Feminist Philosophy

[Aksannyi]

When I say "calling out," that's what I mean. If you say something sexist, I'm going to say, "That's sexist, and here's why." I'm not going to beat around the bush about it, but I'm also not going to be an aggressive fuckwad. There are boundaries to the way you treat people. I'm not really interested in getting my ass kicked because I decided to be a total dickhead and call someone names. I don't know why you automatically assumed that I'd just fly off the handle at people on a regular basis. It's as simple as saying something like, "No, excuse me, but that's actually a terrible thing to say, and it implies X..."

Look at the Ferguson thread as an example - although it was off-topic, I told the person in the thread why the domestic violence joke wasn't funny and actually exacerbates the problems facing women. It wasn't particularly the time or the place being that the thread was for the things happening in Ferguson, but I wasn't about to let that go. I wasn't a dick about it, wasn't condescending, and because I knew it wasn't in the proper thread, I even put it in a spoiler tag so as not to go completely off the rails. I have no qualms speaking up about shit like that. It wasn't funny, and it wasn't appropriate, especially in the context (and, I'd argue, from the person who made the joke and their profession, which, in case no one picked up on this, does nothing to make the police look any less sexist/racist. But I digress).

It's as simple as someone telling me a sexist or racist joke and me saying, "That's not funny." It makes them uncomfortable. Or even better, "I don't get it. Can you explain it?" Then have them try to explain to me why they think it's funny. I do it all the time. People tell me I've lost my sense of humor. I've just lost the desire to let people be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. around me. The attitudes aren't going to change if I just grit my teeth and let it continue.

[Thunder]

Didn't mean to make it look like I was calling you out there. The question was more rhetorical since I think there are more people making enemies because of their convictions rather than trying to get people to the truth

This one isn't though, do you think less than half or more than half of the "armchair activists" that help explain things do it in a cool, level-headed manner that you try and do?

I think it's way more than half are dick heads about it, which is why I think that random social media attempts at "raising awareness" don't hit many new eyes and alienate the majority of new eyes. I'm just not a fan of "random social media" campaigns without clear goals, coordination, and organization. Maybe organization is the biggest imo. I'd love it if there was someone who can think, on behalf of feminism(in some way): "we can't have Ben or Sally running around mouthing off how stupid the people who don't know something they've never been exposed to" and raising awareness on THAT, because, afaik, that behavior/culture/whatever is eating feminism out from under itself

[Mazmaz]

Are you asking us to fix social media?

[Thunder]

Are you asking us to fix social media?

No, that's ridiculous. I'm saying there's good reason for people, like Sho (who said something about it last page & the reason I responded to hey in the first place), to think that social media activism does very little, if anything, and if anything positive

[Aksannyi]

As someone who has been part of some movements (small-scale, nothing large-scale), I found that it is absolutely impossible to police your members all the time. You can lay down a set of guidelines and standards, but at the end of the day, people are people, and you can't make them act a certain way. We had to deal with people being downright nasty, and trying to reel those people back in and do damage control is really fucking hard. You can tell people "Hey, you're actions are undermining what we're trying to do here," but people have emotional responses and often do without thinking. It's really hard to police that, especially when dealing with opposition and people's fundamental beliefs being attacked.

You can't get everyone under such a wide umbrella to act perfectly. You're seem as though you expect that everyone who is going to stand under the feminist banner is going to be a well-behaved perfect angel all the time. That's simply not the case, and even people within these movements understand and recognize that. It is a constant battle. Especially when you're passionate about something - that's when you will get the most emotionally involved. That's when people are the most prone to slipping up. It's hard to stay calm and cool in the face of fierce opposition. For many people, it is easier to just lash back at the people who have attacked you, rather than taking that high road, even if you know somewhere in the back of your mind that it's going to make you look bad.

Just trust me - it is hard to keep people on the right track all the time, even if they do (in theory) support your movement. Support to some people means different things. For some, it does mean getting angry and getting rude and in your face. For others, it means being calm and rational and explaining your position. Leaders of these types of things have to recognize that and a lot of people behind the movement have to work with all of the outliers and try to bring them on board. It's a bitch sometimes.

You can even come to a point where you ex-communicate someone, but the damage has been done. Although some people will look and say, "Oh, that person isn't associated with them anymore, good. They were really making them look bad," most of the people's response will be "Wow, they're all fucking crazy."

And you're going to have that problem with or without social media.

