Friday, May 28, 2010

In the beginning...

Hey,

My name is Cassie, and I am a feminist. Let us think about that word for a moment "Feminist". This has become a dirty word in society today, I feel a constant pressure to hide or renounce my feminism in social circles. I have read that people are more likely to dislike me if I am openly feminist. However I have decided that is now less important then being true to who I am.

I am not a radical feminism, I will go into more detail about that later. I will provide more information about my political stances, I am;

Pro-euthanasia
Pro-choice
Pro-gay marriage
Anti-marriage in general
Anti-capital punishment
Anti-monogamy
Pro-animal rights


A little relevant background of me so in intellectual discussion we can be aware of any biases I may have. I am a child of divorce, my parents split up when I was 14, I believe it was in the best interests of all involved. I have been stalked, sexually abused and raped by men. This however is something I have come to terms with, I still have bad days, but minimise the impact of my personal history and emotional trauma on my political views.

I am not angry with men, nor do I believe they are "evil". I believe we all play a role in how society develops. I follow the dictionary definition of the word "feminism", which is "gender equality". I am uninterested in man bashing or any similar such things atrributed to feminists. I am in a relationship with an open minded also feminist boyfriend. We are both vegetarians and do our best to lead a moral life.

I am uninterested in the religion entering into the debating, falling back on the bible, "it should be this way because the bible says...", is just an excuse to have biased views. So godly types please keep discussion to something intellectual.

I have no interest in being labeled a "cunt", "man basher", "man hater", or a "lesbian". None of these are true, and anybody wishing to level these accusations against me need to have supporting evidence and "because your a feminist" is not proof.

What I am interested in is debate about gender roles, gender stereotypes, criticisms against feminism, criticisms against anti-feminism, etc. Keep it logical people.

With all that in mind I will start the ball rolling.

"All men are potential rapists"

Now this is an interesting assertation from the radical feminists. It is so interesting because it is factually correct. However I resent the implications that exclude women from this category. A more politically correct phrasing of this statement would be-

"All humans are potential rapists"

24 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I have no interest in being labeled a "cunt", "man basher", "man hater", or a "lesbian"."

    And then you say:

    ""All men are potential rapists"

    Now this is an interesting assertation from the radical feminists. It is so interesting because it is factually correct."

    Fuck you and don't you ever tell me what I am. I am not a 'potential rapist'. Fuck you and fuck your backward-ass fascist ideology. Sure, you can extend that to 'all humans' but you're still calling me a 'potential rapist'. And I resent that. In fact, I find that an affront to my dignity and my humanity. You can take your potential rape obsession and shove it forcibly up your own ass.

    Here's my criticism, and I hope you're wide open so I can ream you (figuratively) with it:

    You ARE a man-basher. And a man-hater.

    "I am uninterested in man bashing or any similar such things atrributed to feminists."

    Right, but we're all 'potential rapists'. Ever stop to think of the damage these kind of stereotypes cause? The damage that this kind of HATE causes to innocent people's lives?

    Your movement is going to sink and I will be standing there laughing as you drown.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a masculist (that's what you were looking for when you said 'anti-feminist': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism) and I greatly enjoy debating gender issues with feminists, primarily my three feminist sisters.

    I would be curious to know you stance on some of these masculist issues:
    * Education gap: Boys under-performing in grade schools; men approaching the 40% mark in colleges.

    * Domestic violence: there is quite a bit of research now available which shows that men are the victims of domestic violence at least as often as women, yet many groups like NOW still push DV as a female issue.

    * Family law: the family law system greatly favors mothers. In countries like Australia, where news laws have been tested to try more shared parenting, women's groups have uniformly opposed these laws.

    * Cancer bias: Breast cancer receives about 7 times as much funding as prostate cancer, even though they have nearly identical fatality rates.

    I'll be curious to see what you do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would also be curious to know more about your "Anti-monogamy" stance.
    Do you have any experience with polygamy? Or is it on the grounds of giving people freedom in relationships?

    It seems that it is inevitable that in any polygamous society you will see more polygyny than polyandry. Many feminists few such structures as oppressive, since they can lead to women receiving little individual attention from their husband with multiple wives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now come, beardreel! None of those issues matter when compared to the great social ills of our day such as women not being CEOs enough and not always being able to steal their children away from the father while using the state to force him into poverty.

    THOSE are the real issues! Men have enough rights already. Dying of cancer and being domestically abused is just what men deserve because of what their forefathers purportedly did (they were also the forefathers of women, but never mind that). MRAs and masculinists are just a bunch of whiners. Don't you know anything lolzozlzolzzozlozl

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Snark, I should introduce you to my brother. You two would get along great.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AFOTC, your statement:

    "falling back on the bible, "it should be this way because the bible says...", is just an excuse to have biased views. So godly types please keep discussion to something intellectual."

