The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (now with 20% more fungus!)

Postby michaelandjimi » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:08 am UTC

Quixotess wrote:Some pretty much right stuff.
Yeah, I was just trying to explain it easily. Baby steps on the road to progress, and whatnot.

If questioned about the examples in which men were treated negatively I would have mentioned some stuff I read about alimony and the thing about wives nearly always getting the children in divorce proceedings.

However, I'm curious about this:
Quixotess wrote:Mostly, the feminists that I know would phrase it differently - there's something about treating men as the standard - men as ideal or normal - that's not quite right. I don't want to be "equal to men," I want to be free.
Is what I said about gender disparity, and the fixing of it making women treated equally to men, technically correct but worded incorrectly? Or is there something genuinely wrong? I'm not looking to start a fight; rather, I'm curious.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26530
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (now with 20% more fungus!)

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:15 am UTC

Ann_on_a_mouse wrote:Also, is it really a small issue that the father will almost never get custody of his child in a divorce hearing? Logically, the split should be something like 50%, instead it's closer to 90% in favor of the mother, 9% for other family members or state custody and 1% to the father. This is no parking ticket. This is a clear double standard that unnecessarily hurts the child. Divorce hearings suck enough for kids already, but being given to an abusive parent because "kids need their mother" or being taken away from both parents when the father would suffice is just wrong. Really, by comparison the oft-cited wage difference seems less important. By your own logic, you shouldn't be fighting for that.

Look, I'm not saying you can't fight that. My metaphors always suck, you can search my post history and discover that. What I'm saying is that yes.. it's a problem. And yes, it needs to be fought. The systematic oppression of 50% of the population inherit in our Western Culture just seems to me to be a larger problem than 50% of divorced individuals from partnerships that produced children (Which is a significant portion of the population, sure.. but it's not 50%) having a much smaller chance of obtaining custody of said children. Which means it's going to take a lot longer to get that straightened out as it's build in to the culture itself and fixing that problem requires a drastic overhaul of the culture, as opposed to merely* re-writing the laws to force judges in custody hearings and the evaluators that submit their opinions to be reviewed by the judge to be held accountable to some state or national standard.

*Yes, I realize that no, it's not a small task to "merely" have laws completely re-written and requires, at best, a sympathetic movement in a state legislation to even bring it up as a bill for consideration, much less get it passed. But that has a clearly defined outcome that can be diagrammed and put in to motion, requiring a bit of study on the *whys* of men not gaining custody at a 50% rate. Of course, I don't know what exactly was meant by the 90/9/1% figures, as it did not go in to detail about whether that was only in cases where custody had to be determined by a judge or court-appointed mediator, or if it was also included cases where the divorce wen to court for various issues with custody being settled on the side out of the public record for whatever reasons, or if it also included divorces that never went to court and were handled by lawyers outside of the public legal system, or even if it included divorces that never even involved lawyers, just the paperwork at the court house to file for divorce.

Basically, a study would need to be done not on why the woman was chosen, but on why the man was not by a judge or court appointed mediator. Within that study one could also branch out to include divorces where lawyers were involved but not the court system (basically where the couples settled out of court) to determine why precisely the man voluntarily** surrendered custody of the children. Then one could use that study to apply to legislation to force a change in that which would then affect those getting a divorce and the children of said divorces.

**I say voluntarily, but more than likely it's under some form of legal counsel saying "Look, just give up custody now and you can fight it later under blah blah blah" and the guy finds out later that it was actually a huge black mark on his attempt to get custody at a later time.

Whereas trying to fix the culture itself affects everyone.

Also, at some point I figure Belial, Noc, or possibly Felstaff or Quixotess will come along and say what I was trying to say more clearly. Maybe Jesse or Greg.

Maybe even Saladin. And then we'll all learn the TRUE meaning of Christmas.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Insignificant Deifaction
Small Goddess
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:14 am UTC
Location: Through the mother@#$%ing looking glass.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Insignificant Deifaction » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:16 am UTC

@nightlina: :lol: Nor I.

Well, I am going to take a page out of TVTropes' leaflet of tricks. . .

There Is No Such Thing As Notability.

In other words, ranking problems by seriousness is a pointless exercise. Take care of what you can. Use your judgement to determine what you will work on now. To tell anyone that their cause isn't worthy enough, that is, that they should be focusing on other problems, belittles their problems, and makes them feel bad. Which accomplishes nothing.
Belial wrote:You are giving me the tools to sodomize my vast imagination, and for this I am grateful.

PM Me, if you care for a chat.

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby T-Form » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:43 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:I think the main problem is that, in order to really understand sexual inequality as it exists today, there are a lot of concepts that need to be understood first (patriarchy, rape culture, etc.) that are firmly rooted in feminism. Since the best analysis of what's wrong and what needs fixing has been done by feminists (and, as has been stated, fixing those underlying problems would directly help those issues masculinists fight for) any good masculinist movement would basically need to use feminism as a starting point anyway. So what's the point in a special title? Especially one with all sorts of negative connotations attached to it, for what would essentially be rebranded feminism.

Like most labels, the label "feminist" limits what you can do, by implying that women are always the most important consideration. Feminism has plenty of good ideas, but you can't understand masculinity from that perspective alone - there has to be a split unless everyone is happy to throw away all of those labels. Historically (and in some cases, contemporarily), feminism has various essentialist, racist, eugenicist, bourgeois, homophobic, and transphobic aspects; personally, I'm not comfortable declaring an identity which can have those connotations. Similarly, the term "masculist" (which I'd interpret as the mirror image* of "feminist") probably isn't distinct enough to avoid confusion with "masculinist", which I'd understand to mean "favouring masculine superiority"; the mirror image of the stereotype associated with "feminist", and a major component of most early modern philosophy.

Furthermore, why should using feminism as a starting point require one to remain under that banner? Queer theory is largely built upon (and aligned with) feminist ideas, but it's generally considered valid in its own right. Similarly, feminism is not always liberalism (classical or modern), and mathematics is not always philosophy; each "paradigm" has taken on characteristics that clearly distinguish it from its parent, and indeed they're often defined by those distinctions. Masculism cannot be exactly the same as feminism because it approaches the same issues from masculine perspectives; the two are not mutually exclusive, and I believe they'll often produce the same results, but they're not identical.

* Not intended to imply that there's any validity to a dualistic view of sex or gender.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:02 pm UTC

All social movements evolve within societies. No movement started out by getting everything right. Feminism is no exception in it's roots (they did indeed include fear). Now Feminism is much more supportive of all marginalized groups, since in my experience being raised and surrounded by feminists my entire life is that part of the attitude they hold is the 'we cannot be free while one person is in chains'. This stems from an understanding as a marginalized group (women) that it will never be okay while there are people being marginalized. It comes from an understanding that seeing the inequalities women face will show you the flaws in the system. These flaws that so many people are willing to happily ignore. Under feminism I cannot ignore the gap at the train station between the platform and the car. I notice when it is too wide for wheelchairs and strollers because I have known women in wheelchairs who could not use the trains. I notice how people of different skin tones are treated because I have had female friends from many ethnic backgrounds and I saw how they were treated differently than I was. Because of feminism, for me, I could not ignore the slights against minorities because some of those people were women. Women make up part of every minority, and through looking out for women you look out for men. I support the work that is trying to make it so fathers can see their children because I know girl who grow up without their fathers suffer. Boys without fathers do too, and they are well studied (males raised without father figures are more likely to go to jail, for example). I remember the girls and women because society forgets about them. I am a woman, and I will not be forgotten. And I will not forget other women. This does not mean I hate men. There are men right here in this fora that know I love them. Part of the reason I love them is because they do not treat me differently because my genitalia is internal.

