# Hooray for Women and Feminism!



## Mr The Other

Oddly, a forum based on the struggles of coping with relationships with the opposite sex and comprised of people who have had hurtful and bitter experiences of the opposite sex often leads to messages that are not always positive about the opposite sex. I am not sure why this is the case.

That said, there are about 10% of people of either sex who are just not very nice. They rest are fine to fantastic. In relationships, we see all insecurities emerge as monsters, whether nasty or passive aggressive. Despite some feminism often going a very twisted way, women who are emotionally self-secure and confident are able to contribute wonderfully. 

So, let's here it for feminism! After all, most men have a tendency to love women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Awww....thanks! I don't identify as a feminist, but I am a woman who loves men, so I'm happy to hear from a man who loves women. 

My mother was a true egalitarian and I learned well from her. She also loves men and my father loved women. Neither of them said negative things about the other gender. As a result, I've never had a problem loving either one. 

Now, I'm pretty sure some guys on here aren't going to be too happy about your thread, so I'm a little worried what you've opened up here but....thanks anyway.


----------



## Cletus

I married a feminist, even though she has never used that word to describe herself. She has always been a feminist with a constituency of 1 - she saw her mother bow one too many times to her father, and decided long before entering marriage that it would be a union of equals. So much so that frank discussions with family members close to the front lines hint that perhaps she let the pendulum swing too far to the other side in insisting that she never felt second class. 

But being married to a woman who tries to be too strong is a damn sight better than being married to one who is too weak. So feminism in general gets my thumbs up. I like equality (not to be confused with uniformity).


----------



## Mr The Other

Sometimes the people who shout loudest get to represent their group. Many radical feminists are mad, but then so are many men's rights activists. Both claim they only want equality, but have such a negative view of the opposite sex that want equality with such abhorrent creatures would make no sense.

Most of us are in the middle and normal.


----------



## MountainRunner

Cletus said:


> But being married to a woman who tries to be too strong is a damn sight better than being married to one who is too weak. So feminism in general gets my thumbs up. I like equality (not to be confused with uniformity).


Damn skippy my friend. Speak it.


----------



## CuddleBug

I have always treated ladies the way they treat me and how they behave.

Most women are fine and very nice but I agree there is that small percent of those who are nasty.

My experiences so far in life. Some older ladies are in it for themselves, lazy, never lift a finger, divorced (anti man), petty, controlling, take credit for things they had nothing to do with and lie to try and make themselves look good.

This is not the majority of women in my experiences.

I have met many single, in a relationship and married ladies who are really fantastic. It seems the single / divorced ones are the nasty ones, that's what I've experienced so far in life.

I treat my wife Mrs.CuddleBug as my equal. We have full access to each others items and accounts, credit cards, cars, etc. We pay monthly bills equally based on how much money we each make at the time. I am the Captain, lead and get things done and she is my first mate and has input for everything and helps me. If she knows certain things better than I do, I learn from her and do it her way. If I know certain things better than she does, she learns from me and does it my way. I setup our finances so we each have our own original bank accounts but we're joint spousal, and same with our credit cards. I am a modern guy but also a little old fashioned and take care of Mrs.CuddleBug's needs, like lots of cuddling, hugs, kisses, and massages when she needs this.


----------



## Fozzy

When I saw this thread title I was like


----------



## Cletus

Fozzy said:


> When I saw this thread title I was like


Yeah, like what feminist in the world needs the appreciation or support of some paternalistic ****-owner.


----------



## FeministInPink

Cletus said:


> Yeah, like what feminist in the world needs the appreciation or support of some paternalistic ****-owner.


Ha ha! I appreciate this thread, if only because I tend to get kicked around on TAM by some of the MRA-leaning peeps on here. Feminists can't do it alone, we need the support of our male counterparts to make a real difference.

I'm a feminist who loves men


----------



## poida

Mr The Other said:


> Oddly, a forum based on the struggles of coping with relationships with the opposite sex and comprised of people who have had hurtful and bitter experiences of the opposite sex often leads to messages that are not always positive about the opposite sex. I am not sure why this is the case.
> 
> That said, there are about 10% of people of either sex who are just not very nice. They rest are fine to fantastic. In relationships, we see all insecurities emerge as monsters, whether nasty or passive aggressive. Despite some feminism often going a very twisted way, women who are emotionally self-secure and confident are able to contribute wonderfully.
> 
> So, let's here it for feminism! After all, most men have a tendency to love women.


What the F gave you the burning desire to say this?

Honestly............:scratchhead::scratchhead:


----------



## Mr The Other

poida said:


> What the F gave you the burning desire to say this?
> 
> Honestly............:scratchhead::scratchhead:


Because I think most people on this board are fairly normal and several threads were descending into bickering between bigots of the two sexes. 

The fact it is well received suggest that is fairly obvious.


----------



## Wolf1974

Mr The Other said:


> Because I think most people on this board are fairly normal and several threads were descending into bickering between bigots of the two sexes.
> 
> The fact it is well received suggest that is fairly obvious.


That is TAM. Those who dislike the opposite tend to be the loudest on both sides.

As for feminism so long as it isn't radicalized to oppress others I'm all for it!


----------



## RandomDude

I love women! Not to mention I have only 1 kid - a girl!!!

And she be awesomeness! 

I just don't reckon feminism is all "yay yay"
I strongly believe in equal opportunity, I also strongly disagree with chauvanism of either gender


----------



## Forest

poida said:


> What the F gave you the burning desire to say this?
> 
> Honestly............:scratchhead::scratchhead:


To burn away the any lingering misconception about whether boundaries and varied opinions are accepted anymore.


----------



## FeministInPink

Bugged said:


> I am a feminist.
> I find it kind of worrisome that to some it's an insult...


Exactly. They buy into the MRA-type propaganda that feminism is the root of all evil, and the cause for all of society's problem's today.

But a lot of white, upper/upper-middle class women don't see the need for feminism anymore, because they don't see a need for it in their own personal life. They think it's passe, and that sexism doesn't exist anymore. They're fooled into thinking that they live in a post-sexism, post-racism society, when that is FAR from the case.


----------



## Cletus

Bugged said:


> I am a feminist.
> I find it kind of worrisome that to some it's an insult...


That should not be surprising to any woman who has her ears open.

The mistake isn't calling some feminists man-haters, because they are abundant and they are very vocal. They are the Donald Trumps of the movement. The mistake is lumping all women who are pro-woman into the same category as the man-haters. Maybe it would be simpler if, in Wizard of Oz style, you asked a woman "Are you a good feminist, or a bad feminist?"


----------



## nirvana

Feminism means different things to different people.
To many, it means giving women the opportunities that men have had. To others it means righting old wrongs, taking revenge and getting unfair advantage over men by demanding quotas and special treatment. Let's be honest, the second type exists too.

Feminism started off in the right way but it also got hijacked by the second type. I am sure all forward thinking men have no problems with the first kind.


----------



## FeministInPink

Cletus said:


> That should not be surprising to any woman who has her ears open.
> 
> The mistake isn't calling some feminists man-haters, because they are abundant and they are very vocal. They are the Donald Trumps of the movement. The mistake is lumping all women who are pro-woman into the same category as the man-haters. Maybe it would be simpler if, in Wizard of Oz style, you asked a woman "Are you a good feminist, or a bad feminist?"


True, though I don't think they are so abundant... I think they are pretty sparse, but they are the MOST vocal and they are VERY active. I think of them like religious extremists. religious extremists certainly aren't even close to the majority (of ANY religion!), but they are the group that makes the most noise, that gets the most media attention, and that is the scariest/most threatening to everyone else.


----------



## Cletus

FeministInPink said:


> True, though I don't think they are so abundant... I think they are pretty sparse, but they are the MOST vocal and they are VERY active. I think of them like religious extremists. religious extremists certainly aren't even close to the majority (of ANY religion!), but they are the group that makes the most noise, that gets the most media attention, and that is the scariest/most threatening to everyone else.


So here's a transcript to an admittedly 20 year old PBS program that discusses the problem. It's a little hard to read because of automated transcription, but the discussion is about the difference between Equity Feminists (the ones I call "good" feminists) and Gender Feminists. 

PBS: Think Tank: Has Feminism Gone Too Far?

" An equity feminist -- and Camille and I both are equity feminists --is you want for women what you want for everyone:fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movementatricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture."

I recognize that it's no longer 1994, but the topic is still relevant.


----------



## Marduk

I was raised by a radical feminist. Who had her own issues with the patriarchy that I witnessed during my formative years.

As a consequence to witnessing this stuff, women's issues are near and dear to my heart. 

However, as a consequence to her radicalism, I'm also sensitive to feminism being co-opted by agendas, which is a lot of what I think people respond to negatively.

My boss put it well (as a female executive in what would have been traditionally an old boys club job) "equality is equality, not leveraging divisiveness to push an agenda."


----------



## Fozzy

Mr The Other said:


> Because I think most people on this board are fairly normal


:rofl:


----------



## ocotillo

FeministInPink said:


> True, though I don't think they are so abundant... I think they are pretty sparse, but they are the MOST vocal and they are VERY active.


One particularly depressing thing about all human movements (Religious, political and social) is that myopic zealots tend to be more strongly driven than normal people and eventually occupy the most prominent positions within the movement.


----------



## Fozzy

Exactly Ocotillo. I think the zealots are a necessary evil in some ways. Without the people that are crazy enough to take things too far, oftentimes there would be no change at all. The problem is getting them reigned in after real progress has been made, but before they take the rest of us off the deep end.


----------



## FeministInPink

Cletus said:


> So here's a transcript to an admittedly 20 year old PBS program that discusses the problem. It's a little hard to read because of automated transcription, but the discussion is about the difference between Equity Feminists (the ones I call "good" feminists) and Gender Feminists.
> 
> PBS: Think Tank: Has Feminism Gone Too Far?
> 
> " An equity feminist -- and Camille and I both are equity feminists --is you want for women what you want for everyone:fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movementatricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture."
> 
> I recognize that it's no longer 1994, but the topic is still relevant.


That's a good starting point, but it's a bad idea to unilaterally call all equity feminists "good" and all gender feminists "bad." True, some of the arguments and theories by gender feminists are a little bit out there/extreme. I've read work by all those you mention above, and others, like bell hooks, and they can be extreme sometimes. In my personal study, I've always taken a lot of what they've written as hyperbole rather than literal theory. Even so, a lot of the hegemony theories of gender feminists hold water, and a lot of women experience them on a daily basis. Myself included. So I don't think it's fair to say carte blanche that all gender feminists are bad feminists.


----------



## Icey181

A lot of women (my mother, sister, and wife included) kind of adopted the post-Feminist moniker in the 90s because they saw what the 3rd Wave was and what it was doing to men.

I love that there are moderate (post-, equity, whatever) Feminists who disdain the radical "Down with the Patriarchy" ones.

Unfortunately, as an individual who spends his working days on a University Campus and his social time in University towns, I can tell you that the moderate ones also come with another moniker…

They are the silent-feminists.

The radical ones control the discourse, they put up the signs, they set up demonstrations in the Uni-Square, and they set policy.

And the silent "moderate" Feminists explain to the rest of us that those are not the "real" Feminists.

Well, real or not, they set the tone and the rules.

I am all for the ideological idea of "Feminism" as it is talked about.

My issue is with _Feminists_. Primarily the 3rd Wave.


----------



## Marduk

Fozzy said:


> Exactly Ocotillo. I think the zealots are a necessary evil in some ways. Without the people that are crazy enough to take things too far, oftentimes there would be no change at all. The problem is getting them reigned in after real progress has been made, but before they take the rest of us off the deep end.


Zealots occur everywhere.

The real problem happens when they run unchecked by the primary organization.

And, in some cases -- being honest -- this has happened in feminism.

Which screws everybody over.

Especially feminists.


----------



## FeministInPink

marduk said:


> Zealots occur everywhere.
> 
> The real problem happens when they run unchecked by the primary organization.
> 
> And, in some cases -- being honest -- this has happened in feminism.
> 
> Which screws everybody over.
> 
> Especially feminists.


You're right. It HAS happened in feminism. I think there are a couple reasons for that.

1) There's no real organization or real structure to the movement. There are feminist organizations like National Organization for Women, League of Women Voters, and the Feminist Majority Foundation--which are the big ones--and then there are smaller, more specialized orgs. But there's no top-of-the-food-chain governing body, or a national convention to elect a movement leader (like in political parties). So who are the real leaders? Well, who knows? I guess it's those who are featured in media the most, those who are published, and who are outspoken on TV and become household names. How does a movement with no organization remove leaders that weren't elected be democratic process, but were instead anointed by popular media?

2) Given that feminism is a movement dedicated to ending oppression, it would be hypocritical to attempt to censor members of our own movement. Allowing everyone to have a voice, even if it's unpopular, is kind of the point of a movement that is working to fight oppression.

3) As Icey mentioned, the large majority of the movement--the moderate feminists--are also silent. They also don't necessarily identify with the extremists as even being part of the same group. So why would they do anything? Some silent feminists don't self-identify as feminists because of extremists, despite the fact that they agree with all the fundamental tenets of feminism.

4) Alternately, while moderate feminists may not agree with the extremist feminists, many of us know that we have benefited from their extremism. Like Fozzy said, they are a necessary evil in some way. And I think their agitation serves a purpose, and reminds those of us who are moderate to not become complacent.


----------



## poida

Oh god forbid we have varied opinions.!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> Yeah, like what feminist in the world needs the appreciation or support of some paternalistic ****-owner.


Me! Me! I do! I do!

I'm a feminist and I adore most men and I really adore the appreciation and support of those same men but most especially the man I sleep next to every night.

Feminism seeks to give women voice, all women, even those whose message most of us disagree with. Feminism doesn't have a leader, we don't have by laws and we don't have veto power on any female voice.

I've heard that as a feminist I should seek to distance myself from those whose messages I find repugnant. I do what I can. But most importantly, I teach my daughters that men matter a great deal in our world and in our lives. And I'm the only one allowed to roll her eyes at Dad!


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> Me! Me! I do! I do!


Your time in the sin bin has dulled your sense of satire. Sharpen up your skills or get a man to interpret for you.


----------



## Anon Pink

Icey181 said:


> A lot of women (my mother, sister, and wife included) kind of adopted the post-Feminist moniker in the 90s because they saw what the 3rd Wave was and what it was doing to men.
> 
> I love that there are moderate (post-, equity, whatever) Feminists who disdain the radical "Down with the Patriarchy" ones.
> 
> Unfortunately, as an individual who spends his working days on a University Campus and his social time in University towns, I can tell you that the moderate ones also come with another moniker…
> 
> They are the silent-feminists.
> 
> The radical ones control the discourse, they put up the signs, they set up demonstrations in the Uni-Square, and they set policy.
> 
> And the silent "moderate" Feminists explain to the rest of us that those are not the "real" Feminists.
> 
> Well, real or not, they set the tone and the rules.
> 
> I am all for the ideological idea of "Feminism" as it is talked about.
> 
> My issue is with _Feminists_. Primarily the 3rd Wave.



Are you sitting down?

I agree with you. I guess I've been a silent feminist and that's as wrong as when the moderates in any group remain silent while the zealots make news and give the wrong impression.

I have no idea what to do though.


----------



## alltheprettyflowers

Human beings in general are scum. Humans enjoy hurting one another. I would never be able to view everything in such an optimistic light. 90% are utter scum, the rest are mediocre scum.


----------



## FeministInPink

alltheprettyflowers said:


> Human beings in general are scum. Humans enjoy hurting one another. I would never be able to view everything in such an optimistic light. 90% are utter scum, the rest are mediocre scum.


It's so sad that you live your life with such a jaded view.

And I'm sure you're the life of every party you attend!


----------



## alltheprettyflowers

FeministInPink said:


> It's so sad that you live your life with such a jaded view.
> 
> And I'm sure you're the life of every party you attend!


What are you talking about, I dont even attend parties :x


----------



## Icey181

Anon Pink said:


> Are you sitting down?
> 
> I agree with you. I guess I've been a silent feminist and that's as wrong as when the moderates in any group remain silent while the zealots make news and give the wrong impression.
> 
> I have no idea what to do though.


Nothing will change, honestly.

Every conversation I have ever had with a moderate Feminist goes down the same path:
1) No True Scotsman Fallacy
2) General Acquiescence to Radical Feminist Policies

When women are willing to point out that the 3rd Wave "Down with the Patriarchy" misandrists not only _are the public face of Feminism_ but also _legitimate Feminists_ and demand they drop those points of view or drop the moniker, then things will change.

Feminist movements have always had that misandrist radical base and each successive generation fought a losing battle against that radical base's attempt to seize control of the discourse.

Personally, I think it is time to drop "Feminism" as an idea. The 3rd Wave has immutable control of it now.

