I have been thinking a lot about these two sides of the debate. I am often very hesitant in expressing my displeasure about things that affect me directly. Either I think I am not in a good place to be objective or I think people will discount my beliefs based on personal bias.
However having already addressed and had several responses to the radical feminist statement that all men are rapists I think I should take a look at the other side of the coin.
I have read through 100s of blogs about gender on the internet pretty thoroughly, so while I admit there are some gaps in my knowledge, I feel I have a finger on the pulse of what is happening here.
MRA seem to be concerned with showing that all women are liars especially when it comes to rape, they echo the myths that women commonly lie about rape for revenge and send forth the message that men should be careful who they sleep with lest the woman should find them less than desirable in the morning and cry rape. Let us put aside for a moment the fact that this is nothing new, it is in fact a pretty outdated way of thinking about rape. Let us also put aside any musings about why women may feel compelled to lie about their sex life and look at the deeper issue here.
This seems to show that MRA don't want to come to a harmonious agreement about gender issues they just want men on top where they have always been. When they examine the issue of FRA it is never looked at objectively, MRA only look at the fact that some accusations are false and address the legislation under that premise. However in looking at law and if it should in fact exist it seems to me that it is necessary to look at both sides. The occurence of rape and the occurence of false accusations of rape and decide from there what the best course of action is, because looking at this from only the angle that false rape accusations exist produces a very deep running bias. Let us not at this point get into the deeply flawed studies that are often quoted as showing that FRA is as common as real accusations or nearly so.
I however will not be silent on the issue that arises from speaking of only reported rapes. It is very convenient to leave the majority of rape victims out of the arguement if they don't prove your point isn't it? Just ignore them altogether, because nobody will notice, we are all too used to them being ignored anyway.
It is hard to explain why most rape, sexual abuse and dv victims don't come forward if the system is so biased towards them and condemns the man as guilty upon accusation.
It is hard to explain why there are false accusations in the first place, not that anyone seems to want to go past the assertion that it is due to women having a princess syndrome. Oh if only, if only I was in a society where my body was my own, where going out to a club or pub won't mean some guy taking more liberties then I like with my person. If only I could live in this fantasy world MRA have dreamed up for me.
This leads to the question of the suffering of the falsely accused man. This is still something I am mulling over. The most common serious illnesses (that I know of) associated with sexual abuse are post traumatic stress disorder and dissociative identity disorder. I think dissociative identity disorder is for the most part contributed to childhood trauma so doesn't really apply to men falsely accused. Post traumatic stress disorder is something however I can see arising from false imprisonment (or even justified imprisonment, but nobody seems bothered by that, that is a subject for another post I think).
False accusations of rape could tear apart families, ruin lives, waste valuble years, expose people to shame and humiliation. However is it the same thing as experiencing a situation where a person feels their life is in danger, where they are attacked, shamed and humiliated for amusement and fun? I am not so certain.
I have also been on MRA blogs where there are names floating around of men who have killed themselves because of this, which I admit is horrible, the thought of anyone killing themselves fills me with dread and horror. Rape victims on the other hand don't tend to be known by name, or have cases that can be commented on due to the utter normality of a suicide due to issues caused by rape or sexual abuse. It occurs to me that it should be much easier to find out how men are effected by FRA then women affected by rape on a case by case basis as the names of the accused are known while women are anonymous. Why then is it not so shocking to think about a woman killing herself due to rape as it is to think of a man killing himself due to being accused of rape? It seems to be seen as pretty much acceptable that a raped woman would commit suicide (who would want to live after being defiled like that anyway right?). Her worth gone with her purity. When a man's dignity is challenged however it is a different story.
Another point of frustration is the trend I see to want to convict women who falsely accuse men of rape on the same level as rapists. I state on every page I see (with very little success) that many things must come into play when passing legislation. I reject the idea that it would be fair for women who falsely accuse men of rape to serve the same sentence as rapists, this is completely irrational, I can't even figure out the logic behind this kind of thinking. Let us begin with the fact that they are different crimes, yes different crimes deserve different punishment. These must also be taken into consideration-
Punishment
Safety of society
Safety of the victim
Justice for the victim
Rehabilitation for the criminal
Deterrent for future criminals of this sort
Yes, MRAs blind desire for females to suffer as much as males has led them to the illogical thinking they abhor. I am not saying women (and men) shouldn't be punished for false accusations, but lets actually look at it in a rational way. Firstly do women who falsely accuse deserve to be punished? Well to me it seems they should be, but to what degree? Is society safe from these women? Do they commonly reoffend? Is the victim protected from further victimisation? Has justice been brought about on behalf of the victim? Can they be rehabilitated? What therapy is useful? Are there many criminals of this kind and if there is does punishment act as a deterrent for this crime? Punishment just for the sake of punishment is barbaric, they deserve hurt because they hurt someone else, has been shown to be a flawed way of thinking, and isn't useful in application to the real world. Noses out of the bible for a few moments people.
Let us on the other hand consider the crime of rape. Well I think it is obvious rapists are deserving of some punishment, what punishment is very much open to debate, I don't think it is relevant to get into it at this stage. It has been shown again and again that society is not safe from people with a tendency to abuse, it is in their mentalities and embedded within their various mental instabilities. Is justice ever achieved for rape victims? Very rarely in my opinion. Can rapists be rehabilitated? I am very confused about the answer to that one myself, any speculation would be appreciated. There are significantly higher numbers it seems of abusers then false rape accusers. I am also unsure it would be a useful deterrent as it seems to be a crime of passion, more than premeditated. Very few of these legal issues about rapists and false accusers seem to be discussed or even taken into consideration by the MRAs and their supporters.
Another thought I am swirling around in this head of mine is the fact that women seem to often show remorse for their accusations. As the MRAs adamantly claim in the flawed study where 41% of rape claims were shown to be false, it came about as a result of confessions. I haven't heard of many (any?) rapists who turned themselves in and left themselves at the mercy of the justice system in order to spare their victim more suffering.
Basically the conclusion I have come to in writing this entry is that rape and FRA are completely different issues that should never be compared to each other, they have very little in common other then on the surface appearing to show gender bias. As usual however when one delves a little deeper the flaws become apparent and the arguement illogical.
Stick to comparing rape of men to rape of women, but even in that comparison the flaws are many, perhaps don't compare at all, and just work on the issues in a way that doesn't try to make one side out to be evil. Yes, I mean statements like these, that are just loaded pointless insults
MRA states: Feminists always interfere in MRA business by saying "what about the womminz"
Radical feminist states: MRA always intefere in feminist business by saying "what about the meeeeenz"
Both these statements fill me with disgust, and show a deep bias in those who use these as a defence. I have a very strange idea, support your views instead of rejecting an issue based on gender, that is the very thing we should be fighting against.
A helpful response to "All men are rapists" is not in fact "All women are liars". Will people ever see the hate behind these generalised type of statements and the hurt they cause?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
FRA
Just a quick question...
In the extremely skewed statistics most MRAs seem to support is the fact that rape is the most under-rated crime counted in their ratios?
Seems to be reported rape and actual numbers of rape victims are two very different things.
