I just dont think that "reasonable" should be limited to "things that LadyLuck agrees with."
I never said it was. I said that I don't believe it's reasonable, therefore I don't think its a fair standard to impose. I never said you weren't allowed to disagree with me, nor did I say I was the end-all, be-all authority on what is reasonable and not. Again, people WILL disagree on what is reasonable, and that's why we debate and discuss it.
I was just reading an article on how feminists erase male victims by labeling a women raping a man "initiating sex via force/coercion" and then justifying this by stating that "unwanted sex is not the same thing as rape, rape is an act of class oppression". If you still cant grasp how badly feminism poisons pretty much everything in our culture with misandry and gynocentrism your a lost cause people.
I was just reading an article on how feminists erase male victims by labeling a women raping a man "initiating sex via force/coercion" and then justifying this by stating that "unwanted sex is not the same thing as rape, rape is an act of class oppression". If you still cant grasp how badly feminism poisons pretty much everything in our culture with misandry and gynocentrism your a lost cause people.
I'm sure there are some feminists that do what you describe, but I'm equally sure that the vast majority do not.
I wouldn't think MRAs would really want to follow the principle "A movement is as bad as its worst member".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I was just reading an article on how feminists erase male victims by labeling a women raping a man "initiating sex via force/coercion" and then justifying this by stating that "unwanted sex is not the same thing as rape, rape is an act of class oppression". If you still cant grasp how badly feminism poisons pretty much everything in our culture with misandry and gynocentrism your a lost cause people.
You sure seem to 'read' a lot of 'feminist articles' that you never then link to. Maybe you want to consider, you know, doing that? Given that the quotes you just used bring me back to... this forum when I try to replicate the results in Google you either need to get better at using quotation marks or just post the articles here so we can also read what you read.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Grant-I'm sure there are some feminists that do what you describe, but I'm equally sure that the vast majority do not.
The problem is the modern feminist worldview, claims, and beliefs are shaped by this though even if modern feminists like yourself do not agree with that definition of rape.
I wouldn't think MRAs would really want to follow the principle "A movement is as bad as its worst member".
The worst members of the MRA that have any influence are paid via private donations and work on the internet. The worst members of feminism enjoyed positions in academia and government and shaped popular culture, sociology, government and legal policy, and research on social issues such as DV and rape.
You sure seem to 'read' a lot of 'feminist articles' that you never then link to. Maybe you want to consider, you know, doing that? Given that the quotes you just used bring me back to... this forum when I try to replicate the results in Google you either need to get better at using quotation marks or just post the articles here so we can also read what you read.
Look at the work of Straus concerning gender symmetry in IPV, in particular his criticisms of IPV research.
"We should not frame and interpret research in the absence of well-accepted historical and political realities." Seriously they have actually found a way via mental gymnastics to justify sticking to stereotypes and disregarding reality.
The feminist argument I have seen to justify this kind of crap is roughly equivalent to conflating a car accident to intentionally running someone over because in both cases someone dies.
[LEFT][SIZE=2][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]"We should not frame and interpret research in the absence of well-accepted historical and political realities."[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Seriously they have actually found a way via mental gymnastics to justify sticking to stereotypes and disregarding reality.[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]
Yeah, that line really jumped out as odd. The entire thrust of the article seems really circular also - Man on Woman violence has a different "etiology" than Woman on Man violence, and so it deserves its own category. But by relying on the fact that women are different, it paints them into their separate corner where equality is impossible. It seems like feminists argue on the intrinsic differences of women when they are trying to claim some preferential treatment above what men receive, while highlighting the principle of equality where they perceive that their condition is behind that of men. In the end, they're just taking whatever argument advances any and all interests of the constituency of women, regardless of whether the principles are consistent.
In my eye as well, it seems like that camp would have to actually make the case that the "etiology" of Man on Woman violence is actually different, rather than just stating so as supported by the quantity of gender-based studies. Extra points because "etiology" is just a fancy word for "cause", and absolutely no information about the causes of the violence are cited, or even mentioned. But what do you know, it's actually possible that women and men are similar, and violence and control issues over another person may be caused by a common element of objectification, expectations, lack of empathy, etc. Apparently though, Man on Woman violence happens because of the gender stereotypes that promote male dominance and control (related to tobacco use of all things, as stated in the last page). Oh, and that men are just as damaged by these stereotypes of male dominance as women, because... (correlation statistics). Nevermind that Woman on Man violence may or may not have causation or "etiology" in gender based stereotypes as well, such as I don't know, the Homer Simpson image of male'ness that doesn't do housework, is inept and underqualified for his job, but is nevertheless expected to shoulder a financial burden. Taking actual incidents of Woman on Man violence, it's intuitively likely that they be occurring very often over finances, housework, and general expectations arising from a the gender stereotypes and gender roles ascribed to men, rather than by men.