When women on college campuses and in the media are willing to stand up and call out 3rd Wavers for hypocrites and misandrists, then, and only then, will things start to change for the better.


----------



## Cletus

It would seem we need a new label. I'm no MRA member, but I certainly believe in equal rights for men. Perhaps we should start the Egalitarian Movement and let the Equity Feminists join while dropping the Gender Feminists and equally rabid MRA advocates.


----------



## CantePe

I'm a true egalitarian. DV laws should be gender neutral. Women who come out swinging (physically) at men should expect a swing right back at them. Women and men want true equality? Then really make it equal and vase legislation and laws on human beings not genders.


----------



## Pluto2

Icey181 said:


> Nothing will change, honestly.
> 
> Every conversation I have ever had with a moderate Feminist goes down the same path:
> 1) No True Scotsman Fallacy
> 2) General Acquiescence to Radical Feminist Policies
> 
> When women are willing to point out that the 3rd Wave "Down with the Patriarchy" misandrists not only _are the public face of Feminism_ but also _legitimate Feminists_ and demand they drop those points of view or drop the moniker, then things will change.
> 
> Feminist movements have always had that misandrist radical base and each successive generation fought a losing battle against that radical base's attempt to seize control of the discourse.
> 
> Personally, I think it is time to drop "Feminism" as an idea. The 3rd Wave has immutable control of it now.
> 
> When women on college campuses and in the media are willing to stand up and call out 3rd Wavers for hypocrites and misandrists, then, and only then, will things start to change for the better.


I live in a college town, and have a college-age daughter.

Sorry, but this is just one big pile of rubbish. 

There is no silent majority, most of the people (men and women) I know that would identify themselves as feminist are out there taking action on behalf of their community, and that includes men, women and children. There is no power struggle, no one angling for control of a movement.

The only folks I've heard or read that believe in this battle for control of the feminist movement happen to be men. (This is purely anecdotal, so I'm not going to post endless and meaningless posts to support my opinion or refute yours) 

Believe what you like.


----------



## techmom

I am a feminist and I love men. The men I love happen to be a ok with feminism. They don't feel threatened by women in the workplace, birth control, or women with political power. They feel that women just want equal rights, and that ultimately this power will be used for the greater good.

My brother had a girlfriend who he has a child with, he doesn't mind paying child support. Because it is his child and it is in her care, why shouldn't he?

Which brings me to the fact that certain threads on TAM are started by men who have a fear of women gaining too much power. Women just want the same opportunities to support their families and to be worthy of something other than being someone's wife or mother. An intelligent woman who is willing to work hard should be able to achieve what she wants in any field she wants to go into. This does not mean she will discard men out of her life, because at the end of the day we will all seek companionship. Whether in the form of marriage or co-habitation.

It seems as if a certain type of man feels that he has much to lose if we become equal, every step towards equality was fought against. These men tend to gravitate towards a certain type of woman who is dependent and has issues. She wants to live off of him and is lazy, uses sex to get what she wants. This makes him feel superior to her and it helps support his world view. This is the type who comes on these boards and complains of his SAHM who is taking him for everything he has, a victim of the system. However he will absolutely refuse to marry a woman with earning power and a career, this does not suit him. A high desire woman does not suit him, so women do not want sex according to him. As much as he is told otherwise, he still does not believe, because his wife doesn't. 

These men need to expand their minds and fix their wife picker, then maybe they won't feel so bitter against women in general.


----------



## nirvana

Here's an example of feminism gone crazy.

Facebook's New Icons Bring a Little Feminism to Your Friendships
Facebook's New Icons Bring a Little Feminism to Your Friendships



> You may have never looked closely at Facebook’s friends icons. But on arriving at the social network to assume the role of design manager, Caitlin Winner sure did. On Medium, she explains:
> 
> As a woman, educated at a women’s college, it was hard not to read into the symbolism of the current icon; the woman was quite literally in the shadow of the man, she was not in a position to lean in.
> 
> My first idea was to draw a double silhouette, two people of equal sizes without a hard line indicating who was in front. Dozens of iterations later, I abandoned this approach after failing to make an icon that didn’t look like a two headed mythical beast. I placed the lady, slightly smaller, in front of the man.


This woman spent months of company time designing stupid icons that no one notices.


----------



## NobodySpecial

techmom said:


> Which brings me to the fact that certain threads on TAM are started by men who have a fear of women gaining too much power. Women just want the same opportunities to support their families and to be worthy of something other than being someone's wife or mother.


The real MRA froot loops, not the egalitarians, don't give a hoot what women want. THEY want the opportunity to buy a wife who will be required to have sex with him because he showed up in a monkey suit on a day in July. His only responsibility then is to the family money. And she has no recourse. And that was the good old days.

Now he has to be a human being, and view his spouse as a human being with feelings, desires, goals, passions. It is damned scary. 

That is the whole only the best guys get the girls now discussion occurs on these threads. That has got to suck when you know you just aren't one of them. And instead of BECOMING one, it is just easier to be bitter at women.


----------



## nirvana

A lot of women self righteously claim that men are "afraid" of "empowered and strong women". What a load of crap to generalize this way. Sure, there are some morons who are like this. There are many men who want their wives/girlfriends to have all the opportunities that they might have. This does not mean that these men are okay with their wives stepping all over them in the haze of feminism which is what the feminazi brigade is prone to do. We are talking about equality here, not allowing women ahead unless they work for it.


----------



## Pluto2

nirvana said:


> A lot of women self righteously claim that men are "afraid" of "empowered and strong women". What a load of crap to generalize this way. Sure, there are some morons who are like this. There are many men who want their wives/girlfriends to have all the opportunities that they might have. This does not mean that these men are okay with their wives stepping all over them in the haze of feminism which is what the feminazi brigade is prone to do. We are talking about equality here, *not allowing women ahead* unless they work for it.


:banghead::banghead:


----------



## EleGirl

FeministInPink said:


> You're right. It HAS happened in feminism. I think there are a couple reasons for that.
> 
> 1) There's no real organization or real structure to the movement. There are feminist organizations like National Organization for Women, League of Women Voters, and the Feminist Majority Foundation--which are the big ones--and then there are smaller, more specialized orgs. But there's no top-of-the-food-chain governing body, or a national convention to elect a movement leader (like in political parties). So who are the real leaders? Well, who knows? I guess it's those who are featured in media the most, those who are published, and who are outspoken on TV and become household names. How does a movement with no organization remove leaders that weren't elected be democratic process, but were instead anointed by popular media?


This reminds me of Al Sharpton. The only reason that he has such a loud voice is because the media appointed him (an a few others) as the leaders of black Americans and things dealing with civil rights.

He's not the leader. An awful lot of people, even blacks, do not agree with him. But the media use him because he's an easy go-to person to get a few sound bites for a news story.

It's the same with women, and in particular women who support equality for women (feminism) ... no one elected the media darlings as the head of anything.

The average woman, leading her daily life does more to define feminism than the media darlings do.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> It would seem we need a new label. I'm no MRA member, but I certainly believe in equal rights for men. Perhaps we should start the Egalitarian Movement and let the Equity Feminists join while dropping the Gender Feminists and equally rabid MRA advocates.


I would agree to that ... Egalitarianism.. Egalitarianist


----------



## EleGirl

I’m another woman who identifies as feminist. Why? Because it has made a very real difference in my life. I’ve gone from the 60’s when the restrictions on women were so numerable that its mind boggling to today where so much has change.

I (and other women) were not allowed to apply for a lot of very good jobs, not allowed to take the college classes for the degree I wanted, even not allowed to play the cello. I was not allowed by law to open a business without a permission note from my husband. I could not get a credit card because they did not give them to women without a male cosigner. This is the short list of what we were not allowed to do. And to top it off we were paid half as much as the guy sitting next to us doing the exact same work.

Had I been born in an earlier time, I would not have been able to have the career I’ve had. I would have been living in abject poverty. So I think I’ll stand up for the very thing that made it possible for me to take care of myself, my son, my two step children and even their ill father.

So yea, there are some women who have a lot of media coverage and who write books that say outrageous things. But without them, none of the above would have ever changed. Without the women who came before them women would still not have the right to vote, own property and a lot more that we take for granted today.

Every religion, political party, and social movement has the loud mouths. Do any of you who want us to speak out loud against feminists who say obnoxious things… do you speak out every time your political party (or whatever organizations you identify with) says something stupid, obnoxious and very hurtful? Do you go picket them, take out new newspaper space to denounce them, every time? I rather doubt it. There are fanatics in every group.

But a social movement is defined as much or more by those who live it every day. The people who do the volunteer work to help those in need, mentor young folk, etc.

For a while I was being like a lot of women today and trying to distance myself from the word “feminist”. But then I realized that I was lying to myself. I am not ashamed of what the feminist movement has done. Sure there are loud mouths. They have nothing to do with me. They can face their own piper all on their own.

I am very lucky too. I have always had wonderful men in my life. From my father, uncles, brothers, nephews, my son and many male friends. (Yes I married a not so nice guy. But that’s on him alone). I work in a man’s industry (engineering) and thus work with a lot of very good men.

My father, who was born in 1920, was the first feminist I knew. He was the first person to tell me to not put up with the restrictions. My mother did too. But my father was my strongest influence in this area. He had 5 daughters and 3 sons.
My point? I love men. I love woman. We are all equal and need to be working together.


----------



## EleGirl

nirvana said:


> Here's an example of feminism gone crazy.
> 
> Facebook's New Icons Bring a Little Feminism to Your Friendships
> Facebook's New Icons Bring a Little Feminism to Your Friendships
> 
> 
> 
> This woman spent months of company time designing stupid icons that no one notices.


I am sure that if Facebook had a problem with the way their employee did her work they would have put a stop to it. Apparently they agreed with her doing this.

What difference does it make to you what the icons on Facebook look like? Why do they offend you?


----------



## EleGirl

nirvana said:


> A lot of women self righteously claim that men are "afraid" of "empowered and strong women". What a load of crap to generalize this way. Sure, there are some morons who are like this. There are many men who want their wives/girlfriends to have all the opportunities that they might have. This does not mean that these men are okay with their wives stepping all over them in the haze of feminism which is what the feminazi brigade is prone to do. We are talking about equality here, not allowing women ahead unless they work for it.


Not one woman on TAM has said that all men are "afraid" of "empowered and strong women". Now I have seen some women say that some men are. And that's a fact.

But some, a lot, of men are not.

Why do you have a problem with anyone saying that some men are bothered by strong women?

I'd like some specifics. How do these women "step all over them". 

Why do you think that anyone has the authority to "not allow women to get ahead"?


----------



## ocotillo

FeministInPink said:


> 1) There's no real organization or real structure to the movement.


That's true. There are various forms of prominence within any movement though. Who has not heard of Martha Nussbaum for example? Ms. Nussbaum is a feminist philosopher, the current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at The University of Chicago Law School and a prolific writer.

I have the utmost respect for Ms. Nussbaum and greatly enjoy reading what she's written. Her strong sense of fairness makes her a voice of reason and moderation.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> Not one woman on TAM has said that all men are "afraid" of "empowered and strong women". Now I have seen some women say that some men are. And that's a fact.
> 
> But some, a lot, of men are not.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with anyone saying that some men are bothered by strong women?
> 
> I'd like some specifics. How do these women "step all over them".
> 
> Why do you think that anyone has the authority to "not allow women to get ahead"?


Nirvana's wife steps all over him. And thus it is a woman thing and feminism thing. It can't be a his wife is a jerk thing. It can't be he is a Nice Guy thing. Cuz that would require it to be "his fault".


----------



## nirvana

EleGirl said:


> I am sure that if Facebook had a problem with the way their employee did her work they would have put a stop to it. Apparently they agreed with her doing this.
> 
> What difference does it make to you what the icons on Facebook look like? Why do they offend you?


They are afraid because the feminazis are very vocal and the business will suffer. You know what I am talking about Twitter had a party with a frat theme and they had to back down become some bunch of women got offended. 

It does not offend me at all, because I never even noticed those icons. I am just amazed that some women have so much time to get offended and "hit back" and do something silly as though they are striking a blow for feminism. Ridiculous.


----------



## EleGirl

nirvana said:


> They are afraid because the feminazis are very vocal and the business will suffer. You know what I am talking about Twitter had a party with a frat theme and they had to back down become some bunch of women got offended.
> 
> It does not offend me at all, because I never even noticed those icons. I am just amazed that some women have so much time to get offended and "hit back" and do something silly as though they are striking a blow for feminism. Ridiculous.


Getting all upset about it also seems ridiculous.

As I recall, when TAM went to this new format, man of the men here were very upset about how men were portrayed in the header art. There's an entire thread out it. I suppose you that was ridiculous as well.


----------



## firebelly1

Cletus said:


> So here's a transcript to an admittedly 20 year old PBS program that discusses the problem. It's a little hard to read because of automated transcription, but the discussion is about the difference between Equity Feminists (the ones I call "good" feminists) and Gender Feminists.
> 
> PBS: Think Tank: Has Feminism Gone Too Far?
> 
> " An equity feminist -- and Camille and I both are equity feminists --is you want for women what you want for everyone:fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movementatricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture."
> 
> I recognize that it's no longer 1994, but the topic is still relevant.


I don't know that the distinction between "equity" and "gender" feminists is real. There have been divisions within the feminist movement based on ideology, like any movement. Patriarchy is real and is still a tenet of our culture (e.g. still no female president, glass ceiling alive and well in the private and public sectors, women still making 75% of what men make.) 

I wonder if people are afraid of the word "feminist" because they associate it with anger. It's okay to say "men and women should be equal" but we don't like it when someone says they are angry because men and women still aren't equal. And it is the angry feminists that we don't like - that we associate with the word "feminist." And in my mind, that's part of the problem. When it's okay for women to be angry (and not "crazy" or "b*tchy" as angry women are often labelled) and when women can really enjoy their sexuality in the same way men do without being sl*t shamed, then we'll really be on to something.


----------



## RandomDude

EleGirl said:


> Getting all upset about it also seems ridiculous.
> 
> As I recall, when TAM went to this new format, man of the men here were very upset about how men were portrayed in the header art. There's an entire thread out it. I suppose you that was ridiculous as well.


Hey the header art WAS bad, and it wasn't just men who noticed it 

Besides it was more humorous than anything lol


----------



## Icey181

Pluto2 said:


> I live in a college town, and have a college-age daughter.
> 
> Sorry, but this is just one big pile of rubbish.
> 
> There is no silent majority, most of the people (men and women) I know that would identify themselves as feminist are out there taking action on behalf of their community, and that includes men, women and children. There is no power struggle, no one angling for control of a movement.
> 
> The only folks I've heard or read that believe in this battle for control of the feminist movement happen to be men. (This is purely anecdotal, so I'm not going to post endless and meaningless posts to support my opinion or refute yours)
> 
> Believe what you like.


What is your point here?

Activist Feminists are the women who stand in the University square waving signs that say that men are all potential rapists, they are the ones who pull fire-alarms at talks about Domestic Violence against Men, they are the ones who shout down men as "mansplaning" things, the ones who give talks about how religion is hate-speech, they staff University Disciplinary committees and hold men accountable for all forms of consent while absolving women of responsibility for the same, and they are the ones who demonize men for heterosexuality while at the same time marching down main-street with their Tits-hanging out and complaining about ****-shaming language.

I would tend to agree with you, there is no silent "majority."

The majority of self-identified Feminists _are_ the radical 3rd Wavers who think men are an oppressive evil in America.



Bugged said:


> Ok so what are these radical policies that modern feminists are pushing that bother you?
> I'm tired of talking about adjectives...what is it EXACTLY they they are saying that's misandristic ? Let's discuss about that because as long as you keep on saying they're hypocrites without addressign their ideas..well I don't see much point.


Are you not paying attention or are you just trolling?

Did you somehow miss the whole 2015-College Rape Culture debacle? Have you never heard of Affirmative Consent rules on Campus? Never walked past a "Don't Rape" poster on your way to lunch? Never sat through a lecture on how men oppress women _with their male gaze_? Never heard of the Duluth Model for dealing with DV? Missed the whole campaign to stop the horrible oppression that is "manspreading?"

Or have you just never actually spoken with a 3rd Wave Feminist who argues that men and male-sexuality are the sources of patriarchical oppression in society?

Never noticed that, despite their "equality for all" rhetoric, 3rd Wavers not only fail to address legal imbalances but actively work against forcing women to pay alimony or register as sex offenders?

Never once noticed how 3rd Wave Feminists defend false-accusers of rape, to the point of sometimes claiming it is good for men to experience false accusations, because they can learn from the experience?

I guess if you have not turned on the News or looked at the Internet in over a decade you could have missed those things.

