why do feminist
I'm curious. Which aspects of feminism are you against?
there are many,but one is they have a victim complex disorder.
Pointing out inequalities that actually exist is not the same as having a victim complex.
I do have a problem with this. First, use of the plural (inequalities rather than inequality) is telling.
There are two fair arguments to be made here:
(a) Women are at an *overall* disadvantage.
(b) *Some* things are unfair to women; they should be fixed, and the *same benefit* afforded to anyone else.
The arguments that I heard during 20 years of being berated by my feminist mother included some reasonable stuff, but they weren't complete enough to support (a). (For example, sure, it's true that people would blindly assume that any surgeon or lawyer was a man, but they also assumed that it was "Jack The Ripper," when in fact there was good evidence that it was really Jill.)
They easily supported the first part of (b), but the second part was always missing.
My mom also isn't a rarity among feminists. I worked for years as a Democratic organizer, and also in left-leaning non-profits. You can't reasonably accuse me of not having listened to their case. For much of that time my job hinged on listening politely to them.
Pointing out "inequalities" while being a total clod about other people's issues may not be the same as having a victim complex, but it is the same as being a jerk.
Last edited by NobodyKnows on 03 Apr 2014, 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
really really really really tired.
Im getting tired of conservative bashing from leftist and feminist.
I get shamed for not supporting feminist.
really really really really tired.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
really really really really tired.
Im getting tired of conservative bashing from leftist and feminist.
I get shamed for not supporting feminist.
yes bill, all leftists and all feminists and all women hate you.
it has now been confirmed, so can we stop making f*cking threads about it already?????
really really really really tired.
Im getting tired of conservative bashing from leftist and feminist.
I get shamed for not supporting feminist.
yes bill, all leftists and all feminists and all women hate you.
it has now been confirmed, so can we stop making f*cking threads about it already?????
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Anywho I dont have issues with the movement itself just the radical loudmouths of the movement I dont really identify myself as a feminist nor a MRA but more of an egalitarian or a humanist. Since both parties claim to be going for gender equality like feminism but at the same time ignores the issues of members of the opposite gender face as well. Apathy towards male victims of the same system if men get abused they scoff it off and called those same men the same as those who abuse women and lack the sympathy. And without further ado I introduce girl does rant have a nice day! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPok3q932rk[/youtube] We need humanism more than MRA or Feminism we all need to work together every human is exploited regarded of gender age and creed etc. This person is like the female version of me and I totally agree with her.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
the only thing i got from that video is "i'm justified in my wrong actions, but no one else is."
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
the only thing i got from that video is "i'm justified in my wrong actions, but no one else is."
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Yeah, that's pretty much the impression I got.
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
Another video not much longer after Radicals of any movement can do more damage to any movement in question what they claim they are going for. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmKesGV9LmE[/youtube]
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Yeah,feminist,it's called freedom of speech.Feminist,you
don't speak for all women.
So in the name of freedom of speech, feminists should shut up? It's just as easy to shout 'freedom of speech!' back at those complaining about the feminists speaking out.
'Freedom of speech' means the state won't censor people. It does not mean someone can say what they want without someone else vocally disagreeing. If someone says something, and then I intervene and take them to task for it, in no way am I violating their freedom of speech. A particular venue may have its own rules about heckling etc - that's up to them.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
"Person on YouTube finds what they have to say agreeable, what others have to say disagreeable".
Eesh. Did she use a pitch shift or something? I assume it's the mask that makes the voice sound weird. And boy, do I not like being pointed at.
"All men are inherently rapists", she mocks.
Is this not the concept behind victim-blaming? Behind the idea that, where a woman does not take sufficient care (in what she wears, how much she drinks, where she is, who she's with) and is sexually assaulted, well, what did she expect? That any man, when given the chance, will take advantage? This idea finds wide, unconsidered acceptance within society, but rephrase it bluntly as 'all men are inherently rapists', and suddenly there's an outrage - 'how ridiculous! Sheer misandry! Man haters!'.
Feminism considers the inequality and exploitation of women as women, usually by men. There is a lot of disagreement between people who sincerely consider themselves feminists as to how such things come to be, and what to do about them, and what a 'feminist' world might look like. And of course, feminism - as any movement of social or political analysis/action - will bear the marks of the culture in which it emerges. This is why we need structural analysis - considering matters of culture and media and economics and politics and race/ethnicity and sexuality etc - or, as the kids have it nowadays, 'intersectionality'. Most feminists I've come across are aware of such.
MRA considers....what? That feminism has gone too far? That men and women have 'proper', 'natural' places/roles, and that when we stray from that, it all goes to hell? I'll grant, I've seen them highlight some child custody decisions that, if accurately reported, were terrible. But as far as the MRAs were concerned, this was because of the evil feminists.