For me, the society outside of my home and my friends parents looked at the world from a man's perspective. Even God was male. I rejected it as soon as I could talk. My mother asked me which character from the story I was like me and I said 'none of them, they are all boys.' That world was not one that was made for me. Books were not made for me. I was the other, because society was for 'mankind'. My mother changed all the books, making all the characters who did not need to be male female (including in the bible). I was raised the same as my brother (neither was given guns or makeup, I used his hand-me-down clothing till I was old enough to care about clothing, etc.). I do not know where I was going with this, except to say feminism is not pushing anyone down, it is simply not holding anyone down for the convenience of others.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
nightlina
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:07 am UTC
Location: Probably at work... in Australia. Therefore I post while you sleep.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby nightlina » Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:08 am UTC

@Sophyturtle

It's interesting reading your perspective. I was raised in a very patriarchal family, I guess - My father is the man of the house who fixes things while my mum cooks and cleans. I was never given the impression that my mum was any less able than my father, though - I respect them both very evenly. It was simply that one person excelled at some things while the other excelled at other things...

So for me, stepping out of this comfortable, happy environment and then having some extremist views given to me (under the title of "feminism", even if they weren't really feminist) that tried to make me reject my father for not cooking and cleaning... Well, it just seemed very ridiculous and I became extremely anti-feminism for a time.

Now I'm older and understand a lot better what feminism is and hopes to achieve, along with the history behind the movement, and know that the views originally expressed to me weren't actually in line with that. I can't help but still have a slightly negative view of the word, though. So when I express my ideals I generally refer to it as equality, which makes more sense to me.

As to noticing things like a gap between trains being too large for women in wheelchairs or whatever... You honestly have to think a problem like that over from a few different perspectives. I mean, how much would it cost the government and the train station to make that gap smaller? Does there need to be a gap that wide in case a train accident occurs? Was the gap initially suitable but wheelchairs have since been redesigned smaller or less able to navigate the gap? Or was the station built before wheelchairs were common? Over here people with wheelchairs usually go in the front carriage near the driver, and the driver has a bridge thing that they will set up when they see someone in a wheelchair wanting to get on the train. I think this solution is effective, however you could also consider redesigning wheelchairs to be better at navigating the gap, which while probably still being expensive would help the wheelchairs to be better at navigating all gaps in general...

I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to any sort of problem, you can't just blame one person, be it a man or a train or the government or whatever. There are way too many factors involved that affect the solutions - usually a lot more than you'd realise.

I appreciate what feminism is attempting to do but think that a lot of people have abused the word to the point that it really ought to be replaced. Perhaps with something that signifies how it is encompassing all minority groups rather than just women.
Image

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:49 am UTC

For the trains, I am annoyed because they got new trains without stairs so wheel chairs could use them, but the trains are thinner than the old ones making the gap up to 5". I recognize that here in Boston the stations are old, but they mark some stations handicap accessible when they still have this problem. Really, they we trying but were not paying attention. Just a pet peeve on mine since there are places I cannot go with my friends in wheelchairs.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
nightlina
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:07 am UTC
Location: Probably at work... in Australia. Therefore I post while you sleep.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby nightlina » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:19 am UTC

sophyturtle wrote:For the trains, I am annoyed because they got new trains without stairs so wheel chairs could use them, but the trains are thinner than the old ones making the gap up to 5". I recognize that here in Boston the stations are old, but they mark some stations handicap accessible when they still have this problem. Really, they we trying but were not paying attention. Just a pet peeve on mine since there are places I cannot go with my friends in wheelchairs.

So they don't offer the 'bridge' thing? It's basically a piece of metal that the driver positions over the gap... I think it must be something every train here in Melbourne has, although it does mean that the person in a wheelchair has to be at the front carriage. I think I've also seen the same 'bridge' brought out when someone was wanting to get on a bus.

I think this solution, while not fixing the actual problem, is nice in that it *does* let you get to where you want to go. Perhaps this is something you could actively petition for?
Image

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:36 am UTC

nightlina wrote:I was raised in a very patriarchal family, I guess - My father is the man of the house who fixes things while my mum cooks and cleans. I was never given the impression that my mum was any less able than my father, though - I respect them both very evenly. It was simply that one person excelled at some things while the other excelled at other things...

That doesn't sound patriarchal to me. Well, that is, I think it's possible that the reason your mother excelled at cooking and cleaning and your father excelled at tinkering is rooted in patriarchy; that they were encouraged to fill their gender roles as children. But if each partner's tasks were treated with respect and appreciation, and each partner treated the other such that their children knew they were equal, and the children were not in turn pressured by their parents to conform to those gender roles, I can't see that family as especially patriarchal.

nightlina wrote:I appreciate what feminism is attempting to do but think that a lot of people have abused the word to the point that it really ought to be replaced. Perhaps with something that signifies how it is encompassing all minority groups rather than just women.

Here's what it comes down to for me:

Do you think there is a need for the word "sexism" when we already have the word "discrimination"? Do you think there is a need for the word "misogyny" when we already have the word "bigotry?"

As long as there is systemic oppression targeted against women, I believe there is a need for a movement to fight that. Membership in feminism/womanism does not preclude membership in anti-racism or queer or disability activism, but there's something to be said for focus and for multiple tools in the toolbox. I don't mean to invoke slippery slope, but I'm afraid I do think of the passage in 1984 whenever I hear this argument, where he makes the argument for reducing vocabulary - and I just don't see any need for it.

I also understand what you're saying about the demonization of the word feminism*, but I see no reason to believe that changing the name will do anything to help us with that. Feminism is incompatible with mainstream - male - culture, and some men, and society in general, will always be threatened by the concept of women who are free. There is nothing we can do to avoid this except stop fighting against misogyny; the abuse will not cease with rebranding.

*not the same as the valid issues. Issues are things that feminism and feminists have done wrong & are the types of things that have led to the formation of womanism; demonization is unfounded and unfair mischaracterizations by mainstream - male - culture.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:42 am UTC

Quixotess wrote:
galadran wrote:Is the sexism problem that bad?

Yes.

galadran wrote:From perusing (albeit briefly) this thread, the case seems to be made that every human being with a Y chromosome is part of a deliberate conspiracy to discriminate against women and that a women doing stereo-typed "female" work is a traitor to their gender (possibly a little OTT).

Now, where in this thread did you see anyone say that?

You didn't happen to miss the Feminism 101 links, did you? You look like you want Why do Feminists Hate Men?, Isn't the Patriarchy Just Some Conspiracy Theory?, But Men and Women are Born Different!, and especially Addressing Claims of Female Privilege: The Military.


This link: But Men and Women are Born Different!
claims there is no scientific data for differences between men & women's neural wiring, therefore we should dismiss any notions that men and women have fundamental biological differences,

while this link:
Isn't the Patriarchy Just Some Conspiracy Theory?
fails to provide any evidence that there's a massive conspiracy to keep women from succeeding.

Most of the argument seems to hinge around this:
"Not all men are Patriarchs. A Patriarch is a man who has special power and influence over not just his family but also in society, due to privileges gathered through intersections of age, wealth, achievement, lineage, patronage and the exploitation of others."

Is there something wrong with accruing privilege due to age, wealth, and achievement? It seems a pretty fundamental way all social systems are structured. And I don't just mean men; a matriarch would be a patriarch with different pronouns.