Otherwise it is willful ignorance on your part.



techmom said:


> I am a feminist and I love men. The men I love happen to be a ok with feminism. They don't feel threatened by women in the workplace, birth control, or women with political power. They feel that women just want equal rights, and that ultimately this power will be used for the greater good.
> 
> My brother had a girlfriend who he has a child with, he doesn't mind paying child support. Because it is his child and it is in her care, why shouldn't he?
> 
> Which brings me to the fact that certain threads on TAM are started by men who have a fear of women gaining too much power. Women just want the same opportunities to support their families and to be worthy of something other than being someone's wife or mother.


Ah yes, the, "You're just afraid of strong, independent, women" argument.

I do not know any men who have an issue with women who want to work, have birth-control, or run for political office.

I do know men who cannot understand how presuming men are rapists, denying men any form of legal recourse against a pregnancy _they don't want_, setting up divorce proceedings on the assumption that men have to _financially support these strong independent women for years_, or presuming it is the man's responsibility to attain consent in a sexual interaction despite the presence of a second adult actually fit into the mold of "equality" and "independence."


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Activist Feminists are the women who stand in the University square waving signs that say that men are all potential rapists, they are the ones who pull fire-alarms at talks about Domestic Violence against Men, they are the ones who shout down men as "mansplaning" things, the ones who give talks about how religion is hate-speech, they staff University Disciplinary committees and hold men accountable for all forms of consent while absolving women of responsibility for the same, and they are the ones who demonize men for heterosexuality while at the same time marching down main-street with their Tits-hanging out and complaining about ****-shaming language.


You speak as though 3rd Wave Feminism, indeed any form of feminist activism, is a uniform voice.

But what you aren't acknowledging is that much of the 3rd wave is actually about *challenging* the notion that there can be a single feminism -- and that feminists needs to be aware of and inclusive of women's voices from different races, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

This means the voice is nowhere near as uniform as the one you have chosen to rail against. Not even close.

Also, the affirmative consent rules have been adopted primarily to stop universities from rug-sweeping and pretending that there is no problem on their campuses. Perpetrators were walking off scott free because, you know, "boys will be boys" and of course they will want to "turn that no into a yes". Because, you know, those women are just out there taunting them with all those slvtty clothes they wear.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
All movements have extremists with ridiculous views. Those extreme views do not in general represent the beliefs of the majority in the movement. 

The mainstream in women's rights and men's rights have valid concerns and they generally want fairness and equality. This can be complicated for sexual issues because of the physical differences between the genders. This leads to some very difficult questions about parental responsibility and even about sexual consent. 

The loud crazies on both sides are best ignored. You can always find an extremist on the other side who said something crazy.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> Never heard of the Duluth Model for dealing with DV?


Do you means this? What's wrong with it?

A community using the Duluth Model approach:

◦Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.

◦Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.

◦Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.

◦Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men's use of tactics of power and control over women.

◦Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.

◦Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community's response to battering.


This approach to tackling violence against women has inspired violence protection law implementation and the creation of batterer intervention programs in the United States and around the world including countries such as Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, Romania, and Australia.


----------



## EleGirl

Bugged said:


> I'm not familiar with the consent laws..do they presume it is the man's responsability?


The consent laws that say that everyone, male/female, has to get consent before having sex with someone.

“Affirmative consent,” the law says, “means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. *It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.* Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.” You can read the whole law here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ornias-yes-means-yes-consent-law-can-be-sexy/


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> You speak as though 3rd Wave Feminism, indeed any form of feminist activism, is a uniform voice.
> 
> But what you aren't acknowledging is that much of the 3rd wave is actually about *challenging* the notion that there can be a single feminism -- and that feminists needs to be aware of and inclusive of women's voices from different races, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
> 
> This means the voice is nowhere near as uniform as the one you have chosen to rail against. Not even close.


That "Feminism" includes a non-unified discourse does not invalidate that the _product of said discourse_ in the form of social pressure, non-legal policies, and actual laws are misandrist (hell, utterly misogynistic in most cases) and radical.

And for the record, no wave of Feminism has had more of an intersectionality crisis than modern 3rd Wave Feminism.

And considering the struggles with those issues 2nd Wave Feminism had in the 60s-70s, that is saying something.

College-based 3rd Wave Feminism has effectively left working class African American and Hispanic Women behind while it advocates for Middle and Upper class educated White Women.

And if there is anything approaching interactions with 3rd Wave Feminism and Asian-American or Indian-American women, I have never seen it, personally.



always_alone said:


> Also, the affirmative consent rules have been adopted primarily to stop universities from rug-sweeping and pretending that there is no problem on their campuses. Perpetrators were walking off scott free because, you know, "boys will be boys" and of course they will want to "turn that no into a yes". Because, you know, those women are just out there taunting them with all those slvtty clothes they wear.


None of what you said is true, whatsoever.

First, there is neither a rape crisis or rape culture on college campuses. 
Second, men are not "getting away" with raping and walking away.

The issue with college campuses is that they are using an utterly insane interpretation of Title IX to intervene between students and Civil Law Enforcement and pretend that they have some form of authority to legal jurisprudence in these cases.

And much to my complete disdain, President Obama and his administration have thus far endorsed this view. 

The "problem" was that when women made accusations against fellow students, those students had the gall to demand a presumption of innocence and tried to file civil suits against the University when their funding and enrollment were unilaterally suspended before any investigation was undertaken.

The Affirmative Consent rules, which are amazingly not being applied to _women_ in disciplinary meetings (funny that), effectively substitute a binding requirement for men to prove consent before engaging in sexual activity, otherwise, they have no recourse against disciplinary committees which have proven, time and again, to be unfairly biased against men.

In other words, all men are considered guilty of sexual assault and rape unless they prove otherwise.

I have a problem with "Presumed Guilty" rules operating within the United States of America.

Period.

Also, I find it hilarious that a 3rd Wave Feminist crusade has resulted in rules which presume that the women are incapable of making their consent known and effectively holds they are not responsible for ever establishing consent in sexual interactions.

Almost as if they were children who needed to be protected.


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> The consent laws that say that everyone, male/female, has to get consent before having sex with someone.
> 
> “Affirmative consent,” the law says, “means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. *It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.* Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.” You can read the whole law here."
> 
> How California?s ?yes means yes? consent law can be sexy - The Washington Post


And much like supposedly gender-blind divorce proceedings these laws are _not_ being applied blindly.

They are targeted at _men_.


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> Do you means this? What's wrong with it?
> 
> A community using the Duluth Model approach:
> 
> ◦Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.
> 
> ◦Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.
> 
> ◦*Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.*
> 
> ◦Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men's use of tactics of power and control over women.
> 
> ◦Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.
> 
> ◦Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community's response to battering.
> 
> 
> This approach to *tackling violence against women* has inspired violence protection law implementation and the creation of batterer intervention programs in the United States and around the world including countries such as Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, Romania, and Australia.


The Duluth Model was designed by 3rd Wave Feminists who assume, based on a sexist rejection of over 40-years of data otherwise, that _men_ should be presumed the aggressors in all Domestic Violence calls and automatically assumes the Women are victims and need to be protected.

This means that women get priority in the legal system, are advanced an immediate assumption of innocence and victimhood, and are to be specially "protected."

Which means men are de-prioritized, are advanced an immediate assumption of guilt and an abuser-identity, and are specially prosecuted.

The effective result of this is to immediately arrest a man in all police responses to a DV incident, including when it was the _man_ calling the police as the _victim_.

Which of course is totally not sexist, like, at all. We all know men are evil. Again…


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> The gender bias in the mass media seems to be accelerating and being directed towards younger and younger children. We remember "Three's Company" in the 1970's and "Everyone Loves Raymond" in the 1990's. Women are needed to straighten out the lumbering buffoons. Look at the most popular animated film right now:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRUAzGQ3nSY
> 
> Here we have a mom who needs a husband intercede before making any effort on her own. When he fails to respond in a manner she approves of, she then entertains the "Brazilian pilot" fantasy. So the mom is powerless and the dad is a buffoon. Are you freakin' kidding me? We have a serious problem folks-


They are both buffoonish.

Surely you are aware that there are thousands of movies/shows produced every year.

There are many that show men as strong characters, who are decisive, etc. In some the guy is the force for good, in others he's a force for bad.

The show you linked to is only one of thousands this year alone. Most people will never even watch that show. From the trailer.. my opinion of it is that it's a waste of time.

So no, we do not have a serious problem because a few shows who men and women in unfavorable light. If you don't like the show, just don't watch it. If you have kids, don't let them watch it. 

By the way, it is mostly men who write and produce the shows. If you have a problem with a show, take it up with the people who wrote and produced it.


----------



## Icey181

Also, did you miss the clear gender-bias in the WP article on the Consent law?

Starting with this rationalization behind it:


> “With one in five women on college campuses experiencing sexual assault, it is high time the conversation regarding sexual assault be shifted to one of prevention, justice, and healing,” Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) said, as the Associated Press reported.


And I am sure these recommendations were totally targeted at how *women* can make getting consent "fun."


> ▷ Baby, you want to make a bunk bed: me on top, you on bottom?
> ▷ May I pleasure you with my tongue?
> ▷ Would you like to try an Australian kiss? It’s like a French kiss, but “Down Under.”
> ▷ I’ve got the ship. You’ve got the harbor. Can I dock for the night?


Yeah, totally not targeted at how *men* need to get consent first…


----------



## happy as a clam

Just waiting...

[URL="[/URL]


----------



## Cletus

The American Law Institute isn't particularly comfortable with Affirmative consent laws, for many of the same reasons that have been argued here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0


----------



## ocotillo

firebelly1 said:


> I wonder if people are afraid of the word "feminist" because they associate it with anger. It's okay to say "men and women should be equal" but we don't like it when someone says they are angry because men and women still aren't equal. And it is the angry feminists that we don't like - that we associate with the word "feminist." And in my mind, that's part of the problem.


I think it's probably important to distinguish between righteous indignation and misplaced anger.

It's one thing to point out that human societies have largely been patriarchal and that this has often been to the detriment of equality. That's a fact. 

It's quite another thing to throw around the term, "The Patriarchy" in the same sense as, "The Man" and "The Establishment" which are derogatory terms suggestive of active conspiracy and collusion.

It's one thing to point out that male exclusivity in high offices like the presidency has been largely due to the patriarchal roots of our society. 

It's another thing to lay that fact at the feet of an alleged patriarchy, because it implies a bigotry and mean spiritedness on the part of men as a general demographic group.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> The Duluth Model was designed by 3rd Wave Feminists who assume, based on a sexist rejection of over 40-years of data otherwise, that _men_ should be presumed the aggressors in all Domestic Violence calls and automatically assumes the Women are victims and need to be protected.
> 
> This means that women get priority in the legal system, are advanced an immediate assumption of innocence and victimhood, and are to be specially "protected."
> 
> Which means men are de-prioritized, are advanced an immediate assumption of guilt and an abuser-identity, and are specially prosecuted.
> 
> The effective result of this is to immediately arrest a man in all police responses to a DV incident, including when it was the _man_ calling the police as the _victim_.
> 
> Which of course is totally not sexist, like, at all. We all know men are evil. Again…


I agree that the this model and any others need to be tweaked to include men as victims and women a perpetrators of DV. The basic model is good. That one tweak would make it great.

And that has to happen.

But, demonizing those who have drawn attention to the problems of DV and gotten laws passed, etc. will not help male victims.

Instead of name calling and the hate you are throwing out, what's needed is positive discussion and changes.

You accuse feminists of being vile, angry creatures. I see no difference between an angry feminist and an angry MRA person. 

Why would anyone want to discuss something with a person spewing the anger/hate shown here?


----------



## Icey181

*Here* is a classic example of what goes on with these kinds of "gender blind" rulings on college campuses.

A UCSD student accused of sexual misconduct has sued to reverse his suspension. | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

My favorite part of the story was how Dean Sherry Mallory increased the kids suspension to one year, simply because he had the audacity to appeal the original decision on grounds a judge would later find to be totally legitimate.



> Haberkorn questioned if the school increased the punishment to send a message to discourage other accused students from working with attorneys. He said he is representing the student because he is a friend of his father and has known the student since he was a baby


The reason why this particularly story hit the news-cycle again this month was because it was one of the few cases in which _the student went outside of the University successfully for justice._

These kinds of things are the product of the 3rd Wave.

And without that Judge, Mr. Haberkorn would have had his entire life literally ruined (no education and a sexual assault stigma for life) because a biased disciplinary committee and "Progessive" Dean decided he was a man, and therefore guilty.

Yeah, modern 3rd Wave Feminism is all about equality….


----------



## firebelly1

ocotillo said:


> I think it's probably important to distinguish between righteous indignation and misplaced anger.
> 
> It's one thing to point out that human societies have largely been patriarchal and that this has often been to the detriment of equality. That's a fact.
> 
> It's quite another thing to throw around the term, "The Patriarchy" in the same sense as, "The Man" and "The Establishment" which are derogatory terms suggestive of active conspiracy and collusion.
> 
> It's one thing to point out that male exclusivity in high offices like the presidency has been largely due to the patriarchal roots of our society.
> 
> It's another thing to lay that fact at the feet of an alleged patriarchy, because it implies a bigotry and mean spiritedness on the part of men as a general demographic group.


Good point and distinction.


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> I agree that the this model and any others need to be tweaked to include men as victims and women a perpetrators of DV. The basic model is good. That one tweak would make it great.
> 
> And that has to happen.


What tweak?

The Duluth Model only works because it holds as a first principle that DV is the product of male aggressors and female victims.

Its authors quite literally reject the decades worth of research which demonstrates that IPV is 50% Reciprocal and then split roughly 50/50 between male and female perpetrators.

The Duluth Model _only works via a rejection of those numbers_.



EleGirl said:


> But, demonizing those who have drawn attention to the problems of DV and gotten laws passed, etc. will not help male victims.


How is declaring that IPV is a female-victim-centric problem and creating laws which presume male guilt "drawing attention to the problems of DV?"

You cannot both hold men immediately accountable in all DV calls _and_ claim to be bringing attention to the realities of non-gendered IPV issues.

They are quite literally mutually exclusive.



EleGirl said:


> Instead of name calling and the hate you are throwing out, what's needed is positive discussion and changes.
> 
> You accuse feminists of being vile, angry creatures. I see no difference between an angry feminist and an angry MRA person.
> 
> Why would anyone want to discuss something with a person spewing the anger/hate shown here?


This is the fun part.

A 3rd Wave Feminist declares that 1 out of 5 women are raped on college campuses and people talk about "raising consciousness" and pass new rules which shift the burden of proof onto the _accused_ and that is progress.

Pointing out that the 1 out of 5 number is a bold faced lie and that those rules create an unfair legal burden and presumption of guilt upon the accused is apparently "anger/hate."

Sorry, but 3rd Wave Feminists are not moderate, soft-spoken, rational individuals.

They are *literally* screaming, marching, and picketing University Campuses across this nation declaring that men are all potential rapists and that any attempts to argue with them is tantamount to rape-apology and oppression.

I did not fabricate having to pass by posters instructing me not to rape on my way to grab a Latte before office hours.

I did not fabricate stories of these girls shouting down and pulling fire alarms to disrupt Domestic Violence against Men talks.

Personally, I find the MRA boys little better.

But pretending modern 3rd Wave Feminists fit into the pleasant little moderate dynamic _you personally identify with_ is simply ignoring the reality that some of us actually _see_ on a daily basis to make yourself feel better about your self-identification.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> And much like supposedly gender-blind divorce proceedings these laws are _not_ being applied blindly.
> 
> They are targeted at _men_.


Being a student of history, surely you know that any major social change takes a long time. In the last 100 years there has bee more social change than in the previous 1000 years. It takes a while for society and the legal system to respond. 

Laws have been changing to be gender neutral. More and more divorce cases are handled in a gender neutral manner.

It is both men AND women who are pushing those changes. 

The very fact that alimony is awarded in only 15% of divorces and most of the time it's award to a SAHM/D on a temporary/rehabilitative support so that they have some time to get job skills and get back into the work force.

Feminism... equality for women... the thing you seem to hate... is the single most thing that has driven the gender neutrality of laws and things like alimony being pretty rare. 

I'm a huge supporter of gender neutrality in DV cases, divorce and everything else. I've helped men who had problems in these areas, to the point of paying their legal fees, to writing court documents for them, gathering evidence, etc. I have 4 sisters.. we all have done this. 

There's a large group of women here on TAM who I know pretty well. Everyone of them agrees with gender neutrality. Yet here you are spewing anger and hate at us as though we are the enemy.


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> I disagree 100% .. I picked a few examples, I could pick dozens more. The games changes by inches.
> 
> Box office report: Inside Out surprises with $91 million opening | EW.com
> 
> The problem is not with the producers, it's with the obliviousness of the consumers. Should a feminist not object to being depicted in this way?