No, the only gender stereotypes that are harmful in the eye of this group are the ones about male dominance and control. And of course, men are held out as the unwitting victims of that set of stereotypes as well, above and beyond whatever victimization stems from their own gender stereotypes. If an onlooker is looking for a resolution of all gender stereotypes, don't look to the feminism movement. It's about punishing one type of stereotype (those of male power), while perpetuating its own set of stereotypes (those of male ineptitude). It's just utterly discredited itself by this inconsistency.
I couldn't care less what you think of the messenger please attack the message if you disagree.
That's pretty accurate, I've read several pieces before expressing the same thing in both similar and different terms. The key points of everything I've read about the argument over definition of rape is:
1. Feminists want exclusivity in both definition of rape and in setting the parameters of any discussion on it. They want to fight on their terms on their holy ground with the ability to both concretely define rape as well as leave it liquid enough to change the definition as it suits them.
2. Rape is for some what racism is for others, a subject which can be used in the pursuit of victimization for social/political power and leverage. They take a subject that is horrible and vile and weaponize it using the trauma of the act and the spectre of fear of not being appropriately outraged and activist about it to push the social and political efforts in directions that feminists prefer.
3. In tandem with points 1 and 2 feminists want to be able to resort to a wholly emotional expression of outrage if their messaging fails in order to subdue dissent against their views. Attempts are made to turn the tables on the dissenters to imply guilt of association to them, as if when you disagree with the feminists on what rape is and what its broader context is you're somehow sympathethic to rapists yourself. It's dishonest in both moral and intellectual aspects and smacks of the desperation of shame which is employed by others to achieve their ends.
These reasons above are why I have issues with them and really anyone whose life or job turns into this very thing. People whose education, career and upbringing are all centralized in feminism, racism and the such have all their eggs in one basket and make me question their honesty when they resort to the kinds of tactics and groupthink as above. Professional victimization does more harm to these hotbed topics than anything and actually help to dilute the horrors and impact of the acts they seek to highlight and address.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman.
So, when a man is explaining something to a woman that they evidently share knowledge about, then he's perpetuating hundreds of years of female oppression. Instead when speaking to a woman, he should ask her opinion first, give her an opportunity to assert her authority on the subject, and quietly accept what she says in the event she considers herself to have any qualifications.
This looks almost exactly like the worst communities of class oppression used to look.
First of all, the term seems to have first entered usage when a man explained the contents of a book to a woman who, unknown to him, had actually authored the book. What place the idea of gender had in this situation, if any, is never actually stated, presumably because there's nothing to show that it was real. The woman simply assumes it on the idea that "every woman knows what I'm talking about". The man made an unwitting mistake, the subject of which was a woman, and so of course, gender oppression. The basic equation of feminism - man does wrong to woman, man is sexist.
On the point of innocent mistakes versus overt oppression, I think it's just about the defining trait of a college know-it-all hipster to explain things to everyone as if they were an expert on everything. Apparently, I have never tried such and such beer, and I need to be explained how good it is. An Iraq war veteran is maybe standing next to them, and what will come out is - Oh, I read this article about soldiers in Iraq and let me tell you... so forth. Often enough, these things don't get recanted. That's what we get in a society like this where lots of young people have been dealt out, while being told into their thirties by their parents how special they are. Sounds like a good opportunity for discussion on the value and role of education in expanding one's horizons. Instead though, no, the feminist diatribe is more important. He's not a douchebag because he's a douchebag. He's a douchebag because he's a man. Perfect sense.
Obviously this is intended mostly for political issues. Instances like Todd Akin who speak up and talk about "legitimate" rape, or male senators making misguided appeals to emotion about birth control law. But strangely in backlash instead, there seems to be no limit to female authority on the sections of the debate that they've claimed for themselves. If you're not a woman, you don't get to say anything about it or have an opinion. Not even if you're objectively qualified....
That's right. So just because you're a doctor, if you happen to be male as well , you're mansplaining when you talk about the female reproductive system. Likewise when you talk about the capacity for physical strain between the genders, you're mansplaining. You don't know what it's like, so your opinion doesn't matter. If you're a sociologist, and you happen to be a male, what your statistics say about what women want or how women vote is mansplaining. If you're a male evolutionary biologist and you have a gender-related opinion having to do with natural selection, you're mansplaining. Particularly if you're a religious leader, if you happen to be a man, your opinion on the social roles of women in what your religion views as the ideal society is mansplaining. Being a man disqualifies you from making any authoritative statement about women. Only women have a right to talk.
