When did feminism go completely crazy?

[Senethro]

How naive do you have to be to think coffee means coffee.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well that's what it comes down to. Either he continued to talk to her after she said no, or he didn't. And from my understanding if the situation, he didn't. He asked her for coffee at 4 in the morning and she said no, then he left. Yeah, forgive me for not giving a damn.

Again, unconvinced. It must still be quite unpleasant to be on the other side of that exchange, having to trust entirely to another person's good nature and knowing that if they're not going to be a gentleman then the best case scenario is a rather one-sided fight in a lift - there's certainly a case to be made that putting someone in that situation is insensitive, at best.

 

[Traitorfish]

TF, in this instance, refers to the poster Traitorfish. Whom I believe was calling my position contrived. I do happen to know he is a hetwhitedude, as he's told us(though by all means, sincere apologies if time or my powers of observation have rendered this conclusion incorrect), and he knows I am one as well. We now know you are as well. We're a knowledgeable group of folks, us.

Cishetwhitedude, if we're going for full tumblr accreditation.

That distinction rarely adds a lot, but they tend to insist on it.

 

[Borachio]

The worry is that if the (large) bloke in question decides that it's not, there's not a lot of ways to go in a lift.

I don't think it's relevant in that case what the (large) bloke asks. Or whether he asks her anything at all.

If he's that kind of (large) bloke, the woman's in a tight spot whatever.

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, unconvinced. It must still be quite unpleasant to be on the other side of that exchange, having to trust entirely to another person's good nature and knowing that if they're not going to be a gentleman then the best case scenario is a rather one-sided fight in a lift - there's certainly a case to be made that putting someone in that situation is insensitive, at best.

I'd say that if this is indeed the fear, and causing the fear is blameworthy, then the blameworthy error was made upon his entry to the elevator in the first place. Unless she got in with him, then by all means don't confuse me with blaming her for anything.

Cishetwhitedude, if we're going for full tumblr accreditation.

That distinction rarely adds a lot, but they tend to insist on it.

 

[caketastydelish]

How naive do you have to be to think coffee means coffee.

It's thoroughly irrelevant if he "really" meant sex, again the situation is the same: All she has to do is say no... which from the looks of it, she did, and that ended it.

Again, unconvinced. It must still be quite unpleasant to be on the other side of that exchange, having to trust entirely to another person's good nature and knowing that if they're not going to be a gentleman then the best case scenario is a rather one-sided fight in a lift - there's certainly a case to be made that putting someone in that situation is insensitive, at best.

Meh. People can *potentially* harm another anywhere in the world. At least an elevator is inside a building with security cameras so the man would have been caught if he tried to pull some BS. My understanding is places like dark alleys are where those kinds of situations are more likely to actually happen.

All he did was ask her for a cup of coffee and she said no, then he left her alone. If he *did* continue to make advances after her initial refusal he's harassing. But at what point can men (or women for that matter) approach at all? Can't even ask for a cup of coffee? Christ.

 

[Borachio]

Perspectives are just different at 2 am, Mr Cake.

 

[warpus]

Again, unconvinced. It must still be quite unpleasant to be on the other side of that exchange, having to trust entirely to another person's good nature and knowing that if they're not going to be a gentleman then the best case scenario is a rather one-sided fight in a lift - there's certainly a case to be made that putting someone in that situation is insensitive, at best.

Unpleasant yes, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that someone making a sexual request is going to want to fight you.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'd say that if this is indeed the fear, and causing the fear is blameworthy, then the blameworthy error was made upon his entry to the elevator in the first place. Unless she got in with him, then by all means don't confuse me with blaming her for anything.

Again, unconvinced - I'd perhaps be a little nervous if I noticed someone behind me in a dark alley, but I'd get an awful lot more apprehensive if he asked if I had a light - even if he did indeed prove to be looking for something to light up his fag with. I'd probably say he'd picked a rather bad time to ask that, because the inconvenience of not asking the question (or asking it somewhere else) doesn't do justice to the amount of worry it might cause somebody. The same is not true, though, of taking a more inconvenient detour around the block to avoid worrying somebody a bit less. Does the line of reasoning at least make sense?

