When did feminism go completely crazy?

[useless]

Did i say it was? I said "Some men".

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Here's the difference; MRA's are explicitly a reactionary group against feminism, go on any MRA board, any website, etc and look at what they discuss, it's all anti-feminism, they advocate nothing other than the destruction of feminism.

While i am sure there are some genuinely decent MRA's, like most Gamergators, they are outnumbered by the more terrible people.

Outnumbered by the more terrible people? Let's try this thought experiment, let's modify the above sentence a little bit.

"While I'm sure there are some genuinely decent feminist's, like most CFCers, they are outnumbered by the more terrible people."

Seeing the problem now? Don't confuse volume for numbers. Just because the MRA's that scream the loudest are raging A-holes, you can't confuse them for the majority, any more than people on their side should confuse feminists that talk about "culling the male gender" for the majority. Realize that confirmation bias affects all of us... if you are against MRA's from the start, the examples of them that you are going to notice and remember are the ones that say insane things, just as those who are against feminists from the start are going to notice and remember the ones who say things like "all intercourse, even if consensual, is rape".

 

[caketastydelish]

Operated by the state, presumably, to avoid the danger of people being too ashamed to press charges?

I don't see why people would be too ashamed to press charges? But yes, sure they should be operated by the state for that reason. Even if the victims don't press charges themselves, if it were caught on tape the rapists can and should be dealt with. Just another advantage of cameras, you don't have to rely on the victims to come forward.

edit: Cameras can make a critical difference... there was a story about a year or two ago (forget exact details) where some highschool football players raped a girl but since the whole incident was caught on camera they went to jail, whereas if it weren't on camera they probably would have gotten away with it.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see why people would be too ashamed to press charges? But yes, sure. Even if the victims don't press charges themselves, if it were caught on tape the rapists should be dealt with. Just another advantage of cameras, you don't have to rely on the victims to come forward.

edit: Cameras can make a critical difference... there was a story about a year or two ago (forget exact details) where some highschool football players raped a girl but since the whole incident was caught on camera they went to jail, whereas if it weren't on camera they probably would have gotten away with it.

I suggest reflecting a little on the part in bold. Perhaps have a read over this thread again. It's also quite unusual to have somebody read 1984 as utopian literature...

 

[aelf]

You don't know anything about me either.

I've been here a while. You've posted enough personal information for people to make some informed guesses. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's also quite unusual to have somebody read 1984 as utopian literature...

We're starting to demand it of our cops.

 

[caketastydelish]

I suggest reflecting a little on the part in bold. Perhaps have a read over this thread again.

Well, again, all the more reasons to install more cameras.

It's also quite unusual to have somebody read 1984 as utopian literature...

lolbertarians are so paranoid of government programs that actually serve good purposes.

I've been here a while. You've posted enough personal information for people to make some informed guesses. I'll just leave it at that.

You've been here as well, and I can say the same. And by the way your definition of 'rape apologist' has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone thinks rape is acceptable or not, but only has to do with irrelevant other things that don't meet your self-righteous approval.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, again, all the more reasons to install more cameras.


lolbertarians are so paranoid of government programs that actually serve good purposes.

You don't have to be much of a libertarian to think that a state-operated camera in your bedroom is something of a bridge too far!

He'll just do it somewhere else where there isn't a camera, like in a car, a private home, a hotel room, an elevator, a public washroom, a parking lot, outside (etc. and just assume I could go on for quite awhile with this).

My argument is there should actually be cameras in all of these places.

 

[caketastydelish]

I think the only way to cross the line is cameras installed is people's personal homes, but they should be installed pretty much literally everywhere else. But even then: security alarm systems for people's home might help for that to.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not a matter of letting them know "right" from "wrong" (which I personally find impossible), it's making them less likely to commit the act in the first place because they know they'll get caught.

Sarcasm. I use it sometimes, especially when confronted with a post where my initial reaction tends to be "WTH"?

You do realize that many rapes don't occur in the place where the man and woman first encounter each other, right? Ever hear of "date rape drugs"?

Sure, but are you even listening to what I'm saying?

I'm listening. I just don't agree with you.

He'll just do it somewhere else where there isn't a camera, like in a car, a private home, a hotel room, an elevator, a public washroom, a parking lot, outside (etc. and just assume I could go on for quite awhile with this).

My argument is there should actually be cameras in all of these places.

Cameras in private washroom stalls? Private bedrooms?

Wow.

Are you willing to put up with that much intrusiveness in your life? There is no way in hell I'd put up with cameras in the bedroom or washroom. Or anywhere else in my home, for that matter. There are security cameras downstairs in the lobby and at the security doors to the building, but that's normal security that is beneficial to everyone and not intrusive.

Personally I haven't heard people asking that. But if they do, they're idiots.

Yes, they are idiots. But these are still common questions.

... the hell?

I have to correct myself here. It was the judge who used the words "bonnet and crinolines", not the defendant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ewanchuk

Here is an excerpt from the above article:

Steve Ewanchuk brought a 17-year-old woman into his van for a job interview. After the interview Ewanchuk invited the woman to his trailer in behind. He took her into his trailer and began to make a series of advances. Each time she would say "no" to his advance and he would stop but, after the passing of some time, would then renew his sexual advances. She testified at trial that during her time in the trailer she was very afraid and that is why she did not take further action to stop the sexual conduct such as leaving or attempting to physically resist the man. Before she left, Ewanchuk paid her $100 so she could help pay for childcare.