I guess what I'm asking is- what's wrong with getting old, powerful, and respected? Or is it the part where this structure makes it more easy to exploit others? Also, what does exploit, in this case, mean?


PS:
My girlfriend has been PMSing for the past few days. Radical change in behavior. Is this also a social construct?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby michaelandjimi » Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:56 am UTC

@Spuddly - the links provided are 101 links, intended as primer. Some of them have little in the way of statistics because they are trying to get across complex issues, including the above. Do some independent research and it's very easy to find evidence. Though it is good that you are looking through the links.

With regards to your first link, you're missing the point completely. The most important point within it is reproduced here:
for any quality measured there is far more variation among the group of all men and among the group of all women than there is on average between individuals of opposite sex.

Put simply, though the average [capability] of [one gender] is slightly higher than the [average capability] of [other gender], the enormous spread of [capability] across the individual genders is such that gender should be disregarded when assessing whether a person is good for a job requiring said capability, or whatever it is that the trait is important for.
Spuddly wrote:I guess what I'm asking is- what's wrong with getting old, powerful, and respected? Or is it the part where this structure makes it more easy to exploit others? Also, what does exploit, in this case, mean?
In itself, there's nothing wrong with getting old and powerful. The problem is that having old, rich men in power is that it makes a system in which more and more old, rich men into power, who then are more likely to favour men than women. This in turn creates a society that oppresses women, making it easier for men to get more money and better-paying positions, leaving the women without. Furthermore, given that this propogates a society in which women are viewed as being in some way inferior to men, it allows for things like rape and abuse to occur.
Spuddly wrote:My girlfriend has been PMSing for the past few days. Radical change in behavior. Is this also a social construct?
Don't be facetious, please.


Now I have a personal question for Quixotess - I've noticed, from memory, that you seem to use the words "feminist" and "feminist ally" reasonably interchangably. Do you believe that male feminists should be able to co-opt the title of feminist?

Also, my post above wasn't rhetorical, though you may have just missed it. I'll repost the question again for your benefit and mine:
michaelandjimi wrote:Is what I said about gender disparity, and the fixing of it making women treated equally to men, technically correct but worded incorrectly? Or is there something genuinely wrong?
And to clear up any perceived injustice, genuinely wrong was meant to mean "Things that aren't even technically correct".
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:05 pm UTC

michaelandjimi wrote:Now I have a personal question for Quixotess - I've noticed, from memory, that you seem to use the words "feminist" and "feminist ally" reasonably interchangably. Do you believe that male feminists should be able to co-opt the title of feminist?

Huh, do I do that? *checks* Hm...I'm going to blather now, okay?

An ally can be just someone on your side. An ally can also be someone who supports you in your cause, but who does not suffer to the same degree as long as it is not won, nor triumph to the same degree if it succeeds.

My sig right now is from Sappho's plea to Aphrodite, to help Sappho's love life; to make Sappho's love love her. It's a call for allies in the latter capacity.

I don't like the idea of "co-opting the title of feminist" which sounds to me like you suggest doing it without the consent of the women feminists. I don't like the idea of me saying "yes, the men in the movement are feminists," and someone who sees that then going over to a feminist community where the men are referred to as allies, and disrespecting that community. I don't like the idea of saying "no, the men in the movement are allies" either. I think it's up each community, and men involved in the movement aren't really allies if they choose to ignore the rules of a community who prefers to designate them as allies.

A lot of the time, I think men in the movement are both feminists and allies; that is, I think there are things they can do in their capacity as feminists and things they can do in their capacity as allies. For example, men can as feminists rip the living daylights out of sexist morons on a discussion board or read feminist literature or vote with their wallets just the same way women can. And men can as allies talk about what the ally label means to them (hint, hint) or call out sexism in discussions where women aren't present or won't be heard, or be very, very careful about consent in their sexual relations.*

But then it's difficult to draw the distinction between what you can do because you're a man and what you're doing just as an androgynous feminist. Women, of course, are disproportionately poor and kept out of positions of power, so it's hard to look at any position where a man is in charge, and a feminist, and not think "he is helping me in his capacity as an ally" even when you know that a woman would have done the same thing in exactly the same way.

Being an ally is about, I think, accepting that you have a larger teaspoon and a longer booking on the stage - and no, you don't have to feel bad about that - and using that to draw attention to those who aren't so lucky. You simply have a fundamentally different angle from which to make your movement.

michaelandjimi wrote:Also, my post above wasn't rhetorical, though you may have just missed it.

I did miss it, sorry. Merge messiness.

michaelandjimi wrote:Is what I said about gender disparity, and the fixing of it making women treated equally to men, technically correct but worded incorrectly? Or is there something genuinely wrong?

Words aren't little things; they reflect how thoughts are framed in the mind.

Treated equally to which men? I don't want to be how men are today, with the stifling of emotions and the expectations to laugh off pain and the pressures to objectify, demean, and abuse women (and the depressingly frequent adherence to such pressures.) Or to today's men of color, with the strong likelihood of being subjected to violence and to abuse by authorities. Or to today's gay men, so often afraid of their own families. I want us all to be like what no one is like currently, so yes, "male" is a false standard and a male-centering patriarchal one.

It's long been observed that privileges are of two types. The first are privileges everyone should have but not everyone does; say, the feeling that being around police makes you safer. These I can sort of see where you're coming from, privileges that men have and women should have. The second are privileges that no one should have but some people do; say, relative immunity from punishment for rape. That's something that belonging to the male gender gets you, and it is not a standard I'm interested in pursuing.

Equal pay isn't the half of it.

*thisa goes for men of all sexualities.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
Insignificant Deifaction
Small Goddess
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:14 am UTC
Location: Through the mother@#$%ing looking glass.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Insignificant Deifaction » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:24 am UTC

I think you make a very good case, Quixotess, but something struck me.

Basically what I gleaned was that "allies are on the sidelines, with lots of power but not as much to gain or lose".

I have a strong feeling a lot of allies fundamentally disagree with that statement. After all, if allies are every bit as feminist as feminists, then they suffer just as much anguish from oppression, and rejoice just as much in acceptance.

Most definitely, in an objective, statistical fashion, the allies have an easier time of it, and won't be going much higher in their rights by comparison. Subjectively, though, I think things are very much closer.

To put it another way, the problem with the ally analogy is the assumption that just like in real life war, the ally can walk away from a failure without being much accosted. Certainly they could, but unlike in a real life war, a feminist ally won't walk away, and that changes the dynamic of the "punishment".
Belial wrote:You are giving me the tools to sodomize my vast imagination, and for this I am grateful.

PM Me, if you care for a chat.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:42 am UTC

I think an ally would still have an easier time walking away than a feminist. Think of all the people who support the general idea of equality for black people now, but who wouldn't have walked the walk when things got particularly ugly in the Sixties.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby michaelandjimi » Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:56 am UTC

With regards to Quixotess, thank you. I was too caught up in my oversimplification to remove myself and understand it properly. It's good you clear that up.
Insignificant Deifaction wrote:I have a strong feeling a lot of allies fundamentally disagree with that statement. After all, if allies are every bit as feminist as feminists, then they suffer just as much anguish from oppression, and rejoice just as much in acceptance.
I_D is correct. I personally object to being called a feminist ally rather than a feminist, as it makes me feel like I'm not a "real" feminist - less invested in the cause and whatnot.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby T-Form » Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:I don't like the idea of "co-opting the title of feminist" which sounds to me like you suggest doing it without the consent of the women feminists. I don't like the idea of me saying "yes, the men in the movement are feminists," and someone who sees that then going over to a feminist community where the men are referred to as allies, and disrespecting that community. I don't like the idea of saying "no, the men in the movement are allies" either. I think it's up each community, and men involved in the movement aren't really allies if they choose to ignore the rules of a community who prefers to designate them as allies.

