why do feminist

Post Reply New Topic

Ok.

Theyre not quite right in the head they are blowing things out of proportion and cannot be reasoned with on a rational level, they take the credit from actual victims to gain attention and encourage lets say ''affirmative discrimination'' while at the same time scoff at male victims of rape and abuse to further their cause encouraging hatred towards men while denying it. They claim for equality but only strive for women they don't really care about men. They lack logic because of stupid crap like if all men are rapist then that means even men who have never raped or never wanted to rape are rapists too that means if a woman is about to give birth to a male child he should be aborted because hes going to be a rapist in the future. The thing is they are making the movement look bad it is not the moderate feminists nor the sex positive feminists it is the radical feminists.

Quotes from famous Radical Feminist

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French,

"Men are animals. Don't you think so?" -- Ireen von Wachenfeldt, radical feminist leader in Sweden

Such lovely speeches
Then we got this lovely masterpiece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM <=========== Is this what feminism is all about? Is this kind of behavior justified? Is using hate against those who just happen to be members of the gender that have nothing to do with the members that wronged them for no reason make things better? One simple answer to all 3 of these questions is NO!

Even other feminists disagree with this kind of behavior because it goes against the cause of equality! It even has brought to the attention of feminist members of anonymous.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFlBNQ-Vxtk[/youtube]

It is not the gender in question who is at fault when it comes to rape it is the person who rapes who is, not only men rape but women rape too both men and women can be victims of it and it is Psychologically damaging for the person who gets raped. Usually the rapist reported is a man sometimes it is a woman not as often but it does happen. Anyone could be in danger of being raped but usually it is women and it is not their fault for being raped, it is the individual who rapes and the way society is to this day. I wish anyone can walk freely without worrying about being raped or robbed or killed but unfortunately its a pipe dream all we can do is hope for the best be alert and hope local law enforcement can keep such scumbags off the streets.

You are conflating agency and culpability and confusing them for each other. Of course dressing in a certain way is more likely to attract certain attention, and pointing that out has nothing whatsoever to do with blame and culpability. Your willful refusal to recognize that is a bit frustrating. So a woman might receive mixed signals. That has nothing to do with the signals you actually gave and whether or not they were good signals. It is good to take precautions if you don't want something to happen. Getting in an accident while driving safely shouldn't confuse you as to whether or not you should drive safely, people should have the necessary comprehension to understand the difference between incidence and coincidence when it comes to this.

Just another example for clarity: We, being autistic (I am assuming you probably are if you frequent wrongplanet), take an active role in alienating ourselves from other people. This does not mean that we are culpable for it, it merely means that we are an active agent in it. And when and if we can change our actions in that role to some degree we find that we aren't so alienated. That means that we could both have a positive and negative affect on the situation without necessarily being responsible for the actions of others.

No offense, but this is elementary stuff and you are projecting a feminist crisis that doesn't exist. It is in no way sexist to imply that women can have an impact on what possibly happens to them. If it can be shown to have an impact, then your reaction here is like getting mad that the sun is thousands of degrees hot on it's surface or that Jupiter has more than ten moons. It's not our fault that Jupiter has the most moons of any planet in the solar system.

Everyone and everything tells you when you get on the road that you don't want to hit another car, especially at high speeds. But it happens all the time so you buckle your seat-belt and try to drive safely and defensively, not tailgating people or making erratic or tight lane changes. You don't just give everyone the benefit of the doubt because there is going to be that one idiot on the road who wasn't paying attention, was drinking or whatever, and he/she hit you. So it's common sense to develop defensive attitudes and that doesn't necessarily say anything about society in general. Rapists exist, however rare they are. And not being raped is preferable. Child molesters exist. This is why people are particular about adult supervision for their children. They know that most people probably aren't going to molest their children. Yet they also know that whatever the odds are that isn't a chance they want to be frivolous about taking. This is because the small odds of it happening are little consolation for those to whom it does happen.

Thingsthatneverhappened.txt

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZPhYG5c2EQ[/youtube]

this thread has gone crazy, but i'll respond to the original post. The so-called feminists who accuse anti-feminists of being "sexless losers" are bad spokesman for their cause. Let's leave it at that. Free speech is fine but they are bad spokesman.

I know a couple feminists who are very good people and not like this at all.

As for victim blaming - well, I think it is important to always empower the victim. They are allowed to say as they wish and do as they choose. They have been violated and are free to speak as they wish. And should be empowered to do so. Anti-feminists are free to criticize, but just know that your probably don't have a clue what that other person is going through or has gone through.

Trust me, I know women can be evil. But let's not keep punishing the real victims over and over and over for some nonsensical talking point.

