When did feminism go completely crazy?

[Borachio]

I agree. I never know what to say to them. So I just make some kind of noise indicating that I don't really think so. It doesn't ever pay to argue with them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I've very often heard this sentiment expressed: "Well, what do these young women expect? Going out dressed like that! They're just asking for it."

Okay. I've literally never heard anyone say that outside of examples like this on the internet. I guess we need some real stats and figures on the issue...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I hear it a lot. Especially from women in their late middle age. (Which might say much about them. I can't really comment.)

Perhaps "teach middle aged women not to support rape" would be a more apt mantra then?

 

[warpus]

I agree. I never know what to say to them.

How about..

"Is that why you got the plastic surgery, to make yourself uglier so that nobody rapes you?"

Maybe a bit harsh, but hey..

 

[caketastydelish]

Nobody here has said that there can't be. You can continue to fence with an imaginary opponent, though. I've seen that it fulfills some deep need of yours.

Then why do you (and others) continue to be hostile whenever we bring men's issues up?

It's not a dichotomy. It's an analogy. You have much to learn.

Feminism is a reaction, just like being anti-war is a reaction. You don't expect a reaction to occupy an inherently neutral space. That's unreasonable and simply illogical.

It's the cherry picking and female exclusivity that turns people away. And yes "man bashing" within certain feminist circles are a real thing. And an example of the cherry picking would be you all only choose to go after the MRA-woman bashers, but the feminist-man bashers are apparently justified or at the very least ignored.

There are people (who invariably think of or refer to themselves as 'moderates' - certainly how a lot of MRAs see themselves in contrast to the 'extremist' feminists) who are against whatever is anti something. That's basically as absurd as being anti-anti-war because anti-war does not regard war and peace equally.

Without a concrete idea of what an MRA is to begin with, they are (at least it seems to me) people with low IQs and social class that actually use such slang as "mangina" "white knight" etc.

They cherry pick just as much as feminists, only giving a damn about men and never about women, and at the most extreme end you even have people like Roosh V who literally think rape is acceptable.

As for the feminist extreme end:

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

 

[Farm Boy]

Dunno warpus. Considering the possibility that the dour, frumpy, and judgmental middle aged lady was once a scared little kid getting violated usually holds me back from my really good rape zingers. I usually try to keep my really offcolor ones to bestiality references. I think it's relatively difficult to accidentally a horse.

 

[warpus]

I try to stay away from rape zingers myself, but when someone says something that offensive, all bets are off..

 

[gay_Aleks]

Accidentally a donkey however is a common occurence, it's even in the Bible.

 

[Farm Boy]

I try to stay away from rape zingers myself, but when someone says something that offensive, all bets are off..

I know. I get tempted too. But when I realized that the American criminal justice system has basically incorporated prison rape as assumed extra-judicial punishment? It stopped being so funny for me. It's not funny for crackheads dealing, nor short skirt frolicking waifs, nor frumpy miserable old aunts.

Now sheep and velcro gloves? That's a better match. Or donkeys for the Bulgarians it seems.

 

[Narz]

Isn't that the product of a history in which men have dominated?

Would you also find fault in the label "anti-war"? Do you demand a truly 'objective' "war equality" label?

This is the strangest reply I've seen on this thread (and its been a pretty weird thread).

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Isn't "men bashing" (and I'm using that term sort of jokingly) ok? I mean... why isn't it? If we can agree that the world is still largely setup in favour of men, if we can agree that most crimes against women are committed by men, if we can agree that there is still a patriarchal society... why can't women criticize men strongly? I can criticize the president incredibly vehemently if I feel he does something bad, and nobody jumps in and defends the president or says I'm being too harsh, I can do the same with companies, public figures, even art, for crying out loud, but the second women start getting assertive or aggressive in condemnation of men, what happens is, well, what happened in this thread, with a big "NOT ALL MEN" sticker plastered all over it, or "LET THE MEN IN TOO."