Why should a person need "consent" from others in order to define their own identity? That line of reasoning has all sorts of unpleasant consequences, and to claim authority over an identity is to disrespect others who would assume that identity. It's a tactic to exclude and to control or dehumanise people while denying one's own subjective motivations; classical liberalism and essentialism at their finest. This is the same trick used to claim that lesbians aren't real women, gay men aren't real men, trans people aren't really their expressed gender, women can't be scientists (objective science shows they're not rational or objective), non-white people aren't "civilised", and so on. Frankly, communities that try to restrict individuals from determining their own identity are chauvinistic or exploitative and not worthy of existence, let alone those individuals' support.

It's long been observed that privileges are of two types. The first are privileges everyone should have but not everyone does; say, the feeling that being around police makes you safer. These I can sort of see where you're coming from, privileges that men have and women should have.

Plenty of men don't have that "privilege" either. The police are all about looking after rich white people and their stuff. Men who don't fall into that category are abused by the police all the time, and women who do fall into that category are generally safe. It's a class thing, not a sex or gender thing.

The second are privileges that no one should have but some people do; say, relative immunity from punishment for rape. That's something that belonging to the male gender gets you, and it is not a standard I'm interested in pursuing.

Are you claiming that female rapists are more likely to be punished than male rapists? That's not consistent with any evidence I've ever seen. In fact, I'm not aware of any crime for which males are less likely to be punished. Indeed, I'd say relative freedom from punishment is one of the best examples of female (and middle-class, and white) "privilege".

On the other hand, I'm also suspicious of the idea that punishment is necessary or even helpful for anything; I believe the concept of punishment is inseparable from the concepts of revenge and dominance. There's this rather dodgy underlying notion that people are naturally competitive and violent, and only a strong state and "justice" system can hope to contain this destructive nature. Their real purpose is to preserve the existing hierarchy, which in turn produces the "criminals" that justify its continued existence. So I'd say that (near-)immunity to punishment is indeed something that everyone should have, and that everyone (other than the current elite) benefits from such a society.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Belial » Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:30 pm UTC

michaelandjimi wrote:I_D is correct. I personally object to being called a feminist ally rather than a feminist, as it makes me feel like I'm not a "real" feminist - less invested in the cause and whatnot.


I hate to just come out and say it, but by definition we *are* less invested, regardless of how that makes you feel. If you and I got a wild hair up our asses tomorrow and decided we no longer wanted to be feminists, we could turn around and go conform to the patriarchy and start enjoying the benefits that brings. With a bit of legwork, we can even make it so that no one in our circle of contacts even knows that we ever were feminists/allies. And even if we never choose to do it, just knowing that we can say "fuck it all" and walk away means that we have far, far less to lose personally.

Furthermore, even without abandoning the cause wholesale, we can simply shut our mouths about it during a job interview, or an election, or any other of the range of social situations where being a feminist man is unpleasant or inconvenient or disadvantageous, and we'll be assumed to conform (and if you've never done this, you're a braver man than I). These are, incidentally, also often the situations where being a woman is unpleasant and inconvenient and disadvantageous.

A woman can't really stop being a woman. She can stop being a feminist and conform, but that just converts her from, as echidne put it, despised object to treasured object. She never gets to revert to "male privilege". The things she's fighting against don't become someone else's problem the moment she stops fighting them.

So recognize that it isn't about you. We're weekenders. However much we might care about this cause, it's not really our cause. We can walk away, we don't have as much to lose, and so we can never be in on the same level. And if some people feel uncomfortable labelling us as "feminists" because of it, if they prefer to call us something else, that's kindof their call.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:29 pm UTC

T-Form wrote:Why should a person need "consent" from others in order to define their own identity?

Sorry; I think I detected a bit of unconscious "I'd like permission from you to throw this in other people's faces" from that post and was trying to head that off at the pass.

T-Form wrote:This is the same trick used to claim that lesbians aren't real women, gay men aren't real men, trans people aren't really their expressed gender, women can't be scientists (objective science shows they're not rational or objective), non-white people aren't "civilised", and so on.

It may or may not be the same "trick" but all of your examples use oppressed groups, which men are not. That invalidates your analogy right there. A better analogy is when cispeople object to being called cis.

T-Form wrote:Plenty of men don't have that "privilege" either. The police are all about looking after rich white people and their stuff. Men who don't fall into that category are abused by the police all the time, and women who do fall into that category are generally safe. It's a class thing, not a sex or gender thing.

Yes, plenty of men don't have that privilege. But it can be a class thing and a sex/gender thing and a race thing and a sexuality thing and a trans thing. It can also be about the intersectionality of those things. Don't erase the role a Latina's gender has in her rape, and don't forget that "being arrested unfairly" isn't the only thing that you can be afraid of from the police.

T-Form wrote:Are you claiming that female rapists are more likely to be punished than male rapists?

Sorry, forgive my sloppiness. There are so few social prohibitions against the rape of women, and so many encouragements both direct and indirect, that rape can be said to be a privilege that men may choose to exercise.

T-Form wrote:On the other hand, I'm also suspicious of the idea that punishment is necessary or even helpful for anything;

Would you prefer the word "consequences"? I'm not okay with the idea of rapists going on to live their lives as though nothing even happened, personally, but this is just my opinion. Perhaps you are correct about the basic purposes of the law system, but that seems far out of the scope of this thread - Serious Business would likely welcome you with open arms, though.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:12 pm UTC

I have not read it all, but I thought I might share NOW's Feminist Action Agenda for 2009.

I think it is funny they made a 'feminist agenda'... turns out the Right (conservatives) did have something to worry about ;)
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby michaelandjimi » Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:50 pm UTC

@Belial - Be that as it may, but, regardless of how silly or noble or whatever this sounds, I care more about my friends and people I know being oppressed than I would about myself. Sure, I could walk away and not be affected by it myself, but that would require changing who I am to be less of a social being.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:26 pm UTC

It isn't about what you individually will do however, it's about what you could do--which is drop the cause easily.
Rice Puddin.

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby T-Form » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:12 am UTC

Quixotess wrote:It may or may not be the same "trick" but all of your examples use oppressed groups, which men are not. That invalidates your analogy right there.

Well, you talked about the expectations that men should laugh off pain and stifle their emotions, which sounds like an oppressive gender role to me. Either way, my examples use oppressed groups because the tactic I'm talking about is a major part of the strategy for creating oppressed groups. Directly and openly attacking a group isn't reliable (people quickly figure out that you're up to no good), so we see the creation of new concepts and identities and the reshaping of old ones, in order to attach superior status or authority to an identity and to exclude certain people from that identity. Thus only men can be "rational", only educated white people can be "civilised", etc - and then the middle-class white men can dismiss the experiences and complaints of people from the oppressed groups; suddenly rationality and civility are necessary to have your voice heard, and oppressed people are denied access to those aspects of identity.

A better analogy is when cispeople object to being called cis.