[Mazmaz]

No, that's ridiculous. I'm saying there's good reason for people, like Sho (who said something about it last page & the reason I responded to hey in the first place), to think that social media activism does very little, if anything, and if anything positive

You're the pragmatic solutions type of guy right? So what are you proposing with these lines of statements? Because so far I've only gathered a "sit down and shut up" message. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[hey]

I think it's way more than half are dick heads about it, which is why I think that random social media attempts at "raising awareness" don't hit many new eyes and alienate the majority of new eyes. I'm just not a fan of "random social media" campaigns without clear goals, coordination, and organization.

Absolute nonsense. Perhaps there are a lot of terrible people who are well known, but you don't see 99% of feminists. They are regular every day people. They are the people like aks, who calmly explains why something is wrong when they see it.

The problem is that "if" statement I bolded - I don't think it's true. What I tried to explain (albeit in a shitty way, I wouldn't have posted if I took the time to reread it) was that the "marketing" is basically targeting the people who already hold those views, so getting "new" eyeballs is tougher than it would if strategies were more planned out and more action taken - and that, maybe, the people whose eyeballs are new end up getting alienated from the cause at a faster rate than being educated by the cause.

I think you do not get it. Literally every single person holds some harmful views, or treats people poorly, possibly without realizing it. Everyone. You, me, everyone. In fact, people who have shown an interest in listening, and correcting their harmful behavior are good targets to share your message with. If someone refuses to listen to me because some other feminists they've come across were mean, what the heck do you want me to do about that? They are not going to listen to me.

[Thunder]

You can't get everyone under such a wide umbrella to act perfectly. You're seem as though you expect that everyone who is going to stand under the feminist banner is going to be a well-behaved perfect angel all the time.

Let me say, I agree you'll always have dissonance. But I think it's as important to fight people communicating feminism in ineffective ways as actual sexism/racism is because not only are the people doing it making 1 person upset, but a LOT of people's eyes are on that behavior and it's way more interesting to look at than your calm/level-headed message

And you're going to have that problem with or without social media.

I'll just have to agree to disagree that it's different with social media in the equation. I think social media has totally changed marketing and the consumption of info but posting about that is gonna derail da fk out of what we're talking about I think lol

You're the pragmatic solutions type of guy right? So what are you proposing with these lines of statements? Because so far I've only gathered a "sit down and shut up" message. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I was just saying there was ample reason to distrust the "impact" of random social media activism.

I feel like I'm being baited into saying something to be flamed for, like asking a politician which religion he believes in lol... here are my "pragmatic solutions":

Spoiler: show

if I had to try and come up with solutions: I wouldn't say "stay off social media". You'll always have dissonance like Aks said. It's important, imo, to be "calling out" condescending, hypocritical, straw manning, dickheaded, and other infuriating modes of communication in the realm of feminism (from all sides) - just as important as "calling out" the sexist/racist shit (imo). I know you've heard that message already and your response has been "the feminists in my spaces DO condemn that kind of behavior" but the thing is, only other feminists are seeing it. I disagree with this personally, but a LOT of people against feminism want to talk about how hypocritical it is to not be targeting sexism against men - it'd be a good move, strategically, to listen to that and come up with creative ways to communicate to those people

As for "what to do" past social media... I'm not involved at all in actual feminist things but if I was I'd definitely be very adaptable. I think that's key for success anywhere, adaptability. I'd go find forums/places that are typically misogynistic or have other traits that I'm unfamiliar in dealing with. I'd post some things there - obviously get flamed to kingdom come, wait a few weeks, go back, and try the SAME info told in another way (I'd be learning how to structure the argument and I'd be learning about how certain people think about certain things, ie, evolving my understanding). I'd do the same in person and become my own leader. I'd spend my days understanding "the opposite sides" and focus all of my attention on being able to convince/inspire THOSE people better than anyone else. I'd do ads &/or "discussion/callouts" like these in the comment sections of the uber popular lol@feminist-overreaction articles because THOSE articles are the ones where my target audience is looking at

Basically, I'd focus on listening to and talking to NOT feminists

Absolute nonsense. Perhaps there are a lot of terrible people who are well known, but you don't see 99% of feminists. They are regular every day people. They are the people like aks, who calmly explains why something is wrong when they see it.