In the extremely skewed statistics most MRAs seem to support is the fact that rape is the most under-rated crime counted in their ratios?
Seems to be reported rape and actual numbers of rape victims are two very different things.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Unsettling
I encountered a self professed feminist not long ago. He put forth the theory that due to society not being open to women in terms of power and authority women have been returning to more submissive roles, such as domesticity and family. I had a few issues with this concept. The first was he couldn't provide anything to back up such an intense claim. The conversation lasted well over an hour and I couldn't make any progress with him about finding some sources to back this up. This view without any evidence seems to me to be very sexist. An assumption that women are inherently weak and will give up and fall back on traditional roles.
Also viewing domestic roles to be necessarily submissive (and necessarily negative) irks me. I have no problem with women who want to be submissive in their relationship and don't see it as something feminism can't support. Everyone should have choice and be happy with that choice. That is what feminism is to me.
Also generalisations can be made about anyone regardless of gender. Some men are rapists, some women are bimbos, etc. To identify SOME women falling back on traditional roles as a trend is deeply disturbing and not entirely relevant I don't think.
Maybe I have this all confused though, and my fellow debater wasn't skilled in communication. Can anyone shed some light on this very confusing issue? Or provide some personal insight?
Also viewing domestic roles to be necessarily submissive (and necessarily negative) irks me. I have no problem with women who want to be submissive in their relationship and don't see it as something feminism can't support. Everyone should have choice and be happy with that choice. That is what feminism is to me.
Also generalisations can be made about anyone regardless of gender. Some men are rapists, some women are bimbos, etc. To identify SOME women falling back on traditional roles as a trend is deeply disturbing and not entirely relevant I don't think.
Maybe I have this all confused though, and my fellow debater wasn't skilled in communication. Can anyone shed some light on this very confusing issue? Or provide some personal insight?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Feminism Epiphany
I was reading through some blogs today, some articles as well, to do with feminism. and any forms not-feminism comes in. I was struck over the head with a metaphorical 2x4. This 2x4 connected with other 2x4s that had come before it. I came to a conclusion, whether this conclusion is correct or not remains to be seen.
The anti-feminist movement as just that, anti-feminist, it appears to care very little about actually helping men in comparison to dragging women (mostly feminists) down to their (alleged) level. They are so blind in their need to knock feminists out of the way they are ignoring those they claim to support: men.
MRA as I have been able to tell so far, are characterised by such rage, such hatred, that leads to an inability to reason. In being liberated women had to take on the traits of men, now it appears as though men are taking on the traits of the stereotypical woman. Whiny, unreasonable and emotionally driven. They seek injustice to attempt to balance out injustice.
Worse still this leads them to confront their imagined foe, the big bad feminist when they could be doing good in the world. An absolute refusal to recognise the system for what it is, a flawed patriarchy. Instead a feminist tyranny has been invented, and things like FRA is used to show the flaws in feminism, when in fact it has nothing to do with feminism and more to do with our increasingly nonchalant culture. A moral void.
Perhaps instead of wasting time blaming all their problems on feminism, making absurd claims of feminist dictatorship and deducing from there an existence of male oppression, men can actually further men's rights, and while they are there why not women's rights as well?
The anti-feminist movement as just that, anti-feminist, it appears to care very little about actually helping men in comparison to dragging women (mostly feminists) down to their (alleged) level. They are so blind in their need to knock feminists out of the way they are ignoring those they claim to support: men.
MRA as I have been able to tell so far, are characterised by such rage, such hatred, that leads to an inability to reason. In being liberated women had to take on the traits of men, now it appears as though men are taking on the traits of the stereotypical woman. Whiny, unreasonable and emotionally driven. They seek injustice to attempt to balance out injustice.
Worse still this leads them to confront their imagined foe, the big bad feminist when they could be doing good in the world. An absolute refusal to recognise the system for what it is, a flawed patriarchy. Instead a feminist tyranny has been invented, and things like FRA is used to show the flaws in feminism, when in fact it has nothing to do with feminism and more to do with our increasingly nonchalant culture. A moral void.
Perhaps instead of wasting time blaming all their problems on feminism, making absurd claims of feminist dictatorship and deducing from there an existence of male oppression, men can actually further men's rights, and while they are there why not women's rights as well?
Monday, June 14, 2010
Thoughts
I have had some interesting questions and queries from those on my blog and some outside of my blog lately. So I shall reverse them and put them to you, my readers-
1) What is a conscience to you?
2) How do you know what is right and what is wrong?
and my own questions I draw from that-
3) How does this apply to gender equality?
4) What do you do in those times of crisis when your faith in yourself has been shaken?
1) What is a conscience to you?
2) How do you know what is right and what is wrong?
and my own questions I draw from that-
3) How does this apply to gender equality?
4) What do you do in those times of crisis when your faith in yourself has been shaken?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Questionings
With all the recent conversations I have had in regards to gender equality I find myself with even more questions.
I was worrying about one of my female friends being out late tonight and stopped for a second and realised if it was a male I wouldn't be concerned. Is this from sexism? I wondered. I however thought up many factors that could contribute to this reaction, other then sexist thoughts.
1) I seem to connect with women on a more emotional level then I do with men. I am unsure if this is something I do wrong, they do wrong, or just a natural state of affairs.
2) It is definitely far more dangerous for women, they are quite vulnerable.
3) In friendships consisting of two females it easily becomes one of the friendships habits to check in with each other.
4) I am a stresshead
5) It seems to be more acceptable to ask females if they are ok and things like that, males tend to "pfft".
I thought about those things and briefly felt better until I started wondering if this reaction and these interactions were as a result of gender roles in society. Addressing my previous points in light of this new realisation...
1) Women tend to be quite aware of their gender and the gender of other people (it could be like that for men as well, I am not sure). Could this be due to oppression? Due to being treated like sex objects? Having that constant little voice in the back of their head telling them to not let their guard down too much around the other sex?
2) As always, this brought me to the question of why it is so much more dangerous for women. Why do we have to be taught from very young to be careful where we go and who we go with, because otherwise we will end up raped? How is this an acceptable state for a society to be in?
3) The age old question of the possibility that men and women may not be compatible in close friendships arises here.
4) Well being a stresshead is probably part me and part society.
5) The macho, masculine attitudes men are instilled with.
It is fascinating.I am sure one day I will send myself insane with constant questioning, but until then, this blog will survive.
I was worrying about one of my female friends being out late tonight and stopped for a second and realised if it was a male I wouldn't be concerned. Is this from sexism? I wondered. I however thought up many factors that could contribute to this reaction, other then sexist thoughts.
1) I seem to connect with women on a more emotional level then I do with men. I am unsure if this is something I do wrong, they do wrong, or just a natural state of affairs.
2) It is definitely far more dangerous for women, they are quite vulnerable.
3) In friendships consisting of two females it easily becomes one of the friendships habits to check in with each other.
4) I am a stresshead
5) It seems to be more acceptable to ask females if they are ok and things like that, males tend to "pfft".
I thought about those things and briefly felt better until I started wondering if this reaction and these interactions were as a result of gender roles in society. Addressing my previous points in light of this new realisation...
1) Women tend to be quite aware of their gender and the gender of other people (it could be like that for men as well, I am not sure). Could this be due to oppression? Due to being treated like sex objects? Having that constant little voice in the back of their head telling them to not let their guard down too much around the other sex?
2) As always, this brought me to the question of why it is so much more dangerous for women. Why do we have to be taught from very young to be careful where we go and who we go with, because otherwise we will end up raped? How is this an acceptable state for a society to be in?
3) The age old question of the possibility that men and women may not be compatible in close friendships arises here.
4) Well being a stresshead is probably part me and part society.
5) The macho, masculine attitudes men are instilled with.
It is fascinating.I am sure one day I will send myself insane with constant questioning, but until then, this blog will survive.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Chivalry
I was recently pointed in the direction of an article that brought up the issue that MRA tend to accuse women of demanding chivalry from men without having earned it. (article is linked in previous blog entry).
I wanted to elaborate on this point because it is a trend I have noticed myself and find quite absurd. I have a confession to make, I like having a boyfriend that will treat me to dinner. I am a new age feminist but I like men "taking care" of me in this way.
However, I also like to take care of the men (and women) in my life in similar ways. If I have time I also like cooking for my boyfriend, because he likes that, especially when he is busy with work and such. I suppose you could see it as conforming to traditional gender roles that feminism abhors. I think the important point here though is that both he and I have choice in the matter, and in the end it is just a way of expressing affection and respect. Why else be in a relationship?
The issue of "protection" is also brought up within this discussion of chivalry. It is interesting in the way that yes, if someone was attacking me I would expect my boyfriend to intervene. On the other hand if someone was attacking my boyfriend or another person (regardless of gender) I would likewise intervene.
This may not fit some MRA's definition of chivalry, however that's a moot point, as if that isn't what chivalry encompasses then I don't particularly need or want it in my life.
I wanted to elaborate on this point because it is a trend I have noticed myself and find quite absurd. I have a confession to make, I like having a boyfriend that will treat me to dinner. I am a new age feminist but I like men "taking care" of me in this way.
However, I also like to take care of the men (and women) in my life in similar ways. If I have time I also like cooking for my boyfriend, because he likes that, especially when he is busy with work and such. I suppose you could see it as conforming to traditional gender roles that feminism abhors. I think the important point here though is that both he and I have choice in the matter, and in the end it is just a way of expressing affection and respect. Why else be in a relationship?
The issue of "protection" is also brought up within this discussion of chivalry. It is interesting in the way that yes, if someone was attacking me I would expect my boyfriend to intervene. On the other hand if someone was attacking my boyfriend or another person (regardless of gender) I would likewise intervene.
This may not fit some MRA's definition of chivalry, however that's a moot point, as if that isn't what chivalry encompasses then I don't particularly need or want it in my life.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Advertising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFJHX7TUgU
Does this strike anyone else as completely inappropriate?
Domestic violence used as comedy?
Women expressing sexuality being abused for it.
It smacks of oppression to me.
Does this strike anyone else as completely inappropriate?
Domestic violence used as comedy?
Women expressing sexuality being abused for it.
It smacks of oppression to me.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Criticism
This will be a short post.
I am merely concerned with making a comment about criticism. If you are not open to the fact you may be wrong or able to defend your views, you are just showing your bias. I have been on many blogs where people attempt to defend their views by stating the same statement again. That isn't defending or backing up, that is called repetition. It is frustrating because I feel like they may have something of importance to say, but I can no longer take their views seriously when they have lost that amount of credibility.
It reminds me of what I recently studied at university in regards to media and the internet. The concern academics are showing over how the main use of media has become being heard and the emphasis on listening is completely gone. This troubles me too. Without anyone to listen we are simply shouting into a vacuum.
Although, it brings me back in full circle, to why I created this blog, because I fully believe I am accountable and responsible for supporting my views just as everyone else is, I am hoping this will be a blog of equity as we get past the initial "hazing" phase.
I am merely concerned with making a comment about criticism. If you are not open to the fact you may be wrong or able to defend your views, you are just showing your bias. I have been on many blogs where people attempt to defend their views by stating the same statement again. That isn't defending or backing up, that is called repetition. It is frustrating because I feel like they may have something of importance to say, but I can no longer take their views seriously when they have lost that amount of credibility.
It reminds me of what I recently studied at university in regards to media and the internet. The concern academics are showing over how the main use of media has become being heard and the emphasis on listening is completely gone. This troubles me too. Without anyone to listen we are simply shouting into a vacuum.
Although, it brings me back in full circle, to why I created this blog, because I fully believe I am accountable and responsible for supporting my views just as everyone else is, I am hoping this will be a blog of equity as we get past the initial "hazing" phase.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Article
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200807/why-gender-doesnt-matter
What does everyone think?
What does everyone think?
PSA
Yes, unfortunately I have had to start deleting comments. No longer will emotional outbursts be tolerated. Swearing is also frowned upon but will be allowed if in the context of a decent point. Personal attacks and character assassinations are no longer allowed either. Please keep it civil and intellectual.
I make this entry because I don't want to explain myself over and over. The regulations of my blog are fair, if you don't like them, please go elsewhere.
If I delete an issue you wanted to bring up because it is obscured by any of the above, please feel free to make it again, but this time in keeping with the regulations.
Any legitimate complaints about comments I have deleted can be made here. Any made elsewhere will be deleted as they derail blog topics.
Thank you
I make this entry because I don't want to explain myself over and over. The regulations of my blog are fair, if you don't like them, please go elsewhere.
If I delete an issue you wanted to bring up because it is obscured by any of the above, please feel free to make it again, but this time in keeping with the regulations.
Any legitimate complaints about comments I have deleted can be made here. Any made elsewhere will be deleted as they derail blog topics.
Thank you
Friday, June 4, 2010
Flaming Star
Today I was watching an old Elvis Presley western. While watching I was struck by the fact that alot of a person's actions were attributed to the colour of their skin. It occurred to me, that there were parallels between that bigotry and the bias I encounter on my blog, in regards to having to defend my reasons for being a feminist and having to defend some really radical ideas from feminists that I don't believe in. I know this could risk bringing it back to the debate "but feminism is a "CHOICE", however I don't think that is applicable and also I believe I have defended that stance adequately.
Basically it is one group of people judging a person based on a part of them that may not have anything to do with the action. For example, it has been put forth on my blog that feminists have been not so kind to people in their experience. Can you however state definitively that this is due to their feminism and not due to some other bias they themselves hold? If you cannot then how can you support this intense anger towards all feminists?
Also I wanted to ask any members of the MRA if they feel they should support all assertions of people who identify as MRA (correctly or incorecctly). For example I was reading on one MRA site a statement the blog owner made. It was something along the lines of; there is a point in arousal where a man is no longer in control of his sexual desires. (Thereby excusing rape).
Do you agree with this?
If so how do you support it?
Are you MRA?
If so do you think you should have to defend this view whether or not you agree with it (as some have claimed I have to do in regards to radical feminism claims)
Basically it is one group of people judging a person based on a part of them that may not have anything to do with the action. For example, it has been put forth on my blog that feminists have been not so kind to people in their experience. Can you however state definitively that this is due to their feminism and not due to some other bias they themselves hold? If you cannot then how can you support this intense anger towards all feminists?
Also I wanted to ask any members of the MRA if they feel they should support all assertions of people who identify as MRA (correctly or incorecctly). For example I was reading on one MRA site a statement the blog owner made. It was something along the lines of; there is a point in arousal where a man is no longer in control of his sexual desires. (Thereby excusing rape).
Do you agree with this?
If so how do you support it?
Are you MRA?
If so do you think you should have to defend this view whether or not you agree with it (as some have claimed I have to do in regards to radical feminism claims)
Choice and labels
There are two things I want to address quickly within this entry.
The first one is why I identify as a feminist. There have been a couple of people questioning my use of this label. Well basically (desire for gender equality aside) when I look at the feminist movement I see it as a fight for choice. Examples of this are as follows:
Women having voting rights, this is political choice
"My body, my choice" is self evident
I see choice as the way to achieve true equality in society. I worry less about the amount of female CEO's, although I admit this may be one way of examining if inequality in choice still exists, and more about if true choice for women (and men) exists.
As for the media display that "women can have it all" this is a flawed model that many people have drawn attention to as a flaw in feminism. Actually, feminism renounces this representation as harmful for women. Regardly of what people may have convinced themselves, feminism's job is not quite done.
Also before you ask, I support women staying at home with the children and cooking for their husband (anti-marriage aside for now) if that is their choice to do so and how they go about maximising their happiness. I don't see it as a betrayal of myself or feminism.
Furthering on from this theme the other point I wanted to address is the concept of labels. Ignore my feminist label for one moment, what if I had called myself "Egalitarian open to criticism"? Would the criticism to support ratio have inverted? In regards to the exact same views?
Just because feminism has a bad name doesn't make it a good reason to drop it as a label, in fact I feel it is even more of a reason to adopt it as a proud label and attempt to change public opinion.
The first one is why I identify as a feminist. There have been a couple of people questioning my use of this label. Well basically (desire for gender equality aside) when I look at the feminist movement I see it as a fight for choice. Examples of this are as follows:
Women having voting rights, this is political choice
"My body, my choice" is self evident
I see choice as the way to achieve true equality in society. I worry less about the amount of female CEO's, although I admit this may be one way of examining if inequality in choice still exists, and more about if true choice for women (and men) exists.
As for the media display that "women can have it all" this is a flawed model that many people have drawn attention to as a flaw in feminism. Actually, feminism renounces this representation as harmful for women. Regardly of what people may have convinced themselves, feminism's job is not quite done.
Also before you ask, I support women staying at home with the children and cooking for their husband (anti-marriage aside for now) if that is their choice to do so and how they go about maximising their happiness. I don't see it as a betrayal of myself or feminism.
Furthering on from this theme the other point I wanted to address is the concept of labels. Ignore my feminist label for one moment, what if I had called myself "Egalitarian open to criticism"? Would the criticism to support ratio have inverted? In regards to the exact same views?
Just because feminism has a bad name doesn't make it a good reason to drop it as a label, in fact I feel it is even more of a reason to adopt it as a proud label and attempt to change public opinion.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The boyfriend
It seems a lot of people are having trouble commenting on my blog, including myself and my boyfriend. So here verbatim is the comment he wanted to make. Drum roll please...
Dr. Snark: "Being a feminist is a political affiliation, not a biological fact. You CHOOSE to ally yourself with people who have made explicit their hatred for me, as a male and for no other reason. They have laughed about the idea of me being raped and genitally mutilated. They have entirely dismissed my human rights and have wished the most grotesque tortures upon me. Not for being an MRA, but for being a MAN. All the while demanding that I must stand up and fight for THEIR issues. And you proudly wear that label 'feminist' then ask me to try to understand, to sit down for a nice reasonable conversation, and to reach a compromise."
Incurablesanity: Then you aren't like any feminist I've ever met. And I've met a lot. Aligning yourself with a group in the way you do means taking responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with it. If you want an honest discussion on gender relationships don't come in waving a banner of a group that has damaged the discussion demanding you be treated differently."
AFOTC: "Well I liken this to christianity. People chose to be christian and as such align themselves with people with extreme views, such as homosexuals are evil and ruining society (marriage) etc. Do you think everyone calling themselves a christian should answer to why this is? I sure don't, I hold people accountable only for their own opinions."
Incurablesanity: "Are you saying Feminism is a faith based group or that Christianity is political? A. If feminism is faith based rational debate isn't going to happen. Just won't. So many reasons why. B. Christianity being political. Yeah I think you missed the point of religion some where. One can believe in gender equality and not be a feminist. However it is a lot harder to believe in Christ as the son of God and not be a Christian. I'm not going to debate politics and religion and where the line is here but it does exist." I think you should define what you mean by "feminist" clearly we have very different views on what this could mean."
AFOTC: "I was merely responding to your argument about choice, as in being feminist as a choice and being a man as not a choice, both feminism and christianity are choices so within that framework I think it applies."
Incurablesanity: "I really think I made my point that feminism and Christianity are not the same when it comes to being a choice."
AFOTC: "In regards to christianity and feminism, yeah I can't say much as your criticism seems to be based on the fact I can't call feminism religion or christianity politics, which I am not doing. I don't see how believing in god is not a choice.So I guess agree to disagree there. I attempted to discuss the issue with my boyfriend but he is busy with study. He said he would look at my blog and comment later, so perhaps he can help me clarify. (he is a genius apparently, 140+ IQ)."
I am the boyfriend :)
Apologies for the long list of quotes but I wanted to have (most of) the (most) relevant parts of the thread to the discussion I intend to contribute to. To start off with I would like to suggest a piece of common ground, hatred of a person due to their gender is seriously wrong ( I do not mean to suggest that it is worse than hatred for other reasons but nor do I mean to deny this). Also the treatment Dr. Snark claims to have received (and I see no reason to disbelieve his claim) from self-professed feminists is deplorable. It is of course ridiculous that there would be call to affirm this common ground but the call for it is created by the crazies who deny it rather than anyone posting here. Interestingly enough it seems that a further piece of common ground is that there is some notion of gender equality that is desirable but not fully realised or not fully realised on a broad scale. Holding this view is probably sufficient to get one labelled a ‘feminist’ among many of the people I talk to (unless you objected to being so labelled I would guess).I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only common ground or even the most important common ground, but it does seem to be common ground and it seems worthwhile to point it out.
Now to the argument between DR. Snark, IS and AFOTC (pronounced ay-FOT-chee or Cassie). It interests me since I think the posts of each suggest three different possible sorts of thing the act of identifying oneself as a feminist could be. It could either be:
1 declaring a political association,
2.identifying oneself as a member of a group define by family resemblance, or
3. it could be declaring one’s adherence to a particular ideology, world view, perspective, philosophical, political or moral position or something of that sort.