I'd say "when cispeople are denied access to a trans identity" (that's what assigning the "cis" label is really about). The first problem with this analogy is that you've already defined "cispeople", presumably in opposition to "transpeople". Some of the "cispeople" who object to the label may well identify as trans people, but not meet whatever standard you set for trans people for various reasons (medical issues, cost, fear, etc). You haven't had genital surgery? Haven't started taking hormones? Don't/still have breasts, facial hair, visible body hair, etc? Not wearing the right clothes? Attracted to the "wrong" sex? Not embracing every last detail of the role assigned to your target gender, no matter how ridiculous or harmful it is? Then you fall short of the ideal, and you're not a real woman/man/trans person.

This is an interesting example, as it's mainly society and the state that are trying to control the trans identity (in my experience, trans people tend to set the bar higher for themselves than for others). Personally, I'm happy for people to select or reject whatever labels they want for themselves, provided that they're not trying to control the identity of anyone else. If I initially take someone to be a cis person but it turns out that's not their preferred identity, that's their choice; I'd be more interested to hear their reasons and what the labels mean to them than to try to control their identity.


Yes, plenty of men don't have that privilege. But it can be a class thing and a sex/gender thing and a race thing and a sexuality thing and a trans thing. It can also be about the intersectionality of those things. Don't erase the role a Latina's gender has in her rape, and don't forget that "being arrested unfairly" isn't the only thing that you can be afraid of from the police.

Yeah, once you break it down further than "not able to feel safe around the police" and the class aspect, all sorts of specific forms of oppression show up, including gender-linked abuse. The police rape women, but they also batter and occasionally murder men, and are a key part of the system that "punishes" people of all genders through prison rape.

Incidentally, I think it was studying Louise Nicholas and her allegations against Shipton/Schollum/Rickards (and Dewar's sabotage of the trials of the unnamed officer in the 90s) that finally lead me to conclude that the police cannot be redeemed; that some of them are always going to use their power to abuse people and to assist each other in that abuse.

Would you prefer the word "consequences"? I'm not okay with the idea of rapists going on to live their lives as though nothing even happened, personally, but this is just my opinion. Perhaps you are correct about the basic purposes of the law system, but that seems far out of the scope of this thread - Serious Business would likely welcome you with open arms, though.

I'd be okay with rapists going on to live their lives as though nothing happened if that's necessary to reduce the number of rapes. As far as consequences go, I think the only thing that helps (with crime in general) is to show people the suffering they've caused, without explicitly judging them for it - it's only easy to abuse people if you don't identify with them or you feel removed from consequences of that abuse.

I reckon the scope depends on how much anarchism you have in your feminism; as I see it, various forms of power (and of oppression) tend to become entangled, so I don't think it's possible to fully understand aspects of society in isolation. SB likes to focus on rather narrowly-defined topics, which is a model that doesn't tend to align with my perspective.

User avatar
nightlina
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:07 am UTC
Location: Probably at work... in Australia. Therefore I post while you sleep.

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby nightlina » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:11 am UTC

Quixotess wrote:There are so few social prohibitions against the rape of women, and so many encouragements both direct and indirect, that rape can be said to be a privilege that men may choose to exercise.

For some reason this statement really irks me. I'm not completely sure why, though. I think you're wrong in saying that there are very few social prohibitions against rape, although it could easily be dependent on which social-sector you belong to. In my little corner of the world we definitely do not encourage rape and I don't think I've ever known anyone to brag about it and act as if it's their 'privilege'.

I dislike the assumption made that all men have this attitude, as in my experience it's just not true. I've never known a man to speak of rape with anything but disgust. I feel that those men who think otherwise either lack modern education or are mentally instable, in which case can you really blame it on their gender?

@T-Form - I read a quote once which was something like, 'Once punishment is done, the deed which caused it should be forgotten'. Meaning that punishment should be immediate, adequate and then the person should be allowed to get on with their life.

I train horses at home and have found that your '0' punishment system can only work when I've been given a completely untouched horse to begin with (or one that has been trained correctly). The horse in this situation has no reason to do something 'wrong' and generally is only making mistakes, which are usually because it has misunderstood what you were asking it to do. This way when the horse does something right you can reward it and thus it will want to perform that action again.

When a horse has been poorly trained it will usually develop 'bad habits' which are due to it getting confused when it makes a mistake and not knowing the correct action to take, or it's trainer has rewarded it when they shouldn't have and the horse repeats an action which it was previously taught to be 'correct'. When the horse is then told that the action is incorrect it then gets confused again and will often react by trying to ignore you or get rid of you... Unfortunately in these circumstances punishment is usually required to either get the horse's attention or make it respect you. You would not continue the punishment for any longer than a second, however, as after that point the horse would simply get confused and wonder if it's being punished because it was just punished... and so on.

In this respect I think people are quite similar, and a lot of problems seen can be corrected with a better upbringing and base education that includes understanding equality. I think with this upbringing a person won't turn into a rapist unless he/she has a serious mental problem. Once you get older it can be harder to 'train' out those problems, especially if the bad influences are still present.

I strongly feel that education is the core problem in a lot of societies. That and lack of positive influences when a child is young.
Image

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:36 pm UTC

nightlina wrote:
Quixotess wrote:There are so few social prohibitions against the rape of women, and so many encouragements both direct and indirect, that rape can be said to be a privilege that men may choose to exercise.

For some reason this statement really irks me. I'm not completely sure why, though. I think you're wrong in saying that there are very few social prohibitions against rape, although it could easily be dependent on which social-sector you belong to. In my little corner of the world we definitely do not encourage rape and I don't think I've ever known anyone to brag about it and act as if it's their 'privilege'.


I'm rather curious what Quixotess means by this, too. I've never been anywhere in the US where I got to rape women without repercussion. Or at least, presumed repercussions.

If Quixotess means that due to the high frequency of rape and the relatively few number of perpetrators caught, then that's a rather weak argument. There are plenty of other crimes that have high frequency and relatively few perps are caught. Like gang violence. Shooting young black men could be considered a privilege that other black men may choose to exercise, or selling crack. If you wanted to make ridiculous arguments, anyway. The argument requires redefinition of the words "prohibitions" "encouragement" and "privilege".
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:38 pm UTC

nightlina wrote:
Quixotess wrote:There are so few social prohibitions against the rape of women, and so many encouragements both direct and indirect, that rape can be said to be a privilege that men may choose to exercise.

For some reason this statement really irks me. I'm not completely sure why, though. I think you're wrong in saying that there are very few social prohibitions against rape, although it could easily be dependent on which social-sector you belong to. In my little corner of the world we definitely do not encourage rape and I don't think I've ever known anyone to brag about it and act as if it's their 'privilege'.


I am happy you have not seen cases where this is true, but in my experience talking with people from all over there is often very little to no social prohibitions against rape or abuse to women.

Yes, there is lip service. But there are also tons of people who brag about 'banging that drunk slut' or who outright drug women regularly with the direct intent of having sex with them. Getting someone too drunk to know what is going on is just as bad as drugging them, and both are too common. These crimes against women are perhaps talked of badly but they have no social prohibitions beyond that. Far too often a 'popular' person can do this repeatedly, and they do. At times they not only brag but show the number of people they do this too as an accomplishment. They do this to both men and women. I am sorry you are irritated by the statement Quix made but it is too common an occurrence to ignore.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:07 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:
nightlina wrote:
Quixotess wrote:There are so few social prohibitions against the rape of women, and so many encouragements both direct and indirect, that rape can be said to be a privilege that men may choose to exercise.