 

[NovaKart]

The president is one person directly responsible for his actions. If you blame all men then you're basically saying one man is responsible for a crime committed by another man because they both are the same gender.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The president is one person directly responsible for his actions. If you blame all men then you're basically saying one man is responsible for a crime committed by another man because they both are the same gender.

While I understand that there's a lot of verbiage used in regards of criticizing all men, I don't think it needs to be taken as, say, a personal affront. We all contribute to this society in some way, and right now, society doesn't exactly give women the same shake it gives men. Nobody is personally saying that, say, to use your name (sorry!), "NovaKart is trash" when they're criticizing men. Nobody is blaming crimes committed by one dude on all dudes.

 

[NovaKart]

I'm not sure if that's really true that men have an advantage. I think both sexes have certain advantages that others don't. And if you use the word men without specifying "some men" then yes it does look like you're blaming all men. I mean if you were to talk about a race or a nationality that way then people would be quick to judge.

 

[warpus]

but the second women start getting assertive or aggressive in condemnation of men

You find this confusing? Speaking out against an entire gender is sexist, and generally not viewed as a civilized opinion for one to hold.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not sure if that's really true that men have an advantage. I think both sexes have certain advantages that others don't. And if you use the word men without specifying "some men" then yes it does look like you're blaming all men. I mean if you were to talk about a race or a nationality that way then people would be quick to judge.

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Isn't "men bashing" (and I'm using that term sort of jokingly) ok? I mean... why isn't it? If we can agree that the world is still largely setup in favour of men, if we can agree that most crimes against women are committed by men, if we can agree that there is still a patriarchal society... why can't women criticize men strongly? I can criticize the president incredibly vehemently if I feel he does something bad, and nobody jumps in and defends the president or says I'm being too harsh, I can do the same with companies, public figures, even art, for crying out loud, but the second women start getting assertive or aggressive in condemnation of men, what happens is, well, what happened in this thread, with a big "NOT ALL MEN" sticker plastered all over it, or "LET THE MEN IN TOO."

There are a lot of "if we can agree" in that. Most of which preface things I don't agree with

I'm pretty sure if you criticised the president then plenty of people WOULD jump in and defend him. However, if you criticise him you're criticising a specific person for reasons that pertain directly to him. The same is true if you criticise a specific piece of art or a company or a public figure. If you criticise ALL men for the actions of some of them then that's obviously an inherently different kind of criticism. Guilt by association. Obviously some times that's more appropriate than at other times - affiliation with a certain political movement or ideology for example - but I think guilt by association based on your genetic makeup is probably one of the least easy to defend.

However, having said that, I think anyone should be allowed to criticise anyone else for whatever reason they deem fit so I don't have a problem with "man bashing" in and of itself. Just be prepare for plenty of men to tell you to sod off and to judge you rather harshly in response to it

 

[NovaKart]

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

While the information is interesting it's really not very relevant to our discussion unless you believe that men in politics use their position to create an advantage for their gender. As we see from the mostly middle aged women who judge women for their clothing choices when they are raped, being of the same gender does not mean that an individual will favor his/her gender and is incapable of having sexist judgements of their own gender.

We also see from this forum that many men are supportive of feminist causes. It doesn't matter if one is a man or a woman. Women can be misogynist and women in politics, say Sarah Pailin for example, can be against progressive women's issues. Men can be the opposite.

If you're in politics, it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. What matters is whether or not you support gender equality.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Can we have a "women in refuse collection" or "women in sewage farms" link as well?

 

[Farm Boy]

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

And that, per Nova's quote, would be a hell of an advantage in being amongst the most powerful humans on the planet. Ultimately, that statistic is far less likely to have as enormous an impact on my son's life than is an advantage in being paid adequately for his labor, taken seriously by his friends, becoming the victim of a violent crime, becoming the victim of a sexual crime, being harassed by law enforcement, etc etc etc. Aint nothing one-link-line-response-simple.