Stupid Feminist Comments

[Kyron]

What did you mean by this if that wasn't what you were saying? If you meant that it just isn't a valid argument, I don't see why you'd say that it's insensitive etc..

I probably should have clarified more. By "insensitive" I mean, in the context of say, a male who's poor, had a bad life etc. To still call someone privileged.. It doesn't really think of people on an individual level. - Of course everyone has certain privileges - However, I find it a little counter-productive to label a specific group "privileged"

In general, to say "you're privileged because you're male"... I don't really understand that point of view, in a society that has inequalities for both sexes, and in terms of legality and rights, both sexes have it as equal as it can get.. I don't think any philosopher, scientist etc. has ever listed off every gender-based stereotype, stigma, etc. in society and compared them in a way that would suggest that one is privileged over the other.

In terms of history, and certain countries - of course. That point of view would make sense. But does progression and present-day equality mean nothing? Are we always going to claim there's a "patriarchal" society even if the majority of western society believes in equality?... And I think that's probably why here in the western world, Feminists are often "getting it wrong" and fighting non-gendered issues, such as rape, while presenting it as such. We strive for a perfect society, and Feminism has been a huge movement that's changed over the years. It's hard to pin-point certain problems in society accurately. And it's hard to make things as "nice" as we can, whilst not becoming a distopian/authoritarian society.

Note: I mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again. My perception of society comes from the UK. And my knowledge of law, comes from Europe in general. For all I know, the type of people I see on Fox News may be the majority of America. So when I say "western" take it with a grain of salt, please.

[knowledge is power]

Huh? I know 0 feminists online or in real life that are for women's right OVER men's. Where's you source for this rather paranoid sounding claim?
Feminism definition is for equality only. What kind of crazy women have you been hanging out with or websites have you been frequenting?!!

I appreciate that you feel passionate about this subject, it's good to care about things, but as long as you're using rhetoric I can't engage in this discussion because it will not likely be fruitful. Rhetoric like this involving such absolute and one sided claims, as any dogma, can be shown to shut down the parts of the brain responsible for critical thinking.

Saying that I (personally) know no one who wants to rule over men is not saying there are no women that want this, just that there are likely very few (percentage wise) because I have not come across any. Certainly if someone deliberately looks for them (confirmation bias) then they will be found as they do exist.
My passionate response is because of your reference that ALL feminists want rights over men. That is not an overreaction. I am a feminist, by the original definition of the term, as are many if not most of the people I know.

[knowledge is power]

Based on what data?

The Feminist Movements' huuuge backlash at a joke-advertisement, branding it "sexist" regardless of the fact that there was both male and female versions of the advertisement. Yes, it's somewhat inappropriate for a bus-advertisement, however it was certainly not a "sexist" thing, however many turned a blind eye to that..
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sout ... s-32690534]
[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ri ... ts-5679644]

Seriously? Those bus ads are very sexist. The fact that they also put a man up there is a convenient way of trying to get away with it without being called sexist- 'see, dear customers? we have a man too!'
Highly degrading, and objectifying a man is just making things worse. Companies thinking that sexualizing men as well as women makes it ok. WTF. Kids can see this shit.

[knowledge is power]

What did you mean by this if that wasn't what you were saying? If you meant that it just isn't a valid argument, I don't see why you'd say that it's insensitive etc..

I probably should have clarified more. By "insensitive" I mean, in the context of say, a male who's poor, had a bad life etc. To still call someone privileged.. It doesn't really think of people on an individual level. - Of course everyone has certain privileges - However, I find it a little counter-productive to label a specific group "privileged"

In general, to say "you're privileged because you're male"... I don't really understand that point of view, in a society that has inequalities for both sexes, and in terms of legality and rights, both sexes have it as equal as it can get.. I don't think any philosopher, scientist etc. has ever listed off every gender-based stereotype, stigma, etc. in society and compared them in a way that would suggest that one is privileged over the other.