Meh. People can *potentially* harm another anywhere in the world. At least an elevator is inside a building with security cameras so the man would have been caught if he tried to pull some BS. My understanding is places like dark alleys are where those kinds of situations are more likely to actually happen.

All he did was ask her for a cup of coffee and she said no, then he left her alone. If he *did* continue to make advances after her initial refusal he's harassing. But at what point can men (or women for that matter) approach at all? Can't even ask for a cup of coffee? Christ.

Coffee hardly means coffee at that time! The problem with people being caught is that you're always caught after the fact... and, for the record, women are far more likely to be raped or attacked by men that they know - say a neighbour in the lift on the way home late at night.

 

[Ajidica]

Cishetwhitedude, if we're going for full tumblr accreditation.

That distinction rarely adds a lot, but they tend to insist on it.

Wait, what does the 'cis' mean? I thought it was just another way of describing hetero.

I clearly need to spend more time on tumblr to learn the lingo.

 

[sophie]

Wait, what does the 'cis' mean? I thought it was just another way of describing hetero.

I clearly need to spend more time on tumblr to learn the lingo.

No. Cis means that your gender identity matches your genitalia. As opposed to trans.

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, unconvinced - I'd perhaps be a little nervous if I noticed someone behind me in a dark alley, but I'd get an awful lot more apprehensive if he asked if I had a light - even if he did indeed prove to be looking for something to light up his fag with. I'd probably say he'd picked a rather bad time to ask that, because the inconvenience of not asking the question (or asking it somewhere else) doesn't do justice to the amount of worry it might cause somebody. The same is not true, though, of taking a more inconvenient detour around the block to avoid worrying somebody a bit less. Does the line of reasoning at least make sense?

To be honest that makes reverse sense to me. Either you scare somebody because you're big and they're trapped with you, and you shouldn't get on the elevator with them in the first place, or your presence isn't that scary and you can ride on elevators with people at night. If you aren't so scary that your presence in that part of public with that person is ok, then a rebuffable social advance is either ok or it's not. So basically men can or cannot appropriately talk with women on elevators in public at specified times, or a big fellow can or cannot appropriately talk with you in an alley at night. If they can talk, then the tone is either threatening or non threatening. Is the tone vulgar, is it looming? If not, then is the subject material itself either ok or not? Can a man casually and rebuffably, without implied threat, proposition a woman for sex(through the presumed social nicety of invitation to coffee)? Or, is that innately threatening? If it's innately threatening then exactly how over slut-shaming are we actually? Or are only women slut-shamable whereas horn-dogging is something innately different with different rules? Penetrative penis power. You know, all that.

Then again, bear in mind I'm a rube. If somebody is in my space they're already in my space. I'm not used to interpreting silent non-interactive people as partial furniture that are somehow more inert than if they were to deign to speak at me.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Wait, what does the 'cis' mean? I thought it was just another way of describing hetero.

I clearly need to spend more time on tumblr to learn the lingo.

Trans means "on the other side of". Cis means "on this side of"

Though it's a tumbler thing to say cis-sexual, it is basically true.

Transylvania means something like "The other side of the forest" by the way

 

[Triewd]

https://feministbrainwash.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/feminism-is-poison/

A male colleague of mine was recently suspended from his job for sexual harassment. His offence? He asked one of his female co-workers out on a date. She said no. He didn’t persist. In other words he behaved like a perfect gentleman. She decided a few days later that his proposal had constituted sexual harassment and made a complaint. Her word was taken over his because of course he had already committed the crime of being male. The man was reinstated but there is no doubt that the incident damaged his career. The workplace atmosphere though, which had previously been relaxed and easy going, had been fatally poisoned, with men refusing to socialize or even go for lunch with their female colleagues. Men do not want to be around overgrown children who expect them to walk on eggshells.

Relevant to what was said above and to this thread

Native populations are plummeting and dependence on the recourses of the increasingly creaking machinery of the state is growing out of control. Exploding prison populations have been directly related to the phenomenon of single mother households, a phenomenon driven by feminist design and advocacy, and paid for from the taxes of men. Feminism has been telling women for years that they don’t need men. It’s a lie of course. Men and women need each other and probably the most destructive thing that feminism has managed to do is drive a wedge between the sexes, causing a toxic atmosphere of fear and mistrust that makes both sexes unnecessarily wary of each-other.