I think you do not get it. Literally every single person holds some harmful views, or treats people poorly, possibly without realizing it. Everyone. You, me, everyone. In fact, people who have shown an interest in listening, and correcting their harmful behavior are good targets to share your message with. If someone refuses to listen to me because some other feminists they've come across were mean, what the heck do you want me to do about that? They are not going to listen to me.

You don't think you can present the same information different ways, have success with one mode, and failure with another?

I don't -want- you to do anything about it. If you're cool with what you're accomplishing by only talking to people who WANT to listen, great! If you WISH you could get through to the "they are not going to listen to me" then there are some things you could do to be more aware of where they're coming from, be aware of cognitive biases that make you look like an enemy in their head, or biases that could make your message sound like the enemy in their head.

What you said is kind of because I remember teachers saying the same thing about kids in school. I'm not saying you're responsible to teaching everyone in the world like a teacher is to their class - but it's just kind of defeating for me to hear again

[hey]

You don't think you can present the same information different ways, have success with one mode, and failure with another?

I don't -want- you to do anything about it. If you're cool with what you're accomplishing by only talking to people who WANT to listen, great! If you WISH you could get through to the "they are not going to listen to me" then there are some things you could do to be more aware of where they're coming from, be aware of cognitive biases that make you look like an enemy in their head, or biases that could make your message sound like the enemy in their head.

What you said is kind of because I remember teachers saying the same thing about kids in school. I'm not saying you're responsible to teaching everyone in the world like a teacher is to their class - but it's just kind of defeating for me to hear again

Of course. I certainly tailor the way i speak about these things towards my audience.

I don't -want- you to do anything about it. If you're cool with what you're accomplishing by only talking to people who WANT to listen, great! If you WISH you could get through to the "they are not going to listen to me" then there are some things you could do to be more aware of where they're coming from, be aware of cognitive biases that make you look like an enemy in their head, or biases that could make your message sound like the enemy in their head.

I am. I do not really have what it takes argue too much with people who see me as some kind of monster. I'll leave it for someone else. But there are still lots of people who are willing to listen, and change the way they think and act, if you just tell them why what they are doing is bad. A lot of people here seem to think the focus should only be only on the anti-abortion, kkk members, people actively fighting against gay marriage, etc, and that just does not make any sense. It is important to challenge them, but ultimately, what is going to make the difference to changing the way every day people, who generally WANT to do good, act, so they raise their kids better than they were raised. It is hard as hell to get past biases that are formed as a child. The easiest way, by far, to get rid of them, is to never form them in the first place. And for that, the fixing issues in the law won't help. You need to fix the culture: by doing exactly the thing you are arguing is lazy and not real activism. In fact, it is the most important thing for us to do.

[notorious bum]

"The Hunting Ground": Film Exposes How Colleges Cover Up Sexual Assault and Fail to Protect Students

Premiering at the Sundance Film Festival, "The Hunting Ground" shows how colleges and universities across the nation are covering up sexual assaults and failing to protect students from repeat offenders. We speak with the film’s director, Kirby Dick, and producer, Amy Ziering. Their previous film, "The Invisible War," which exposed the epidemic of sexual assault in the military, won the Audience Award at Sundance in 2012 and was nominated for an Academy Award.

[Aksannyi]

My mom is passed out next to me or I'd watch that video (don't want to wake her up, she's had a long day) but from the description that looks like a fascinating watch.

[Blubbartron]

It's not up to colleges to determine guilt of crimes. To suggest otherwise is utter insanity. If a university wants to have a clause saying you cannot be a student if you have been convicted of a felony (murder, rape, etc), then be my guest, that's completely reasonable and I would fully endorse such a thing. But saying that a victim should come forward to a university administrator (retarded, go to cops), or that the university should investigate and determine guilt (bullshit, that's for cops/the justice system) is just beyond ridiculous.

Also I like the way he's trying to criminalize guys trying to hook up with chicks at around 7 minutes in. "Guys who try to approach women who have been drinking, who look lonely or don't have many friends, trying to befriend them - they are predators." Are you fucking kidding me dude? Is this the society we're becoming? People lie to each other every single day, and lying with the intent to get laid (whether male or female) is not a fucking crime.

Edit: he's basically trying to criminalize pickup artists. The guys in college that are getting better and better at picking up women are rapists, because their goal is to have casual, consensual sex and not a relationship.

[notorious bum]

I can't wait to watch their new film. Invisible War was so well done, highly-recommended if anyone missed it a few years ago.

[Salodin]

A predator for finding the one woman who is lonely and might want some one to notice them? Or maybe they're waiting for some one to initiate because they don't have the self esteem to go up to a man and say "hi"?

Good luck young men.

[notorious bum]

That wasn't the point he was making at all. Isn't it obvious that the behavior of a sexual predator is to have the appearance of the "nice guy" or harmless P.U.A.? If you have not watched the interview, Blubba is taking his words out of context, unless you want to make the argument that college rape isn't an epidemic and the rape instances reported by college campuses are accurate. I for one, can't buy into the "nothing to see here" rhetoric and accepted culture of victim-blaming that attempts to equate rape with sex. This is how rape allegations were treated in the military, if you weren't aware. That narrative has been thoroughly debunked.

[wipers]

It's not up to colleges to determine guilt of crimes. To suggest otherwise is utter insanity. If a university wants to have a clause saying you cannot be a student if you have been convicted of a felony (murder, rape, etc), then be my guest, that's completely reasonable and I would fully endorse such a thing. But saying that a victim should come forward to a university administrator (retarded, go to cops), or that the university should investigate and determine guilt (bullshit, that's for cops/the justice system) is just beyond ridiculous.

Also I like the way he's trying to criminalize guys trying to hook up with chicks at around 7 minutes in. "Guys who try to approach women who have been drinking, who look lonely or don't have many friends, trying to befriend them - they are predators." Are you fucking kidding me dude? Is this the society we're becoming? People lie to each other every single day, and lying with the intent to get laid (whether male or female) is not a fucking crime.

Edit: he's basically trying to criminalize pickup artists. The guys in college that are getting better and better at picking up women are rapists, because their goal is to have casual, consensual sex and not a relationship.

Don't you know that saying "hi" is borderline sexual harassment !

Guys only go to bars to date rape women we all know this.

[Charismatic]

It's not up to colleges to determine guilt of crimes. To suggest otherwise is utter insanity. If a university wants to have a clause saying you cannot be a student if you have been convicted of a felony (murder, rape, etc), then be my guest, that's completely reasonable and I would fully endorse such a thing. But saying that a victim should come forward to a university administrator (retarded, go to cops), or that the university should investigate and determine guilt (bullshit, that's for cops/the justice system) is just beyond ridiculous.

Also I like the way he's trying to criminalize guys trying to hook up with chicks at around 7 minutes in. "Guys who try to approach women who have been drinking, who look lonely or don't have many friends, trying to befriend them - they are predators." Are you fucking kidding me dude? Is this the society we're becoming? People lie to each other every single day, and lying with the intent to get laid (whether male or female) is not a fucking crime.

Edit: he's basically trying to criminalize pickup artists. The guys in college that are getting better and better at picking up women are rapists, because their goal is to have casual, consensual sex and not a relationship.

That's actually not the takeaway I got from it.
I didn't assume he was talking about PUAs or anything like that though mayhaps PUAs target the same vulnerable type of women since whether you want to convince or coerce, they are the easiest choice.

I could be wrong, though.

[wipers]

Basically "most men aren't rapists but the very small % of men that actually rape women ruined it for all men".


It is much easier to generalize men than to you know actually talk to them.

[notorious bum]

Basically "most men aren't rapists but the very % of men that actually rape women ruined it for all men".


It is much easier to generalize men than to you know actually talk to them.

As with any other business, the colleges that choose profits(their star performers) over safety, are ruining it for everybody.

[Blubbartron]

That's actually not the takeaway I got from it.
I didn't assume he was talking about PUAs or anything like that though mayhaps PUAs target the same vulnerable type of women since whether you want to convince or coerce, they are the easiest choice.

I could be wrong, though.

He may not be intending it that way, but that's the effect of what he's saying. There is literally zero way to discern between a guy who enjoys casual sex choosing to go after women that will be easily convinced to have sex vs. a "predator" who is effectively doing the exact same (entirely legal) thing, but with some kind of evil intent.

Regardless, the point is that he is trying to reclassify what rape is. Read between the lines in the video. He's saying these "rapists" are predators, going after vulnerable women and "raping" them (aka convincing them to have sex voluntarily). You know what that's called? Seduction. Wooing. Having sex with a woman against her will is rape - convincing a woman to have sex with you is not, even if you do it under false pretenses. It may not be ethical, but it's not so immoral that it should be illegal, especially considering the impossibility of enforcing thought-related crimes.