The male CARTOON character you are so upset about is a man. I did not get the impression that he associates himself with any radical men's rights ideology.

That clip had plenty of little put down jokes about women. Are you only concerned that the husband was not portrayed as a alpha? Or are you also upset because the wife was portrayed as an airhead?

There are plenty of movies/shows that portray feminists in a negative light. There are a gazillion that portray women in a bad light. Shoot we have a multi billion dollar industry that centers around showing women as objects with the only value being body parts. 

If producers did not create the movies/shows not one would watch them. So, in my book, it's the producer who puts out garbage.. playing to the lowest common denominator that has the most fault.

That's my opinion.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> Also, did you miss the clear gender-bias in the WP article on the Consent law?
> 
> Starting with this rationalization behind it:
> 
> 
> And I am sure these recommendations were totally targeted at how *women* can make getting consent "fun."
> 
> Yeah, totally not targeted at how *men* need to get consent first…


There is no reason that a woman would not also say these two. 



> ▷ Baby, you want to make a bunk bed: me on top, you on bottom?
> ▷ May I pleasure you with my tongue?



Did you know that women can be on top too? Yep. It happens.. a lot. Also there are all kinds of things that a woman can do with her tongue to give a guy a lot of pleasure… to include making him orgasm. Yep.. 



> ▷ Would you like to try an Australian kiss? It’s like a French kiss, but “Down Under.”
> ▷ I’ve got the ship. You’ve got the harbor. Can I dock for the night?


I agree that these two are thing that a guy would say to a woman. 2 out of 8 does not show gender bias. Just like some of the radical feminists seem angry about everything and find sexism everywhere, you seem to be doing the same thing.
Here is the entire list so that readers can make up their own minds.



> Make Consent Sexy
> ▷ Do you like when I do this?
> ▷ What would you like me to do for you?
> ▷ It makes me so hot when you…me there. What makes you hot?
> ▷ Do you want me to (kiss/touch…)?
> ▷ Baby, you want to make a bunk bed: me on top, you on bottom?
> ▷ May I pleasure you with my tongue?
> 
> Make Consent Fun
> ▷ Would you like to try an Australian kiss? It’s like a French kiss, but “Down Under.”
> ▷ I’ve got the ship. You’ve got the harbor. Can I dock for the night?


----------



## Mads

Equality is a good thing. My only concern is that IMHO women are losing some of their femininity due to men's work and men's traits being more valued in today's society. The feminine is as important to society and culture as the masculine, yet femininity seems to be rare in younger women.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> First, there is neither a rape crisis or rape culture on college campuses.
> Second, men are not "getting away" with raping and walking away.


The number most often cited is that 1 in 5 women are victims of either rape or sexual assault in their time on campus. For details on exactly how that figure was arrived at: Campus Rape and Sexual Assault Researchers on 1-in-5. To my mind, that is pretty close to a rape culture, especially when everyone is absolutely up in arms in shock and horror at the idea of actually having to check in and make sure that the person you are about to have sex with wants it. 

As for getting away scott-free: it is well known and documented that most rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, and those that are, the accused is rarely held accountable. Any sign that the "no" isn't "strong enough", and somehow, it just doesn't count as a "no" anymore. 

I have to agree that it's not easy to address this problem in criminal law, but at the same time, if no one is willing to prosecute because they don't like how "no" is said, what are we going to do?

I mean, compare this to thievery. It is understood that you can't simply take something that doesn't belong to you. Lack of express consent when you take something that belongs to someone else means that you *are* stealing. And no one finds this problematic. But somehow it is assumed that when it comes to sex, consent is already implied, and that it takes not just a "no" but a really strong NO backed up by a few bruises before anyone even considers believing it. 

Affirmative consent is just saying that you have no entitlements to have sex with someone, period. They have to actually *want* it.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> What tweak?
> 
> The Duluth Model only works because it holds as a first principle that DV is the product of male aggressors and female victims.


No, it works if the focus is changed from talking about only female victims, male perps, to talk about male/female victims and male/female perps.



Icey181 said:


> Its authors quite literally reject the decades worth of research which demonstrates that IPV is 50% Reciprocal and then split roughly 50/50 between male and female perpetrators.


What research are you talking about? The CDC report in IPV?


Icey181 said:


> The Duluth Model _only works via a rejection of those numbers_.
> 
> How is declaring that IPV is a female-victim-centric problem and creating laws which presume male guilt "drawing attention to the problems of DV?"
> 
> You cannot both hold men immediately accountable in all DV calls _and_ claim to be bringing attention to the realities of non-gendered IPV issues
> 
> They are quite literally mutually exclusive.


Can you provide links, or some other other written proof, that the reject that the research and why they do?



Icey181 said:


> This is the fun part.
> 
> A 3rd Wave Feminist declares that 1 out of 5 women are raped on college campuses and people talk about "raising consciousness" and pass new rules which shift the burden of proof onto the _accused_ and that is progress.


Words are very important. “1 out of 5 women are raped” is not what is claimed. The claim is that 1 in 5 experience SEXUAL ASSAULT, NOT RAPE. While sexual assault includes rape, it also includes a lot of other things.



Icey181 said:


> Pointing out that the 1 out of 5 number is a bold faced lie and that those rules create an unfair legal burden and presumption of guilt upon the accused is apparently "anger/hate."


What would you call making a false claim and using it as the basis of angry rants? You made a false claim. It’s false that the claim was 1 out of 5 are raped. There is a HUGE difference between rape and sexual assault.
Also be careful, because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say that the numbers given for sexual assault/rape of women are false. But then you say that the numbers are equivalent for both male and female victims of sexual assault/rape. If you argue that the numbers for female victims are contrived, then we needs to argue that the numbers for male victims are also contrived since the sources/studies are mostly done by the same organizations.



Icey181 said:


> Sorry, but 3rd Wave Feminists are not moderate, soft-spoken, rational individuals.
> 
> They are *literally* screaming, marching, and picketing University Campuses across this nation declaring that men are all potential rapists and that any attempts to argue with them is tantamount to rape-apology and oppression.


I’m sure that they are doing this 24/7, right? Or is it small groups on campus? My son has been in college for a few years now. Not once have they mentioned anything like that going on. I’m on campus often. I have seen a lot of groups protesting and/or displaying their thoughts. It’s always small groups. There have not been any screaming, marching, and picketing feminist nuts.

I asked my son, he’s working on his Phd, if he’s seen any of this. His response was “nope”. He said that the biggest protest he’s seen on campus was when “Sagios” (a favorite pizza restaurant) pulled their booth out of the student union building. 

I’m not saying that some feminists are not protesting on some campuses “screaming, marching, and picketing”. What I am saying is that there is not a war of protests going on in the manner that you describe.



Icey181 said:


> I did not fabricate having to pass by posters instructing me not to rape on my way to grab a Latte before office hours.


So… I’ve passed protesters who screamed at me that I’m a racists. I’ve passes protesters who screamed at me that my place was in the kitchen, not on campus. Or that God would smite me for this or that.
If you don’t like what the protesters say.. deal with the protesters. No one here on TAM is saying this stuff.



Icey181 said:


> I did not fabricate stories of these girls shouting down and pulling fire alarms to disrupt Domestic Violence against Men talks.


If that happened, they are some pretty stupid women, not girls, women. 


Icey181 said:


> Personally, I find the MRA boys little better.


Boys? Men. If you find the MRA group better, then you have lost any credibility you had with me.


Icey181 said:


> But pretending modern 3rd Wave Feminists fit into the pleasant little moderate dynamic _you personally identify with_ is simply ignoring the reality that some of us actually _see_ on a daily basis to make yourself feel better about your self-identification.


I am so sorry that you are assault every day, all day long by vicious feminists. Perhaps you might want to find a more civilized place to live and attend college.


----------



## EleGirl

Bugged said:


> Honestly I don't understand this article...
> Why being SURE that your partner agrees to sex or sexual touching is a bad thing is completeley and utterly beyond me...:|


I agree, I would not want sex with a guy who would not enthusiastically say he wanted it.

If we look at the data from the CDS IPV report (2010), most of the instances that men listed were of the no-consent type. 

There are ones in which no violence or coercion was used. The term is "forced to penetrate". A guy is drinking and the woman he's with just starts having sex with him. Or he's passed out, or sleep and she does it.

With the "no means no" approach, these are not sexual violence. It's just sex.

With the Yes means yes.. the woman can be prosecuted for sexual assault.


----------



## Cletus

Bugged said:


> Honestly I don't understand this article...


Perhaps that's because you're not a lawyer. It's not the intent of the law that will be problematic, it is the unintended. In this case, the unintended consequences are large, likely, and worrisome. When one of the preeminent legal societies is troubled by a matter of law, you should probably listen.


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> Ele ... that's my point. Why inject this didactic into a children's film? Perhaps, you will recall: "Give me a child until the age of seven....". Do you not see this as mainstreamed manipulation?


I don't see it as a grand conspiracy.

What I do see is that some people will do anything to get other people's money. IMHO, RAP falls into the same bucket.. created to make the rich Hollywood crowd richer. They could care less if it helps/hurts society.

If our society can survive RAP, I'm sure it can survive this movie.

What I see is that it makes both parents look like buffoons. The kids look like the only person with working brains cells.


----------



## EleGirl

Mads said:


> Equality is a good thing. My only concern is that IMHO women are losing some of their femininity due to men's work and men's traits being more valued in today's society. The feminine is as important to society and culture as the masculine, yet femininity seems to be rare in younger women.


What do you see as this femininity that is being lost? What are the traits?


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Perhaps that's because you're not a lawyer. It's not the intent of the law that will be problematic, it is the unintended. In this case, the unintended consequences are large, likely, and worrisome. When one of the preeminent legal societies is troubled by a matter of law, you should probably listen.


I agree with this. I also agree that "No means no" is problematic legally. I'm not sure that there is anyone 'perfect' way to handle consent for sex... not in this society.


----------



## EleGirl

Bugged said:


> Honestly I don't understand this article...
> Why being SURE that your partner agrees to sex or sexual touching is a bad thing is completeley and utterly beyond me...:|


I understand the concern about "yes means yes". 

Even if a person gets what seems like clear consent, what is really being consented to? Does one yes mean that now they have consent to any and everything? Or do they have to get consent with each an every act, each touch, etc? When does consent end?

If someone says "yes" and then later, in the middle on sex says "No", does the no count? The law seems to no longer care about the word "No". 

And most of all.. how does anyone prove that consent or non-consent? How does anyone prove that the other person said "yes"?

How does a person prove that they said "No"?

the easiest way to prove no is if there are physical injuries. But we've seen that not even work. It's very common for a woman to have burses and other injuries. The perp says that they just liked it rough. And so the police/judicial system... let's it go.

I think that anyone who has sex now needs to video the entire thing. That's the only way to prove anything. And even there we can find issues.


----------



## ocotillo

Jung_admirer said:


> Why inject this didactic into a children's film? Perhaps, you will recall: "Give me a child until the age of seven....". Do you not see this as mainstreamed manipulation?


I've noticed the same phenomenon, but it's not always easy to pin down a definite reason for it.

Even as a pre-teen I was scratching my head over why Disney transformed Mr. Darling into what was very obviously an alter ego of Captain Hook, given the fact that the original story portrayed him as a decent man who furiously calculated what personal austerity measures he could take to put more food on the table. 

Disney tried the exact same stunt with Mr. Banks in the adaption of Mary Poppins and the author put her foot down and wouldn't permit it. 

Ultimately, I think that Disney's crusade against fathers probably had more to do with the fact that Elias Disney had physically abused Walt and Roy than anything political.


----------



## Mads

EleGirl said:


> What do you see as this femininity that is being lost? What are the traits?


Thanks for asking. I was thinking more of actions like nurturing, homemaking, educating the children and elderly, caregiving, softness, or domestic arts like sewing and cooking. Some traits seem to be selflessness, patience, gracefulness, creativity, inventiveness, and empathy/compassion. I'm not saying this is lost, or that they can't coexist with successful careers and personal goals, just that it doesn't seem as valued today as in the past which is sad because these feminine actions and traits are important.


----------



## EleGirl

Mads said:


> Thanks for asking. I was thinking more of actions like nurturing, homemaking, educating the children and elderly, caregiving, softness, or domestic arts like sewing and cooking. Some traits seem to be selflessness, patience, gracefulness, creativity, inventiveness, and empathy/compassion. I'm not saying this is lost, or that they can't coexist with successful careers and personal goals, just that it doesn't seem as valued today as in the past which is sad because these feminine actions and traits are important.


Interesting.

I don't see them as lost at all.

I'll use myself as an example. I've worked since I was 15. AT 26 I went into the US Army for 4 years. After that I finished my degrees and have worked as an engineer for 33 years.

All of those things you list are an integral part of who I am... 

I have a son and 2 step children (daughter/son). They are in their mid 20's now.

We seldom eat out. I not only cook every meal from scratch but I grow most of our veggies. I sew. I crochet .. sometimes knit, paint, nurture, etc.

It is true that some things have become unnecessary. When I was a child my mother sewed every dress I ever had... well she did that for all 5 of her daughters. We did not wear pants so that was a lot of sewing. But today there is little need to sew all our clothing. Clothing is cheat and easy to come buy. But what more 'craft sewing', making curtain, slip covers for furniture, etc.. a lot of women still do that sort of thing.

To put it in perspective, is masculinity lost because men no longer plow the field with their horse or slaughter their own meat?

I think that what we see often is only one side of a person. We only see what they show us at work, or when we see a store clerk. Who they are in their personal life is something quite different.

We do something pretty cool at work. We have an arts fair every year. People bring the things that they do as hobbies. Tables are set up in the cafeteria. It's amazing to see the other side of people.

You know when the gruff old engineer shows up with his violin and plays. Or some who make jewelry, or the photographers, for the ones who sew/design clothing.

I don't think these traits have died at all.. not for women or for men.


----------



## Mads

EleGirl said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I don't see them as lost at all.
> 
> I'll use myself as an example. I've worked since I was 15. AT 26 I went into the US Army for 4 years. After that I finished my degrees and have worked as an engineer for 33 years.
> 
> All of those things you list are an integral part of who I am...
> 
> I have a son and 2 step children (daughter/son). They are in their mid 20's now.
> 
> We seldom eat out. I not only cook every meal from scratch but I grow most of our veggies. I sew. I crochet .. sometimes knit, paint, nurture, etc.
> 
> It is true that some things have become unnecessary. When I was a child my mother sewed every dress I ever had... well she did that for all 5 of her daughters. We did not wear pants so that was a lot of sewing. But today there is little need to sew all our clothing. Clothing is cheat and easy to come buy. But what more 'craft sewing', making curtain, slip covers for furniture, etc.. a lot of women still do that sort of thing.
> 
> To put it in perspective, is masculinity lost because men no longer plow the field with their horse or slaughter their own meat?
> 
> I think that what we see often is only one side of a person. We only see what they show us at work, or when we see a store clerk. Who they are in their personal life is something quite different.
> 
> We do something pretty cool at work. We have an arts fair every year. People bring the things that they do as hobbies. Tables are set up in the cafeteria. It's amazing to see the other side of people.
> 
> You know when the gruff old engineer shows up with his violin and plays. Or some who make jewelry, or the photographers, for the ones who sew/design clothing.
> 
> I don't think these traits have died at all.. not for women or for men.


I made a point to say that it wasn't lost in my post, just not as valued. Yes, maybe it isn't as needed now with technology and industry in domestic situations, but there is an art to some of these feminine and masculine actions and traits that aren't as prevalent IMHO anymore. I was referring to how rare it is that these things are passed down to the very young except in rural communities. (Yes, I think hunting, fishing, taxidermy, mechanics, etc....decline of masculinity, IMHO, is also sad.)


----------



## Mads

Bugged said:


> Why are these supposed to be feminine actions or traits?
> That is just a social construct. Society is chaning so the above is not gender specific any longer.


These are just things IMHO I find to be feminine. You don't agree, and that is ok. Yes, it is changing...that was my point.


----------



## Icey181

Ran across this today, funny how those things happen:

From last year's media circus: Occidental Sexual Assault - Business Insider

*This* is what affirmative consent laws are based on…



> During the trial two months ago, Duke's dean of students, Sue Wasiolek, was asked whether she would characterize a situation in which two students "got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex" as their having raped each other. No, she said. Rather, *"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex."*


_That_ ladies and gentleman, is the definition of "Rape" culture on University Campuses.

_Men_ are responsible for consent, otherwise they are rapists.


----------



## Cletus

Bugged said:


> So what is your solution?
> No consent laws so people (men and women) will continue to use drunkness as an excuse to rape others? .why is it different if someone has been drugged or is drunk?
> so what otrher rule could campuses enforce? No alcohol? All drunken sex is rape?