But these are old, old stories. Nothing new. This is the mythographer Marina Warner, from a lecture given in 1994:
The she-monster is hardly a new phenomenon. The idea of a female untamed nature which must be leashed or else will wreak havoc closely reflects mythological heroes’ struggles against monsters. Greek myth alone offers a host - of Ceres, Harpies, Sirens, Moirae. Associated with fate and death in various ways, they move swiftly, sometimes on wings; birds of prey are their closest kin - the Greeks didn't know about dinosaurs - and they seize as in the word raptor. But seizure also describes the effect of the passions on the body; inner forces, madness, art, folly, personified in Homer and the tragedies as feminine, snatch and grab the interior of the human creature and take possession. Ungoverned energy in the female always raises the issue of motherhood; fear that the natural bond excludes men and eludes their control courses through ancient myth, which applies various remedies. In Aeschylus’s Oresteia, when Orestes has murdered his mother Clytemnestra, the matriarchal Furies want justice against the matricide - but they find themselves confronting a new order, led by the god Apollo. Orestes is declared innocent, and in a famous resolution which still has power to shock audiences today, the god decrees:
The mother of what’s called her offspring’s no parent
but only the nurse to the seed that’s implanted.
The mounter, the male’s the only true parent.
She harbours the bloodshoot, unless some god blasts it.
The womb of the woman’s a convenient transit.
In this brutal act of legislation, the god of harmony declares that henceforward, in civilised society, only the father counts. The mother is nothing more than an incubator.
The spectre of gynocracy, of rule by women, stalks through the founding myths of our culture: both Theseus and Hercules fight with the Amazons - and vanquish their queens. The Amazon’s separatist queendom made them tantalising but also monstrous in the eyes of the Greeks; the terrible massacres of their army depicted on stone reliefs and vases redounded to the fame of the Greek heroes as surely as cutting off Medusa’s head.
In the folklore of the past, classical and medieval, the female beast was sometimes cunning and purposely concealed her true nature: the Sirens lured men with their deceitful songs, and later tempted fierce anchorites in the desert, approaching St Anthony for instance, with honeyed words, hiding their diabolical nether parts under sumptuous dresses. Male beasts, as in Beauty and the Beast, or male devils, as in the temptations of St Anthony, don't possess the same degree of duplicity; you can tell you’re dealing with the devil on the whole, but when evil comes in female guise, you have to beware: the fairy queen may turn to dust in your arms, and poisonous dust at that.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
"Person on YouTube finds what they have to say agreeable, what others have to say disagreeable".
Eesh. Did she use a pitch shift or something? I assume it's the mask that makes the voice sound weird. And boy, do I not like being pointed at.
"All men are inherently rapists", she mocks.
Is this not the concept behind victim-blaming? Behind the idea that, where a woman does not take sufficient care (in what she wears, how much she drinks, where she is, who she's with) and is sexually assaulted, well, what did she expect? That any man, when given the chance, will take advantage? This idea finds wide, unconsidered acceptance within society, but rephrase it bluntly as 'all men are inherently rapists', and suddenly there's an outrage - 'how ridiculous! Sheer misandry! Man haters!'.
Feminism considers the inequality and exploitation of women as women, usually by men. There is a lot of disagreement between people who sincerely consider themselves feminists as to how such things come to be, and what to do about them, and what a 'feminist' world might look like. And of course, feminism - as any movement of social or political analysis/action - will bear the marks of the culture in which it emerges. This is why we need structural analysis - considering matters of culture and media and economics and politics and race/ethnicity and sexuality etc - or, as the kids have it nowadays, 'intersectionality'. Most feminists I've come across are aware of such.
MRA considers....what? That feminism has gone too far? That men and women have 'proper', 'natural' places/roles, and that when we stray from that, it all goes to hell? I'll grant, I've seen them highlight some child custody decisions that, if accurately reported, were terrible. But as far as the MRAs were concerned, this was because of the evil feminists.
But these are old, old stories. Nothing new. This is the mythographer Marina Warner, from a lecture given in 1994:
The she-monster is hardly a new phenomenon. The idea of a female untamed nature which must be leashed or else will wreak havoc closely reflects mythological heroes’ struggles against monsters. Greek myth alone offers a host - of Ceres, Harpies, Sirens, Moirae. Associated with fate and death in various ways, they move swiftly, sometimes on wings; birds of prey are their closest kin - the Greeks didn't know about dinosaurs - and they seize as in the word raptor. But seizure also describes the effect of the passions on the body; inner forces, madness, art, folly, personified in Homer and the tragedies as feminine, snatch and grab the interior of the human creature and take possession. Ungoverned energy in the female always raises the issue of motherhood; fear that the natural bond excludes men and eludes their control courses through ancient myth, which applies various remedies. In Aeschylus’s Oresteia, when Orestes has murdered his mother Clytemnestra, the matriarchal Furies want justice against the matricide - but they find themselves confronting a new order, led by the god Apollo. Orestes is declared innocent, and in a famous resolution which still has power to shock audiences today, the god decrees:
The mother of what’s called her offspring’s no parent
but only the nurse to the seed that’s implanted.