The subjective, emotionally-backed intuition of a woman is being held to such a degree of authority that it defies all logic.
Wow, that rant is some grade A purestrain right there.
For those of you who skipped over the wall of text it's worth a look. It covers: Mansplaining, hipsters, and concludes on woman's intuition.
Spam infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman.
Really? I thought it was more specific then that - in particular, it is the act of talking about how someone else thinks or feels, in direct contradiction to how the person in question has stated they think/feel. Mansplaining is not a man saying "I think abortion is wrong"; a better example would be a man telling a woman "All women think abortion is wrong" after she claims she's pro-choice. Alternatively, when a woman claims she was raped and others claim that she secretly enjoyed it because all raped victims are secretly just ****s. The first is stating a personal opinion, which everyone has the right to. The second is Person A trying to invalidate the Person B's opinion through a generalization about a group B belongs to but A does not.
It's pretty silly to make unsubstantiated generalizations about ANY group, even one you're part of, since groups are not uniform monoliths. But it is extra egregious when the group is one you're not even part of, and thus can't claim knowledge from basic life experience. The line is simple, to me - I can think whatever I want, and express it... but it becomes a douche move when I start claiming to know what someone else thinks better then they themselves do.
Women have the capacity to get extra health care for maternal needs and maternity leave: check
There's women in every type of career: check (except probably male modeling, but then again, transvestites and hermaphrodites).
Wealth gap has decreased: check
Doesn't look failed to me.
Both sides will have extremes, but the thing to realize is that a few bad apples don't spoil the bunch, and there is intentional inequality it appears with pay, birth control and what appears to be an entire political party, just in the US. Elsewhere in religious societies, there's definitely social inequalities with usually men having advantages, but occasionally you have a matriarchal society as well. Although, there does seem to be some evidence to suggest woman are better at learning languages and men are better at spacial reasoning, but that's about it as far as real stereotypical differences go, other than the physical differences like hormone balance and physical structure.
Ladyluck-I've seen the term used exactly the way Justice 1337 states and never in the extremely narrow way you suggest, he's not wrong.
It's pretty silly to make unsubstantiated generalizations about ANY group, even one you're part of, since groups are not uniform monoliths. But it is extra egregious when the group is one you're not even part of, and thus can't claim knowledge from basic life experience.
Why would feminists have had to name it "man"splaining then? Why assign a gender to it? Does the irony ever get through to you?
In addition feminism IS MANSPLAINING (by your definition) to any man who has tried to correct their absurd assertions about how easy men have it or what problems men face.
Chenjesu-Could you please name one of these matriarchal societies?
explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman.
Really? I thought it was more specific then that - in particular, it is the act of talking about how someone else thinks or feels, in direct contradiction to how the person in question has stated they think/feel. Mansplaining is not a man saying "I think abortion is wrong"; a better example would be a man telling a woman "All women think abortion is wrong" after she claims she's pro-choice. Alternatively, when a woman claims she was raped and others claim that she secretly enjoyed it because all raped victims are secretly just ****s. The first is stating a personal opinion, which everyone has the right to. The second is Person A trying to invalidate the Person B's opinion through a generalization about a group B belongs to but A does not.
It's pretty silly to make unsubstantiated generalizations about ANY group, even one you're part of, since groups are not uniform monoliths. But it is extra egregious when the group is one you're not even part of, and thus can't claim knowledge from basic life experience. The line is simple, to me - I can think whatever I want, and express it... but it becomes a douche move when I start claiming to know what someone else thinks better then they themselves do.
Well, I don't specifically disagree that someone telling another how they feel is a phenomenon that actually happens, or that it's a total douche move when it does happen. But there is definitely a problem with sexism when it's given a term like "mansplaining", since it's a complaint that's specifically pointed at men.
...the out-and-out confrontational confidence of the totally ignorant is, in my experience, gendered.
Right, any time confidence and ignorance exist in the same place, it's male. Not just that it's a douche move, or harmful, but that it's male. And men, ostensibly, should know their place.
But explaining men still assume that I am, in some sort of obscene impregnation metaphor, an empty vessel to be filled with their wisdom and knowledge. A Freudian would claim to know what they have and I lack, but intelligence is not situated in the crotch -- even if you can write one of Virginia Woolf's long mellifluous musical sentences about the subtle subjugation of women in the snow with your willie.
So even more vulgar, men do this because they have a *****, and they all think with their *****. But guys, why don't you get it? Your ***** isn't smart. It's stupid. Know your place....
