Why do so-called feminists sexually assault women so much?

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This is everyone's last chance to have a meaningful discussion, otherwise the thread will be closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lexicus]

And for the 5th time: Intersectionality cuts both ways. So he's yours even if he pees on the rug.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

Basically, the only thing I can really say about your stance in this thread is

It is honestly utterly bizarre.

I have no idea what point you (metatron) think you're trying to prove here.

Sorry terx, your desire to bone is a social construct, as is human nature

This but unironically

 

[Kyriakos]

There are Weinsteins and Afflecks everywhere, so we really are all responsible (in the sense of tacitly enabling/ignoring/covering for, or not doing those things) for those most directly in our own workplaces, organisations, and social circles.

Around 1-2% of adult women are victims of sexual violence each year, lifetime victimisation is at least 10% and probably a fair bit higher. A much larger figure are harassed or otherwise made to feel threatened, and smaller numbers of men are likewise victims of all these things. With these sorts of figures we don't need to look at famous people on the other side of the world to find predatory men who need to be identified, challenged, etc. The percentage of men who when surveyed will admit to rapist behaviour if you don't call it that is preeetty scary.

Only 'we' aren't enabling, cause it isn't something an individual can check for others, no? Moreover:

"At some point, a thinking person realizes that the world needs to change. He starts from the closest to him; his own self. Trying to change his own self will take the rest of his life"; F. Pessoa (probably fusing it with a Kafka quote ^_^)

Anyone who has lived for a few decades in this world knows that there are many 'jerks' and other horrible personalities. You can't take it upon yourself to change them, and feeling responsible for them is a mistake.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I'm summarily confused about how a thread about the Afflecks and Weinsteins of the world has been angled as a critique of feminism by some. It seems if abusers are this common at every level of society, it'd be an argument for more feminist critiques and responses, not less. Unless we have decided that old rich dudes are the sole bearers of feminism.

 

[Lexicus]

Only 'we' aren't enabling, cause it isn't something an individual can check for others, no? Moreover:

"At some point, a thinking person realizes that the world needs to change. He starts from the closest to him; his own self. Trying to change his own self will take the rest of his life"; F. Pessoa (probably fusing it with a Kafka quote ^_^)

Anyone who has lived for a few decades in this world knows that there are many 'jerks' and other horrible personalities. You can't take it upon yourself to change them, and feeling responsible for them is a mistake.

I think you are kind of missing the point. It is not about changing other people's personalities. It is about intervening if you see sexual harassment or assault. If you see it happening, particularly if the perpetrator is a friend or otherwise close to you, and you do nothing, you are absolutely complicit. It's not about changing other people's personalities but about intervening to stop unacceptable behavior when you see it happening in front of you.

And I mean, it's not like we don't know how the old boys network works for this stuff. People get away with it for so long because the people around them take your attitude, or decide it isn't a "real" problem, or....you get the idea. And it's not to say I'm entirely unsympathetic to people in this situation. I have seen friends and coworkers behave in ways I felt were inappropriate (nothing rising to the level of sexual assault or serious harassment, thankfully) and it can be very difficult to confront them about it. Some things I've let go (and probably shouldn't have), others I have spoken up about. It's something to work on in yourself. I suppose F Pessoa would probably understand that.

Unless we have decided that old rich dudes are the sole bearers of feminism.

As everyone knows, the wellspring of feminism has, for years, been Ben Affleck's twitter account.

 

[Ryika]

So let's summarize. Prominent people who call themselves feminists are not actually feminists, they just call themselves that and spread feminist dogma because it's cool, but actually behave badly outside of the public circles. And the non-prominent people who call themselves feminists and act by what they think are feminist values, are feminists. Unless of course, they argue for things that the feminist who makes the judgement of whether they're a feminist or not a feminist disagrees with, then they're also not a feminist, but an extremist who hides behind feminist ideals, or a white feminist who is not feminist enough.

Really easy to understand.

 

[Arwon]

Only 'we' aren't enabling, cause it isn't something an individual can check for others, no? Moreover:

"At some point, a thinking person realizes that the world needs to change. He starts from the closest to him; his own self. Trying to change his own self will take the rest of his life"; F. Pessoa (probably fusing it with a Kafka quote ^_^)

Anyone who has lived for a few decades in this world knows that there are many 'jerks' and other horrible personalities. You can't take it upon yourself to change them, and feeling responsible for them is a mistake.

You can believe victims, or not. You can warn and protect others, or not. You can write off troubling behaviour as just an idiosyncrasy, or not. You can intervene, confront, castigate someone you know personally if they engage in creepy or abusive behaviour, or not. You can make a concerted effort to exclude an abuser, or not. You can have the decency to rally and organise around victims, or not. You can participate in countless little atmosphere-altering moments like laughing at or making sexist and exclusionary jokes, or not. In different social and professional settings responsibility means many things.

 

[warpus]

Jeez mate I'm extremely not sure about the optics of focusing, in a thread about about sexual predators, on whinging about the dreaded sexism against menfolk. I thought you might like the chance to change course.

I thought you might like the chance to you know, stop saying sexist things, no matter what thread we're in, but especially in a thread about sexual assault. It doesn't make you look very good not only in terms of your credibility on the subject, but also your morals.

I ain't gonna stop you, I wouldn't want to even if I had the power. But I am going to point it out.

 

[Senethro]

"Most gun owners are responsible", "Most white people didn't even own slaves".

Doesn't stop those who do from doing a lot of damage and people rushing to defend the impugned honour of "the good ones" isn't really a useful response to the issue.

Useful balance might be something like pointing out male victims exist too: https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...ews-sexually-assaulted-by-hollywood-executive

 

[Ryika]

"Most gun owners are responsible", "Most white people didn't even own slaves".

Most Muslims don't commit terror attacks.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think you are kind of missing the point. It is not about changing other people's personalities. It is about intervening if you see sexual harassment or assault. If you see it happening, particularly if the perpetrator is a friend or otherwise close to you, and you do nothing, you are absolutely complicit. It's not about changing other people's personalities but about intervening to stop unacceptable behavior when you see it happening in front of you.

Hm, i am not a vigilante, and i don't have any associates who are rapey either. Is this about people trying to save the girl from the predator? A bit super-heroy for me, or at least not a state i would even find myself being in at all. At least not past highschool -- i recall that i felt very bad about not 'intervening' about something off, of this nature, but i was 17 then, and at such an age people can think it matters to get into a fight due to some comment by a jerk. The way i see it, this is pointless, trivial, and won't change anything, let alone than women aren't weaklings and can watch after their own selves in the first place.

You can believe victims, or not. You can warn and protect others, or not. You can write off troubling behaviour as just an idiosyncrasy, or not. You can intervene, confront, castigate someone you know personally if they engage in creepy or abusive behaviour, or not. You can make a concerted effort to exclude an abuser, or not. You can have the decency to rally and organise around victims, or not. You can participate in countless little atmosphere-altering moments like laughing at or making sexist and exclusionary jokes, or not. In different social and professional settings responsibility means many things.

Pretty much the same response, although i think you view this in a far more realistic and sober way than Lexicus. In short: i am not around such people in the first place -- if i identify someone as a jerk i keep my distance and have no relations with them.

 

[Senethro]

Most Muslims don't commit terror attacks.

An excellent zinger but the relation to the issue isn't quite the same. Gun availability and ability to use racism are intrinsic to their issues in a way that religious membership isn't.

You can decrease gun availability and dismantle racist social structures but it is generally agreed that implementing a solution to members of a particular religion is a non-starter.

 

[Lexicus]

although i think you view this in a far more realistic and sober way than Lexicus.

I don't understand why. He and I are saying exactly the same thing in different words.