Sometimes the answer to a question is "Well, what would you do differently?", with the rhetorical implication that you'd be hard pressed to find a better alternative. 

This is not one of those times.


----------



## ocotillo

Bugged said:


> So what is your solution?


I think a fairly obvious solution would be to align expulsion policy at colleges with federal guidelines for prosecuting alcohol facilitated sexual assault.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jung_admirer said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRUAzGQ3nSY
> Here we have a mom who needs a husband intercede before making any effort on her own. When he fails to respond in a manner she approves of, *she then entertains the "Brazilian pilot" fantasy*. So the mom is powerless and the dad is a buffoon. Are you freakin' kidding me? We have a serious problem folks-


I saw this movie and loved it.

Kind of funny, I had a feeling the Brazilian pilot part would make a lot of men upset...because OH NO! The wife has sexual fantasies about other men! Men who are HOTTER than her husband!

Even though we are told on TAM all the time that no man will ever be mentally faithful to any woman, and that men dip into their spank bank images every two seconds, and the rest of the time they are checking out your sister.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Even though we are told on TAM all the time that no man will ever be mentally faithful to any woman, and that men dip into their spank bank images every two seconds, and the rest of the time they are checking out your sister.


...and?

You have a sister???


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> ...and?
> 
> You have a sister???


I do and she's hot as hell.


----------



## EllisRedding

Icey181 said:


> Ran across this today, funny how those things happen:
> 
> From last year's media circus: Occidental Sexual Assault - Business Insider
> 
> *This* is what affirmative consent laws are based on…
> 
> 
> 
> _That_ ladies and gentleman, is the definition of "Rape" culture on University Campuses.
> 
> _Men_ are responsible for consent, otherwise they are rapists.


Unfortunately that is the way it is. Solution, sign a sexual consent contract (a la Chappelle show) right before  Then again, now the claim would be the person was not in t heir right mind to sign a contract, it is void, and it is now again your responsibility as a male...

Even out of college guys need to be careful. I have seen it suggested that in a workplace if a guy is working alongside a female (and in particular if he is in a higher position) always make sure any work is done out in the open, never behind closed doors unless there is a 3rd person present. From some of the stuff I have seen/heard about this really isn't a bad idea, better safe than sorry ... although granted this could apply for both parties.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

https://www.clevelandrapecrisis.org/resources/statistics/sexual-violence-on-college-campuses


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> Ran across this today, funny how those things happen:
> 
> From last year's media circus: Occidental Sexual Assault - Business Insider
> 
> *This* is what affirmative consent laws are based on…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the trial two months ago, Duke's dean of students, Sue Wasiolek, was asked whether she would characterize a situation in which two students "got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex" as their having raped each other. No, she said. Rather, *"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _That_ ladies and gentleman, is the definition of "Rape" culture on University Campuses.
> 
> 
> _Men_ are responsible for consent, otherwise they are rapists.
Click to expand...


I disagree with that quote. It’s being challenged.


Basically I believe that both men and women need to be careful of exposing themselves to situations like this. 


But I see the bigger problem in that it’s next to impossible to prove what was and what was not said. Who was drunk and who really drunk and who was not.

The Affirmative Consent Standard & Rape / Sexual Assault Education - *SGV-NOW Project


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> I disagree with that quote. It’s being challenged.
> 
> 
> *Basically I believe that both men and women need to be careful of exposing themselves to situations like this. *
> 
> 
> But I see the bigger problem in that it’s next to impossible to prove what was and what was not said. Who was drunk and who really drunk and who was not.
> 
> The Affirmative Consent Standard & Rape / Sexual Assault Education - *SGV-NOW Project


While I hole-heartedly agree with the bolded, I would like to point out that, yet again, your link is about how *men* are rapists who need to learn what consent is.

I failed to find the part about how a women cannot have sex with a drunk man...I guess that never happens in college. >


----------



## Pluto2

Mads said:


> Thanks for asking. I was thinking more of actions like nurturing, homemaking, educating the children and elderly, caregiving, softness, or domestic arts like sewing and cooking. Some traits seem to be selflessness, patience, gracefulness, creativity, inventiveness, and empathy/compassion. I'm not saying this is lost, or that they can't coexist with successful careers and personal goals, just that it doesn't seem as valued today as in the past which is sad because these feminine actions and traits are important.


The traits you list are not feminine, they are empathetic, humanistic traits, available and accessible to both genders. They may have been traditionally considered feminine, back in the day, when neither gender had an actual choice on how they lived their life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jung_admirer said:


> Wow, I guess you are not wiling to discuss the message being passed to children (?) Women powerless, men clueless...


Did you see the movie? It was more than the one clip you posted and took issue with. It was a balanced view of some very loving parents who both did a great job with their child. But the context which you wanted to frame the one clip with was your opinion only...the situation was not presented the way you did in the movie. Having seen the whole movie, I have a different opinion of it, and it was really good.

Having said that though...a really REALLY bad Disney movie for the message about men and women was Mars Needs Moms. It was so awful in it's message I could not figure out how it was ever written to begin with. I think I mentioned it and how horrible it was on a thread here at the time. (If it wasn't here, it was on some other message board I belong to). In this Mars movie, men have literally been banished to the trash heap while women rule the planet. And it gets worse from there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jung_admirer said:


> My point is that it's not just one movie ... its a systemic socialization via desensitization. If you look, it's everywhere:
> Glamour magazine under fire over list revealing how to make a man fall in love with you | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Again ... women powerless, men weak(stupid). In the article above, women spoke up. Warren Farrell successfully argued that this type of behavior is not the problem, it's the fact that men have been shamed into remaining silent and *not challenge such behavior/opinions*. So, who is doing the shaming?



I don't get what you expected me to "see" in this article that is causing an uproar, or whatever.

Glamour magazine and the Daily Mail? Neither are publications I give a crap about nor do I read them. So my opinion of anything in them is already in the "don't give a f*ck" category.

What behavior/opinions have men been shamed and silenced into not challenging? The behavior of women trying to make a guy be into her?

Um....I'm sure I don't need to point this out but, there will always be books, magazines and blogs devoted to "how to catch the man/woman you want", or more specifically for some of the men's ones "how to make a girl who is hotter than you have sex with you".

But I'm supposed to feel sorry for guys that a gal might fix him a drink while he's in the shower (assuming post sex with the same gal)? I have no clue what your problem with that is or your point. Yep, I guess men better man up and challenge any women who would do that, it is unthinkable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh, you mean the world we are living in where in some countries, baby girls are murdered for not being boys?

Sorry, if I'm going to take up one side of this issue, I am still going to be aware of the other side.

I apologize if I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, everything wrong in the world is clearly the fault of women" like you apparently are trying to get at. That's not my opinion. Neither do I blame everything wrong in the world on men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are constantly posts by men at TAM claiming everything is the fault of women and/or feminism. Why would there be a backlash? We read it here all the time. I'm used to it now. This is the only forum I've ever belonged to that has men consistently talking about the horrors of feminism and how women should have sex with their husbands because "I thought if I married her she would be obliged to put out whenever I wanted". No matter how distasteful this is to some of the women here, there's no backlash about those insensitive posts, because we just get shut down when trying to speak up about it.


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> Sarah Silverman Superbowl commercial:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPFduidJGjU
> 
> "Sorry, it's a boy".
> 
> It what world should this be acceptable?


Apparently, while that's not ok. It is ok when it comes to girl babies. In this world, the very world we live in. So no, I'm not going to get outraged about a silly joke in an advertisement. AT least no one is suggesting that the kill the boy baby.

It’s a girl: The three deadliest words in the world

"The statistics are sickening. The UN reports approximately 200 million girls in the world today are ‘missing’. India and China are said to eliminate more female infants than the number of girls born in the US each year. Lianyungang in China has the worst infant gender ratio on record with 163 boys born for every 100 girls. Taiwan, South Korea and Pakistan are also countries in which unwanted female babies are aborted, killed or abandoned."


----------



## T&T

Jung_admirer said:


> You miss my point completely ... I don't blame women. I blame men for not responding to the ridiculous stuff I posted. And I ask myself, why haven't men responded?


Jung,

As a man, am I supposed to get angry about that commercial? It doesn't anger me. It's just stupid...It's a *TV*commercial for heaven sakes. Most TV is trash anyways including all the other crap in that commercial...


----------



## Cletus

It's hard being the Outrage police. Really - I find it exhausting. If I spent all day responding to the stupid sh*t in every post in every forum, I'd never be able to do anything else. And really, free speech doesn't require me to try to shout down every questionable opinion I see here. I can only pick a few battles in my limited time. Those battles in general do NOT include proving to you that your outrage should be my outrage. Of course, some of them do - my personal bugaboos, sore points, and shoulder chips rise the level of "I must respond". 

So don't assume silence as implicit acceptance. More often than not, it's a case of "Wow - don't need to get embroiled in that".


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> You miss my point completely ... I don't blame women. I blame men for not responding to the ridiculous stuff I posted. And I ask myself, why haven't men responded?
> 
> I ask you to consider what the backlash would have been if the gender bias had been reversed, but you do not appear willing to consider the question.


From what FW has said about the film, the entire film is not like the trailer. There is a lot more depth the film and it's story.

Maybe a point is that we need to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes. A cartoon is a great way to do that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jung_admirer said:


> True enough we get to pick our battles ... perhaps this one is just not very important.


I just don't see a real problem in my world. Men love women, women love men, they get together and make babies, the world continues to spin.


----------



## FeministInPink

Cletus said:


> It's hard being the Outrage police. Really - I find it exhausting. If I spent all day responding to the stupid sh*t in every post in every forum, I'd never be able to do anything else. And really, free speech doesn't require me to try to shout down every questionable opinion I see here. I can only pick a few battles in my limited time. Those battles in general do NOT include proving to you that your outrage should be my outrage. Of course, some of them do - my personal bugaboos, sore points, and shoulder chips rise the level of "I must respond".
> 
> So don't assume silence as implicit acceptance. More often than not, it's a case of "Wow - don't need to get embroiled in that".


I agree. I can refute, refute, refute until I am blue in the face, but with some people it will never matter, because they don't actually hear (read) a single thing I say. My words are either white noise or "feminist propaganda!" no matter how logical they may be.


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> I don't think any one case of misandry is specifically important. (sorry for that confusion) Moreover, the lack of response I lament is related to the public debate on gender bias. But also, _qui tacet consentire videtur_ silence does imply consent. True enough we get to pick our battles ... perhaps this one is just not very important.


How can any one person fight all the battles out there? There are thousands, probably millions.

I was not even aware of that cartoon that you are all up in arms about. Most people probably aren't. So how can anyone make a statement against everything that outrages every person.

Silly cartoon vs 200 million babies girls killed just because they are babies???? I'll spend my time on saving baby girls.

Some silly movies that satire gender stereo types? vs women living in cultures where they get FGM and.... when their are married and their husbands travel... their husbands get their virginals sewn closed to ensure that they women cannot cheat... this is done with no pain killers and in unsanitary conditions (yes I know women who live through this constantly). I'll pic the FGM/Sewing-up to fight against over gender based satire.

Movies and TV shows are easy, if I do not like their message I don't watch it.


----------



## Icey181

Out of curiosity and in due deference to the current discussion; for those of you who say this:



EleGirl said:


> Silly cartoon vs 200 million babies girls killed just because they are babies???? I'll spend my time on saving baby girls.


How are we, "saving baby girls" in this context?

Really.

Because I am trying to find some way that this current discussion is _not_ just another, "Well women have it worse somewhere else, so this doesn't matter," defense.


----------



## MountainRunner

Jung_admirer said:


> ...I blame men for not responding to the ridiculous stuff I posted. And I ask myself, why haven't men responded?


I'm a man and I'm not chiming in because feminism or not, I'm not intimidated by strong women who identify with feminism, and I find men who constantly bring up the whole "feminist movement" issue to be a bunch of whiny crybabies. My opinion.


----------



## RandomDude

Wow! Found this folks:










Thoughts?


----------



## tom67

RandomDude said:


> Wow! Found this folks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


Learn grasshopper:grin2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7kqqywey7g


----------



## tom67

RandomDude said:


> Wow! Found this folks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


Totally agree.:nerd:


----------



## MountainRunner

Jung_admirer said:


> So I guess this fight is not very important to you. Might someone object to tenets and tactics without being shamed as a 'whiny crybaby'? I appreciate the kind and generous notions.


I can think of a few more "colorful" descriptions for men who incessantly *PISS AND MOAN* about the "threat" of feminists, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Icey181

RandomDude said:


> Wow! Found this folks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


Funny…and kind of not wrong.

The best part is that all three faces are _white women_. :nerd:

Throw in some (*) about how the "Sex" question split all three waves down the middle, and that is basically all you need to know.


----------



## RandomDude

Wow, thought I would be attacked by dropping such a bomb! Hahaha

+1 fellas!


----------



## Icey181

RandomDude said:


> Wow, thought I would be attacked by dropping such a bomb! Hahaha
> 
> +1 fellas!


The issue, I think, with modern Feminism, is quite simple.

Feminists all say the same thing; "It is about equality between men and women."

Here is the problem, First Principles are important items.

A 3rd Wave Feminist is _defined_ by their subscription to a post-modernist model of social-constructivist thinking which argues, at base, all of our conceptions of gender, gender roles, sex, and dynamics of power are created and controlled by a ubiquitous patriarchy of men which literally oppresses women passively (via culture and gender norms) and actively (via sexual violence).

Therefore, when a 3rd Waver says "Men and Women should be equal," they do so with this simple calculus.

Assuming in society: Men > Women

In order to create equality one must diminish the relative power of men and transfer it to women.

That is why a 3rd Wave Feminist is often willing to accept conundrums and logical paradoxes as a part of their rationalizations.

You see, moderate Feminists, as best I can tell, live in a post-2nd Wave, I have heard it termed post-Feminist, world.

They seem to think that things are pretty much equal despite some issues which should be addressed.

But overall they think society is progressing and that men and women should be treated _equally_, and therefore they mean it, when they say "Feminism is about equality."

The 3rd Wave disagrees.

Treating men and women "equally" would be reinforcing the "Patriarchy."

The 3rd Wave quite literally argues that society must be fundamentally re-ordered by prioritizing women and women's issues to the detriment of men for equality to be achieved.

Moderate Feminist World View: Men ~ Women

3rd Wave Feminists World View: Men > Women

They both say "we want equality."

However, when one side argues that there is a massive imbalance of power to the point of gender-based _domination_, the definition of how one achieves "equality" changes, dramatically.

Moderate Feminists seek to address specific issues in a complicated world.

3rd Wave Feminists seek to overthrow the Evil, Oppressive, Patriarchical system and its male overlords.

I am all for the former version of Feminism.

The problem is, that version is functionally, rhetorically, and _politically_ non-existent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Wow, thought I would be attacked by dropping such a bomb! Hahaha
> 
> +1 fellas!


For that? A lame cartoon written by some angry man? Why would we attack you for something that small? We have real live men right here saying much worse things about feminists, and saying it in a much meaner way and as crude as they can come up with. Even other men can't stand some of them. Your little cartoon was a nice break from the usual mean and nasty crap.


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, it's just gone too far. It doesn't help when these 3rd wave folk claim those who speak out against them are against those who actually did fight for equal opportunity which was a good cause. Typical example:

Anti-feminist: "This isn't equality, this is female chauvanism"
3rd wave feminist: "You sound just like those who were opposed to women's rights!"

*sigh* And they get away with it, I see it not just in feminism, but "anti-racist" groups as well. Playing on "white guilt" though in the case of feminism it's "male guilt"

Like hell I'm not even white and I hate these groups, just as I strongly believe in equal opportunity/meritocracy and WILL fight for it even if the 3rd wave tries to pull sexist cards on me like several tried in the past within my business. Humanity can be a despicable species really at times...


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> For that? A lame cartoon written by some angry man? Why would we attack you for something that small? We have real live men right here saying much worse things about feminists, and saying it in a much meaner way and as crude as they can come up with. Even other men can't stand some of them. Your little cartoon was a nice break from the usual mean and nasty crap.


Well, how about my above quote? Mean enough?