This constant stereotyping of men is just advertisers giving women what they want. Women spend 70% of the western world’s disposable income so any advertiser ignores them at their peril. Women have been conditioned by feminism for decades to enjoy the ridiculing of men but this is not harmless. It drip feeds a poisonous acceptance into our society that it is OK to demonize half the population and lionize the other half. It damages women just as much as men. Whichever of these male character templates is chosen for a particular advert, the end result is always the same. The man is left with egg on his face by the actions or words of a sassy sophisticated woman who is obviously both his moral and intellectual superior.

A rather good post from a woman about Feminism

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I get my news from feministbrainwash.com right after I finish reading up gaysaresatanic.com

 

[Mise]

Note: I obviously haven't read the whole thread and am coming in at the end uninitiated... Let me know if I'm missing the point!

To be honest that makes reverse sense to me. Either you scare somebody because you're big and they're trapped with you, and you shouldn't get on the elevator with them in the first place, or your presence isn't that scary and you can ride on elevators with people at night. If you aren't so scary that your presence in that part of public with that person is ok, then a rebuffable social advance is either ok or it's not. So basically men can or cannot appropriately talk with women on elevators in public at specified times, or a big fellow can or cannot appropriately talk with you in an alley at night. If they can talk, then the tone is either threatening or non threatening. Is the tone vulgar, is it looming? If not, then is the subject material itself either ok or not? Can a man casually and rebuffably, without implied threat, proposition a woman for sex(through the presumed social nicety of invitation to coffee)? Or, is that innately threatening? If it's innately threatening then exactly how over slut-shaming are we actually? Or are only women slut-shamable whereas horn-dogging is something innately different with different rules? Penetrative penis power. You know, all that.

Then again, bear in mind I'm a rube. If somebody is in my space they're already in my space. I'm not used to interpreting silent non-interactive people as partial furniture that are somehow more inert than if they were to deign to speak at me.

Even if I accept your position, surely you must accept that some people don't share your opinion, and that some of those (objectively wrong) people are women you might meet in an elevator? And if that's the case, and that woman (unreasonably) would feel uncomfortable by being approached for sex at 4am in an elevator by a strange man, isn't it best to respect her wishes (reasonable or not), if it costs you literally nothing? I mean, she's not going to have sex with you whether you ask her for coffee or not, so you literally lose nothing by not talking to her, and the advantage of not talking to her is that you don't make her feel uncomfortable. So the most moral choice, when in an elevator with a woman who would be made uncomfortable by your proposition, is to not proposition her.

In reality, of course, we don't know whether this particular woman in this particular elevator is the kind of woman who (unreasonably) feels uncomfortable when approached by a strange man in an elevator at 4am. We don't even have any way of knowing, or even guessing based on statistics or evidence or experience. Even if you did it 100 times, you wouldn't know how many of those women were made profoundly uncomfortable, or to what extent they were made uncomfortable by your propositioning them. You simply have no idea if this particular woman in this particular elevator is the kind of woman who (unreasonably) feels uncomfortable when approached by a strange man in an elevator at 4am.

And, in reality, what are the chances that this particular woman in this particular elevator is the kind of woman who (quite reasonably) would jump at the chance of sleeping with a strange man who asked her for coffee in an elevator at 4am? I don't know about you, but speaking for myself, I'd say they were pretty slim. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if a woman did agree to this, then this is fairly good evidence that she is far too drunk to consent to sex anyway. But let's say you're a much more attractive man than I am, and actually, this happens maybe 1 in 5 times (statistics gathered from doing it 100 times, as per the previous paragraph). I mean, still pretty slim, but nonetheless a fairly decent shot at getting what you want out of the interaction.

Purely for the sake of brevity, let's call the woman who would feel uncomfortable by your approach "Type A", and the woman who would not feel uncomfortable "Type B". We don't know the probability that the woman is Type A, but we do know that the consequences would be bad for her, and neutral for the man. Similarly, we don't know the probability that the woman is Type B, but we do know that the consequences for her are 4/5ths neutral (if she doesn't want sex rn) and 1/5th positive (if she does), and ditto for the man.