This was possibly the most offensive:
More extreme versions of this syndrome exist in, for example, those Islamic countries where women's testimony has no legal standing; so that a woman can't testify that she was raped without a male witness to counter the male rapist. Which there rarely is.
Right. So, a know it all douchbag is the same as Shari'a law. How? Because they're both male. Nothing else. Just that both behaviors happen to be done by males. When a woman is the know it all douchebag, that's something else. But when it's a male who is, that's the same as Shari'a law. Worse yet, don't forget that this behavior is "gendered". Any time someone speaks out when they don't know what they're talking about, it's a man. Women, by definition, can never do this.... And that's the message Feminism is giving people?
So, it isn't to say that men can't be douchebags. An unbiased view would acknowledge that possibility, and attribute it to something other than gender. But the thrust of the thread has been about how Feminism has become a force to perpetuate its own gender stereotypes, ones related to men where they are an amalgamation of Homer Simpson and Hugh Heffner - stupid, shallow, arrogant, and irredeemably so.
It's just replacing the Devil you know with the Devil you don't know.
So now that a small number of women are getting the same treatment as men in divorce it's a feminist issue that needs to be "solved". In FL feminist groups fought to overturn lifetime alimony due to some women getting stuck with having to pay lifetime maintenance to their former spouses. They got a hell of a lot further then any Mens rights group ever got with the bill making it all the way to Jeb Bush's desk.
It seems like in order to move on, people can fight for rights, but they get it wrong when they try to discriminate to make up for previous inequality. Real equality means there's no discrimination either way, so even if someone is angry about the past, in order to help society to progress they are just going to seek an actual equality and not a discrimination they think may make up for past inequalities. If you give 125% pay to women to try and compensate for all the years they got 75% of their cut, it's still discrimination, the only way to end it is to just firmly and rigidly give everyone the full 100% pay and fire anyone who doesn't. It's the same thing with any other aspect of inequality, men are going to have to give up words like c*** and women will have to give up whatever term offends men as much which I guess appears to something like a combination of man+slapping, men will have to give up stereotypes like woman are always irrationally emotional, and women will have to give up stereotypes like men are always sexual.
Religions are religions, people have a right to follow them, the only thing is that the UN needs to enforce human rights laws, but it still a pretty unfair choice to have to choose between your religion you were raised with that your family follows and your equality, but if you ask women of religions where by the laws of the religion that women do not have the same lifestyle, it seems they say they would rather keep the religion. You could try starting an equal rights movement, and it will help against things like women not getting equal education, but it's not going to change the whole religion, at least not in a timely manner. It's taken hundreds and hundreds of years for women to not get things done to them like being stoned to death in Christianity and general monotheistic religions just because they cheated on someone.
It's taken hundreds and hundreds of years for women to not get things done to them like being stoned to death in Christianity and general monotheistic religions just because they cheated on someone.
Women? I thought women were oppressed for the last 5,000 years, don't you mean MEN decided to create the modern age and move us past superstition and such?
How can it be both that women brought about sweeping change over the last few hundred years and yet were completely powerless.
How can it be both that women brought about sweeping change over the last few hundred years and yet were completely powerless.
How can it be [oppressed minority] both brought about [achievement] and yet were completely powerless!?
Guess they weren't as powerless as you thought!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
LordOwlington-That's my point and why the feminist narative is such BS!
Noatz-If your going to repeat dogma verbatim you have no business calling others bigoted and unthinking. You have fallen into the trap of equating outcomes with opportunity for example women who enter government do slightly better then their male counterparts. I'm baffled as to why having a harder time getting promoted could be considered worse then losing your kids.
LordOwlington-That's my point and why the feminist narative is such BS!
Remember that time women got the right to vote? Remember how they also had little to no political power at the time because they didn't have the right to vote? Yeah...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
But it is not a battle against feminism. It is a battle against institutions, institutions that have become corrupt or have been corrupt since time immemorial.
It is a battle against feminism when prominent feminists scoff at the idea that men could even conceivably have social issues. It's a battle against feminism when strawmen and ad hominems become the weapon du jour for "rational" feminist thinkers and bad arguments against social issues towards men and boys are regurgitated through pop culture. It's a problem when rad fems gain a stranglehold on public education and perpetuate their rhetoric through a BS postmodern lens, forsaking anything approaching empiricism.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of the "Men's rights" movement either and I'd never go so far as to say that women don't have real societal problems that need to be addressed. Really I'm just opposed to reductionist thinking and ideological mindsets, of which, both parties fall into at some point. The problem I have is that the radical end of feminism has been given a dangerous amount of authority on legislation and cultural attitudes regarding sex and gender and that this radical wing has effectively become the face of (at least western) feminism.