----------



## tom67

Icey181 said:


> The issue, I think, with modern Feminism, is quite simple.
> 
> Feminists all say the same thing; "It is about equality between men and women."
> 
> Here is the problem, First Principles are important items.
> 
> A 3rd Wave Feminist is _defined_ by their subscription to a post-modernist model of social-constructivist thinking which argues, at base, all of our conceptions of gender, gender roles, sex, and dynamics of power are created and controlled by a ubiquitous patriarchy of men which literally oppresses women passively (via culture and gender norms) and actively (via sexual violence).
> 
> Therefore, when a 3rd Waver says "Men and Women should be equal," they do so with this simple calculus.
> 
> Assuming in society: Men > Women
> 
> In order to create equality one must diminish the relative power of men and transfer it to women.
> 
> That is why a 3rd Wave Feminist is often willing to accept conundrums and logical paradoxes as a part of their rationalizations.
> 
> You see, moderate Feminists, as best I can tell, live in a post-2nd Wave, I have heard it termed post-Feminist, world.
> 
> They seem to think that things are pretty much equal despite some issues which should be addressed.
> 
> But overall they think society is progressing and that men and women should be treated _equally_, and therefore they mean it, when they say "Feminism is about equality."
> 
> The 3rd Wave disagrees.
> 
> Treating men and women "equally" would be reinforcing the "Patriarchy."
> 
> The 3rd Wave quite literally argues that society must be fundamentally re-ordered by prioritizing women and women's issues to the detriment of men for equality to be achieved.
> 
> Moderate Feminist World View: Men ~ Women
> 
> 3rd Wave Feminists World View: Men > Women
> 
> They both say "we want equality."
> 
> However, when one side argues that there is a massive imbalance of power to the point of gender-based _domination_, the definition of how one achieves "equality" changes, dramatically.
> 
> Moderate Feminists seek to address specific issues in a complicated world.
> 
> 3rd Wave Feminists seek to overthrow the Evil, Oppressive, Patriarchical system and its male overlords.
> 
> I am all for the former version of Feminism.
> 
> The problem is, that version is functionally, rhetorically, and _politically_ non-existent.


Here my brother :smile2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

http://indianafreedomtalkradio.com/Archive/TheIntelligenceReport.08.03.15.08am.mp3


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Well, how about my above quote? Mean enough?


Your avatar is a kitten.

No, not mean enough.

Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. The mean ones will always be around, and no, you aren't one of them, even though you say stuff like that, I know better.


----------



## Icey181

Faithful Wife said:


> For that? A lame cartoon written by some angry man? Why would we attack you for something that small? We have real live men right here saying much worse things about feminists, and saying it in a much meaner way and as crude as they can come up with. Even other men can't stand some of them. Your little cartoon was a nice break from the usual mean and nasty crap.


For every angry man complaining about Feminism there is a women waiting in the wings with a No True Scotsman's argument to prove him wrong…

Personally, I know for a fact that most women are not "Feminists" in the self-identifying as a member of the 3rd Wave sense.

However, those women are not _the_ Feminists.

A lovely CNN/MSNBC poll from ~2013 or so returned two interesting results:

~85% of Americans agreed that "Men and Women should be treated equally."
Only ~25% of American called themselves Feminists, and most were white, educated, women.

The people (primarily women) who use the label are the 3rd Wave.

And after a certain point it gets annoying to have women explaining "that is not what Feminism is" when what they really mean is that "That is not what I believe."

Dear Moderate Feminists,

You are not in charge of the movement, you do not control its rhetoric, and you can declare yourselves the arbiters of what Feminism is _the day you take control of it back from the 3rd Wave radicals_.

Until then, yes, "Feminism" basically is political and cultural misandry. (and not a little bit of anti-traditionalist misogyny to boot)


----------



## RandomDude

Haha!


----------



## tom67

RandomDude said:


> Haha!


You just had to go there lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa6rltQ025U


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> Yes, you clearly understood my point before making reductive comparisons. *Removing posts*-


Removing posts? Who removed any posts on this thread?


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> Funny…and kind of not wrong.
> 
> The best part is that all three faces are _white women_. :nerd:
> 
> Throw in some (*) about how the "Sex" question split all three waves down the middle, and that is basically all you need to know.


It's a political cartoon. Whoever created it chose to represent 3 white women because that's part of their message.. to twist reality for whatever their political motive is. Part of their message is to create a racist image. 

Sure there are some women (and men) who self identify as feminist who say all kinds of stupid stuff. That's just like the men who spew the MRA stupid stuff.

Apparently some are ignorant about the work being done world wide by women, who identify as feminists. These women are from every race and ethnic group that exists.


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> Until then, yes, "Feminism" basically is political and cultural misandry. (and not a little bit of anti-traditionalist misogyny to boot)


Title of this thread: Hooray for Women and Feminism!


But now it's being turned into "men are victims of evil feminist" thread.

:x


----------



## EleGirl

Icey181 said:


> Out of curiosity and in due deference to the current discussion; for those of you who say this:
> 
> 
> 
> How are we, "saving baby girls" in this context?
> 
> Really.


Oh, are you interested in getting involved in the efforts in the countries where female babies are killed simply because they are female? If you are I could send you info about it. 



Icey181 said:


> Because I am trying to find some way that this current discussion is _not_ just another, "Well women have it worse somewhere else, so this doesn't matter," defense.


Oh I have a better idea... let's turn it into just another "Well men are victims of women and have it worse than women so it doesn't matter" thread.

Yea.. that's a great idea... it's already on it's way to that, so might as well continue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Haha!


Oooohhhhh look at da wittle kitty cat...he so fierce! Look at you wittle kitty, fierce jungle animal gonna get me? You're gonna get me, are ya? Yew sew cuuuuuuuuuttttteeeeee!!!!!


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Oooohhhhh look at da wittle kitty cat...he so fierce! Look at you wittle kitty, fierce jungle animal gonna get me? You're gonna get me, are ya? Yew sew cuuuuuuuuuttttteeeeee!!!!!


Even better, it's a video! lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABNFp7_wup4


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random, you know who else loves kitteh pictures? David Futrelle. He also loves making fun of MRA's, and the memes they make.

?Pregnancy is No Excuse For Misandry? and other pithy, baffling slogans from the Men?s Rights propaganda squad | we hunted the mammoth

AND...he has a very popular tumblr page with kittehs....

confused cats against feminism


----------



## RandomDude

Bugged said:


> This is supposed to be a radical feminist movement..I do not see any misandry in this..s
> Call to Action - end pornography and patriarchy: the enslavement & degradation of women


Wow, really proves the image I provided last page true - blaming patriarchy for everything! :surprise:



Faithful Wife said:


> Random, you know who else loves kitteh pictures? David Futrelle. He also loves making fun of MRA's, and the memes they make.
> 
> ?Pregnancy is No Excuse For Misandry? and other pithy, baffling slogans from the Men?s Rights propaganda squad | we hunted the mammoth
> 
> AND...he has a very popular tumblr page with kittehs....
> 
> confused cats against feminism


I love cats, they are the perfect apex predator, and do it so gracefully and adorably! 

Anyway WTF?!

Btw you should know by now I shake my head at both feminists and MRA folk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry Random...you don't get to decide what points others use cats for. And on that note, enjoy this episode of David's Misogyny Theatre, with cats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P97jT7vr3AE


----------



## RandomDude

Meh as long as they aren't feeding carnivores a vegan diet I can put up with it


----------



## Icey181

EleGirl said:


> It's a political cartoon. Whoever created it chose to represent 3 white women because that's part of their message.. to twist reality for whatever their political motive is. Part of their message is to create a racist image.


Sorry, but no, that is not "twisting reality."

Feminism, as a political movement, has been dominated by educated, middle and upper class, white women since its inception. And it has had intersectionality issues with women of other races since its inception, with each successive generation seeing a worsening of cross-ethnic and racial ties.

The reason that dozens of ethnically-specific Women's Rights Organizations formed throughout the 1920s thru the 1970s was because African, Hispanic, and Asian American women found their concerns and their issues generally ignored by the national Feminist movement and found their voices and concerns ignored at organizations like NOW.

I recently worked with a Modern American History Professor who assigned an interesting battery of Primary Source Readings in preparation for a class discussion.

It was multiple sources from African, Hispanic, and Asian American Feminists in which they declared their purposes and their issues with the 2nd Wave's National Movement, Organization, and Goals.

The Professor wanted the students to _ahistorically_ find a way that these four movements _could have_ unified into a broad color blind coalition for women's rights.

Ironically, the students found it difficult because the commonalities were mere platitudes while the points of divergence were specific and well enumerated, as one would expect.

Feminism is not an all-inclusive and color blind movement, it never has been and it certainly is not today.



EleGirl said:


> Sure there are some women (and men) who self identify as feminist who say all kinds of stupid stuff. That's just like the men who spew the MRA stupid stuff.


No True Scotsman Fallacy combined with Men are Just as Bad defense.



EleGirl said:


> Title of this thread: Hooray for Women and Feminism!
> 
> 
> But now it's being turned into "men are victims of evil feminist" thread.
> 
> :x


Mainly because reality is not quite as clean as "Hooray for Women and Feminism."

Reality is that the modern Feminists of the 3rd Wave truly are misandrists who target men and masculinity as oppressive evils and think that society itself needs to be reordered to remove these men from influence and power.

And while the moderate Feminists do not believe those things, outside of Internet Forums where they tell men Feminism is "not like that," they are generally _silent_ and do nothing about the radical women who control the actual national movement.



EleGirl said:


> Apparently some are ignorant about the work being done world wide by women, who identify as feminists. These women are from every race and ethnic group that exists.





EleGirl said:


> Oh, are you interested in getting involved in the efforts in the countries where female babies are killed simply because they are female? If you are I could send you info about it.


It was a real question because:

1) If modern Feminism truly was about what it says it is, then it would have a primarily international scope and concern. There are places of true tyrannical patriarchy in this world, from Communist China, the Muslim States of the Middle East, and the complete cluster**** that is Africa, in which the ideals of Feminism (that is the lofty "equality" ones) seriously need to be brought.

2) Despite that there seems to be very little _action_ concerning these international issues, outside of the choice political statement or press release about a recent atrocity. So actually seeing some _efforts_ and real world _results_ would be refreshing.

3) The discussion about oppression of women internationally was a bold faced "Women have it worse somewhere, so men shut up," tactic and needed to be called out, bluntly.


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> what everything..they have specific topics..you can argue with that..but i don't see anything misandristic...


We literally just went over this.

Patriarchy Theory is _by definition_ misandrist.

Not to be mean, but are you being dense here on purpose?

Patriarchy Theory holds that the sources of oppressive objectification and violence are culturally generated by male institutions and spaces and that men as a class, and masculinity in general, is the source of these evils.

The link you provided is a classic example of the infighting within even a single _organziation_.

How do we go from this:


> Every 15 seconds a woman is beaten. Every day three to four women are killed by their partners. One out of four female college students will be raped or sexually assaulted while in college.
> 
> In recent years, pornography has become increasingly violent, cruel, degrading towards women; women are referred to as “cumdumpsters” and “****buckets”; the “money shot” (ejaculation in a woman’s face) is standard; humiliating cruelty—like violent “ass-to-mouth” penetration—is normalized, and racist bigotry is sexualized. Meanwhile, the broader culture has been pornified: pole dancing is taught at gyms, “sexting” is a national phenomenon among teens, and the strip club is the accepted backdrop to “male bonding.” All this is tied in with, and reinforces, the trafficking of millions of women and girls as literal chattel in the international sex industry.
> 
> This is NOT society becoming more comfortable with sex. This is society becoming saturated with the sexualized degradation of women. If you can’t imagine sex without porn, you’re fvcked.


To this:


> Our purpose is NOT to lobby for new legislation to ban pornography (“decency laws” have always served to further repress homosexuality, boundary-challenging art, and scientific sex education). We oppose the criminalization of women in the sex industry.
> 
> Our mission is to challenge the new generation in particular to reject this culture of rape and pornography, to resist the shaming of women who have sex and/or abortions, to wage fierce cultural and political resistance to wake others up, and to celebrate, fight for, and win the full equality and liberation of women.


And maintain anything approaching intellectual consistency or integrity?

The Sex issue has always split the Feminist movement down the middle.

The way this group is attempting to deal with the conundrum is by denouncing the _culture_ which drives this but not the results…because half of the Feminist movement thinks women in poronography are "empowered."

And you cannot step on those toes.

And what is the culture that is the problem?

It is:
1) Male Heterosexual Sexuality
2) Christian
3) Anti-Abortion

*Patriarchy theory is based on the notion that men and masculinity generate social and cultural institutions for the express purpose of oppressing women and their sexuality.*

Period.

Patriarchy Theory is by definition sexist.


----------



## Pluto2

So do you hate all women, because honestly that is how your "arguments" come across. And you are arguing, why? To convince women to drop any association with feminism? That is not going to happen.


----------



## Pluto2

I was not being bombastic, I was being quite honest in my opinion and observation on your posts on this topic. I do not share your views or hate men. Perhaps you should start your own blog that would allow you to rail against women/feminist/whoever it is that is making you so angry. That way you wouldn't have to actually try to communicate with people whose views differ from your own.


----------



## Icey181

Even the Huffington Post has noticed:
They did their own poll in 2013 and the results were *only 20% of Americans identified as Feminists*. 

Broken down *77% of Women* and *84% of men* refused the label.

However, when asked if "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," the Huffington poll found 82% agreement and only 9% rejection of that idea.

The divide is real and seems to be growing.

Feminists are an increasingly small, female dominated, niche political group.

Ironically, there is an assumption by the self-identified minority that they are larger than they are.

Despite only 23% of women identifying as Feminists, 47% of those self-identified Feminists think that a majority of women are, actually, Feminists.

Modern Feminism is basically upside down.

The 3rd Wave has taken the legacy of the previous generations and used it to legitimize and all out attack on men, masculinity, heterosexual sexuality, and somehow traditional conservatism and Christian faith.

The early leaders of the 1st and 2nd Waves had numerous arguments over the radicalization of the movement and many broke away due to it.

Hell, when Betty Friedan felt the need to warn Feminists about the radical wing of the movement *in the 1970s* you know something is rotten in Denmark.


----------



## Icey181

Pluto2 said:


> I was not being bombastic, I was being quite honest in my opinion and observation on your posts on this topic. I do not share your views or hate men. Perhaps you should start your own blog that would allow you to rail against women/feminist/whoever it is that is making you so angry. That way you wouldn't have to actually try to communicate with people whose views differ from your own.


Good god, now we have fully gone into the, "You must be an angry little man" shaming tactic.

Your ad hominems are getting tiresome.

If you actually have a substantive point which constructively disagrees with either the history of Feminism or the ideological view points of the 3rd Wave, feel free to express them.

Otherwise I am going to ignore you as a troll.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> S
> 
> Reality is that the modern Feminists of the 3rd Wave truly are misandrists who target men and masculinity as oppressive evils and think that society itself needs to be reordered to remove these men from influence and power.
> 
> And while the moderate Feminists do not believe those things, outside of Internet Forums where they tell men Feminism is "not like that," they are generally _silent_ and do nothing about the radical women who control the actual national movement.


The reality is that feminists come from all walks of life across the globe. Your notion that *all* third wave feminists think the same, or are trying to be colour-blind, shows that you aren't really aware of a huge portion of the literature or the activism. It's as though you think that *all* are true Scotsmen, which is just as much of a fallacy.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> We literally just went over this.
> 
> Patriarchy Theory is _by definition_ misandrist.
> 
> Not to be mean, but are you being dense here on purpose?
> 
> Patriarchy Theory holds that the sources of oppressive objectification and violence are culturally generated by male institutions and spaces and that men as a class, and masculinity in general, is the source of these evils.


Ummm, I think it's not just feminists who define patriarchy as a society that provides significant advantages to men: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy



> "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.
> 
> Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[1]"


Or are we to believe that the evil 3rd wavers have co-opted Wikipedia too?


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> The reality is that feminists come from all walks of life across the globe. Your notion that *all* third wave feminists think the same, or are trying to be colour-blind, shows that you aren't really aware of a huge portion of the literature or the activism. It's as though you think that *all* are true Scotsmen, which is just as much of a fallacy.


My 12th Grade English teacher identified as a Catholic.

She told the class that, even as a Catholic, she thinks that other religions can be right and there are other "Gods," not necessarily the Catholic God.

A student (who I quite disliked) pointed out that this was a violation of the 1st Commandment.

She disagreed and said she could be a Catholic and believe that other religions were potentially right at the same time.

The point of that story? Self-Identification is meaningless without a subscription to certain fundamental first principles.

3rd Wave Feminism is defined by its subscription to Patriarchy Theory as well as its belief in post-modernist "social constructions" of gender, sexuality, and gender norms.

I happen to be an academic which provides me a unique advantage (if that is the word) in that my friends and colleagues are self identified 3rd Wave Feminists who share their political views, discuss their theory, and demonstrate it in action on literally a daily basis.

The notion that there is an evolving discourse around modern Feminism and that adherents to the 3rd Wave are scattered across a spectrum of "In Name Only" identification all the way to "Men are Evil, the Male Gaze is Rape," is not news to me.

The point however, is that the variation within the 3rd Wave Movement _produces a politically influential rhetoric which results in *policy*_.