At trial, Ewanchuk successfully argued that, although the woman had initially said "no" to his sexual touching, because he had continued and she had failed to object further this constituted "implied consent". The acquittal was upheld on appeal. In the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Justice John McClung commented that "it must be pointed out that the complainant did not present herself to Ewanchuk or enter his trailer in a bonnet and crinolines” and that Ewanchuk's conduct was "less criminal than hormonal". The issue before the Supreme Court was "whether the trial judge erred in his understanding of consent in sexual assault and whether his conclusion that the defence of "implied consent" exists in Canadian law was correct."

This caused quite a bit of outrage at the time.

 

[Senethro]

Outnumbered by the more terrible people? Let's try this thought experiment, let's modify the above sentence a little bit.

"While I'm sure there are some genuinely decent feminist's, like most CFCers, they are outnumbered by the more terrible people."

Seeing the problem now? Don't confuse volume for numbers. Just because the MRA's that scream the loudest are raging A-holes, you can't confuse them for the majority, any more than people on their side should confuse feminists that talk about "culling the male gender" for the majority. Realize that confirmation bias affects all of us... if you are against MRA's from the start, the examples of them that you are going to notice and remember are the ones that say insane things, just as those who are against feminists from the start are going to notice and remember the ones who say things like "all intercourse, even if consensual, is rape".

Who are the good MRAs?

Feminists and MRAs are not equivalent groups. One is an opposing response to the other masquerading as activism.

 

[aelf]

You've been here as well, and I can say the same.

I'm calling your bluff.

And by the way your definition of 'rape apologist' has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone thinks rape is acceptable or not, but only has to do with irrelevant other things that don't meet your self-righteous approval.

I've never given a definition for it.

 

[caketastydelish]

Who are the good MRAs?

Feminists and MRAs are not equivalent groups. One is an opposing response to the other masquerading as activism.

Yeah, even I have to admit there is a serious shortage of good "MRA's". That's why I differentiate between simply being a supporter of some particular men's issues rather than "MRA". I'm not comfortable with the term "MRA", mostly because too many people which identify with the term are of the likes of Roosh and Elam.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm calling your bluff.

Your all around smug-attitude when the situation doesn't even remotely call for it, for starters.

I've never given a definition for it.

You don't need to, "rape apologist" is already it's own word with it's own definition.

This isn't one of those "urban dictionary" things where it's a word in the making, everyone already has a straightforward and coherent idea of what a "rape apologist" is.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Who are the good MRAs?

Feminists and MRAs are not equivalent groups. One is an opposing response to the other masquerading as activism.

They're not screaming on the Internet, so you don't notice them, they're just quietly working behind the scenes. I read a good story recently on Reddit about a father who went through a divorce. His ex-wife was an abusive cocaine addict, but the courts awarded her full custody anyway. He turned to a local MRA group and they helped him sort out all of the legal stuff he would have to do to appeal the decision, helped him get his case in order, even helped negotiate with the lawyer to make the fee manageable, and in the end his appeal was successful and he won custody. Which incidentally was good for all of the parties, even the ex-wife, because losing custody of the kids was such a shock to her that she cleaned up her act and got off the coke, and is now a much better mother to her children.

Those are the good MRA's. The people you don't notice who are working quietly to correct injustices where they happen.

 

[aelf]

Your all around smug-attitude when the situation doesn't even remotely call for it, for starters.

And so?

You don't need to, "rape apologist" is already it's own word with it's own definition.

This isn't one of those "urban dictionary" things where it's a word in the making, everyone already has a straightforward and coherent idea of what a "rape apologist" is.

But you said this:

And by the way your definition of 'rape apologist' has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone thinks rape is acceptable or not, but only has to do with irrelevant other things that don't meet your self-righteous approval.

You talked about my definition, but now you're saying the word has "its own definition." So you agree that I gave no definition for the word and therefore your previous statement is baseless?

 

[caketastydelish]

... There already *is* a coherent idea of what a rape apologist is, it's someone who justifies rape. People who try to make a big fuss about false rape accusations are also rape apologists since they almost never happen. But I don't actually do any of those things, my posting history confirms as much no matter how much you want to attack it with baseless accusations.

Your reason for why I'm a "rape apologist" has to do with "immaturity" (completely irrelevant) and "sexually frustrated" (also irrelevant).

 

[aelf]

You seem to misunderstand something. I never claimed you were a rape apologist based on anything you've said. I didn't set out to prove that you're one.

But you seemed keen to act on the notion that everyone is accusing you of being a rape apologist ("You all also generalize any and all advocates of men's issues as 'rape apologists' and all this other nonsense even if it's not even remotely close to what we actually believe"). I was simply saying that it's believable. Doesn't that come somewhat close to what you wanted?

 

[caketastydelish]

Oh brother.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Even if it were abusive (which it's not), it still has no bearing at all on my views of feminism so for Senethro to bring it up here was nothing more than an attempt at mud-slinging and to attack me personally rather than attacking my argument.

Hey that's not too bad. Sometimes he'll do that when you haven't even said anything in the current thread at all