Also, Noatz, there's a huge divide between women's problems in the first world and women's problems in the third world. **** shaming and representation in video games is nothing compared to the amount of suffering women face in places like Afghanistan or the Congo. Hell even in a more developed Middle Eastern nation such as Saudi Arabia, women are not exactly given the same amount of autonomy and liberty as women in the first world (even something as simple as driving is considered taboo when a woman does it.) Beyond prominent activists such as Tawakkol Karman and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I don't see nearly as much public outrage as their should be and all I can think is how conceited and arrogant people are when they piss and moan about why there aren't more women leaders in the private sector but in the same breath say how conceited and arrogant western men are because they sometimes want custody of their kids.
*Edit Here's a great video to illustrate what I'm talking about titled "The Perils of an Ideological Approach." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR3HE-knTJU Obviously, we're all well aware that Ms. Straughan is a member of the MRM, but the core nugget of what she's saying resonated with me.
Every movement has its bigots, but it's not the core idea of feminism that's at fault.
What, in your own words, is the "core idea of feminism?"
That actually seems to be a good point so far. If it was about equal rights it wouldn't be called "feminism" to exclude other genders, it would be called the Women's Equal Rights Movement or Movement for Equal Rights for Women or something along those lines. It seems that it's mainly used to discriminate in such a way that feminists think is suppose to make up for inequality of the past rather than actually seeking equality itself for the future, but that isn't to say that a group standing up for itself is a bad thing either or that it doesn't accomplish anything good, there's probably issues that have gotten more attention because of feminist groups like rape in the military or lack of birth control distribution or lack of maternity leave that might have otherwise not been dealt with for a longer time.
Every movement has its bigots, but it's not the core idea of feminism that's at fault.
What, in your own words, is the "core idea of feminism?"
Not my words, but given that I agree with bell hooks here: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Every movement has its bigots, but it's not the core idea of feminism that's at fault.
What, in your own words, is the "core idea of feminism?"
Not my words, but given that I agree with bell hooks here: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression"
But the problem with that definition is that sexism is about the discrimination against any gender, not just women or just men, and so the term "feminism" cannot be accurate to describe an equality between all genders, if there were 10 types of genders with groups similar to a feminist group then you'd have an ism for all of those genders rather than just suggesting a movement to bring about equality between all of them. It seems overall women have had a harder time in a lot of cultures, but it doesn't make it right to encourage the very type of discrimination one said they hated just as getting stolen from doesn't give one the right to steal from others. Instead it should simply be a matter of trying to get people to put more effort into bringing about the equality rather than fighting for some kind of discrimination to make up for past inequalities.
I never said it was. I said that I don't believe it's reasonable, therefore I don't think its a fair standard to impose. I never said you weren't allowed to disagree with me, nor did I say I was the end-all, be-all authority on what is reasonable and not. Again, people WILL disagree on what is reasonable, and that's why we debate and discuss it.
I'm sure there are some feminists that do what you describe, but I'm equally sure that the vast majority do not.
I wouldn't think MRAs would really want to follow the principle "A movement is as bad as its worst member".
You sure seem to 'read' a lot of 'feminist articles' that you never then link to. Maybe you want to consider, you know, doing that? Given that the quotes you just used bring me back to... this forum when I try to replicate the results in Google you either need to get better at using quotation marks or just post the articles here so we can also read what you read.
The problem is the modern feminist worldview, claims, and beliefs are shaped by this though even if modern feminists like yourself do not agree with that definition of rape.
The worst members of the MRA that have any influence are paid via private donations and work on the internet. The worst members of feminism enjoyed positions in academia and government and shaped popular culture, sociology, government and legal policy, and research on social issues such as DV and rape.
Look at the work of Straus concerning gender symmetry in IPV, in particular his criticisms of IPV research.
Seriously they have actually found a way via mental gymnastics to justify sticking to stereotypes and disregarding reality.
Feminists have really stepped up their hate campaign against men's rights lately...http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/international-mens-day-blokes-already-2805448
Yeah, that line really jumped out as odd. The entire thrust of the article seems really circular also - Man on Woman violence has a different "etiology" than Woman on Man violence, and so it deserves its own category. But by relying on the fact that women are different, it paints them into their separate corner where equality is impossible. It seems like feminists argue on the intrinsic differences of women when they are trying to claim some preferential treatment above what men receive, while highlighting the principle of equality where they perceive that their condition is behind that of men. In the end, they're just taking whatever argument advances any and all interests of the constituency of women, regardless of whether the principles are consistent.