For some reason this statement really irks me. I'm not completely sure why, though. I think you're wrong in saying that there are very few social prohibitions against rape, although it could easily be dependent on which social-sector you belong to. In my little corner of the world we definitely do not encourage rape and I don't think I've ever known anyone to brag about it and act as if it's their 'privilege'.


I am happy you have not seen cases where this is true, but in my experience talking with people from all over there is often very little to no social prohibitions against rape or abuse to women.

Yes, there is lip service. But there are also tons of people who brag about 'banging that drunk slut' or who outright drug women regularly with the direct intent of having sex with them. Getting someone too drunk to know what is going on is just as bad as drugging them, and both are too common. These crimes against women are perhaps talked of badly but they have no social prohibitions beyond that. Far too often a 'popular' person can do this repeatedly, and they do. At times they not only brag but show the number of people they do this too as an accomplishment. They do this to both men and women. I am sorry you are irritated by the statement Quix made but it is too common an occurrence to ignore.


In my experience, women get drunk so they can get over their inhibitions to have sex. To "bang a drunk slut", where I come from, simply means a woman wanted to have sex because she likes genital friction, and didn't want a relationship, but finds it difficult to admit as such, unless she's drunk.

I think there's a difference between having sex with a drunk woman in the above case, and humping a chick that's passed out, who cannot possibly give consent. Or is it impossible for a drunk woman to give consent?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

Teapot
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:32 pm UTC
Location: Scotland. Edinburgh mostly.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Teapot » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:14 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:
sophyturtle wrote:
nightlina wrote:
Quixotess wrote:There are so few social prohibitions against the rape of women, and so many encouragements both direct and indirect, that rape can be said to be a privilege that men may choose to exercise.

For some reason this statement really irks me. I'm not completely sure why, though. I think you're wrong in saying that there are very few social prohibitions against rape, although it could easily be dependent on which social-sector you belong to. In my little corner of the world we definitely do not encourage rape and I don't think I've ever known anyone to brag about it and act as if it's their 'privilege'.


I am happy you have not seen cases where this is true, but in my experience talking with people from all over there is often very little to no social prohibitions against rape or abuse to women.

Yes, there is lip service. But there are also tons of people who brag about 'banging that drunk slut' or who outright drug women regularly with the direct intent of having sex with them. Getting someone too drunk to know what is going on is just as bad as drugging them, and both are too common. These crimes against women are perhaps talked of badly but they have no social prohibitions beyond that. Far too often a 'popular' person can do this repeatedly, and they do. At times they not only brag but show the number of people they do this too as an accomplishment. They do this to both men and women. I am sorry you are irritated by the statement Quix made but it is too common an occurrence to ignore.


In my experience, women get drunk so they can get over their inhibitions to have sex. To "bang a drunk slut", where I come from, simply means a woman wanted to have sex because she likes genital friction, and didn't want a relationship, but finds it difficult to admit as such, unless she's drunk.

I think there's a difference between having sex with a drunk woman in the above case, and humping a chick that's passed out, who cannot possibly give consent. Or is it impossible for a drunk woman to give consent?
Legally (I'm going to have to look up where I found this out...) having sex with someone who is drunk or under the influence of drugs is rape as, even if they seem to be consenting, drunk/drugged people can agree to things without thinking about them properly and as such are not making an informed decision. They could agree to things they don't actually want to do without realising what they are getting into. I'm not even going to touch the part where you said woman get drunk so they can have sex...
Jessica wrote:Dammit, teapot is better than everyone else.
Moo wrote:
pseudoidiot wrote:Localized, non-contagious willy leprosy?
"I'm sorry, sir, it's LNWL. There's nothing we can do".

User avatar
Lolsaur
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:40 pm UTC
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Lolsaur » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:16 pm UTC

@ Spuddly: So, all drunk women who have sex are just afraid of commitment? I find this hard to believe.

Also, I think we can all agree that alcohol can seriously impair judgment. I mean, I do things or say things I would never dream of if I was sober. So, surely a woman who gives consent while drunk, is making a decision while not in full control of herself?
Worst Fight Scene Ever

This cosy, special made for this Teapot

Spoiler:
You've never looked better than you did that night
And your eyes have never looked so blue
And when we kissed it was like nothing else existed
As time stood still for me and you

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:19 pm UTC

It is possible for a person who has been drinking to give consent. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about people using alcohol or drugs to get people to do something they know the other person would never agree to sober. A blacked out person cannot consent to having sex.

Example (spoilered for personal example of one of the times I was raped):
Spoiler:
I knew a guy in college. We would sometimes hang out because he dated my roommate. He would often try to get me into a threesome with him and my roommate, while I was intoxicated. I always said no, telling him I was not attracted to him. One day he says he wants my advice, and that he will buy be a drink as payment. We go to a bar and talk and he keeps buying me drinks. I feel safe because I have gotten drunk around him tons of times, and he and I during the entire course of the conversation are acknowledging that I do not find him attractive, and that we will likely never ever hook up in any way. Later I wake up in his bed laughing because I don't know where my pants are. When I sober up I cannot remember how I got into his bed, or what happened beyond knowing we had sex and he used a condom.
As a women who did go to bars sometimes looking for someone to hook up with calling this rape makes people question me. Despite the repeated rejections of his advances over the course of 3 months. Despite knowing that I thought he was a jerk but hung out with him because he was always hanging out with my roommate. To some people me deciding to go to the bar with him, to listen to him, was me consenting. I could not tell anyone because I would not be believed. When my roommate came home and found out she was actually happy that "someone else was dumb enough to sleep with him".

Rape happens all the time, and the only time it has any social punishments is when it is stranger rape. Otherwise, half the time the victim is seen as asking for it.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby 22/7 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:32 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:In my experience, women get drunk so they can get over their inhibitions to have sex. To "bang a drunk slut", where I come from, simply means a woman wanted to have sex because she likes genital friction, and didn't want a relationship, but finds it difficult to admit as such, unless she's drunk.
In my experience, you're a goddamn moron. To "bang a drunk slut" is... how do I say this... at the very least an offensive term, at worst, it's outright rape. Completely disregarding the fact that there are varying degrees of drunk and that the line as to where you can and cannot (legally or otherwise) give consent gets pretty hazy in there, as well as the fact that your "where I come from, slut just means woman" line is incredibly misogynistic, as well as the ridiculous double standard for guys/girls getting drunk and having sex (one is scoring, the other is a drunk slut), what you're saying is that, essentially, getting a woman drunk so that you can have sex with her implies that she wouldn't have sex with you if she weren't drunk which implies that you're raping her.

Also, way to lump all women into the exact same category (for those of you playing the at-home-version of the game, that's "drunk sluts that are only able to admit that they want sex without a relationship if they're drunk"). That's fantastic. Do you have a newsletter, because I have an address and a check to cover postage.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:51 pm UTC

Lolsaur wrote:@ Spuddly: So, all drunk women who have sex are just afraid of commitment? I find this hard to believe.


Huh, I'm finding difficulty finding where I wrote that....

Also, I think we can all agree that alcohol can seriously impair judgment. I mean, I do things or say things I would never dream of if I was sober. So, surely a woman who gives consent while drunk, is making a decision while not in full control of herself?


Have you ever been to a bar? Or spring break in an area with college kids?
There is a huge culture of getting drunk and hooking up.

If a woman gets drunk in order to tolerate mediocre sex with me, and another woman gets drunk, and only after getting drunk her impaired senses make mediocre sex with me seem like a good idea, how am I supposed to tell which is which? Do I just say no and assume that women aren't capable of making their own decisions?

sophyturtle wrote:It is possible for a person who has been drinking to give consent. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about people using alcohol or drugs to get people to do something they know the other person would never agree to sober. A blacked out person cannot consent to having sex.