    Is also just an excuse to have biased views. Because just as you rightly see those who hold to what the Bible teaches as having biased views, you in categorically ruling out arguments based on such are showing your own biased views. Everyone has biases; they simply vary from person to person, depending on their worldview. Some of us, however, are actually capable of recognizing that about ourselves; others, who in recognizing only certain viewpoints as biased show that they don't even recognize that other points of view are also just as biased, that they themselves possess biases; which is sad, because it means they can't even understand or know themselves. Ah well. Not my problem, ultimately.

    But it does go to show your ultimate dishonesty, in that you claim you wish to open a dialogue with those with points of view different from your own, yet right off the bat, you frame the terms of the debate in such a way as to rule out certain heartfelt positions held by others with which you emphatically disagree, just because you are disagree with them. Thus, you are not as open as you claim to be, since you don't even want to hear certain reasons why people believe and act as they do, so there isn't any point in debating you for anyone who holds such positions, as you're not really interested in understanding or mutual respect, in spite of differences; the fact that some differences you rule out of hand, shows your close-mindedness, and the ultimate futility of engaging in discussion with you. You have shown your own biases in seeing religious arguments as anti-intellectual, but you don't even recognize them as such. Too bad for you.
    Enjoy your echo chamber!

    ReplyDelete
  8. FOTC, I scarecely know where to begin!

    So, I'll just pick on one little point that you made in your 'political confession' list.

    You stated that you are "anti-monogamy".

    But you are certainly aware that a lot of people are PRO-monogamy.

    So. . I was sort of wondering, what is your agenda? Do you wish to create an anti-monogamist world?

    Like, perhaps an anti-monogamist party would take over the government, and pass anti-monogamist laws, and indoctrinate students with anti-monogamy, etc..etc?

    Well, okay, so I am being a tad bit 'over the top' here, just to make a point. But I think you see the point.

    How do you, as an anti-monogamist, ultimately plan to co-exist with the extremely large pro-monogamist sector? How to you intend to establish boundaries, and to negotiate the inevitable "border wars" that will arise?

    (Short of sweeping the field and dispossessing the enemy altogether, I mean?)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh my, Cassie...how do you keep your agenda straight when it's rife with so many contradictions? You can't be "pro-gay marriage" while being "anti-marriage". Perhaps you should rephrase to state that you only support the rights of homosexuals to marry...or that you're only anti-marriage as it applies to heterosexuals....of course, in doing so, you must also concede that you practice and condone bigotry.

    As for anti-monogamy....I see you've attempted to address this on a subsequent thread. Still....if you support monogamy for others and simply wish everyone to have the choice to explore other options....that wouldn't make you anti-monogamy but pro certain types of sexual and marital freedoms. Anti-monogamy means you are opposed to monogamy. Incidentally, aside from laws forbidding polygamy, I fail to see where anyone is forced into a state of monogamy. Open relationships....even opening marriages are (as moral values decline) growing in both numbers and acceptance.

    Basically, you come across as your typical liberal....i.e. demanding tolerance for your own views while affording very little for the views of others. You also come across somewhat hypocritical. You can't scream for the rights of homosexuals to marry on the one hand while disparaging marriage among heterosexuals on the other. Contrary to popular feminist, liberal doctrine, it isn't only members of "victim groups" who are entitled to protection of their rights.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Kim

    Just as many people previously have done you are putting words into my mouth, words that are not there.

    I agree it looks like there are contradictions in my viewpoints, this however is not so. As it stands with marriage still common in my society, I would like to see homosexual marriage legalised as it promotes equality. In general however I would like to see marriage for everyone taken out of the picture as this is a good way to achieve equality for all members of society in regards to their sexuality.

    I say I am anti-monogamist as it stands now as a forced ideology.

    While there are no laws to ban polygamy, there are certainly no laws to protect it. Also just as homosexuals are banned from marriages (and I hope we agree this is a point of inequality) so too are people of polygamy orientation.

    I am not 100% sure what liberal means (being Australian) but my impression is it is left wing politics. If that is the case, then yes I am left wing. I am unsure of why that is supposed to be an insult.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Cassie,

    Social Worker here. Wow, off to a wonderfully bloggy start with attacks from all sides. Good for you!

    As to the "liberal" comment, yes, that is considered by some to be an insult in the U.S. Sometimes it is flung around without any real understanding of the term; actually often.
    You're in good company to be confused by its use.

    I always love how sharing YOUR point of view of how you wish to live YOUR life is transformed by fear into some agenda you must have about converting everyone on the planet to your way of thinking/living. Makes me giggle.

    Thanks for having me over. Keep up the good word.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for your input clarification and support.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I always love how sharing YOUR point of view of how you wish to live YOUR life is transformed by fear into some agenda you must have about converting everyone on the planet to your way of thinking/living."

    Well I agree to an extent. I am not trying to force my morals on people, however I would like it very much if they adopted them. I obviously think my morals are the best way to live, or I wouldn't have them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you for inviting me to read and comment on your new blog. Welcome to the feminist blogosphere with all of the joys and miseries that that brings.

    That being said, I do have some contentions with the content of what I have read so far on this blog.

    You end your first post here by saying that "All humans are potential rapists." While that might be true on its face, a deeper look at the patriarchal culture in which we live will tell us something different entirely.

    90% of sexual assault victims are women. It is astounding to me that RAINN does not even report the gender of the perpetrators anywhere on their website. Perhaps because they assume that we will assume the perpetrators are male.
    (Source: http://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims)

    17.7 million American women are victims of sexual assault. To be fair the other 10 % of the assaults were on men but lets just be honest, it was probably a tiny, tiny percentage of those that were committed by women. Very generally speaking, women are not rapists. I can leave room for a few exceptions because there are always some.

    That being said, to say that "all humans are potential rapists" is to deny the reality that the vast majority of the victims of sexual assault are women and the vast majority of the perpetrators of sexual assault are men including and especially assaults on other men.

    I linked you to this post on my own blog but I'd like to link to it here too so that other readers might take the opportunity to learn more about what some feminists call the "rape culture" in which we all are immersed always. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Welcome Cortney, I appreciate your contribution to my blog.

    That said, I am uncertain of the relevance of most of your assertions. I fully accept that women are for the most part the victims of sexual assault and men are for the most part the assailants. Does that however render my statement that "All humans are capable of rape" incorrect? I wouldn't think so.

    If you are pointing out that maybe it is a little unfair to include women in the quote as they are a minority then I will grant that as a fair point. However I was not hoping to send this out to the masses as radical feminists do with the original quote. I was just pointing out a little incongruity with the initial statement.

    In regards to rape culture I am unsure of how I feel. I definitely recognise and accept that society romanticises rape and sexual assault in general. Which is obviously damaging, and i don't like it. However on the other hand I also recognise that saying that all men are potential rapists creates some damaging mentalities also. The MRA give the example of False Rape Accusations. I also am unsure of what it achieves in terms of solving the issue of rape.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You may remember me from another blog - your comments there seemed to resemble views of my own. A comment about "society issues" rather than "feminist" or "masculist" issues was the driving force to check out this blog.

    Whilst I try my best and do proof read my comments before leaving them I am not a very articulate writer, and as a consequence will often be misinterpretted (you seem to be suffering from misinterprettation yourself). I gave off the impression before of being nearly entirely uneducated, but this is far from the truth. However I do not claim to be an authority, and will often slip up.

    I apologize for partly derailing the debate, and will now plug on to question your statement.

    'All people are potential rapists.'

    First I'll take the obvious path and ask about whose who physically can not rape. Those in a vegetable state. Certain paralytics. Those who have been in an accident which has destroyed their sex organs, or are simply born with genital defects. There are other examples, but that could get tedious. Thus the statement you present can not be factually correct.

    For the sake of argument however, let's presume that we're only looking at people who are actually physically capable of raping someone. We're also going to take a cultural definition of rape, rather than a legal one (I don't know about Australia but in merry 'ld England the law does not recognise that men can be raped).

    Dr. Snark references the Daily Mail (a newpaper which is not known for its use of facts), seems to hate women, and is spewing out myths as a machine gun does bullets. Despite he does seem to raise something of a point in his first post. I believe any baby can be raised in such a way they grow to become a rapist. Can a person also grow up in such a way that they will all out refuse to rape a person irrespective of the circumstances?

    I like to use (highly) unlikely mind games to test scenaros such as these. Let's say that a person (who is physically capable of rape) is presented with a choice. They can either rape someone, or the entire planet will be instantly destroyed. The planet will be left alone for good if the rape is carried out. In that situation, most people (myself included) would probably go ahead and carry out the rape. But would everyone? What if you were a person of faith who believed that raping another would have them instantly damned to eternal hell, whereas they can not be responsible for the actions of the planet destroyer and so would go to eternal heaven for not raping? Would that person with such strong unshakeable faith actually be mentally capable of rape?

    My thoughts on the actual matter now aside, I'll just throw some responses to some of the comments raised here (if that's alright):

    @Beardreel - Could you reference some of the studies you've found on male and female DV being around equal? I don't believe that DV against men should be overlooked at all, but I've been lead to believe that studies stated to show equal amounts of DV have often been misinterpretted; the researchers themselves rejecting these conclusions.

    @Cortney - your comment is filled with stats, which is cool, but you also seem to be making out that these stats are actually fact. Given that rape and sexual assault are both crimes, and very sensitive topics, they tend to be something which both the perpetrator and the victim try to hide. As a consequence getting accurate stats is something of an impossibility.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "You may remember me from another blog - your comments there seemed to resemble views of my own. A comment about "society issues" rather than "feminist" or "masculist" issues was the driving force to check out this blog."

    Yes it is a bit of a girls club over there isn't it? Gives feminists a bad name.


    "First I'll take the obvious path and ask about whose who physically can not rape. Those in a vegetable state. Certain paralytics. Those who have been in an accident which has destroyed their sex organs, or are simply born with genital defects."

    I don't believe that negates the point I was trying to make. I was using humans as a way of encompassing both genders rather then all able bodied and unabled bodied people. I mean it in a more conceptual way than the one in which you are taking it.

    "Can a person also grow up in such a way that they will all out refuse to rape a person irrespective of the circumstances?"

    I don't think so and they have been numerous studies on the potentials of human nature and many real world examples. (eg. the american soldiers treatment of iraqi POWs)

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I don't believe that negates the point I was trying to make. I was using humans as a way of encompassing both genders rather then all able bodied and unabled bodied people. I mean it in a more conceptual way than the one in which you are taking it."

    I was being quite pedantic I know, but to claim that the statement is factually correct is false. It just needs a little rewriting and it'll be cleared up.

    "I don't think so and they have been numerous studies on the potentials of human nature and many real world examples. (eg. the american soldiers treatment of iraqi POWs)"

    Could we focus specially on the example of a person of "unshakeable" faith? A person whom is dead set in their belief that raping a person will damn them to eternal hell to the point where they'll choose torture, death, any other alternative to carrying out the rape. How does this person come to rape?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I was being quite pedantic I know, but to claim that the statement is factually correct is false. It just needs a little rewriting and it'll be cleared up."

    I meant in the human psyche, not something which has anything to do with the body. I guess agree to disagree there then.


    "Could we focus specially on the example of a person of "unshakeable" faith?"

    Well there is no supporting evidence either way on that (unless you know of some?) so it will created only by our imaginations, which isn't actually useful. Also I can't empathise with a person of faith who believes in hell...it is too foreign to my way of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I meant in the human psyche, not something which has anything to do with the body. I guess agree to disagree there then."

    So you mean everyone is born capable of intending to commit rape? Forgive my ignorance at this stage; I just want to understand your viewpoint.

    "Well there is no supporting evidence either way on that (unless you know of some?) so it will created only by our imaginations, which isn't actually useful. Also I can't empathise with a person of faith who believes in hell...it is too foreign to my way of thinking."

    So unproven scenaros do exist in which the statement is incorrect. Scenaros which are so ridiculously hard to prove that they could potentially be deemed impossible to prove either way. Which leaves the original statement impossible to prove. Thereby making it little more than a matter of opinion and not objective fact.

    I do believe however that the statement does apply to the vast majority of people.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "So unproven scenaros do exist in which the statement is incorrect. Scenaros which are so ridiculously hard to prove that they could potentially be deemed impossible to prove either way. Which leaves the original statement impossible to prove. Thereby making it little more than a matter of opinion and not objective fact."

    You could say that about anything that isn't mathematical or scientific. Even that stuff gets disproved. In regards to humanities, it is safe to go with the most amount of evidence. Saying "Oh we can't figure out anything, because everything hasn't been done yet" is just absurd and pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You could say that about anything that isn't mathematical or scientific. Even that stuff gets disproved. In regards to humanities, it is safe to go with the most amount of evidence. Saying "Oh we can't figure out anything, because everything hasn't been done yet" is just absurd and pointless."

    When I studied Psychology that was pretty much the impression I got. With regards to theories about why we sleep for example there were a number of theories. Some had been almost entirely discredited, others were a lot more respected, but absolutely none were deemed to be fact. You couldn't say a theory was fact owing to it having 'the most' evidence, it needed to be concrete.

    Freud as another example was hugely influential (in theories and research which have branched off him), but haven't his original ideas been largely discredited now owing to being 'unproveable'?

    There's evidence that a lot of people have the psyche for being potential rapists if the circumstances are right. But to sweep the statement to cover everyone on the basis of evidence which does not cover everyone is a fallacy.

    ReplyDelete