I could say feminists are always angry but then I can also say all MRAs are always butthurt because they don't get laid enough and women don't make them sandwitches! A simple argument to garner attention and lulz. But on a more rational level I think both movements mean well they really do, it is just the radicals of each side make the movement of each side redundant! We need actual equality we need to address the issues both genders face and not ignore the other side or vilify the other based on gender in order for equality to work and work together!

I'm trying to understand why you spend so much time concerned about them. Their influence is minimal. The impact they have on your life is minimal, if anything at all. Is it just that you think them wrong, and this nags away at you? Are you yourself a feminist, and concerned the Radicals are tainting the cause?


They don't lack logic, though. Just because you think something stupid, does not mean it lacks logic. They start from a position, and go, with reasoning, from there. The position is that men are irredeemable oppressors and abusers of women, and they make a convincing case for this. I disagree with them, and some of the steps they take in working from that premise, but it is thought out and argued all the same. The Radical Feminists are essentially separatists. They don't want equality with men so much as to get away from them.

If you believe that all men are rapists, and that rape is bad - well, what steps do you take? What steps are 'logical'? To either get away from or rid of or castrate all (or just most) men seems perfectly logical. 'Logical' doesn't mean 'common sense', or 'agreeable', or 'reasonable' (not to be confused with 'reasoned') or 'good' or even 'true'.

Marilyn French didn't say that. A character in her novel did. And I think the first quote about 'man-hating' is quite apt and fair.

Sex-positive feminism is way more likely to take off/get interest, if only because something like that can be picked up and ran with by capitalism.



Anyone who takes up any political cause is going to be angry a lot. That's part of the reason causes get taken up by people - anger at a particular state of affairs. God knows the MRAs are furious about things they don't like.

f this is really the view of radical feminists, then they do sound dangerous, and i agree with AspieOtaku.

However, I don't think most feminists are like this.

By the way, what's the point of the video? I freaking hate this anonymous internet troll crap. It annoys the hell out of me, but that is another issue.

And besides, does any of this crap actually exist outside the internet? It's just a bunch of BS that internet warriors like to debate about - myself included.

Here's the deal, men stop raping women. Women - stop hating on men who don't deserve it. End of story.

this^

Your driving analogy doesn't work. You're talking about accidents. Accidents happen - they are unintentional, lapses of concentration or unanticipated/controllable changes in conditions. Rape is not an accident. It is intentional. A driver may behave erratically or stupidly - it's a rare thing to find one who actively shunts other cars off the road.

'Rapist' is the term given to someone who rapes. In this context, it is a man who rapes a woman. There are no pre-act rapists who then fulfil their destiny as such. Rapists cannot be distinguished from other men in any way other than that the other men have not raped.

Certainly there are the serial rapists, and those who commit what Whoopi Goldberg unhelpfully called 'rape rape' - waiting in an alley, balaclava on, knife or gun at hand. This is likely the public image of 'rapist'. It's not of the boyfriend or husband or male friend or acquaintence who decides, despite her lack of consent or even against her protests, that it's quite ok to have sex with her. It's not of the friends-of-friends who decide to do to her as they see fit when she's near or actually passed out from drink or drugs.

Thing is, a woman can have all the defensive attitudes you suggest - it won't stop her being raped. What it will do is make her wonder if she deserved it, if she had just been more careful, covered herself up more, not drank so much, not taken that shortcut, not gone out, been clearer in her 'no' - maybe she did lead that guy on, taken self-defense classes, carried mace, if if if if if if if if if if.

What will stop her being raped is men not raping. Seems obvious. Yet far more time and energy is spent, as a society, telling women to be careful not to get raped, or telling women that they weren't really raped (why dress like that if you don't want it?), rather than explaining to men, from a young age, what rape is, and why it's wrong. "But I wouldn't rape anyone!" goes the cry. Well, good. Thing is, there's a lot of men who would be so affronted and insulted by the idea of such education - "what is this, do you assume all men are rapists? Why do you hate men?" - who would go on to sexually assault or rape, and who still wouldn't see themselves as rapists. It's not really rape - not 'rape rape'. Because a rapist is the pervert waiting in the shadows, a weapon of some sort at hand, watching for his victim. The rapist is the bad guy in the movie who then gives the hero something to avenge, someone to catch and hurt and kill.

Let me guess, the hero is a woman too?

I don't really care anymore, and I know what I would do. This is getting ridiculous.

The hero is usually a man. I was referring to a trope, and the criticism levelled at said trope. A man's relation - usually wife or daughter - is raped (or threatened with such), and the man can then exact revenge on the rapist. The criticism is that this rape happens just so the audience can then enjoy the man exacting revenge. It is simply a plot device.

Thank you!