feminism as well.

I get what you are saying and almost agree with you. But pedophiles, etc who claim to be Christian are not following the doctrines and tenants of the faith. They are going against the faith. But letting that slide...

I agree that feminism in itself is not a bad thing. I am all for equality between the sexes and I think feminism has brought women a long way towards achieving that. We have women executives, leaders, police, etc.

That is why I usually categorize the extreme fringes like this woman who wants men to read her mind, as "radical feminism."

The radical feminists seem to be man-haters, who not only want "equality" but seem to revel in doing things to give themselves control over men. Such as labeling everything "rape" - even consensual sex.

[fm93]

I get what you are saying and almost agree with you. But pedophiles, etc who claim to be Christian are not following the doctrines and tenants of the faith. They are going against the faith. But letting that slide...

I agree that feminism in itself is not a bad thing. I am all for equality between the sexes and I think feminism has brought women a long way towards achieving that. We have women executives, leaders, police, etc.

That is why I usually categorize the extreme fringes like this woman who wants men to read her mind, as "radical feminism."

The radical feminists seem to be man-haters, who not only want "equality" but seem to revel in doing things to give themselves control over men. Such as labeling everything "rape" - even consensual sex.

This is a fair analysis and one that I agree with. I'm just baffled and disappointed by why Darth Ovious seems to be so intent on conflating feminism in its most basic sense with the most extreme versions of it.

[Sparko]

This is a fair analysis and one that I agree with. I'm just baffled and disappointed by why Darth Ovious seems to be so intent on conflating feminism in its most basic sense with the most extreme versions of it.

Maybe because that is the type of feminism that gets shown in the news. I think the media tends to magnify everything, from feminism, to racism, to rioting, etc. We see the worse because that is "news worthy" - if there is nothing going on and people are getting along, then there is nothing to report.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Darth Ovious]

I don't know British politics nearly well enough to comment on that.

Well the BNP were founded by neo-nazi's so you get the picture.

But if you'd object to atheists identifying Christianity as a religion of pedophilia, adultery and hatred because of its many pedophilic, adulterous and hate-mongering members, then logical consistency necessitates that you show a little more rationality and graciousness towards feminism as well.

Christianity was not founded by Paedophiles. Second wave feminism however was founded by man haters. Think of it like the Westboro Baptist Church. They are whacky and you're not going to give them a free pass just because they identify themselves as Christians. It just so happens that most feminists come under this banner. This is because the second wave views filtered through into the third wave noise.

No. Christianity is a term that covers a diverse and multifaceted system of ideas--some of which are good and some of which are bad--that ultimately derives from the belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That central belief is a good thing, and so rational people understand that it's unfair and illogical to condemn Christianity itself on the basis of a few bad branches. Likewise, feminism is a term that covers a diverse and multifaceted system of ideas--some of which are good and some of which are bad--that ultimately derives from the belief that women are people and as such are inherently equal to men in human worth. That central belief is a good thing, and so rational people understand that it's unfair and illogical to condemn feminism itself on the basis of a few bad branches.

Once again, the TRUTH of Christianity rests on the claims of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Feminism is an ideology like communism where it's truth claims are decided by those who follow it.

To illustrate my point I can reword some of what you say above and it would still be true. i.e.

"ultimately derives from the belief that women are better and as such are inherently superior to men in human worth"

This is what I see when they preach their "equality". If you want to stick to your rigid definition of the dictionary then these "feminsts" aren't feminsts. They are female supremacists and then that means a very large amount of these "feminists" are actually female supremacists.

[Darth Ovious]

This is a fair analysis and one that I agree with. I'm just baffled and disappointed by why Darth Ovious seems to be so intent on conflating feminism in its most basic sense with the most extreme versions of it.

How else do you think things like the Dear Colleague letter get about? Pretty much most feminism since the second wave has been about man hatred.

[Darth Ovious]

Maybe because that is the type of feminism that gets shown in the news. I think the media tends to magnify everything, from feminism, to racism, to rioting, etc. We see the worse because that is "news worthy" - if there is nothing going on and people are getting along, then there is nothing to report.

I'm afraid not Sparko. I found out in my time away from TWeb that even the feminism that wasn't newsworthy was still bonkers. Christina Hoff Sommers book Who Stole Feminism even agrees with this idea.

[Epoetker]

All Christians who want to know about how feminism actually works in real life should be directed immediately to The Other McCain.