Now, given that:
a) the probability of a positive outcome for the woman is very slim
b) the negative outcome for the woman is ??? dunno, but it's probably bigger than the positive
c) the positive outcome for the man is very slim
d) the negative outcome for the man is Zero (i.e. there is no negative outcome in any scenario)

...we can conclude the following:

1) There is zero risk for the man
2) The man loses nothing, whether or not he approaches the woman
3) The motivations for the man are entirely selfish
4) The probability of a negative outcome for the woman is much greater than a positive outcome for the woman
5) The probability of a negative outcome for the woman is much MUCH greater than a negative outcome for the man

Given all of this knowledge, surely there is no morally justifiable reason for asking a woman for sex at 4am in elevator? Surely the only morally justifiable thing to do, given all the uncertainties and risks involved, is to not ask a woman for sex at 4am in an elevator? Surely there is a moral imperative to consider the effect your actions will have on the other person, whether or not their response is reasonable? You lose nothing by not approaching the woman, and you're approaching her for entirely selfish reasons, so I really don't see a positive case for approaching the woman in this case. When you weigh up the costs and benefits, risks and rewards, it just doesn't stack up for me.

In other cases, it does. If you're black or gay or something, and your presence in a certain shop offends racist or homophobic people, then the calculus is completely different. There is a clear moral imperative to not placate racists or homophobes, in the way you might placate the assumed unreasonable woman. Part of the reason is certainty: I'm fairly certain that racism is wrong, but am I really sure that the woman is being unreasonable? The other part is about the consequences: if black people have some moral imperative to avoid shops, then society will be significantly worse off, but if I have a moral imperative to stop asking women for sex in elevators at 4am, society isn't appreciably worse off. (There are other parts, but I don't want to labour the point.)

And you can phrase this, if you're the kind of liberal that I am, in terms of liberty. Is liberty maximised when a man voluntarily chooses to approach women in a way that minimises the risk that the woman is made uncomfortable? I believe so. And if you're the kind of liberal that I am, then you'll believe that this carries a moral weight; it becomes a moral imperative.

I really and truly don't know where to draw the line on a lot of this stuff. But frankly, I don't want to be anywhere near the line! I don't want to be "borderline creepy"; I don't want to be juuuuuust about on the right side of the line. I want to be waaaaay the hell over there, in the unambiguously Good segment of the line. It just seems obvious to me that it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to this stuff.

 

[civvver]

How long has it been since anything really bad originated with the far left? Anyone remember?

Detroit.

*mic drop*

 

[Farm Boy]

Mise, I think casual sex itself is immoral for all parties involved, but I get called a hater if I make a stand on that too hard, so I roll with a society that largely doesn't share my views on that.

If I buy your premises, and they're not unreasonable, so let's buy them, I cannot really come up with a situation in which a man can approach a woman that he does not know, with sexual interest implied where, absent an active flag being flown by her(such as on a dating site), the following:

1) There is zero risk for the man
2) The man loses nothing, whether or not he approaches the woman
3) The motivations for the man are entirely selfish
4) The probability of a negative outcome for the woman is much greater than a positive outcome for the woman
5) The probability of a negative outcome for the woman is much MUCH greater than a negative outcome for the man

...is not nearly always true.

Is that basically where we're going to end up in this conversation? Or somewhere else. I'm trying to gauge. Social approaches carrying the possibility of sexual interest to women by men are only morally acceptable through pre-designated mediums and situations? Do we need to start making a list? While it's something you are probably able to convince me is true, it seems so very... medieval. It doesn't seem like it's being your sort of liberal.

 

[Triewd]

I get my news from feministbrainwash.com right after I finish reading up gaysaresatanic.com

The two are in no way equivalent.

 

[Evie]

I don't really see anything reasonable about approaching random strangers for sex, outside tightly controlled circumstances where it's clear the random strangers are in fact interested in sexual activity (for example, a bar dedicated to hooking up for casual sex).

I mean, for crying out loud. You don't (or barely) know the person, you have no reason whatsoever to think they might be interested in sex, let alone with you. They don't know the least thing about you, and there is nothing whatsoever about the circumstances that invite any kind of sexual encounter, other than your lack of control over your own urges. All they know is that you feel it's appropriate to request sex from you.

Yes, that makes you creepy as hell, and very unpleasant.