Example (spoilered for personal example of one of the times I was raped):
Spoiler:
I knew a guy in college. We would sometimes hang out because he dated my roommate. He would often try to get me into a threesome with him and my roommate, while I was intoxicated. I always said no, telling him I was not attracted to him. One day he says he wants my advice, and that he will buy be a drink as payment. We go to a bar and talk and he keeps buying me drinks. I feel safe because I have gotten drunk around him tons of times, and he and I during the entire course of the conversation are acknowledging that I do not find him attractive, and that we will likely never ever hook up in any way. Later I wake up in his bed laughing because I don't know where my pants are. When I sober up I cannot remember how I got into his bed, or what happened beyond knowing we had sex and he used a condom.
As a women who did go to bars sometimes looking for someone to hook up with calling this rape makes people question me. Despite the repeated rejections of his advances over the course of 3 months. Despite knowing that I thought he was a jerk but hung out with him because he was always hanging out with my roommate. To some people me deciding to go to the bar with him, to listen to him, was me consenting. I could not tell anyone because I would not be believed. When my roommate came home and found out she was actually happy that "someone else was dumb enough to sleep with him".

Rape happens all the time, and the only time it has any social punishments is when it is stranger rape. Otherwise, half the time the victim is seen as asking for it.


Oh god. ONE of the times you were raped? That's horrible!

I have mixed feelings on this issue.
On the one hand, I feel like everyone should be responsible for the situations they get themselves into when drunk. If you black out, and consent to something, how is the man supposed to know that you're blacked out and not really consenting? How do you prove that to anyone? Should there be a BAC that, once reached, it is no longer legal for a man to have sex with a woman? Some culpability must lay with the person who decided to drink until they couldn't remember things and consent to things they wouldn't otherwise do. I used to binge drink heavily, but I always made sure to take responsibility for the awful decision I made when drunk. It was I who chose to drink, ultimately, and put myself in a situation where I would do stupid things. By going by the "I was blacked out and wouldn't have consented to sex because she was unattractive" criteria for rape, I've been raped twice. The women purposefully liquored me up until I couldn't remember anything, and I woke up next to her, naked. I wouldn't have had sex with her sober, nor would I have gotten drunk so I could tolerate having sex with her. I would never had had sex with her had she not got me drunk until I could no longer give consent (I guess, I don't remember anything past a certain point). It's just never seemed like that big a deal to me. It's sort of weird. Since it doesn't bother me (it did for a little while, I felt dirty and gross), I'm not sure if it really counts as rape.

On the other hand, though, I am a man, and haven't any idea what it's like to be a woman and actually grok the horror of being raped. Perhaps rape is a unique enough crime that it deserves separate rules of culpability.

22/7 wrote:
Spuddly wrote:In my experience, women get drunk so they can get over their inhibitions to have sex. To "bang a drunk slut", where I come from, simply means a woman wanted to have sex because she likes genital friction, and didn't want a relationship, but finds it difficult to admit as such, unless she's drunk.
In my experience, you're a goddamn moron. To "bang a drunk slut" is... how do I say this... at the very least an offensive term, at worst, it's outright rape. Completely disregarding the fact that there are varying degrees of drunk and that the line as to where you can and cannot (legally or otherwise) give consent gets pretty hazy in there, as well as the fact that your "where I come from, slut just means woman" line is incredibly misogynistic, as well as the ridiculous double standard for guys/girls getting drunk and having sex (one is scoring, the other is a drunk slut), what you're saying is that, essentially, getting a woman drunk so that you can have sex with her implies that she wouldn't have sex with you if she weren't drunk which implies that you're raping her.

Also, way to lump all women into the exact same category (for those of you playing the at-home-version of the game, that's "drunk sluts that are only able to admit that they want sex without a relationship if they're drunk"). That's fantastic. Do you have a newsletter, because I have an address and a check to cover postage.


I didn't say it was pretty vocabulary. And of course, at most, it's outright rape. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing all those other times women go drinking to hook up. Nor did I equate "slut" and "woman who enjoys sex for its own sake", society has already done that for me. I would be a fool to say that my current society somehow operates outside of my society. And of course it's a ridiculous standard. I really wish we didn't have to get drunk in order to facilitate sex, but I don't make the rules. I'm merely commenting on how it works. Feigning ignorance doesn't actually change anything. "Banging a drunk slut" doesn't imply rape, if the woman is purposefully drunk in order to have sex.

And nowhere do I lump all women into the same category. There are plenty of women who are capable of having sex without needing to get drunk. I am merely talking of the subset of women who go out and drink, with the intention of hooking up with a guy they wouldn't have slept with if they weren't drunk (for whatever reason). How does one separate these women from the ones that are actually raped? And I don't mean this in a post-hoc way, I mean, if I'm out at a bar, how do I tell? At what point is she too drunk to give consent, yet still be able to give consent? If she's drunk, and says yes, but would have otherwise said no, that is rape. But at the time she is saying yes, how do I know she's actually saying no?
Last edited by Spuddly on Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:55 pm UTC

According to what you just said, you were raped. And you know it does not feel good. You felt dirty and gross. I felt those things, and tricked, and I questioned my overall safety (since this was a person I thought I could trust). It did not feel as bad as violent rape (at least I do not remember pain, for example), but I was still overpowered and it is still rape.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby PictureSarah » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:59 pm UTC

Spuddly, I suggest you adopt a more sensitive tone when talking about this issue. Chances are, if you are hanging out with a group of friends or classmates or coworkers, etc., and 5 of them are women, you are in the company of at least one person who has been raped. By your own account, you have been raped, although it still seems you have a difficult time understanding the complete undermining of personal agency that one experiences when one is raped. You may even want to venture into Dear SB and read the rape survivor's thread, it may gain you a bit of perspective.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Lolsaur
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:40 pm UTC
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Lolsaur » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:03 pm UTC

Spuddly, I do apologise, I misread your first statement. I take that back.

So now you're saying all bars are a place for random hook up sex? I sure as hell don't go to bars for sex, and most of the people I know don't either.

Spuddly wrote:If a woman gets drunk in order to tolerate mediocre sex with me, and another woman gets drunk, and only after getting drunk her impaired senses make mediocre sex with me seem like a good idea, how am I supposed to tell which is which?


Is it just me, or are those two circumstances the same?

One gets drunk, tolerates sex.

The other gets drunk, says its a good idea at this point, then has sex.

Is it that one wanted to have sex before the drink, but the drink allows her the care free nature to do so?

Surely the safe thing to do would be to wait until both parties are sober, then you are sure?

EDIT: Here is a useful link about consent from the NC State University. it clearly shows the danger of alcohol in this situation, and says in big red letters that it an intoxicated person cannot legally give consent.
Last edited by Lolsaur on Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Worst Fight Scene Ever

This cosy, special made for this Teapot

Spoiler:
You've never looked better than you did that night
And your eyes have never looked so blue
And when we kissed it was like nothing else existed
As time stood still for me and you

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby 22/7 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:10 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:And nowhere do I lump all women into the same category. There are plenty of women who are capable of having sex without needing to get drunk. I am merely talking of the subset of women who go out and drink, with the intention of hooking up with a guy they wouldn't have slept with if they weren't drunk (for whatever reason). How does one separate these women from the ones that are actually raped? And I don't mean this in a post-hoc way, I mean, if I'm out at a bar, how do I tell? At what point is she too drunk to give consent, yet still be able to give consent? If she's drunk, and says yes, but would have otherwise said no, that is rape. But at the time she is saying yes, how do I know she's actually saying no?
Please tell me you see how those are the same.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:36 pm UTC

Lolsaur wrote:Spuddly, I do apologise, I misread your first statement. I take that back.