In terms of history, and certain countries - of course. That point of view would make sense. But does progression and present-day equality mean nothing? Are we always going to claim there's a "patriarchal" society even if the majority of western society believes in equality?

There ARE inequalities for both sexes, but there is a huge difference between male inequalities and female inequalities. "both sexes have it as equal as it can get" You don't think men are more privileged than women? You need to look harder. It's everywhere.

[knowledge is power]

Feminists are often "getting it wrong" and fighting non-gendered issues, such as rape, while presenting it as such. And it's hard to make things as "nice" as we can, whilst not becoming a distopian/authoritarian society.

So rape is not a gender issue? It very much is. Women are far more likely to be raped than men. Certainly men are raped, mostly by other men and it would definitely be underreported, but to compare the two is wrong, especially when it comes to poor countries and religious countries.

'Make things as 'nice' as we can' Do you know how patronizing that sounds? You are basically saying "you have it pretty good here, so just put up with it because you could be living in Saudi Arabia" I've heard this attitude many times before and it needs to stop. It's the equivalent of saying to black people 'Yeah, I guess there's racism, but we're all equal before the law, so everything is peachy'.

[garrethdsouza]

When it comes to lgbt rights do you ask activists to talk about heterosexuals problems? When it comes to systemic racism faced by racial minorities do you expect them to talk also about white issues? When it comes to anti Semitism , do you expect such a focused movement to talk about non jewish issues? Why then when it comes to a women's rights movement you are expecting them to be obliged to talk about men's issues? They are all examples of focused movements.

Feminists are often "getting it wrong" and fighting non-gendered issues, such as rape, while presenting it as such.

It's true rape happens to all genders, but are the problems faced equally, if not it deserves a gender specific focusing as well if one side has disproportionately way more problems than another:
-what are the rape statistics exactly, are they equal for men and women? Last I checked it was about 700-900% more likely that a woman gets raped than a man.

Also crucial differences in the victims:
-When it comes to men getting raped a significant fraction of it is because of teachers sleeping with underage boys (noncoerced or statutory rape); there are v big differences between noncoerced sex with a minor and forced rape, even the aftermath reaction by the males in this case is 95% non negative .(majority are positive) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
- In addition there is also men raping men.
- women alone have the additional prospect of getting pregnant which has additional complications/risks too, in many countries the anti abortion brigade is in no way insignificant, other so called western countries like Ireland have outlandish laws.
-There are also not so subtle differences in terms of race and gendered orientation (cis/trans) as well meaning these as well deserve focused approaches on these bases.

7:1 ratio http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... cs-graphic

9:1 ratio https://rainn.org/get-information/stati ... lt-victims

From 1995-2010, 9% of rape and sexual assault victims were male (91% female)

3 out of 100 American men experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime vs almost 17 out of 100 women

82% of all juvenile sexual assault victims are female.


Also the race difference:

Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women
17.7% for whites vs 34.1% for American Indian/Alaskan women

[Kyron]

Seriously? Those bus ads are very sexist. The fact that they also put a man up there is a convenient way of trying to get away with it without being called sexist- 'see, dear customers? we have a man too!'
Highly degrading, and objectifying a man is just making things worse. Companies thinking that sexualizing men as well as women makes it ok. WTF. Kids can see this shit.

Uhm... Excuse me? That's a big assumption to make. And again, what is sexist about it?

Another thing is that "Objectification" is not inherently a wrong thing. We view people of both sexes as 'objects' all the time. How unpractical would it be to write someone's life story next to every models photograph?
The only instance in which objectification should be condemned is in cases where you do know about someone's personality/life/etc, or have the capability to and you disregard that and value them based on only their looks. However even then, the person is just being an asshole and expressing freedom of thought. Objectification may linked to, but is not inheritely causing acts like, rape/sexual assualt.

I agree the advertisement was inappropriate for children, however it was certainly not pornography or even nudity. It was a very subtle adult-themed joke that children would not understand. Much like when cartoons throw in the many adult jokes and themes, for parents to catch on while the child isn't any wiser.

There ARE inequalities for both sexes, but there is a huge difference between male inequalities and female inequalities. "both sexes have it as equal as it can get" You don't think men are more privileged than women? You need to look harder. It's everywhere.

Okay, then rather than telling me "look harder" - please explain them to me as I obviously don't understand.

So rape is not a gender issue? It very much is. Women are far more likely to be raped than men. Certainly men are raped, mostly by other men and it would definitely be underreported, but to compare the two is wrong, especially when it comes to poor countries and religious countries.

No. No it is not. For the exact reasons you've stated. Rape is not an issue exclusive to women. It is not a stereotype associated with a gender, it is a very real, horrible act that happens to both genders. Pulling statistics about things like gender or race with things like these is idiotic. Corelation =/= Causation.
Again, consider the "black people kill more white people" statistic. - Is murder now a race issue against white people?

Plus, pretending it's a gendered issue, and trying to is also not very beneficial to stopping the stigma that "men can't get raped" (by women) and getting a lot of, as you said, unreported cases, to be talked about..
"Comparing the two is wrong" - Exactly. Now, why contradict yourself?

'Make things as 'nice' as we can' Do you know how patronizing that sounds? You are basically saying "you have it pretty good here, so just put up with it because you could be living in Saudi Arabia" I've heard this attitude many times before and it needs to stop. It's the equivalent of saying to black people 'Yeah, I guess there's racism, but we're all equal before the law, so everything is peachy'.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
My point is that - Assholes will 'always' exist for as long as we have free speech and I don't think it's a wise idea to sacrifice that.
Of course there are differences between free speech, and harassment/sexism/racism/etc, however, yes, they are against the law and everyone has the ability to report such acts. There is no perfect system, and I'm not saying "it's against the law so it doesn't happen" however, I think it's important to give people the (legal) tools to be able to report these cases and get something done about it.

When it comes to lgbt rights do you ask activists to talk about heterosexuals problems? When it comes to systemic racism faced by racial minorities do you expect them to talk also about white issues? When it comes to anti Semitism , do you expect such a focused movement to talk about non jewish issues? Why then when it comes to a women's rights movement you are expecting them to be obliged to talk about men's issues? They are all examples of focused movements.

No, but I also don't expect those movements to not impose doubles standards and fight sexism/racism/homophobia/etc with sexism/racism/heterophobia/etc. Fighting fire with fire will not put out the flame.

It's true rape happens to all genders, but are the problems faced equally, if not it deserves a gender specific focusing as well if one side has disproportionately way more problems than another:
-what are the rape statistics exactly, are they equal for men and women?
-When it comes to men getting raped a significant fraction of it is because of teachers sleeping with underage boys (noncoerced or statutory rape) - there are v big differences between this and forced sexual assault, even the reaction by the male in this case is 95% non negative .(majority are positive) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape - In addition there is also men raping men.
- women alone have the additional complication of getting pregnant which has additional complications too, in many countries the anti abortion brigade is in no way insignificant, other so called western countries like Ireland have outlandish laws.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... cs-graphic
^ 7:1 ratio apparently


https://rainn.org/get-information/stati ... lt-victims
^9:1 ratio

I disagree. Just because statistics show an issue effecting one gender more than another, the gender has little to do with the reason/intent. Are rapists committing these acts because their victim is a certain gender? In a way, yes, but it has more to do with sexuality. Of course power is the main line of thinking, but I would find it to be a very rare case where a gay man would rape a woman, a straight man would rape a man, or a lesbian woman would rape a man (etc)
Plus, the many factors for inaccuracy.

Rape itself is not a gender issue. You can say "rape effects women more than men" however, that still would not make it a gender issue. An example of a gender-issue would be abortion.

Using the same logic, would you be happy to concede that child abuse/neglect is a gender issue, as mothers are usually the perpetrator according to statistics?

There are also not so subtle differences in terms of race and gendered orientation (cis/trans) as well meaning there as well deserves focused approaches on these bases as well.