[Teallaura]

Believe it or not I have seen the odd male radical feminist. It's not very nice. They usually come off as having a very strong sense of self loathing. I remember one named Owen (I can't remember his last name again) but he was telling his story about what made him a radical feminist and it was when he went to a public laundrymat to wash his clothes. He ended up confused because there was a woman there who appeared scared of him and was hiding in a corner. When she realised he was only there to wash his clothes she apologised went back to sorting out her clothes. When he got home the penny dropped and he realised that she was afraid of him because she thought he was a predator. So he ended up feeling so bad that he ended up becoming a radical feminist.

Now the thing is when he told this story online he was attacked by other radical feminists. They said to him he was a monster because he didn't leave right away. His presence was oppressing her they said. His reply was that he didn't realise he was a monster back then. So he defended the idea that he used to be a monster despite the fact that he didn't actually do anything to harm the girl. I do feel sorry for the girl because something bad probably did happen to her, but a public laundromat is a public place. He can't just be expected to remove himself from public because other people might be afraid of him.

You're making my case here. Neither of these are stable people - if you're that afraid of men you don't go to a public laundromat unless it's crowded; loathing your gender because someone is wrongly afraid of you is just stupid. These are NOT the test cases you use when trying to make just laws.

[Darth Ovious]

You're making my case here. Neither of these are stable people - if you're that afraid of men you don't go to a public laundromat unless it's crowded; loathing your gender because someone is wrongly afraid of you is just stupid. These are NOT the test cases you use when trying to make just laws.

I was just offering an account I once witnessed. The guy in question was a self professed radical feminist. In other words he admits he is a radical. There are plenty of other male feminists who are completely batty as well, but they tend to have the "all men are bad, except me" attitude instead.

EDIT: While I'm at it I may all well offer another story. This one is do with a male feminist called Hugo Schwyzer, he was a feminist professor a while ago but I won't go into the details why he isn't anymore. He wrote an article one time about an incident in his life. He was dating a woman who was also dating another man at the same time. She ended up pregnant but she didn't know who the father was. However Hugo talks about he graciously bowed out so this woman could start a family with the other guy. So basically this child could have been his but he didn't really care. As for the other guy you get the feeling that he has ended up raising a kid that might not be his. Let's face it, most guys are going to want to know this sort of thing. Hugo wasn't allowed to talk to her again either and the agreement was he would never see the child. So very suspicious here in that looks like this woman has instigated paternity fraud against the other man. However, doesn't really matter since Hugo basically knew of a child that could have been his and he didn't give a flying monkey about it. In other words, he is a true runaway dad.

[fm93]

Second wave feminism however was founded by man haters.

I'm not sure what exactly leads you to conclude this; I suspect that you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting it, but even if that was an accurate depiction, why not just specify that you take issue with "second-wave feminism," rather than feminism in what sounds like the generic sense?

Think of it like the Westboro Baptist Church. They are whacky and you're not going to give them a free pass just because they identify themselves as Christians.

Well, yes, but you seem to have it backwards. I'm not saying people should give them a free pass because they identify as Christians. I'm saying that you shouldn't slander Christianity in general just because of the existence of Westboro. Likewise, I'm not saying that you should give any particular feminists who were in fact "wacky" a free pass because they identify as feminist. I'm saying that you shouldn't slander feminism in general just because of that particular subset of feminists.

It just so happens that most feminists come under this banner. This is because the second wave views filtered through into the third wave noise.

I have seen no evidence that "most feminists" should be classified as promoting "wacky" views.

Once again, the TRUTH of Christianity rests on the claims of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Feminism is an ideology like communism where it's truth claims are decided by those who follow it.

And once again, Christianity isn't technically a single idea but rather a term covering a multifaceted system of ideas, since it's rare that any two people who identify as Christians believe exactly the same things in every aspect. But okay then--let's change that to "The TRUTH of feminism rests on the belief that women are people and as such are inherently equal to men in human worth."

To illustrate my point I can reword some of what you say above and it would still be true. i.e.

"ultimately derives from the belief that women are better and as such are inherently superior to men in human worth"

This is what I see when they preach their "equality". If you want to stick to your rigid definition of the dictionary then these "feminsts" aren't feminsts. They are female supremacists and then that means a very large amount of these "feminists" are actually female supremacists.