In my eye as well, it seems like that camp would have to actually make the case that the "etiology" of Man on Woman violence is actually different, rather than just stating so as supported by the quantity of gender-based studies. Extra points because "etiology" is just a fancy word for "cause", and absolutely no information about the causes of the violence are cited, or even mentioned. But what do you know, it's actually possible that women and men are similar, and violence and control issues over another person may be caused by a common element of objectification, expectations, lack of empathy, etc. Apparently though, Man on Woman violence happens because of the gender stereotypes that promote male dominance and control (related to tobacco use of all things, as stated in the last page). Oh, and that men are just as damaged by these stereotypes of male dominance as women, because... (correlation statistics). Nevermind that Woman on Man violence may or may not have causation or "etiology" in gender based stereotypes as well, such as I don't know, the Homer Simpson image of male'ness that doesn't do housework, is inept and underqualified for his job, but is nevertheless expected to shoulder a financial burden. Taking actual incidents of Woman on Man violence, it's intuitively likely that they be occurring very often over finances, housework, and general expectations arising from a the gender stereotypes and gender roles ascribed to men, rather than by men.
No, the only gender stereotypes that are harmful in the eye of this group are the ones about male dominance and control. And of course, men are held out as the unwitting victims of that set of stereotypes as well, above and beyond whatever victimization stems from their own gender stereotypes. If an onlooker is looking for a resolution of all gender stereotypes, don't look to the feminism movement. It's about punishing one type of stereotype (those of male power), while perpetuating its own set of stereotypes (those of male ineptitude). It's just utterly discredited itself by this inconsistency.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/is-rape-different/
I couldn't care less what you think of the messenger please attack the message if you disagree.
That's pretty accurate, I've read several pieces before expressing the same thing in both similar and different terms. The key points of everything I've read about the argument over definition of rape is:
1. Feminists want exclusivity in both definition of rape and in setting the parameters of any discussion on it. They want to fight on their terms on their holy ground with the ability to both concretely define rape as well as leave it liquid enough to change the definition as it suits them.
2. Rape is for some what racism is for others, a subject which can be used in the pursuit of victimization for social/political power and leverage. They take a subject that is horrible and vile and weaponize it using the trauma of the act and the spectre of fear of not being appropriately outraged and activist about it to push the social and political efforts in directions that feminists prefer.
3. In tandem with points 1 and 2 feminists want to be able to resort to a wholly emotional expression of outrage if their messaging fails in order to subdue dissent against their views. Attempts are made to turn the tables on the dissenters to imply guilt of association to them, as if when you disagree with the feminists on what rape is and what its broader context is you're somehow sympathethic to rapists yourself. It's dishonest in both moral and intellectual aspects and smacks of the desperation of shame which is employed by others to achieve their ends.
These reasons above are why I have issues with them and really anyone whose life or job turns into this very thing. People whose education, career and upbringing are all centralized in feminism, racism and the such have all their eggs in one basket and make me question their honesty when they resort to the kinds of tactics and groupthink as above. Professional victimization does more harm to these hotbed topics than anything and actually help to dilute the horrors and impact of the acts they seek to highlight and address.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/a-cultural-history-of-mansplaining/264380/
The term seems to be roughly defined as follows:
So, when a man is explaining something to a woman that they evidently share knowledge about, then he's perpetuating hundreds of years of female oppression. Instead when speaking to a woman, he should ask her opinion first, give her an opportunity to assert her authority on the subject, and quietly accept what she says in the event she considers herself to have any qualifications.
This looks almost exactly like the worst communities of class oppression used to look.
First of all, the term seems to have first entered usage when a man explained the contents of a book to a woman who, unknown to him, had actually authored the book. What place the idea of gender had in this situation, if any, is never actually stated, presumably because there's nothing to show that it was real. The woman simply assumes it on the idea that "every woman knows what I'm talking about". The man made an unwitting mistake, the subject of which was a woman, and so of course, gender oppression. The basic equation of feminism - man does wrong to woman, man is sexist.
On the point of innocent mistakes versus overt oppression, I think it's just about the defining trait of a college know-it-all hipster to explain things to everyone as if they were an expert on everything. Apparently, I have never tried such and such beer, and I need to be explained how good it is. An Iraq war veteran is maybe standing next to them, and what will come out is - Oh, I read this article about soldiers in Iraq and let me tell you... so forth. Often enough, these things don't get recanted. That's what we get in a society like this where lots of young people have been dealt out, while being told into their thirties by their parents how special they are. Sounds like a good opportunity for discussion on the value and role of education in expanding one's horizons. Instead though, no, the feminist diatribe is more important. He's not a douchebag because he's a douchebag. He's a douchebag because he's a man. Perfect sense.