Hm, i am not a vigilante, and i don't have any associates who are rapey either. Is this about people trying to save the girl from the predator? A bit super-heroy for me, or at least not a state i would even find myself being in at all. At least not past highschool -- i recall that i felt very bad about not 'intervening' about something off, of this nature, but i was 17 then, and at such an age people can think it matters to get into a fight due to some comment by a jerk. The way i see it, this is pointless, trivial, and won't change anything, let alone than women aren't weaklings and can watch after their own selves in the first place.

I feel like you're responding to a bunch of stuff I didn't even say. I'm at a loss to see why "i am not a vigilante" is remotely relevant, let alone "super-heroy" or "get into a fight due to some comment by a jerk." It almost seems like you're just trying to make me look ridiculous without actually responding to my argument. If that is what you were trying to do, bravo. I'll go ahead and respond to your response to Arwon since I can actually make some sense of it:

In short: i am not around such people in the first place

I just straight-up don't believe this, though I suppose you may believe it. Either way it is an utterly useless addition to the conversation here. Many people are obliged to interact with 'jerks' whether out of professional, familial, or other obligation. Perhaps relevant is that a majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to and trusted by the victim. "Just don't hang around with jerks" is just not a useful thing to say.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't understand why. He and I are saying exactly the same thing in different words.



I feel like you're responding to a bunch of stuff I didn't even say. I'm at a loss to see why "i am not a vigilante" is remotely relevant, let alone "super-heroy" or "get into a fight due to some comment by a jerk." It almost seems like you're just trying to make me look ridiculous without actually responding to my argument. If that is what you were trying to do, bravo. I'll go ahead and respond to your response to Arwon since I can actually make some sense of it:



I just straight-up don't believe this, though I suppose you may believe it. Either way it is an utterly useless addition to the conversation here. Many people are obliged to interact with 'jerks' whether out of professional, familial, or other obligation. Perhaps relevant is that a majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to and trusted by the victim. "Just don't hang around with jerks" is just not a useful thing to say.

Thanks for not believing what i say, but isn't that sort of a discussion-ender?

FYIY, it would make zero sense to lie to people on some web-site. Furthermore, i am by personality trait a rather observant person, so it is not like i would be associated with a jerk and not realize it either. In an office setting, sure, one can be around such people, but i work as a freelance translator and seminar presenter.

 

[Lexicus]

Kyr, it's not that "I don't believe you." I simply don't agree that the world is divided into jerks and non-jerks, and so what you're saying just doesn't compute. Does that make sense?

 

[Kyriakos]

Kyr, it's not that "I don't believe you." I simply don't agree that the world is divided into jerks and non-jerks, and so what you're saying just doesn't compute. Does that make sense?

Sure, it is also featuring people who while not being religious are looking hard to have a replacement for the primordial sin.

 

[Lexicus]

Sure, it is also featuring people who while not being religious are looking hard to have a replacement for the primordial sin.

I am really unsure how my believing you have an obligation to intervene to stop sexual assault and harassment that happens in front of you has anything whatever to do with primordial sin. It would appear to be quite different since guilt in one case hinges on things you do (or don't do) while guilt in the other case hinges on what you are.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am really unsure how my believing you have an obligation to intervene to stop sexual assault and harassment that happens in front of you has anything whatever to do with primordial sin. It would appear to be quite different since guilt in one case hinges on things you do (or don't do) while guilt in the other case hinges on what you are.

It might be a cultural shock issue, but those things don't happen infront of me. I don't live in Sin City...
When i hear of such cases (eg from some girl) i just say what is obvious, ie that the person was an utter jerk.

 

[Senethro]

My utopian dream is that everyone should have the ability to insulate themselves from jerks the way you apparently do.

 

[Kyriakos]

My utopian dream is that everyone should have the ability to insulate themselves from jerks the way you apparently do.

Not everyone can be me. Even i have to try at times.