I doubt that this is an accurate representation. Certainly no form of feminism I've ever seen has come across as advocating female supremacy. But even if your representation was accurate, then just call those particular women female supremacists and condemn female supremacy. Don't say/agree with stupid statements like "Feminism (aka what by definition is the belief that women are inherently equal to men) is responsible for the general rot in our society."

[Irate Canadian]

Certainly no form of feminism I've ever seen has come across as advocating female supremacy. But even if your representation was accurate, then just call those particular women female supremacists and condemn female supremacy.

Sadly, I've seen women argue for the first option.

Don't say/agree with stupid statements like "Feminism (aka what by definition is the belief that women are inherently equal to men) is responsible for the general rot in our society."

Agreed.

[Darth Ovious]

I'm not sure what exactly leads you to conclude this; I suspect that you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting it, but even if that was an accurate depiction, why not just specify that you take issue with "second-wave feminism," rather than feminism in what sounds like the generic sense?

A lot of the ideas filtered through to third wave as well. Also since first wave is no longer around as it's followers are no longer alive and it is irrelevant as it's goals has been accomplished then we are left with second and third wave. Your comment here seems to me that you don't really know a lot about second wave feminism. Look up a woman called Valerie Solanas. She wrote the SCUM manifesto which is attributed the title The Society for Cutting Up Men and an appropriate title too. This book is the bible for radical feminists everywhere. Of course they claim it is humour when challenged but considering that Solanas shot two men then I think that shows she was serious. As for other quotes:

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." Germaine Greer.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comin

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

In terms of the lawsuits happening against campuses for students receiving no due process rights.

http://www.cotwa.info/2014/06/add-th...l-of-fame.html

I could also cite the kill all men hashtag on twiter as well.

I don’t think I could start with Tumblr and it’s insanity.

Well, yes, but you seem to have it backwards. I'm not saying people should give them a free pass because they identify as Christians. I'm saying that you shouldn't slander Christianity in general just because of the existence of Westboro. Likewise, I'm not saying that you should give any particular feminists who were in fact "wacky" a free pass because they identify as feminist. I'm saying that you shouldn't slander feminism in general just because of that particular subset of feminists.

You are misunderstanding me. I do the very thing that you’re saying. It just so happens that there are so many of them they take up a very large part of the modern day movement.

I have seen no evidence that "most feminists" should be classified as promoting "wacky" views.

Then you’ve not been looking hard enough. Did you not see Rogues post on Mary Koss and fake rape statistics? Did you know that domestic violence is actually split half and half between female and male victims? Do you know that impartial researchers have blamed feminist researchers for misrepresenting facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMm3iBFhypE

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-St...ence-PV_10.pdf

Dr Murray Strauss is one researcher who has exposed this. However there are now over 200 world wide studies that show this and still the narrative is that it’s men who overwhelmingly beat their wives and STILL feminist groups resist this evidence because it goes against their narrative.

And once again, Christianity isn't technically a single idea but rather a term covering a multifaceted system of ideas, since it's rare that any two people who identify as Christians believe exactly the same things in every aspect. But okay then--let's change that to "The TRUTH of feminism rests on the belief that women are people and as such are inherently equal to men in human worth."

Too bad that’s not what a large number of “feminists” believe then. They are female supremacists.

I doubt that this is an accurate representation. Certainly no form of feminism I've ever seen has come across as advocating female supremacy. But even if your representation was accurate, then just call those particular women female supremacists and condemn female supremacy. Don't say/agree with stupid statements like "Feminism (aka what by definition is the belief that women are inherently equal to men) is responsible for the general rot in our society."

You really have no idea. Then again you are not supposed to.

EDIT: Ask yourself these questions.

Why do feminists state that rape statistics are 1 in 4 when is obviously false?

Why do feminists state that domestic violence is male violence upon women despite the evidence showing otherwise?

[Darth Ovious]

Here is another organisation caught lying about statistics in one of their adverts to raise cash.

Of course when you review the study in how they got these statistics then you see that they included stats of parents who discipline their daughters for bad behaviour. They then of course throw those statistics into an advert where on women is giving a present and it's a rape whistle.

Of course if you run these same criteria for boys then you'll probably end up with the same statistic of 1 in 2. Of course they couldn't care less about boys because the campaign is about using the women victim and man evil paradigm of victimhood to pull on heart strings and generate money.

EDIT: I should add why this is blatantly irresponsible since it slanders Canadian parents and makes them look horrible.