Obviously this is intended mostly for political issues. Instances like Todd Akin who speak up and talk about "legitimate" rape, or male senators making misguided appeals to emotion about birth control law. But strangely in backlash instead, there seems to be no limit to female authority on the sections of the debate that they've claimed for themselves. If you're not a woman, you don't get to say anything about it or have an opinion. Not even if you're objectively qualified....
That's right. So just because you're a doctor, if you happen to be male as well , you're mansplaining when you talk about the female reproductive system. Likewise when you talk about the capacity for physical strain between the genders, you're mansplaining. You don't know what it's like, so your opinion doesn't matter. If you're a sociologist, and you happen to be a male, what your statistics say about what women want or how women vote is mansplaining. If you're a male evolutionary biologist and you have a gender-related opinion having to do with natural selection, you're mansplaining. Particularly if you're a religious leader, if you happen to be a man, your opinion on the social roles of women in what your religion views as the ideal society is mansplaining. Being a man disqualifies you from making any authoritative statement about women. Only women have a right to talk.
The subjective, emotionally-backed intuition of a woman is being held to such a degree of authority that it defies all logic.
For those of you who skipped over the wall of text it's worth a look. It covers: Mansplaining, hipsters, and concludes on woman's intuition.
Spam infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Really? I thought it was more specific then that - in particular, it is the act of talking about how someone else thinks or feels, in direct contradiction to how the person in question has stated they think/feel. Mansplaining is not a man saying "I think abortion is wrong"; a better example would be a man telling a woman "All women think abortion is wrong" after she claims she's pro-choice. Alternatively, when a woman claims she was raped and others claim that she secretly enjoyed it because all raped victims are secretly just ****s. The first is stating a personal opinion, which everyone has the right to. The second is Person A trying to invalidate the Person B's opinion through a generalization about a group B belongs to but A does not.
It's pretty silly to make unsubstantiated generalizations about ANY group, even one you're part of, since groups are not uniform monoliths. But it is extra egregious when the group is one you're not even part of, and thus can't claim knowledge from basic life experience. The line is simple, to me - I can think whatever I want, and express it... but it becomes a douche move when I start claiming to know what someone else thinks better then they themselves do.
Women have the right to vote: check
Women have the capacity to get extra health care for maternal needs and maternity leave: check
There's women in every type of career: check (except probably male modeling, but then again, transvestites and hermaphrodites).
Wealth gap has decreased: check
Doesn't look failed to me.
Both sides will have extremes, but the thing to realize is that a few bad apples don't spoil the bunch, and there is intentional inequality it appears with pay, birth control and what appears to be an entire political party, just in the US. Elsewhere in religious societies, there's definitely social inequalities with usually men having advantages, but occasionally you have a matriarchal society as well. Although, there does seem to be some evidence to suggest woman are better at learning languages and men are better at spacial reasoning, but that's about it as far as real stereotypical differences go, other than the physical differences like hormone balance and physical structure.
Why would feminists have had to name it "man"splaining then? Why assign a gender to it? Does the irony ever get through to you?
In addition feminism IS MANSPLAINING (by your definition) to any man who has tried to correct their absurd assertions about how easy men have it or what problems men face.
Chenjesu-Could you please name one of these matriarchal societies?
Well, I don't specifically disagree that someone telling another how they feel is a phenomenon that actually happens, or that it's a total douche move when it does happen. But there is definitely a problem with sexism when it's given a term like "mansplaining", since it's a complaint that's specifically pointed at men.
Take these quotes from the original LA Times article (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-solnit13) which is said to have resulted in the term "mansplaining" being coined:
Right, any time confidence and ignorance exist in the same place, it's male. Not just that it's a douche move, or harmful, but that it's male. And men, ostensibly, should know their place.
So even more vulgar, men do this because they have a *****, and they all think with their *****. But guys, why don't you get it? Your ***** isn't smart. It's stupid. Know your place....
This was possibly the most offensive:
Right. So, a know it all douchbag is the same as Shari'a law. How? Because they're both male. Nothing else. Just that both behaviors happen to be done by males. When a woman is the know it all douchebag, that's something else. But when it's a male who is, that's the same as Shari'a law. Worse yet, don't forget that this behavior is "gendered". Any time someone speaks out when they don't know what they're talking about, it's a man. Women, by definition, can never do this.... And that's the message Feminism is giving people?
So, it isn't to say that men can't be douchebags. An unbiased view would acknowledge that possibility, and attribute it to something other than gender. But the thrust of the thread has been about how Feminism has become a force to perpetuate its own gender stereotypes, ones related to men where they are an amalgamation of Homer Simpson and Hugh Heffner - stupid, shallow, arrogant, and irredeemably so.