So now you're saying all bars are a place for random hook up sex? I sure as hell don't go to bars for sex, and most of the people I know don't either.


What you are doing here is creating a straw man. Where did I claim that all people got to bars only to have sex?
But you are aware that there are people that go to bars to drink and find someone for mating purposes, yes?

Spuddly wrote:If a woman gets drunk in order to tolerate mediocre sex with me, and another woman gets drunk, and only after getting drunk her impaired senses make mediocre sex with me seem like a good idea, how am I supposed to tell which is which?


Is it just me, or are those two circumstances the same?

One gets drunk, tolerates sex.

The other gets drunk, says its a good idea at this point, then has sex.

Is it that one wanted to have ex before the drink, but the drink allows her the care free nature to do so?

Surely the safe thing to do would be to wait until both parties are sober, then you are sure?


Perhaps you and I are from different cultures, but there is a culture I have experienced, at least amongst those of about ages 17 to 28, in the US, where you get drunk and have sex. Much less sex would occur if there wasn't alcohol involved. It serves as an excuse for behavior that is generally frowned upon, as well as encouraging promiscuous behavior. I know it's a hell of a lot easier to approach ANYONE when I'm drunk. Otherwise, I'm a bit terrified of people.

So yeah, I'm going to say there's a difference between going out and getting drunk with the express purpose of hooking up, and going out, getting drunk, and having somebody take advantage of you when you should have said no, but instead said yes.

Forgive the somewhat crude analogy, but it's like the difference between taking anesthetics so you can get an operation, and being anesthatized and having someone operate on you while you don't notice. And this isn't just reserved for women. Men also have a very similar pattern of behavior with alcohol and hooking up. I know I did for five or six years, and probably will when I'm single again.

sophyturtle wrote:According to what you just said, you were raped. And you know it does not feel good. You felt dirty and gross. I felt those things, and tricked, and I questioned my overall safety (since this was a person I thought I could trust). It did not feel as bad as violent rape (at least I do not remember pain, for example), but I was still overpowered and it is still rape.


I think that's the difference; I didn't question my over all safety. I've had consensual sex where I felt dirty and gross afterwards, too. But I just... I don't have the sense of violation that you feel. I think, because of this, my experience isn't really comparable.

PictureSarah wrote:Spuddly, I suggest you adopt a more sensitive tone when talking about this issue. Chances are, if you are hanging out with a group of friends or classmates or coworkers, etc., and 5 of them are women, you are in the company of at least one person who has been raped.


I apologize.

By your own account, you have been raped, although it still seems you have a difficult time understanding the complete undermining of personal agency that one experiences when one is raped.


In my experience, yes, I do have a difficult time understanding. I did not experience a complete undermining of personal agency. But I am definitely not saying it doesn't happen! I absolutely believe sophyturtle when she says it was horrible. I guess... my anecdote isn't really relevant. Sorry.

You may even want to venture into Dear SB and read the rape survivor's thread, it may gain you a bit of perspective.


I have read a little of it, and it made me very sad.
This is also why I don't consider what happened to me rape. I don't remember anything, and I don't feel that bad about it. How could it be rape if it was so mundane? I'm not trying to imply that it was mundane to other rape victims. I guess what I'm trying to explain is that it is too far outside of my realm of experience to understand properly. Ugh. I'm not doing a very good job at explaining myself. I guess I'm trying to preface what I'm saying is that I don't really know what I'm talking about?

22/7 wrote:
Spuddly wrote:And nowhere do I lump all women into the same category. There are plenty of women who are capable of having sex without needing to get drunk. I am merely talking of the subset of women who go out and drink, with the intention of hooking up with a guy they wouldn't have slept with if they weren't drunk (for whatever reason). How does one separate these women from the ones that are actually raped? And I don't mean this in a post-hoc way, I mean, if I'm out at a bar, how do I tell? At what point is she too drunk to give consent, yet still be able to give consent? If she's drunk, and says yes, but would have otherwise said no, that is rape. But at the time she is saying yes, how do I know she's actually saying no?
Please tell me you see how those are the same.


Ugh, you're difficult to argue with because you so readily miss the point.

You are at a bar, there is a woman there. You chat her up, and end up sleeping with her. It turns out she was too drunk to give consent, and you raped her.
My question is, how do I know when she is giving consent that she isn't really giving consent?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

I can't find anything in this thread that really addresses my question, save this, from Quixotess:

OK, seriously, that's already how it is a lot of the time. Can you seriously not imagine infinite possibilities where that's the case? Woman says not tonight, man persists, woman is afraid man will get violent, woman does not resist, man assumes woman has changed her mind, man commits rape. You can fucking rationalize anything. Man holds woman down, woman cries, man rapes woman, woman orgasms. Man does not realize woman is drugged. man does not realize woman is mentally ill. Man does not realize woman is 14. Man does not realize woman is incapacitated. Man commits rape.

You don't understand how what you're saying sounds to me, so you probably don't realize...It sounds like you're complaining about what a burden it is to not commit rape. This is, of course, shit I hear all the time.

Was that woman saying no, but you didn't hear her? Was that woman not consenting, but too afraid to say anything, so she just lay there? Was that woman physically resisting, but you had her up against a wall and didn't even notice? Was that woman crying, but you thought it was just because it was her first time? Was that woman saying "ow, ow, ow," but you didn't ask if she wanted you to stop because you thought she was enjoying it? Was that woman drunk? Yes? And you had intercourse? Then you raped her! Take some damn responsibility!


Seriously?
It's rape if you have sex with a drunk woman?
I guess that makes it pretty straightforward. Never have sex with a drunk woman, because then you're a rapist. I see now how men could be said to have a privilege to rape women.

But what's the case that one can't consent when drunk? Doesn't that remove all culpability from your actions when you're drunk? Or is sex a special case?

[edit]
Fixed quote tags, and see that the post I was replying to has magically disappeared.
Huh.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Lolsaur
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:40 pm UTC
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Lolsaur » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Have you not been paying attention to the reiterations of the whole "the law says a drunk person cannot give consent"? Without consent, there should be no sex. Otherwise, it is rape.

So, having sex with a drunk woman is indeed rape, by definition of the law.

Clear enough?
Worst Fight Scene Ever

This cosy, special made for this Teapot

Spoiler:
You've never looked better than you did that night
And your eyes have never looked so blue
And when we kissed it was like nothing else existed
As time stood still for me and you

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:05 pm UTC

Lolsaur wrote:Have you not been paying attention to the reiterations of the whole "the law says a drunk person cannot give consent"? Without consent, there should be no sex. Otherwise, it is rape.

So, having sex with a drunk woman is indeed rape, by definition of the law.

Clear enough?


In what, Scotland? As far as I know, there are no national rape laws in the US- it's a states' issue thing. I don't know how many states have the whole "the law says a drunk person cannot give consent".

Besides, since when have laws ever been a good judge of the rightness and wrongness of actions?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26530
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:15 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:In what, Scotland? As far as I know, there are no national rape laws in the US- it's a states' issue thing. I don't know how many states have the whole "the law says a drunk person cannot give consent".

As near as I know, all 50 of them.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests