Feminist Philosophy

[Charismatic]

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.

That's just not how I interpret what he's saying. I would certainly disagree with him wholeheartedly if that were the message but I'd prefer to take him at face value and assume that he means forced sex when he mentions rape. If the woman is a consenting adult, its simply not rape and to imply otherwise would be disingenuous. (But again, I didn't see that here.)

Maybe I'll watch it again and see if I can see where you're coming from.

[Blubbartron]

That's just not how I interpret what he's saying. I would certainly disagree with him wholeheartedly if that were the message but I'd prefer to take him at face value and assume that he means forced sex when he mentions rape. If the woman is a consenting adult, its simply not rape and to imply otherwise would be disingenuous. (But again, I didn't see that here.)

Maybe I'll watch it again and see if I can see where you're coming from.

I'll grant you it's possible I'm being a little paranoid, but it's a pattern I've noticed a lot recently with the people proclaiming a massive problem with rape in the country. If you try to pin them down on what, exactly, constitutes rape in their mind, you will find you disagree a lot. They are very often willing to apply the rape label to an extraordinarily broad range of situations, most of which aren't what the average person would consider to be rape. It's an incredibly powerful tactic for argumentation and propaganda, because disagreeing with them immediately opens you up to the "oh, so you think rape is cool you fucking psycho" attack. Similarly, the implied moderateness of the proposition allows them to bring more people into the fold who agree with a concept that hasn't been well-defined.

[GoggleHead]

Has anyone else noticed that lately there seems to be an increase in the "no, no, you're actually a feminist" rhetoric? I've been seeing it a lot on my facebook feed lately, where someone will be in support of gender equality but try to distance themselves from feminism and inevitably a feminist comes along and begins insisting that the person is totally a feminist. It strikes me as extraordinarily dishonest. If gender equality was all there was to feminism, then people would not be distancing themselves from it while embracing gender equality. It's akin to claiming that simply because I agree with some of the things Jesus taught, I'm totally a Christian. That's not how it works. There is more to it than that. Please, tell me again about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

The worst part is that if I speak up I'll more than likely be ostracized for it.

[Charismatic]

Has anyone else noticed that lately there seems to be an increase in the "no, no, you're actually a feminist" rhetoric? I've been seeing it a lot on my facebook feed lately, where someone will be in support of gender equality but try to distance themselves from feminism and inevitably a feminist comes along and begins insisting that the person is totally a feminist. It strikes me as extraordinarily dishonest. If gender equality was all there was to feminism, then people would not be distancing themselves from it while embracing gender equality. It's akin to claiming that simply because I agree with some of the things Jesus taught, I'm totally a Christian. That's not how it works. There is more to it than that. Please, tell me again about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

The worst part is that if I speak up I'll more than likely be ostracized for it.

The best part about it is them telling you that you're definitely a feminist and then any time you dare bring up men's issues they hit you with "wahh what about tha menz?" or something else because you're talking about something that feminists are not concerned with. Can't have it both ways.

[Koul]

Has anyone else noticed that lately there seems to be an increase in the "no, no, you're actually a feminist" rhetoric? I've been seeing it a lot on my facebook feed lately, where someone will be in support of gender equality but try to distance themselves from feminism and inevitably a feminist comes along and begins insisting that the person is totally a feminist. It strikes me as extraordinarily dishonest. If gender equality was all there was to feminism, then people would not be distancing themselves from it while embracing gender equality. It's akin to claiming that simply because I agree with some of the things Jesus taught, I'm totally a Christian. That's not how it works. There is more to it than that. Please, tell me again about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity.

The worst part is that if I speak up I'll more than likely be ostracized for it.

You mean like this by the super totes funny Aziz Ansari omg so funnylolol hilarity:

http://36.media.tumblr.com/a70d2a7e9...2xjo1_1280.jpg

If so, yes. Yes I have. And then I block them.

[Andalusian girls]

the punchline is pretty funny tho, the absurdity of a doctor parsing technical language to the extent we parse bullshit

i feel like the people that find that joke unbearable are the same kind of people who say yo feminists why can't you laugh at rape jokes

[Koul]

are you implying I have a bad sense of humor. Triggered.

[GoggleHead]

The thing is, it's not being presented as a joke. It's being presented as reasoning for why I have to identify as feminist despite the fact that I see feminism as something undesirable and wish to distance myself from it.

[Gredival]

The thing is, it's not being presented as a joke. It's being presented as reasoning for why I have to identify as feminist despite the fact that I see feminism as something undesirable and wish to distance myself from it.

Because "feminism" is a very broad level categorization.

Feminism, at it's most basic level, is about the equality of men and women. It's "feminism" versus "gender equality" because historically it was about elevating female rights to equality with men's rights.

Feminist is a VERY broad label. The modern brand of feminism that most people have a problem with (i.e. social justice warriors) is a wing that is primarily concerned with victim politics. But not all feminists think alike on every women's rights issue. There are feminists who think porn is empowering, and some who believe it's objectifying. There are feminists who think that there men and women are objectified equally in video games and comics, and some who see them as industries built on satiating male fantasies.

The point is that people treat "feminist" as a dirty label with connotations of extremism when it need not be. In an ideal world everyone would identify as feminist, even if we continued to disagree about whether society was somehow biased to one gender or the other. Just like everyone can say they are "for human rights" even while we disagree about what constituted human rights violations. If you believe in the most general principle of gender equality, then you are, and should identify as, a feminist.

Not every Republican is a Tea Party Activist. Not every Democrat is a Liberal Hippie. Not every feminist is an Anita Sarkeesian follower or an acolyte of Judith Butler.

"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.

I agree that preying on insecurity, going for the easy mark, etc. are sleazy but only sleazy.

However at a certain point, if someone is intoxicated, they are incapable of consent. Both ethically and legally. If you are obtaining consent at a time when someone's judgment is chemically compromised, that is literal predation. Whether or not you are the source of the impairment, they are not in a state where any consent could be considered binding.

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.

Basically the rule of thumb that was promulgated at my college years ago (and we were one of the first campuses to come under fire for having a big sexual assault problem in recent years) was that verbal consent should be obtained explicitly and clearly.

It sounds ridiculous, but that's where the problems really are. The guys who think "She is saying no, but her body says yes" or "She is just saying no so she doesn't look like a slut" etc. That's the problem with so-called seducers -- they often don't stop when they are told no the first time; they have to be convinced the girl "really means" no. But that's not what no means.

[Aksannyi]

It sounds ridiculous, but that's where the problems really are. The guys who think "She is saying no, but her body says yes" or "She is just saying no so she doesn't look like a slut" etc. That's the problem with so-called seducers -- they often don't stop when they are told no the first time; they have to be convinced the girl "really means" no. But that's not what no means.

This has a name, it is called "enthusiastic consent." And thank you for this post - "No" does not mean "Convince me." A lot of men don't seem to grasp this.

I do want to point out, I think I read something last night (not from you) about fraud and/or false pretenses before having sex, as generally people will find that not everyone is completely honest before jumping in the sack. If protection is discussed - generally condoms - and a man does not put one on, then that can be considered a form of rape. I can't remember the name for the term this early in the morning, however, that's considered deceptive because without a condom, she would have withdrawn consent. If one element of consent is withdrawn, then not only is it a shitty thing to do, but it can lead to repercussions (if it can be proven, which is another beast entirely). Just wanted to throw that out there.

I identify as a feminist who supports both men and women. I think a lot of the movement I've seen says the same. I can go more into it later but I am heading out in about fifteen minutes so I'll come back and clarify my position later (if anyone wants it, if not well, I'll probably still give it anyway).

[Gredival]

If protection is discussed - generally condoms - and a man does not put one on, then that can be considered a form of rape. I can't remember the name for the term this early in the morning, however, that's considered deceptive because without a condom, she would have withdrawn consent. If one element of consent is withdrawn, then not only is it a shitty thing to do, but it can lead to repercussions (if it can be proven, which is another beast entirely). Just wanted to throw that out there.

I know what you're talking about, but I want to say it's not rape per se. This is the same thing that happens when you have HIV but you fail to disclose that to any and all partners before having sex, protected or unprotected.

There's a legal obligation of truthfulness about certain information with sexual partners. And it's not "fraud" because that is a monetary crime I believe.

[Xantavia]

It sounds ridiculous, but that's where the problems really are. The guys who think "She is saying no, but her body says yes" or "She is just saying no so she doesn't look like a slut" etc. That's the problem with so-called seducers -- they often don't stop when they are told no the first time; they have to be convinced the girl "really means" no. But that's not what no means.

Have you seen the trailer for Pitch Perfect 2 yet? Scene from that is what you are talking about. Guy asks girl if she wants to have have sex, she says no, but gives an big wink and smile to the guy while saying it. Played for laughs, but just adds to these kinds of misunderstandings.

around 2:20

Spoiler: show

[Teryu]

Where does this play part of?



(sorry)

[Aksannyi]

I know what you're talking about, but I want to say it's not rape per se. This is the same thing that happens when you have HIV but you fail to disclose that to any and all partners before having sex, protected or unprotected.

There's a legal obligation of truthfulness about certain information with sexual partners. And it's not "fraud" because that is a monetary crime I believe.

I believe it is considered rape in some states, but it's not really well known nor is it really treated with the same severity. Basically, it's a shitty thing to do and I'd caution against anyone who would try to do that.

[Galkaeater]

Surely a big part of -ist and -ism is acturrly doing something

[Blubbartron]

I'm not really sure what thread it belongs in (it's an SJW/feminist thing), but has anyone noticed that over a third of the super bowl ads are overtly SJW-ish? A 30 second ad costing millions simply to drive home the point that "like a girl" has a negative connotation. The ads targeted towards men (the Dove Care ad springs to mind) weren't accepting of masculinity, but instead trying to push the idea that you have to embrace femininity to be a "real man".

Am I being paranoid, or was that really a trend this year?

[Kuya]

You think that socially progressive is SJW? Are you a conservative? If not, you should consider switching sides.

[Aksannyi]

I don't know that I saw that, per se, but is that really a bad thing though? Masculinity can be pretty toxic, especially when we teach our boys that they can't cry and they have to be tough all the time. That type of masculinity that believes that anything typically seen as feminine as weak is what perpetuates misogyny.

[Gredival]

I don't know that I saw that, per se, but is that really a bad thing though? Masculinity can be pretty toxic, especially when we teach our boys that they can't cry and they have to be tough all the time. That type of masculinity that believes that anything typically seen as feminine as weak is what perpetuates misogyny.

I think the disconnect here is between masculinity and what most feminists theorists call "hyper-masculinity" - which they argue is a root cause of, or intersectionally related to, generic oppression, nationalism, militarism, etc.

When uneducated people (not as in dumb or stupid but as in simple inexperienced with feminist doctrine) hear or see these things, they lack the background to understand the finer distinctions in play. So these campaigns come off as attacks on masculinity in general, i.e. you're with us or against us and you have to embrace your inner feminine side because your maculinity is toxic.

So people (namely men) become defensive because it's like being told that being a guy is by default a bad thing. Then the other side interprets that defensiveness as opposition to equality. And you get your standard "STFU bigot" vs. "STFU SJW" exchange.

These campaigns have to be very careful with how they go. But the problem is that some people have such negative interactions with belligerent SJWs that they have already labeled "feminism" as a "radical" movement.

[Aksannyi]

That's true - I should have clarified that I meant hyper-masculinity, not your average masculinity.