It's just replacing the Devil you know with the Devil you don't know.
So now that a small number of women are getting the same treatment as men in divorce it's a feminist issue that needs to be "solved". In FL feminist groups fought to overturn lifetime alimony due to some women getting stuck with having to pay lifetime maintenance to their former spouses. They got a hell of a lot further then any Mens rights group ever got with the bill making it all the way to Jeb Bush's desk.
Religions are religions, people have a right to follow them, the only thing is that the UN needs to enforce human rights laws, but it still a pretty unfair choice to have to choose between your religion you were raised with that your family follows and your equality, but if you ask women of religions where by the laws of the religion that women do not have the same lifestyle, it seems they say they would rather keep the religion. You could try starting an equal rights movement, and it will help against things like women not getting equal education, but it's not going to change the whole religion, at least not in a timely manner. It's taken hundreds and hundreds of years for women to not get things done to them like being stoned to death in Christianity and general monotheistic religions just because they cheated on someone.
Women? I thought women were oppressed for the last 5,000 years, don't you mean MEN decided to create the modern age and move us past superstition and such?
How can it be both that women brought about sweeping change over the last few hundred years and yet were completely powerless.
How can it be [oppressed minority] both brought about [achievement] and yet were completely powerless!?
Guess they weren't as powerless as you thought!
Noatz-If your going to repeat dogma verbatim you have no business calling others bigoted and unthinking. You have fallen into the trap of equating outcomes with opportunity for example women who enter government do slightly better then their male counterparts. I'm baffled as to why having a harder time getting promoted could be considered worse then losing your kids.
Remember that time women got the right to vote? Remember how they also had little to no political power at the time because they didn't have the right to vote? Yeah...
It is a battle against feminism when prominent feminists scoff at the idea that men could even conceivably have social issues. It's a battle against feminism when strawmen and ad hominems become the weapon du jour for "rational" feminist thinkers and bad arguments against social issues towards men and boys are regurgitated through pop culture. It's a problem when rad fems gain a stranglehold on public education and perpetuate their rhetoric through a BS postmodern lens, forsaking anything approaching empiricism.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of the "Men's rights" movement either and I'd never go so far as to say that women don't have real societal problems that need to be addressed. Really I'm just opposed to reductionist thinking and ideological mindsets, of which, both parties fall into at some point. The problem I have is that the radical end of feminism has been given a dangerous amount of authority on legislation and cultural attitudes regarding sex and gender and that this radical wing has effectively become the face of (at least western) feminism.
Also, Noatz, there's a huge divide between women's problems in the first world and women's problems in the third world. **** shaming and representation in video games is nothing compared to the amount of suffering women face in places like Afghanistan or the Congo. Hell even in a more developed Middle Eastern nation such as Saudi Arabia, women are not exactly given the same amount of autonomy and liberty as women in the first world (even something as simple as driving is considered taboo when a woman does it.) Beyond prominent activists such as Tawakkol Karman and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I don't see nearly as much public outrage as their should be and all I can think is how conceited and arrogant people are when they piss and moan about why there aren't more women leaders in the private sector but in the same breath say how conceited and arrogant western men are because they sometimes want custody of their kids.
*Edit Here's a great video to illustrate what I'm talking about titled "The Perils of an Ideological Approach." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR3HE-knTJU Obviously, we're all well aware that Ms. Straughan is a member of the MRM, but the core nugget of what she's saying resonated with me.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
That actually seems to be a good point so far. If it was about equal rights it wouldn't be called "feminism" to exclude other genders, it would be called the Women's Equal Rights Movement or Movement for Equal Rights for Women or something along those lines. It seems that it's mainly used to discriminate in such a way that feminists think is suppose to make up for inequality of the past rather than actually seeking equality itself for the future, but that isn't to say that a group standing up for itself is a bad thing either or that it doesn't accomplish anything good, there's probably issues that have gotten more attention because of feminist groups like rape in the military or lack of birth control distribution or lack of maternity leave that might have otherwise not been dealt with for a longer time.
Not my words, but given that I agree with bell hooks here: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression"
But the problem with that definition is that sexism is about the discrimination against any gender, not just women or just men, and so the term "feminism" cannot be accurate to describe an equality between all genders, if there were 10 types of genders with groups similar to a feminist group then you'd have an ism for all of those genders rather than just suggesting a movement to bring about equality between all of them. It seems overall women have had a harder time in a lot of cultures, but it doesn't make it right to encourage the very type of discrimination one said they hated just as getting stolen from doesn't give one the right to steal from others. Instead it should simply be a matter of trying to get people to put more effort into bringing about the equality rather than fighting for some kind of discrimination to make up for past inequalities.