Dr. Snark is the most explicit on this in seeing feminism as a political affiliation. I suggest the second notion is implicit in incurablesanity’s suggestion that one should take responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with a group that one aligns oneself to. For if a group is defined by family resemblance then to fit the stereotypes of that group is to be a member of that group. Hence identifying with that group at least if done voluntarily is to endorse the stereotypes, and hence one should take responsibility for them. Neither 1 nor 3 would explain why someone who identifies as feminist should answer for the stereotypes of feminists in the way incurablesanity claims they should (a claim I could argue for but wont unless asked to). It seems to me that AFOTC was explicit in using feminism in the third way in her original post, and is relying on it in her analogy between feminism and Christianity. Regardless of whether one can choose to be a feminist or Christian, to call oneself a Christian is to do an act of the sort listed under 3, and AFOTC’s analogy illustrates that in general declaring adherence to an ideology (or whatever) does not require answering for the views or actions of others who share that ideology (or claim to) when those views and actions aren’t themselves endorsed.
What to make of all this? Well it means that we have to decide how to use the word ‘feminism’ if we are to distinguish valid and invalid arguments (obviously). Now this choice is not made in a vacuum not is it free from various political concerns (as incurablesanisty notes ‘feminism’ is a charged term). In fact it seems to me that the best way to understand the point of contention between Dr. Snark, incurablesanity and AFOTC (I mean the point of contention highlighted in the quotes I made at the start) is over how to understand the word feminism and I don’t think it belittles that dispute at all. I suggest that what we want is the most expedient definition of ‘feminism’ which is plausible given ordinary usage. I believe that ordinary usage of the word (at least in middle class white Australia or the bits of it I’ve seen) would support definitions of each of the three sorts I distinguished. However given that Cass started this blog to discuss ideas it seems to me that a definition of sort 3 is what is required. As for what such a definition should be I think there are two main considerations of political expediency that should be considered, first of all we want it to be easy to denounce the nasty self professed feminists of the sort everyone who has posted so far has expressed concern about. Second we want it to be easy for people with concern for gender equality to express their views. The first consideration makes me sorely tempted to define ‘feminism’ in such a way that the nasty ones don’t fall under the definition. The reason is calling these people pseudo-feminists seems to me to be a particularly effective sort of denunciation. Calling them extremist feminists might have its own advantages but ‘pseudo-feminist’ seems better to me. On the other hand defining feminism as simply a belief in gender equality seems too thin, and has the potential to alienate men from discussion of gender issues. For example masculinism (I find masculism to be an ugly abbreviation, are there any reasons for it?) would seem to have little point since masculinist’s concerns would just fall under the heading of feminism. I thus suggest two different definitions of feminism:
D1. Belief that there should be gender equality and that there should therefore be a certain level of campaigning for women.
D2. Belief that there should be a certain level of campaigning for women.
I leave what it is to campaign for women undefined to avoid excluding any views we’d want to call feminist.
Using D1 would allow us to call the nasty views discussed pseudo-feminist, using D2 we could call them extremist feminists. Either would allow AFOTC to classify herself as a feminist in order to make a political statement and neither should have any tendency to silence masculinists (in fact defining feminism this way gives a clear way to define masculinism).
“I'm all for talking to lots of people on subjects but you really just came off as "I don't get it so I'm going to ask my boyfriend and then I'll tell you what I think" Also I grew up in a household of genius. I don't care what your boyfriend's IQ is, and no one else on the internet really probably does either. I'll be interested in what he has to say, but not his IQ”
Actually I think Cass’ remark about my IQ was an attempt at wry humour on her part. Perhaps you only get that reading if you know her. In fact we were laughing at how her comment might sound to people when she told me she’d made it.
PS I typed this up last night but could not post it explaining why it does not address more recent posts.
Dr. Snark: "Being a feminist is a political affiliation, not a biological fact. You CHOOSE to ally yourself with people who have made explicit their hatred for me, as a male and for no other reason. They have laughed about the idea of me being raped and genitally mutilated. They have entirely dismissed my human rights and have wished the most grotesque tortures upon me. Not for being an MRA, but for being a MAN. All the while demanding that I must stand up and fight for THEIR issues. And you proudly wear that label 'feminist' then ask me to try to understand, to sit down for a nice reasonable conversation, and to reach a compromise."
Incurablesanity: Then you aren't like any feminist I've ever met. And I've met a lot. Aligning yourself with a group in the way you do means taking responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with it. If you want an honest discussion on gender relationships don't come in waving a banner of a group that has damaged the discussion demanding you be treated differently."
AFOTC: "Well I liken this to christianity. People chose to be christian and as such align themselves with people with extreme views, such as homosexuals are evil and ruining society (marriage) etc. Do you think everyone calling themselves a christian should answer to why this is? I sure don't, I hold people accountable only for their own opinions."
Incurablesanity: "Are you saying Feminism is a faith based group or that Christianity is political? A. If feminism is faith based rational debate isn't going to happen. Just won't. So many reasons why. B. Christianity being political. Yeah I think you missed the point of religion some where. One can believe in gender equality and not be a feminist. However it is a lot harder to believe in Christ as the son of God and not be a Christian. I'm not going to debate politics and religion and where the line is here but it does exist." I think you should define what you mean by "feminist" clearly we have very different views on what this could mean."
AFOTC: "I was merely responding to your argument about choice, as in being feminist as a choice and being a man as not a choice, both feminism and christianity are choices so within that framework I think it applies."
Incurablesanity: "I really think I made my point that feminism and Christianity are not the same when it comes to being a choice."
AFOTC: "In regards to christianity and feminism, yeah I can't say much as your criticism seems to be based on the fact I can't call feminism religion or christianity politics, which I am not doing. I don't see how believing in god is not a choice.So I guess agree to disagree there. I attempted to discuss the issue with my boyfriend but he is busy with study. He said he would look at my blog and comment later, so perhaps he can help me clarify. (he is a genius apparently, 140+ IQ)."
I am the boyfriend :)
Apologies for the long list of quotes but I wanted to have (most of) the (most) relevant parts of the thread to the discussion I intend to contribute to. To start off with I would like to suggest a piece of common ground, hatred of a person due to their gender is seriously wrong ( I do not mean to suggest that it is worse than hatred for other reasons but nor do I mean to deny this). Also the treatment Dr. Snark claims to have received (and I see no reason to disbelieve his claim) from self-professed feminists is deplorable. It is of course ridiculous that there would be call to affirm this common ground but the call for it is created by the crazies who deny it rather than anyone posting here. Interestingly enough it seems that a further piece of common ground is that there is some notion of gender equality that is desirable but not fully realised or not fully realised on a broad scale. Holding this view is probably sufficient to get one labelled a ‘feminist’ among many of the people I talk to (unless you objected to being so labelled I would guess).I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only common ground or even the most important common ground, but it does seem to be common ground and it seems worthwhile to point it out.
Now to the argument between DR. Snark, IS and AFOTC (pronounced ay-FOT-chee or Cassie). It interests me since I think the posts of each suggest three different possible sorts of thing the act of identifying oneself as a feminist could be. It could either be:
1 declaring a political association,
2.identifying oneself as a member of a group define by family resemblance, or
3. it could be declaring one’s adherence to a particular ideology, world view, perspective, philosophical, political or moral position or something of that sort.
Dr. Snark is the most explicit on this in seeing feminism as a political affiliation. I suggest the second notion is implicit in incurablesanity’s suggestion that one should take responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with a group that one aligns oneself to. For if a group is defined by family resemblance then to fit the stereotypes of that group is to be a member of that group. Hence identifying with that group at least if done voluntarily is to endorse the stereotypes, and hence one should take responsibility for them. Neither 1 nor 3 would explain why someone who identifies as feminist should answer for the stereotypes of feminists in the way incurablesanity claims they should (a claim I could argue for but wont unless asked to). It seems to me that AFOTC was explicit in using feminism in the third way in her original post, and is relying on it in her analogy between feminism and Christianity. Regardless of whether one can choose to be a feminist or Christian, to call oneself a Christian is to do an act of the sort listed under 3, and AFOTC’s analogy illustrates that in general declaring adherence to an ideology (or whatever) does not require answering for the views or actions of others who share that ideology (or claim to) when those views and actions aren’t themselves endorsed.
What to make of all this? Well it means that we have to decide how to use the word ‘feminism’ if we are to distinguish valid and invalid arguments (obviously). Now this choice is not made in a vacuum not is it free from various political concerns (as incurablesanisty notes ‘feminism’ is a charged term). In fact it seems to me that the best way to understand the point of contention between Dr. Snark, incurablesanity and AFOTC (I mean the point of contention highlighted in the quotes I made at the start) is over how to understand the word feminism and I don’t think it belittles that dispute at all. I suggest that what we want is the most expedient definition of ‘feminism’ which is plausible given ordinary usage. I believe that ordinary usage of the word (at least in middle class white Australia or the bits of it I’ve seen) would support definitions of each of the three sorts I distinguished. However given that Cass started this blog to discuss ideas it seems to me that a definition of sort 3 is what is required. As for what such a definition should be I think there are two main considerations of political expediency that should be considered, first of all we want it to be easy to denounce the nasty self professed feminists of the sort everyone who has posted so far has expressed concern about. Second we want it to be easy for people with concern for gender equality to express their views. The first consideration makes me sorely tempted to define ‘feminism’ in such a way that the nasty ones don’t fall under the definition. The reason is calling these people pseudo-feminists seems to me to be a particularly effective sort of denunciation. Calling them extremist feminists might have its own advantages but ‘pseudo-feminist’ seems better to me. On the other hand defining feminism as simply a belief in gender equality seems too thin, and has the potential to alienate men from discussion of gender issues. For example masculinism (I find masculism to be an ugly abbreviation, are there any reasons for it?) would seem to have little point since masculinist’s concerns would just fall under the heading of feminism. I thus suggest two different definitions of feminism:
D1. Belief that there should be gender equality and that there should therefore be a certain level of campaigning for women.
D2. Belief that there should be a certain level of campaigning for women.
I leave what it is to campaign for women undefined to avoid excluding any views we’d want to call feminist.
Using D1 would allow us to call the nasty views discussed pseudo-feminist, using D2 we could call them extremist feminists. Either would allow AFOTC to classify herself as a feminist in order to make a political statement and neither should have any tendency to silence masculinists (in fact defining feminism this way gives a clear way to define masculinism).
“I'm all for talking to lots of people on subjects but you really just came off as "I don't get it so I'm going to ask my boyfriend and then I'll tell you what I think" Also I grew up in a household of genius. I don't care what your boyfriend's IQ is, and no one else on the internet really probably does either. I'll be interested in what he has to say, but not his IQ”
Actually I think Cass’ remark about my IQ was an attempt at wry humour on her part. Perhaps you only get that reading if you know her. In fact we were laughing at how her comment might sound to people when she told me she’d made it.
PS I typed this up last night but could not post it explaining why it does not address more recent posts.
Having issues making comments on previous post
This is a response to the latest issues raised in my previous post titled "A little bit disheartening" as I am unable to comment for some reason.
@ Incurablesanity
"You are drawing parallels between feminism and Christianity. I'm arguing that it is a faulty parallel."
Ok since we seem to disagree on this point I will move towards a more politically based example. I identify myself as part of left wing politics. One of the views held within the left wing doctrines is that we should overthrow our capitalist government. I am of the belief this is too extreme and won't help anything. So since I am left wing should I be held accountable and expected to defend this point of view that I obviously don't hold myself? I don't think so
"Why do you CONSIDER yourself a feminist? When so many other groups believe in gender equality why do you affiliate yourself with that group?"
What do you see as the alternative labels I could give myself?
"If you want to engage in a logical debate don't just dismiss things because someone misunderstood you."
It is certainly not my intention to dismiss things, sometimes I simply don't know how to respond to a point brought up, due to various factors. As I have stated before I don't like giving definitive answers before I can conduct adequate research into the topic.
@ Fidelbogen
"Oppression" of "women" may or may not exist, depending on how you define oppression and women. (This could be a long essay!)
Please elaborate, it sounds fascinating! (no sarcasm intended)
"Are you familiar with the expression that "men can suffer, but they cannot be oppressed"?"
I was not familiar with that statement but it is interesting, what would you like to talk about in regards to this?
Social contract, hmmm, I know only the basics of this concepts, please point me int he direction of some informative literature so I am better able to respond to this point.
"I would be interested to know on what basis you argue that. In the meantime, can we keep the discussion narrow? This is about men and women, not animals, etc."
I brought up animals only as a side note, in that I don't like to present a bias towards nonhuman animals.
In regards to the moral duty I feel I have it is based on one main thing. My position in life. I was born into advantage, while some people were not. I have a roof over my head, food in my belly and love in my heart. More importantly I have access to educational institutions and resources and political empowerment. I have the equipment necessary to change things for people who aren't necessarily positioned well to change things for themselves. I have encountered some hardship and suffering in my life, but do consider myself very lucky, and attempt not to value my own happiness over that of others. I really do desire happiness for everyone.
"I just wanted to plant that in your head for future reference, because it is an important concept. What the future bodes is not men "hating" women, but simply shrugging their shoulders, dusting their hands off, and turning their backs."
I suppose it is a person's right to choose to be indifferent, I however, believe that indifference is the partner of ignorance, and both working together are the cause of many major issues in society today. As such I will keep my determination, my compassion and my empathy alive. Simply put I will continue to care, even if others don't.
@ Factory
"I think what you're missing here AFOTC, is that your 'role' right now is to actually understand men's issues BEFORE you place women's issues above them."
Where did I say I place women's issues above men's issues?
"This is a mistake many 'earnest Feminists' commonly make, and I hope the next 'wave' of you correct said mistake."
The next wave of feminism appears to be the post feminist. I am quite alarmed.
"It destroys your credibility almost immediately when you display stunning ignorance, and refusal to learn."
I have never denied I am ignorant about certain issues (who isn't? It is impossible to know everything), but as I have stated before and will again I am sure, if you identify ignroances in me please point me in the direction of some information. A major reason in creating this blog is that I want to learn.
"And while I admit you are not the best example of this, er, 'stunned refusal', you are most certainly also neither the first, nor the last."
This seems to contradict itself, please rephrase.
"I will state categorically that you have NO IDEA what the mens movement is about, you just want us to stop and 'think of the wimminz'. It's also probably a bit weird to have man after man look at you and ask "Why the fuck should I? What have women done for me?". And now Feminists are noticing this might affect THEM too, and can't understand the generalized social hostility Feminists have EARNED."
Please rephrase, I don't really understand the point you are trying to make in this paragraph.
"As humbling as it may be, your role, IF you have any at all in these matters, is predicated on you actually knowing what you're talking about."
Everyone has a role in the policy making and legislation of a democratic nation.
Also how do I ever "know what I am talking about" without asking questions?
"So, I ask you...can you name 5 things the Mens Movement is working on, and what your position is on them?"
I am not going to respond to this "test". It is absurd.
I see it as your role in this discussion to enlighten me on the causes of MRA, to show me a perspective that differs from my own, or maybe doesn't who can know until we address the issues?
My role on the otherhand is to respond to these issues from the position of feminism. It is not my duty to know everything straight away.
@ Incurablesanity
"You are drawing parallels between feminism and Christianity. I'm arguing that it is a faulty parallel."
Ok since we seem to disagree on this point I will move towards a more politically based example. I identify myself as part of left wing politics. One of the views held within the left wing doctrines is that we should overthrow our capitalist government. I am of the belief this is too extreme and won't help anything. So since I am left wing should I be held accountable and expected to defend this point of view that I obviously don't hold myself? I don't think so
"Why do you CONSIDER yourself a feminist? When so many other groups believe in gender equality why do you affiliate yourself with that group?"
What do you see as the alternative labels I could give myself?
"If you want to engage in a logical debate don't just dismiss things because someone misunderstood you."
It is certainly not my intention to dismiss things, sometimes I simply don't know how to respond to a point brought up, due to various factors. As I have stated before I don't like giving definitive answers before I can conduct adequate research into the topic.
@ Fidelbogen
"Oppression" of "women" may or may not exist, depending on how you define oppression and women. (This could be a long essay!)
Please elaborate, it sounds fascinating! (no sarcasm intended)
"Are you familiar with the expression that "men can suffer, but they cannot be oppressed"?"
I was not familiar with that statement but it is interesting, what would you like to talk about in regards to this?
Social contract, hmmm, I know only the basics of this concepts, please point me int he direction of some informative literature so I am better able to respond to this point.
"I would be interested to know on what basis you argue that. In the meantime, can we keep the discussion narrow? This is about men and women, not animals, etc."
I brought up animals only as a side note, in that I don't like to present a bias towards nonhuman animals.
In regards to the moral duty I feel I have it is based on one main thing. My position in life. I was born into advantage, while some people were not. I have a roof over my head, food in my belly and love in my heart. More importantly I have access to educational institutions and resources and political empowerment. I have the equipment necessary to change things for people who aren't necessarily positioned well to change things for themselves. I have encountered some hardship and suffering in my life, but do consider myself very lucky, and attempt not to value my own happiness over that of others. I really do desire happiness for everyone.
"I just wanted to plant that in your head for future reference, because it is an important concept. What the future bodes is not men "hating" women, but simply shrugging their shoulders, dusting their hands off, and turning their backs."
I suppose it is a person's right to choose to be indifferent, I however, believe that indifference is the partner of ignorance, and both working together are the cause of many major issues in society today. As such I will keep my determination, my compassion and my empathy alive. Simply put I will continue to care, even if others don't.
@ Factory
"I think what you're missing here AFOTC, is that your 'role' right now is to actually understand men's issues BEFORE you place women's issues above them."
Where did I say I place women's issues above men's issues?
"This is a mistake many 'earnest Feminists' commonly make, and I hope the next 'wave' of you correct said mistake."
The next wave of feminism appears to be the post feminist. I am quite alarmed.
"It destroys your credibility almost immediately when you display stunning ignorance, and refusal to learn."
I have never denied I am ignorant about certain issues (who isn't? It is impossible to know everything), but as I have stated before and will again I am sure, if you identify ignroances in me please point me in the direction of some information. A major reason in creating this blog is that I want to learn.
"And while I admit you are not the best example of this, er, 'stunned refusal', you are most certainly also neither the first, nor the last."
This seems to contradict itself, please rephrase.
"I will state categorically that you have NO IDEA what the mens movement is about, you just want us to stop and 'think of the wimminz'. It's also probably a bit weird to have man after man look at you and ask "Why the fuck should I? What have women done for me?". And now Feminists are noticing this might affect THEM too, and can't understand the generalized social hostility Feminists have EARNED."
Please rephrase, I don't really understand the point you are trying to make in this paragraph.
"As humbling as it may be, your role, IF you have any at all in these matters, is predicated on you actually knowing what you're talking about."
Everyone has a role in the policy making and legislation of a democratic nation.
Also how do I ever "know what I am talking about" without asking questions?
"So, I ask you...can you name 5 things the Mens Movement is working on, and what your position is on them?"
I am not going to respond to this "test". It is absurd.
I see it as your role in this discussion to enlighten me on the causes of MRA, to show me a perspective that differs from my own, or maybe doesn't who can know until we address the issues?
My role on the otherhand is to respond to these issues from the position of feminism. It is not my duty to know everything straight away.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A little bit disheartening
I am an idealist, a hopeless dreamer.
I am discovering this more and more about myself as I surf the net in regards to issues of feminism. I encounter such raw unsheathed hatred towards myself because of my gender and my political leanings. I was aware misogyny existed. However these men are so embittered from not being heard (allegedly) that when I give them a chance to do so, I get slammed and banned. It is wham, bam, thank you ma'am at a new level.
To illustrate my view of the wrongness in woman bashing due to alleged misandry I will outline a personal example. I am white and I don't hate black people for hating white people because they hated black people. That kind of thinking just perpetuates a cycle of hatred, which I want to destroy. Certain individuals however seem to be doing just that, hating women, because women hated men because they hated women. It is absurd to those of sound mind.
I am becoming disenchanted with the notion of ever reaching anyone and convincing them to do away with that useless, harmful hatred. Give up on the self pity, and do something useful. However, in this absurd world I found myself in one day, saying that to a man may be seen as oppression.
So I ask you this, is everything oppression?
I am discovering this more and more about myself as I surf the net in regards to issues of feminism. I encounter such raw unsheathed hatred towards myself because of my gender and my political leanings. I was aware misogyny existed. However these men are so embittered from not being heard (allegedly) that when I give them a chance to do so, I get slammed and banned. It is wham, bam, thank you ma'am at a new level.
To illustrate my view of the wrongness in woman bashing due to alleged misandry I will outline a personal example. I am white and I don't hate black people for hating white people because they hated black people. That kind of thinking just perpetuates a cycle of hatred, which I want to destroy. Certain individuals however seem to be doing just that, hating women, because women hated men because they hated women. It is absurd to those of sound mind.
I am becoming disenchanted with the notion of ever reaching anyone and convincing them to do away with that useless, harmful hatred. Give up on the self pity, and do something useful. However, in this absurd world I found myself in one day, saying that to a man may be seen as oppression.
So I ask you this, is everything oppression?
Response to comments on previous post
I am impressed and slightly overwhelmed, I went from 0 responses yesterday to 7 today. I will do my best to address all the issues raised here.
@Dr Snark
Firstly, please keep sarcastic insulting off of my blog, it isn't useful in debate, it can create hostilities which I am attempting to end.
"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?"
Well the issue is that i don't believe it is a stereotype, it is self evident that all humans have the potential to do things such as rape and murder. I as a feminist and a female am also putting myself within this category. I do not seek to dehumanise you or anyone else, of course people who have morals (generally) do not engage in such behaviours and I have nothing but respect for moral people.
You seem to be unable to view my blog in an objective light that would actually encourage thought and you are taking out your hate and anger on me when it is unfounded to do so. If you can find studies to show that men and women are not all potential rapists I would be interested in that reading, but as it stands you object to my statement based on personal offense (which was not intended).
If by the harm done by such stereotypes is the radical feminists putting it out as fact without adding women into the statement then yes I agree with you, and is in fact the point I was making.
@beardreel
I am sadly ignorant on these kind of issues (I have been doing some study into it recently but it is still very rudimentary). If you could point me in the direction of articles which could cure me of the affliction of ignorance I would appreciate it.
I will put forth my own thoughts on the matter though, purely speculating. To begin with I don't like the laws which give mothers an advantage in court proceedings, I would like to see that become more equal. I am very concerned with the happiness of both men and women within our society.
On the health side, in Australia we have a month dedicated to prostate cancer and male depression called "movember". I think that it is a good start, I know men have more issues seeking medical help (in particular for depression) then women due to gender stereotypes and roles. Part of my desire is to minimise the impact of gender stereotypes on both men and women.
In regards to my anti-monogamy views, it ties in with my view against marriage. When I speak about poly relationships I don't mean backward mormon ideals that allow a man to have many wives but prevent a woman from having many husbands, of course that is oppressive. I mean I support the right of people to have many sexual or emotional relationships and be protected by law. As it stands the best way of moving towards this more free society would be to dissolve the institution of marriage.
My experience of poly as it stands is limited, however I am in a relationship where both myself and my boyfriend are free to pursue sexual relations outside of the relationship.
@Will.S
I have thought long and hard about religion and its influence over my life and the life of others. It isn't a choice I came to suddenly based on my dislike of religious dogma. There was a time when I used to sit in silence and listen to christians tell me that I am evil because i sleep with members of the same sex and practise sex before marriage and other such things. Today however I do so less and there are a couple of reasons for this, I didn't just decide to discount religion entirely one day.
Firstly, I have never encountered anyone who believes everything in the bible (eg execution of adulterers and homosexuals) as such I am forced to view the parts of the bible they do believe in as part of personal bias rather then part of a definitive religious text.
I of course recognise that everyone has their own sets of bias, including myself, but I seek to neutralise bias in discussion, both in myself and others.
Secondly, I view religion as a type of oppression, where I support people living what lifestyle they think promotes their own individual happiness, such as living monogamous lives due to religion our other lifestyle choices, christians with the influence of the bible seek to force a way of living upon me, which I think limits the freedoms I should have.
Thirdly if the bible was viewed as it is, a text written 2000 years ago, it would aid my feminist ideals as societal values and norms of 2000 years ago are hardly going to be seen to be aplicable now.
@Fidelbogen
I don't support an anti-monogamist state, I support a pro poly state. I oppose monogamy only as it stands now as an enforced way of life by the government and such institutions as marriage. As I said previously I support people living in monogamy if that is the way they find happiness.
I plan to co-exist with pro-monogamists by accepting their right to have control over their own sexual life but opposing their right to have control over mine. I shall as I do now, pursue a life that maximises happiness for myself in a moral way.
@Dr Snark
Firstly, please keep sarcastic insulting off of my blog, it isn't useful in debate, it can create hostilities which I am attempting to end.
"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?"
Well the issue is that i don't believe it is a stereotype, it is self evident that all humans have the potential to do things such as rape and murder. I as a feminist and a female am also putting myself within this category. I do not seek to dehumanise you or anyone else, of course people who have morals (generally) do not engage in such behaviours and I have nothing but respect for moral people.
You seem to be unable to view my blog in an objective light that would actually encourage thought and you are taking out your hate and anger on me when it is unfounded to do so. If you can find studies to show that men and women are not all potential rapists I would be interested in that reading, but as it stands you object to my statement based on personal offense (which was not intended).
If by the harm done by such stereotypes is the radical feminists putting it out as fact without adding women into the statement then yes I agree with you, and is in fact the point I was making.
@beardreel
I am sadly ignorant on these kind of issues (I have been doing some study into it recently but it is still very rudimentary). If you could point me in the direction of articles which could cure me of the affliction of ignorance I would appreciate it.
I will put forth my own thoughts on the matter though, purely speculating. To begin with I don't like the laws which give mothers an advantage in court proceedings, I would like to see that become more equal. I am very concerned with the happiness of both men and women within our society.
On the health side, in Australia we have a month dedicated to prostate cancer and male depression called "movember". I think that it is a good start, I know men have more issues seeking medical help (in particular for depression) then women due to gender stereotypes and roles. Part of my desire is to minimise the impact of gender stereotypes on both men and women.
In regards to my anti-monogamy views, it ties in with my view against marriage. When I speak about poly relationships I don't mean backward mormon ideals that allow a man to have many wives but prevent a woman from having many husbands, of course that is oppressive. I mean I support the right of people to have many sexual or emotional relationships and be protected by law. As it stands the best way of moving towards this more free society would be to dissolve the institution of marriage.
My experience of poly as it stands is limited, however I am in a relationship where both myself and my boyfriend are free to pursue sexual relations outside of the relationship.
@Will.S
I have thought long and hard about religion and its influence over my life and the life of others. It isn't a choice I came to suddenly based on my dislike of religious dogma. There was a time when I used to sit in silence and listen to christians tell me that I am evil because i sleep with members of the same sex and practise sex before marriage and other such things. Today however I do so less and there are a couple of reasons for this, I didn't just decide to discount religion entirely one day.
Firstly, I have never encountered anyone who believes everything in the bible (eg execution of adulterers and homosexuals) as such I am forced to view the parts of the bible they do believe in as part of personal bias rather then part of a definitive religious text.
I of course recognise that everyone has their own sets of bias, including myself, but I seek to neutralise bias in discussion, both in myself and others.
Secondly, I view religion as a type of oppression, where I support people living what lifestyle they think promotes their own individual happiness, such as living monogamous lives due to religion our other lifestyle choices, christians with the influence of the bible seek to force a way of living upon me, which I think limits the freedoms I should have.
Thirdly if the bible was viewed as it is, a text written 2000 years ago, it would aid my feminist ideals as societal values and norms of 2000 years ago are hardly going to be seen to be aplicable now.
@Fidelbogen
I don't support an anti-monogamist state, I support a pro poly state. I oppose monogamy only as it stands now as an enforced way of life by the government and such institutions as marriage. As I said previously I support people living in monogamy if that is the way they find happiness.
I plan to co-exist with pro-monogamists by accepting their right to have control over their own sexual life but opposing their right to have control over mine. I shall as I do now, pursue a life that maximises happiness for myself in a moral way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)