Sorry I didn't understand this statement? o: Could you explain further?

[brimstoneSalad]

When it comes to lgbt rights do you ask activists to talk about heterosexuals problems? When it comes to systemic racism faced by racial minorities do you expect them to talk also about white issues? When it comes to anti Semitism , do you expect such a focused movement to talk about non jewish issues? Why then when it comes to a women's rights movement you are expecting them to be obliged to talk about men's issues? They are all examples of focused movements.

That was my point. Feminists are (and should be) focused on women's rights over men's rights. MRA are (and should be) forcused on men's rights over women's rights. These movements are the advocates of their respective groups.

It makes no sense for feminists specifically to be (or pretend to be) focused on men's rights too.

If you're for the prosecution AND the defense, then you aren't really for either. There are divisive issues at play that have no clear "equal" solution because the sexes are inherently unequal.

Women can become pregnant and carry children inside them.
Men are mostly physically stronger and can assault and rape women without much immediate challenge.
There are also extensive social differences, which can be resolved to a degree, but derive partially from the above.

These are issues that no amount of political rhetoric will balance. Two groups, with advocates for each (and not for both, that makes no sense) have to discuss these issues and try to come to compromises that will seem fair to the true equalists out there (who are neither feminists nor MRA, but the jury if anything) and probably make each side a little unhappy.

[garrethdsouza]

Rape itself is not a gender issue. You can say "rape effects women more than men" however, that still would not make it a gender issue. An example of a gender-issue would be abortion.

Thats a strawman for gender issues. I'll hopefully try to disabuse you on "gender issue" misconceptions because its apparent you mean one thing while all others are referring to another entirely. When feminists talk about rape being a gender issue, its not implying it's a gender-specific/exclusive issue (is women only) - that would be asinine male rape denialism, akin to creationism (evolution denialism), denying something for which there's overwhelming evidence of existence. Why would anyone do that and in the hopes of achieving what exactly?

As I pointed out about there being many focused movements before, like lgbt rights, etc, Feminism is the womens rights focused movement concerned with achieving equality for women wherever gender inequalities exist in society wherein women have an unfavorable position in comparison to men. Feminism isn't a gender-exclusive issues movement which only talks about things that never affect men in a similar way (eg abortion) !

So when feminists say rape is a gender issue, they don't mean that it's a gender-specific issue but that it's a gender-inequality issue, with women suffering disproportionately more than men. That's what feminism is about and seeks to remove this inequality.

An example of a gender specific/exclusive issue is abortion or access to sanitary napkins. Expecting feminists to only be concerned with women's problems when it is a gender exclusive problem (napkins) but not if it affects both genders despite it disproportionately affecting women (rape) is asinine and expecting women's rights movements to be defined by what men never have to worry about for themselves (napkins, abortion), is male centric and ridiculous.

You can say "rape effects women more than men"

Yes that's exactly the problem. And how disproportionately? 91% that's how much.

Just because statistics show an issue effecting one gender more than another, the gender has little to do with the reason/intent. Are rapists committing these acts because their victim is a certain gender? In a way, yes, but it has more to do with sexuality. Of course power is the main line of thinking, but I would find it to be a very rare case where a gay man would rape a woman, a straight man would rape a man, or a lesbian woman would rape a man (etc)

Sure its a problem of gender and sexuality of the rapists (predominantly male heterosexuals) and their preferences of victims which happen to be predominantly one gender-specific - women (orientation: straight/queer). (Hence 9% males raped, 91% females)

but I also don't expect those movements to not impose doubles standards and fight sexism/racism/homophobia/etc with sexism/racism/heterophobia/etc. Fighting fire with fire will not put out the flame.

So you're saying that since overwhelming % of victims are female, feminists are trying to settle the score by asking women to rape more men? When has anyone ever said something like this?

Another thing is that "Objectification" is not inherently a wrong thing

And what are the consequences for women as a result of such objectification? : http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual- ... cation.pdf

Pulling statistics about things like gender or race with things like these is idiotic.

There are also not so subtle differences in terms of race and gendered orientation (cis/trans) as well meaning there as well deserves focused approaches on these bases as well.

Sorry I didn't understand this statement? o: Could you explain further?

Just like women are rape victims way more than men are, there are non trivial differences between different women as well oon the basis of ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, cis/trans etc.
Eg Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women
17.7% for whites vs 34.1% for American Indian/Alaskan women

https://rainn.org/get-information/stati ... lt-victims
http://www.nclrights.org/sexual-assault ... community/
http://www.rrsonline.org/?page_id=944

Corelation =/= Causation.
Plus, the many factors for inaccuracy

Cherry picking when you want to accept evidence is not coherent. One shouldn't dismiss valid relationships based on misunderstanding what these mean. That's tobacco industry tactics. Also a tactic of bigots. When multiple studies clearly demonstrate something, its disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Like saying "overwhelming majority of rape victims are women" is just a methodological inaccuracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla ... _causation

sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation at all. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[18] Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be the strongest causal evidence available.[19] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer.[20]

[Kyron]

So when feminists say rape is a gender issue, they don't mean that it's a gender-specific issue but that it's a gender-inequality issue, with women suffering disproportionately more than men. That's what feminism is about and seeks to remove this inequality.

I do understand, however, I disagree with that definition.As I cannot find a clear definition online, I'm basing my argument for this on rationality. Men and women are not biologically equal, due to evolution, there are more men born than women (which effects a lot of things, etc. Nothing can be truly balanced and we cannot realistically expect this. Things like, a disproportionate balance of employees in the workplace based on gender, is lacking exponentially in data to assume that this has anything to do with gender/sex-discrimination.

To say something like "more men in board-rooms than women is a gender issue" providing that no gender-discrimination took place in the deciding of those board members, is just misleading, and in my opinion, an incorrect statement to make.
(I'm not going to look for the information to back up the board-rooms thing, I'm just using it as an example to why your definition is flawed.)

Yes that's exactly the problem. And how disproportionately? 91% that's how much.

In America* According to one set of statistics* Providing they're accurate*

For the UK statistic you cited, if you go to their source [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... -and-wales] you see that the ratio (for rape or sexual assault by penetration) is actually closer to 1:5. Yes, still bad, still disproportionate, but not 1:9/1:7.

So you're saying that since overwhelming % of victims are female, feminists are trying to settle the score by asking women to rape more men? When has anyone ever said something like this?

No. I was not even suggesting this at all and I think you're aware of that.

And what are the consequences for women as a result of such objectification? : http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual- ... cation.pdf

I skimmed through the paper [I've saved it and I'll look more closely tomorrow, my eyes are feeling pretty weird.] and it seems like a look through of feminist theory's depiction of sexual objectification, giving examples such as "hooting" - which is not what I was talking about. Let me rephrase and explain a little further regarding what I mean. - Sexual attraction is not a wrong thing, and pornography/modelling/nudity/etc is not inherently objectification (viewing someone/something as an object) it is all subjective and all relative to the mind of the viewer. You can still view pornography, models, and even those who have a biased depictions of beauty, be attracted to them, and still acknowledge that they are human-beings with personalities of their own.

Just like women are rape victims way more than men are, there are non trivial differences between different women as well oon the basis of ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, cis/trans etc.
Eg Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women
17.7% for whites vs 34.1% for American Indian/Alaskan women

Using the same logic, would you be happy to concede that child abuse/neglect is a gender issue, as mothers are usually the perpetrator according to statistics?

..

Cherry picking when you want to accept evidence is not coherent.

However, I am not cherry-picking. Acknowledging that something may very likely not have a good-enough amount of accuracy based on other evidence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_rape] is just being skeptical and doing the exact opposite. I am not claiming to have knowledge of. I am claiming we do not have sufficient knowledge to draw conclusions as such. Much like the wage-gap, a study that even acknowledges its inaccuracy in terms of drawing conclusions to gender-discrimination.