The mounter, the male’s the only true parent.
She harbours the bloodshoot, unless some god blasts it.
The womb of the woman’s a convenient transit.
In this brutal act of legislation, the god of harmony declares that henceforward, in civilised society, only the father counts. The mother is nothing more than an incubator.
The spectre of gynocracy, of rule by women, stalks through the founding myths of our culture: both Theseus and Hercules fight with the Amazons - and vanquish their queens. The Amazon’s separatist queendom made them tantalising but also monstrous in the eyes of the Greeks; the terrible massacres of their army depicted on stone reliefs and vases redounded to the fame of the Greek heroes as surely as cutting off Medusa’s head.
In the folklore of the past, classical and medieval, the female beast was sometimes cunning and purposely concealed her true nature: the Sirens lured men with their deceitful songs, and later tempted fierce anchorites in the desert, approaching St Anthony for instance, with honeyed words, hiding their diabolical nether parts under sumptuous dresses. Male beasts, as in Beauty and the Beast, or male devils, as in the temptations of St Anthony, don't possess the same degree of duplicity; you can tell you’re dealing with the devil on the whole, but when evil comes in female guise, you have to beware: the fairy queen may turn to dust in your arms, and poisonous dust at that.
I would beg to disagree that that attitude towards rape is as prevalent as you suggest. What I have heard a lot more of is remarks to the effect that "well, she got offended because some men made some advances, what did she expect". And people making advances certainly doesn't equal rape.
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
Is this not the concept behind victim-blaming? Behind the idea that, where a woman does not take sufficient care (in what she wears, how much she drinks, where she is, who she's with) and is sexually assaulted, well, what did she expect? That any man, when given the chance, will take advantage? This idea finds wide, unconsidered acceptance within society, but rephrase it bluntly as 'all men are inherently rapists', and suddenly there's an outrage - 'how ridiculous! Sheer misandry! Man haters!'.
I would beg to disagree that that attitude towards rape is as prevalent as you suggest. What I have heard a lot more of is remarks to the effect that "well, she got offended because some men made some advances, what did she expect". And people making advances certainly doesn't equal rape.
I think it is a reflexive attitude, not one come to through thought. But, in my experience and observation, it's more prevalent and socially acceptable than saying 'all men are inherently rapists'. That women have to be careful - that, say, if she gets drunk to the point of passing out around men she can pretty much expect to be sexually assaulted, is taken as a kind of common sense. The assumption being all men are looking for the slightest opportunity to sexually assault a woman. Or, in fewer words, all men are inherently rapists.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
Is this not the concept behind victim-blaming? Behind the idea that, where a woman does not take sufficient care (in what she wears, how much she drinks, where she is, who she's with) and is sexually assaulted, well, what did she expect? That any man, when given the chance, will take advantage? This idea finds wide, unconsidered acceptance within society, but rephrase it bluntly as 'all men are inherently rapists', and suddenly there's an outrage - 'how ridiculous! Sheer misandry! Man haters!'.
I would beg to disagree that that attitude towards rape is as prevalent as you suggest. What I have heard a lot more of is remarks to the effect that "well, she got offended because some men made some advances, what did she expect". And people making advances certainly doesn't equal rape.
I think it is a reflexive attitude, not one come to through thought. But, in my experience and observation, it's more prevalent and socially acceptable than saying 'all men are inherently rapists'. That women have to be careful - that, say, if she gets drunk to the point of passing out around men she can pretty much expect to be sexually assaulted, is taken as a kind of common sense. The assumption being all men are looking for the slightest opportunity to sexually assault a woman. Or, in fewer words, all men are inherently rapists.
Inherently rapists? No. Men may have a stronger sex drive, but not all are inherently rapists. The assumption that all men look for the opportunity to sexually assault a women is also ludicrous.
There is good reason for some women to think this way, but that does not make it true. #1 rule for any good man, help a lady in need, so stuff like that doesn't happen.
_________________
comedic burp
The woman in the 'Radical feminism' video AspieOtaku linked to is having a go at what she calls 'radical feminists'. In the course of doing so, she uses the phrase 'all men are inherently rapists' in a mocking, dismissive way. The idea she's referring to is one found in some feminist discourse, but I don't think it's all that widespread. Certainly it is one readily mocked by society at large, and sometimes used as evidence that 'feminists hate men'.
But it struck me the other day that this is essentially the premise behind victim-blaming, and the 'common sense' idea that women simply have to be careful as to how they dress, where they go, who they're with, how much they drink etc. These warnings can only make sense if one assumes that any man will take advantage of any such situation, that in some - many - instances they simply can't help themselves.
I find it ironic that these two opposing ways of thinking share the same premise, and that those of the latter view all but say 'all men are inherently rapists', but would likely cry outrage and 'man hater!' if you phrased it as such.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.