In general I react to three items:
1) First Principles of the Movement (Patriarchy Theory - Which is by definition, sexist)
2) Political Rhetoric of the Movement (Often Sexist, often based in lies, ex. 1 in 5 Rape Statistic)
3) Policy Directives (Affirmative Consent Laws, Holding Men Responsible for Consent, etc)

Stating that there is variation within the 3rd Wave is all fine and dandy, but it does nothing to alter the reality that the 3rd Wave produces a specific _rhetoric_, a specific _political influence_, and establishes _policy_, based on a general subscription to _Patriarchy Theory_ as a fundamental principle.

Individuals who subscribe to Patriarchy Theory accept, _a priori_, a sexist conception of society which holds men and masculinity responsible for the ubiquitous oppression of women.

Period.

That is what defines a 3rd Wave Feminist, just as accepting God as the "the LORD thy God" defines a true Catholic.

My English Teacher was an atheist masquerading as a Catholic. She disagreed with the notion of the One, True, Only, God.

Acceptance of a fundamental principle is the defining factor.

If that principle is inherently _sexist_, well…that is all you need to know.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> Ummm, I think it's not just feminists who define patriarchy as a society that provides significant advantages to men:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
> 
> Or are we to believe that the evil 3rd wavers have co-opted Wikipedia too?


Um….yeah….dictionary definitions…

Patriarchy = Social System in which Men are fundamentally in control
Matriarchy = Social System in which Women are fundamentally in control

No kidding. 

I was not arguing that Patriarchy is _not_ a social system of male dominance.

I was pointing out that the 3rd Wave's fundamental belief is that America is an oppressive patriarchy.


----------



## RandomDude

Wow, looks like my image sparked a gender war! Whoops! Regardless it's a good read and I urge you folks to carry on.

I still disagree with modern feminism, my views are rather distracted right now finding out about some vegans feeding their CATS vegan diets so meh to this topic. But Icey presents a very convincing argument thus far in my opinion. As for patriachy, alot of women see patriachy as "men's power" "men's authority", I see it as "men's responsibility" and that is very deep in many cultures which carries over to "chivalry" "being gentlemen" as well as the social responsibility and expectations of men to provide for a family and old traditions of dowries.

It's not the "cause of all evils" FFS, but that's that. Carry on


----------



## Jeffyboy

It seems a lot of people today can't wait to be offended! I hope no one is offended by this statement


----------



## Icey181

Here, this might help with the confusion.

Patriarchy =/= Patriarchy Theory



Patriarchy: Feminist Theory by Ara Wilson said:


> Patriarchy is a cardinal concept of the radical second-wave feminists, who define it as "a system of social structures, and practices, in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women" (Walby, 1990:214). This use of patriarchy has enabled the development of some of the most significant feminist ideas and programs worldwide; at the same time, the concept has been criticized, modified, and in many cases abandoned.


Patriarchy: Feminist Theory (encyclopedia essay on concept of patriarchy) | Ara Wilson - Academia.edu

Notice the mention of the *2nd Wave*.

Patriarchy Theory was considered radical, extreme, and generally _wrong_ by much of the 2nd Wave. It produces items such as the concept of the exploitive "Male Gaze," and the notion that all sexual intercourse that includes vaginal penetration by a penis is reinforcement of oppression.

It was ideas like that which pressed Betty Friedan to argue for a new era of Feminism which tackled the remaining issues of equality without becoming radical misandrists.

Friedan, by that point, was no longer the leader of the Feminist movement.

That should tell you most of what you need to know about the 3rd Wave.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> It's not the "cause of all evils" FFS, but that's that. Carry on


No of course not...feminism is the cause of all evils...just ask these guys at TAM, they'll tell you allllllllllllllllllllll about it alllllllllllllllllll day long.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Here, this might help with the confusion.
> 
> Patriarchy =/= Patriarchy Theory


The point of theorizing about patriarchy was to demonstrate that sexism isn't actually about the individual, and isn't about blaming individual men. Rather, the sexist ideology is embedded into social systems and institutions.

Given that a patriarchal society is by definition a society where men dominate politically, legally, morally, and economically, it doesn't strike me as the least bit surprising that social institutions have embedded advantages for men that were denied to women. 

And lo and behold, this was shown pretty clearly to be the case. 

These sexist social institutions that disadvantaged women were propped up by lots of wonderful stereotypes and justifications about what women were (not) capable of. And so it isn't surprising to me at all that feminists have focused on dismantling them.


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> honeslty..not to be mean but are you really trying to be that RIDICULOUS? Are you questioning that the society we live in is still male dominated (politicians / CEO's/salary gaps/pregnancy discrimination and so on-and this is based on STATISTICS NOT OPINIONS) society?Oh..but wait..women do not want power..they prefer to stay in the kitchen..even in Europe not to talk about less developed countries..I've worked for a number of corporations..some of them were international..the level of chauvinism is *APPALING *to say the least...especially at management levels..but maybe the US is an happy island..but I doubt it...


Of course America is a male "dominated" society. Most every society in human history and quite literally every major political state in history has been dominated by men in leadership positions.

There are various reasons for that, but so what?

There is a difference between a democratically elected Federal Republic which routinely returns men to positions of power and a regulated capitalist economy in which women actively choose to work less hours than men and spend time out of work to prioritize having families…

…and a system described under *Patriarchy Theory* in which women are systematically oppressed and sexually assaulted in order to maintain unilateral male control of society.

And yes, whether you like it or not, a plurality, if not a majority of women, prioritize families and child-rearing over professional careers. Although, that might be changing with this generation, though I kind of doubt it.

I tend to think that is due to a mix of evolutionary biology and the implications of a Hobbesian War of Nature reality in the world, but that is another discussion entirely.



Bugged said:


> I don't care if they have different opinions about it.
> Are you arguing tha pornography, especially the kind of pornography that depicts women like garbage is *mostly *produced/marketed by men?
> What is your point? I didn't say this IS the feminist movement...I said it's a radical group and do you think it's misandristic to state the *TRUTH*?
> 
> Moreover feminists have always said a lot of women are complicit..


Sex is the third rail of Feminism.

It always has been and it actually occasioned the original split between the 1st and 2nd Wave.

Of course pornography is mostly marketed at men; there are fundamental biological differences in the sexual drives of men and women. Point of Fact.

However, Feminism is always of two minds about this.

On the one hand pornography is "degrading" and a force for the objectification of women.

On the other hand pornography is "empowering" and being sexually degraded actually allows a woman to "explore her sexuality," and any man who would attempt to stop her is patronizing her and trying to control her sexuality.

Attempting to keep tabs on the ebb and flow of Feminism's Sex Wars gives me a headache.

Suffice to say, if you want to see a group of Feminists fall in on each other like rabid dogs, ask the Sex and Pornography question, and then walk away.



Bugged said:


> Not in their entirety , but I'm sure that you can't tell the difference...(being dense on pourpose)?


You missed the point.

That link quite specifically argued that violent, sexually rapacious, white, evangelical Christian men, are the source of these problems.

In other words, their political adversaries are "evil."

I can only listen to so many Feminists talk about modern American Christian Men as though they are bloody thirst crusaders raping the countryside before I literally tune them out…



Bugged said:


> This is YOUR opinion..but I'm sure you are not interested in the meaning of the word 'patriarchy' because, as usual, you know better.


Actually, I do know better.

You are quoting a library definition of Patriarchy at me while I am talking about what 3rd Wave Feminists refer to as Patriarchy Theory.

One is a socio-historical categorization of societies and culture based on the contingent power of males.

The other is a post-modernist theory of social construction developed by the radical academic wing of 2nd Wave Feminism sometime in the 1960s.

There is a fundamental difference between the two items.

Stop being obtuse.


Bugged said:


> I'm sorry you realize you still live in a patriarchy...but then again most people don't even know *we are currently living in an Ice Age*, so...


America is not a patriarchy either based on the library definition or on the Feminist theory one.

Early America _was_ distinctly patriarchical.

And inherently classist in a Classically Republican sense.

That changed in various ways over time.

And technically, we are not so much in an Ice Age as our geological point in time is attached to the endpoint of the last one. Those kinds of definitions use measures of time which would make most modern Climate Change activists dizzy….you have a century worth of data? How about a few millenia worth and then we'll talk….that kind of stuff.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> The point however, is that the variation within the 3rd Wave Movement _produces a politically influential rhetoric which results in *policy*_.
> 
> In general I react to three items:
> 1) First Principles of the Movement (Patriarchy Theory - Which is by definition, sexist)
> 2) Political Rhetoric of the Movement (Often Sexist, often based in lies, ex. 1 in 5 Rape Statistic)
> 3) Policy Directives (Affirmative Consent Laws, Holding Men Responsible for Consent, etc)


(1) So patriarchy isn't sexist? Only the theory? How is it that a social system that gives men all of the advantages not sexist in any way?

(2) The statistics you cite are backed up fairly carefully -- and they are not just rape, but rape and sexual assault. Did you know that in some parts of the world some 75% of women will be raped in their lifetime? I know you want to focus this conversation on only the American experience, but I can assure you the feminism and these issues extend far beyond the US borders

(3) There are a handful of policies that pi$$ off some people because they feel disadvantaged by them. And this somehow translates into a singular 3rd wave tsunami sweeping over the nation? I think not. If you look at the history of these policies and laws that MRA find so objectionable, you'll usually find that (a) they were in response to a very specific situation where women were sytemically discriminated against and (b) are being revised and updated as we speak. No MRA wants to talk about women paying alimony and child support, and yet they often do. No MRA wants to talk about drugging women specifically for the purposes of taking sexual advantage, but sadly these things are all too common.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> The point of theorizing about patriarchy was to demonstrate that sexism isn't actually about the individual, and isn't about blaming individual men. Rather, the sexist ideology is embedded into social systems and institutions.


Of course it blames individual men.

By definition if "Patriarchy" is socially and culturally generated, it is generated _by the men in society_.

That is why Feminists, especially in the 3rd Wave, talk about men as either "allies" or as unwitting cogs in the Patriarchy machine.



always_alone said:


> Given that a patriarchal society is by definition a society where men dominate politically, legally, morally, and economically, it doesn't strike me as the least bit surprising that social institutions have embedded advantages for men that were denied to women.


Again with the definition.

There is a difference between men being the dominate gender (holding majority power) and men being the _oppressive gender_.

The latter is what 3rd Wave Feminist Patriarchy Theory argues.



always_alone said:


> And lo and behold, this was shown pretty clearly to be the case.


Yeah, in the 19th Century.

Generally speaking, the modern middle class, educated, white American woman, is potentially the single most privileged class of human beings to ever walk the planet.

Never before has a society invested so much money into the education, advancement, placement, and successful outcomes of a single portion of its population, nor has it structured legal and cultural norms in a manner to protect their desires, as modern women have.

They tend to lack much of the responsibility and obligations that the former privileged classes (say, White Propertied Men in the 18th & 19th Century) had to deal with as a basis for that privilege.



always_alone said:


> These sexist social institutions that disadvantaged women were propped up by lots of wonderful stereotypes and justifications about what women were (not) capable of. And so it isn't surprising to me at all that feminists have focused on dismantling them.


See, I fundamentally disagree.

I do not think that dismantling heterosexuality, rejecting biological differences between men and women, or painting men as a class as sexually aggressive potential rapists is useful, in the least.

Or that it accomplishes anything, other than satisfying petty revenge fantasies of spoiled college-aged girls who don't like large subsets of men for whatever reason.


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Of course it blames individual men.
> 
> By definition if "Patriarchy" is socially and culturally generated, it is generated _by the men in society_.
> 
> That is why Feminists, especially in the 3rd Wave, talk about men as either "allies" or as unwitting cogs in the Patriarchy machine.


Social systems are generated by all of society. And so there are also women who are feminist allies and women who are propping up the status quo. 

Again, the whole point of theorizing patriarchy and talking about social constructions is to show that sexism and oppression isn't about individuals, it is about social systems and institutions.


----------



## Icey181

always_alone said:


> (1) So patriarchy isn't sexist? Only the theory? How is it that a social system that gives men all of the advantages not sexist in any way?


I never said Patriarchy was not inherently sexist, that is a strawman you are creating.

The interesting thing about Patriarchy is that, where it exists (for instance, let's say 1790s-1820s America), whereas modern people talk about privilege and advantage, the contemporaries spoke of obligation and responsibility.

Jeffersonian Republicanism is perhaps the best statement of this idea in the entirety of American history.

Jefferson argued that educated, propertied men, needed to control the deliberative functions of society (thereby forming a literal patriarchy) primarily because those men retained a moral, religious, and social obligation to be stewards of that society, protect it, and lead it, die for it if necessary.

Don Corelone said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7mvDOBhvnE

Is that sexist? Yeah. In a patronizing kind of way.

That is fundamentally different from what the 3rd Wave means when they say Patriarchy.

They literally think of it as *American men* who use *ubiquitous physical, emotional, and sexual violence against women* to control them.

Patriarchy conceives of a society like Early Republican America.

Patriarchy Theory conceives of a society like pre-Civil War Southern slavery, with all of the violence and rape that entails.



always_alone said:


> (2) The statistics you cite are backed up fairly carefully -- and they are not just rape, but rape and sexual assault. Did you know that in some parts of the world some 75% of women will be raped in their lifetime? I know you want to focus this conversation on only the American experience, but I can assure you the feminism and these issues extend far beyond the US borders


Of course it does.

But 3rd Wave Feminism seems primarily concerned with America, the place where it was born, the place where it lives, and the place where it spends the majority of its time, effort, and money.

And in America, those "Arguments" about Rape Culture and Wage Gaps are so beyond mischaracterized and wrong that even moderate feminists are getting tired of writing articles denouncing those idiotic numbers.

Personally, I am with the Post-Feminist camp.

I think America is basically good, it just needs some fixes here or there, and that Feminism's real objectives and positive good are best served and most needed in other nations.



always_alone said:


> There are a handful of policies that pi$$ off some people because they feel disadvantaged by them. And this somehow translates into a singular 3rd wave tsunami sweeping over the nation? I think not. If you look at the history of these policies and laws that MRA find so objectionable, you'll usually find that (a) they were in response to a very specific situation where women were sytemically discriminated against and (b) are being revised and updated as we speak. *No MRA wants to talk about women paying alimony and child support, and yet they often do. No MRA wants to talk about drugging women specifically for the purposes of taking sexual advantage, but sadly these things are all too common.*


This is interesting.

Because MRAs (which I am not one of) seem not to like the idea of alimony, at all.

And what the hell do date rape drugs have to do with anything?

Sexual Assault prevalence in the United States is something like 0.1%.

And I fail to see how claiming, because some women at some point were systematically discriminated against, modern men should be held accountable for gaining consent in all sexual interactions with women and are presumed guilty unless proven otherwise, for instance.

Discriminating against men in a social, cultural, or legal fashion as revenge for a previous generation does not sit well with me, whatsoever.


----------



## Cletus

Pluto2 said:


> I was not being bombastic, I was being quite honest in my opinion and observation on your posts on this topic. I do not share your views or hate men. Perhaps you should start your own blog that would allow you to rail against women/feminist/whoever it is that is making you so angry. That way you wouldn't have to actually try to communicate with people whose views differ from your own.


I think he's doing a decent job of illuminating one side of capital "F" Feminism without attacking anyone here or women in general. I don't follow Feminism as a movement all that much, but I have no doubt that like any special interest group, they have their failings, over-indulgences, blind spots, and agendas that go well beyond the label of simple equality for all. 

I for one am glad for the content.


----------



## RandomDude

My culture traditionally (before foreign influence especially communism that is) is a patriachy, a patriachy that highly valued meritocracy and women to the point sedentary scholars even called us "feminists", even though most of their work carries only half or biased truths and/or from a foreign perspective. Women not only had properties, divorce rights, but held authority. (Really puts the shame the whole notion of "if women ruled the world, there would be no wars" lol) - hell women even OWNED the households not the men. Women were even considered wiser then men! Now this was a patriachy - so when these modern/Western feminists say "patriachy is the cause of all evil" I just go pffft!

Modern Western patriachy has all the equal opportunity, divorce rights and meritocracy that my people traditionally practiced throughout our imperial days (and even more! Industrialisation has freed mankind from the need of physical labor for many occupations), with problems on both sides sure (still women haters and man haters), but is it good enough that I would gladly raise my daughter in a Western society? Yes! What do I see with the 3rd wave? Radicals/extremists that thankfully are not in the majority. 

Anyway, I don't like to mention my culture, as I prefer my autonomous posting, but damn I can't stand all this "patriachy is bad" bullsh-t


----------



## Icey181

Bugged said:


> I said it is marketed *BY* men, not AT.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other.



Bugged said:


> what has that got to do with pornography and degradation?


Quite a bit actually.

Ravishment fantasies, bondage, and choking fantasies are women's domains. Some men seem to be into that kind of sexual fantasy, but the number is exceedingly small.

When it comes to sexual enjoyment, women tend to be more prone to being on the "submissive" side of things.

There have been enough blogs and reddit posts as well as full blown articles and talks about Feminists in crisis because they like to be dominated by their sexual partners in the bedroom that I need not review the issue here.

Suffice to say that there are fundamental differences in sexual drive and sexual desire.



Bugged said:


> so what? You are missing the point entirely..I said it is a *PRODUCT *of patriarchy..do you honestly think that if men were depicted like women are in tons of porn movies the law would be so tolerant?What about the insults '****/*****s and so on, the words 'stupid/exploited/exposed'
> that often go with these 'movies'...what if someone made a movie with insults against black people for instance..*do you honestly think the law would be so tolerant? *


Because, as well all know, there is no pornography targeted at women which include the physical abuse and sexual degradation of men.

You are reaching here…big time.

There very much are entire subsets of pornographic materials which include the sexual submission, sexual degradation, and the emasculation of men.

And the law has not been changed, to my knowledge, to get rid of it.



Bugged said:


> No you missed the point.
> Entirely.





Bugged said:


> Are you arguing that for instance, it is always some radicl Christian group that tries to push laws to limit abortion?


Having difficulty parsing my words with the link?



Bugged said:


> I think it'ds questionable..moreover how can you be so sure which one Sunsara Taylor is using? Did you ask her?


I do not know her work personally, but I am also not trying to be purposefully obtuse.

When a member of a specific ideological faction utilizes the exact terminology and employs the exact rationalizations for their activism as is defined and used by the broader movement in general, one can safely assume they subscribe to the fundamental principles of that movement until proven otherwise.

I do not need to interrogate Donald Trump personally to know what he means when he says things like, "We need to deal with illegal immigration" any more than I need to personally interrogate a 3rd Wave Feminist about what she means by "Patriarchy" *when the entire movement only exists because of the development of Patriarchy Theory in the first place!*.

It is like asking a Catholic whether or not they believe in God…



Bugged said:


> I honestly think YOU are very obtuse and have a tunnel vision. You should stop insulting for instance.


Telling a person they are substituting a Wikipedia definition of an entirely different phrase in the place of a well known and easily cited different phrase is not an insult.

Telling a person that they appear to lack the academic training or the knowledge base on the subject is also, not an insult.

You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of American Feminism, the differences in the societal acceptance and evolution of the three waves, and the fundamental basis of 3rd Wave Feminist theory as it is literally taught to Freshmen in Women's Studies and Women's Political history classes on my very campus by my actual, Doctorate in hand, tenured, published specialist, colleagues. 

3rd Wave Feminism was founded on Patriarchy Theory.

You have the definition in hand, I even provided you with an academic source for it. 

If you cared, you can find literally mountains of Feminist theoretical writings which expound upon it.

Stop playing the definition game; Patriarchy Theory has a definition and 3rd Wave Feminism is defined by its adherence to it.




Bugged said:


> Do you know what an Ice Age is? I don't think you do.


Apologies, I am a historian and constitutional scholar, not a geologist.

Is there a point to this diversion?


----------



## RandomDude

I have to admit, the more I read here, the more that image about 3rd wave feminists is proving its point

I'm hoping for a better argument than what has been so far presented by the ladies, it's just like ticking off the checklist on that image!

To refresh:










The first and last points on 3rd wave strongly confirmed alone by the arguments presented thus far! Come on!


----------



## always_alone

Icey181 said:


> Telling a person they are substituting a Wikipedia definition of an entirely different phrase in the place of a well known and easily cited different phrase is not an insult.
> 
> Telling a person that they appear to lack the academic training or the knowledge base on the subject is also, not an insult.
> 
> You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of American Feminism, the differences in the societal acceptance and evolution of the three waves, and the fundamental basis of 3rd Wave Feminist theory as it is literally taught to Freshmen in Women's Studies and Women's Political history classes on my very campus by my actual, Doctorate in hand, tenured, published specialist, colleagues.
> 
> 3rd Wave Feminism was founded on Patriarchy Theory.
> 
> You have the definition in hand, I even provided you with an academic source for it.


You should maybe read that source that you posted then. Because it pretty clearly explains that "Patriarchy Theory" is about theorizing patriarchy, and that it is about situating oppression of women in social institutions instead of individuals, that among feminists there are many variations and disagreements over what patriarchy means and what to do about it. And that it isn't even third wave at all ...

Of course, if what you are railing against is radical feminism, as opposed to 3rd wave, then your arguments start to make a bit more sense.


----------



## RandomDude

If you also believe that radicalism of feminism is wrong, then why call yourself a feminist? Hell I have genuine concerns about my people but I don't join the ranks of the nationalists who were opposed to my "interracial" marriage in the past, I love animals but don't join the ranks of animal rights activists either (not to mention I just realised PETA encourages VEGAN diets for cats WTF), I volunteer in the shelters and donate as well as spend alot of quality time with animals but no way would I insult myself by calling myself one of THEM.

Meh


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> I have to admit, the more I read here, the more that image about 3rd wave feminists is proving its point
> 
> I'm hoping for a better argument than what has been so far presented by the ladies, it's just like ticking off the checklist on that image!


Unfortunately, Icey is mischaracterizing the nature of 3rd wave feminism, which is concerned with a whole host of different issues around the globe, and theorizes the impacts and issues of patriarchy and gender issues in quite different ways.

His position is compelling because he will constantly limit discussion to the "one true Scotsman", the white, middle-class, college-aged, American radical feminist whose hot-button topic is affirmative consent.

But there is so, so, so much more that is going on.


----------



## Pluto2

RandomDude said:


> If you also believe that radicalism of feminism is wrong, then why call yourself a feminist? Hell I have genuine concerns about my people but I don't join the ranks of the nationalists who were opposed to my "interracial" marriage in the past, I love animals but don't join the ranks of animal rights activists either (not to mention I just realised PETA encourages VEGAN diets for cats WTF), I volunteer in the shelters and donate as well as spend alot of quality time with animals but no way would I insult myself by calling myself one of THEM.
> 
> Meh


Maybe she doesn't want to accept a definition of herself that someone else concocted. And, I'm all for animal rights, but I'm not a member of PETA either.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> If you also believe that radicalism of feminism is wrong, then why call yourself a feminist?


"Radical" feminist is but one small subsection of feminism.


----------



## always_alone

Pluto2 said:


> Maybe she doesn't want to accept a definition of herself that someone else concocted. And, I'm all for animal rights, but I'm not a member of PETA either.


PETA are actually horrible hypocrites that are responsible for the death of thousands of animals that they are "saving" from the cruel and terrible fate of being pets. 

/end threadjack


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> I have to admit, the more I read here, the more that image about 3rd wave feminists is proving its point
> 
> I'm hoping for a better argument than what has been so far presented by the ladies, it's just like ticking off the checklist on that image!


I think that the reason that some who could give a good argument against what's being posted is many fold.

1) We have discussed this topic on TAM many times… till many of us are just tired of it. Nothing changes. 

2)	Some here have given what they call 3rd wave feminism a false definition. That cartoon you posted goes a good job of showing the false definition. In doing so they have created a red herring fallacy. It seems that the purpose is to change the topic to discredit all feminism through the veil of this false definition. What it boils down to is that some are arguing “A” and others “B”. What’s the point?

3)	This false definition is created by taking the words of a few that are found in publications and online as being all that feminism is. It ignores that most women & men who believe in equal rights in all aspects of life and society are not represented by those people. Most are doing the things that are needed to create and maintain equality for all.

4)	What is the point of having a discussion/argument when facts do not matter? It’s useless to give any facts because some are not interested in facts. I could list hundreds/thousands of very good things being done by real feminists who are working hard all over the globe for equality and to better living conditions, lives; and even to save lives. Those who have created the “3rd wave feminism red herring” could care less about the millions of men and women (who agree with feminist ideas) are doing. They are only interested in cherry picking a few who make money off saying outrageous things… and then twisting anything anyone says with an view different than theirs to somehow fit their false definition.

We have lives. We are all busy. So we do not have endless times and energy to argue false premises with angry people.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> "Radical" feminist is but one small subsection of feminism.


But like any dare I say "bombastic" sub-group within an organization, they get the majority of the press and create the image that those outside of the movement see when they think of the larger group.

You can blame the people who don't know better, but this will always be the problem. The only group that can possibly undo this is feminism itself, from the inside. 

Donald Trump is the face of the Republican party RFN. Only other leaders within the organization can make it clear that he does not in fact stand for the party as a whole. Three out of every four Republicans don't support the man, but FTMP his competition is more afraid of seeming divided or starting an internal purity feud than it does with saying "enough". 

Just saying "but they're just a sub-group of all feminists" doesn't cut it unless the rest of the feminists are adamant about calling them out on their bullsh*t. And so far in this discussion, the effort seems to be much more aligned with defining them away than it does with owning them as a real problem within the organization.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> The only group that can possibly undo this is feminism itself, from the inside.


And the only way to undo the problematic patriarchal thinking and straight up misogyny that still exists, has to come from men not tolerating it anymore when they hear it in each other.

Think that's going to happen?

No?

Then no surprise that the radical feminists are not going to be "reformed" either.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> PETA are actually horrible hypocrites that are responsible for the death of thousands of animals that they are "saving" from the cruel and terrible fate of being pets.


"....the idea having given birth to the organization, the organization develops a self-interest which has no connection with, and becomes inimical to, the idea with which it began."


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> My culture traditionally (before foreign influence especially communism that is) is a patriachy, a patriachy that highly valued meritocracy and women to the point sedentary scholars even called us "feminists", even though most of their work carries only half or biased truths and/or from a foreign perspective. Women not only had properties, divorce rights, but held authority. (Really puts the shame the whole notion of "if women ruled the world, there would be no wars" lol) - hell women even OWNED the households not the men. Women were even considered wiser then men! Now this was a patriachy - so when these modern/Western feminists say "patriachy is the cause of all evil" I just go pffft!
> 
> Modern Western patriachy has all the equal opportunity, divorce rights and meritocracy that my people traditionally practiced throughout our imperial days (and even more! Industrialisation has freed mankind from the need of physical labor for many occupations), with problems on both sides sure (still women haters and man haters), but is it good enough that I would gladly raise my daughter in a Western society? Yes! What do I see with the 3rd wave? Radicals/extremists that thankfully are not in the majority.
> 
> Anyway, I don't like to mention my culture, as I prefer my autonomous posting, but damn I can't stand all this "patriachy is bad" bullsh-t


There are a few definitions of patriarchy. Its sounds like you culture follows #1 & #3 below most closely.

1. a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

2. a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

3. a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

Many societies not only follow #1 & #3, but #2.

Western culture used exclude women, to the point of women have the same legal standing of children.

There are probably two major reasons why the feminist movement started in Europe and the USA.

One is the change in political structure changing from monarchs to democracy... rule by the people. It gets very hard to have a democracy and then justify that 50% of the adults are not included. 50% have no say in their own governance.

The second is that patriarchy as it was practiced in Europe prevented women from have a say in their own government. It prevented women from financial equality since married women could not own property and just about the only jobs available to women were medial labor paid at half the rate men were paid. It was next to impossible for women to get a divorce. Even serious, life threatening physical abuse was not considered enough to justify a divorce. And when a man initiated a divorce, he kept all property to include his wife's inheritance, he got 100% custody of the children and she was thrown out on the street with nothing. (That's the short list.) This form of patriarchy, the one that existed in the much of Europe and the USA is bad, it is bullsh!t.

Can you see how looking at things from different cultural perspectives and make something take on an entirely new character?

And keep in mind that world wide there are still a lot of societies that still have some very bad patriarchal social and political things going on. The easiest examples are the ones I gave earlier. In China and India, over 200 million baby girls have been aborted or killed (after birth) simply because they are female. The reason? The societies are patriarchal. Male children are highly valued. Female children have little value. Would you argue that this is a good thing? Or would you agree that the practice of killing female babies simply because they are females are examples of patriarchy being bad?


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> And the only way to undo the problematic patriarchal thinking and straight up misogyny that still exists, has to come from men not tolerating it anymore when they hear it in each other.
> 
> Think that's going to happen?


Yes, it is happening, and it's happening right here in this forum. You won't reform the misogynists or the misandrists, but enough voices come together against their message that they become exposed for what they are and for being too far out of the mainstream.

Just like the fight for gay marriage, which we all witnessed play out in real time. There are plenty of bigots and homophobes out there. They were never eliminated. They are simply being brushed aside as culturally irrelevant. 



> Then no surprise that the radical feminists are not going to be "reformed" either.


That wasn't the point, so no duplicitous thinking points awarded. Reforming society comes more from getting the unwashed masses to simultaneously point their gaze at something they've long ignored but which is manifestly unjust than it does with reforming the zealots, which never works.

We won't get rid of radical feminists, but perhaps we can get to the point where they're not seen as the public face and primary motivation of the movement as a whole. As part of the partriarchy, I can't really help much with that. My job is to butt heads with the misogynists.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> If you also believe that radicalism of feminism is wrong, then why call yourself a feminist?


If a Muslim believes that radical/terrorist Muslims are wrong, they why would they call themselves Muslims?

That argument does not hold up because there are always people in any group that are radicals. If everyone stopped supporting any organization or philosophy that had some radicals running around spewing nonsense, then there would no organizations or philosophy except the radical.. because everyone would be too busy fleeing every time a radical nut started spewing nonsense.

Keep in mind that feminism is not an organization. It's a philosophy that advocates women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.



RandomDude said:


> Hell I have genuine concerns about my people but I don't join the ranks of the nationalists who were opposed to my "interracial" marriage in the past, I love animals but don't join the ranks of animal rights activists either (not to mention I just realised PETA encourages VEGAN diets for cats WTF), I volunteer in the shelters and donate as well as spend alot of quality time with animals but no way would I insult myself by calling myself one of THEM.


Those things do not really affect your life. You married who you wanted to marry. Whether or not animals have rights or someone choses to be vegan does not impact your life much at all, if any.

But what about if there was something that made it so that you could only get a job that paid half of the minimum wage paid to others for the same work? You were not allowed to get an education, become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or get into some other field that you were interested in. Instead all you were ALLOWED to do was to work in a menial job.

Would you then care enough to be involved in changing your own circumstance?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> My job is to butt heads with the misogynists.


:x


----------



## EleGirl

Bugged said:


> Can you explain to me, in simple words, why fighting for equal rights for men or focusing on *non female* victimis of equality issues, should be something that the *FEMINISTS *should push?:nerd:


The thing is that a lot of feminist organizations do fight for equal rights for men as well as women.

For example, laws written for equal pay and non-discrimination based on gender are written gender neutral. There have been cases in which men have been paid less based on gender. They sued and won.

Sexual harassment at work laws are the same. Men have also sued using these laws and won. 

On the surface, expecting feminist to advocate for men's rights as well might seem like insisting that an organization that advocates for cancer research to also have to advocate for diabetes research. Non-profits are usually formed with a very well defined goal. By law they have to do this. And they have to prove that their activities and funds go for the narrow purpose for which they were created. 

That said, many feminist organizations do advocate for equal rights for men. As much as NOW is hated by some, it has put a lot of effort into fighting for rights for men as well.

I don't think that we can fight for equal rights for women without including equal rights for men.

For example I'm a huge advocate of providing support for victims fo domestic violence regardless of gender. I'm glad that more and more it's being done. It can be hard because the housing needs to be gender separated most of the time so it becomes an issue of limited resources.


----------



## ocotillo

Bugged said:


> Can you explain to me, in simple words, why fighting for equal rights for men or focusing on *non female* victimis of equality issues, should be something that the *FEMINISTS *should push?:nerd:


How did women win the right to vote before they could actually vote?


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> For example I'm a huge advocate of providing support for victims fo domestic violence regardless of gender. I'm glad that more and more it's being done. It can be hard because the housing needs to be gender separated most of the time so it becomes an issue of limited resources.


Feminist here. I have been active on equal rights for men in family law.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> But like any dare I say "bombastic" sub-group within an organization, they get the majority of the press and create the image that those outside of the movement see when they think of the larger group.
> 
> You can blame the people who don't know better, but this will always be the problem. The only group that can possibly undo this is feminism itself, from the inside.
> 
> Donald Trump is the face of the Republican party RFN. Only other leaders within the organization can make it clear that he does not in fact stand for the party as a whole. Three out of every four Republicans don't support the man, but FTMP his competition is more afraid of seeming divided or starting an internal purity feud than it does with saying "enough".
> 
> Just saying "but they're just a sub-group of all feminists" doesn't cut it unless the rest of the feminists are adamant about calling them out on their bullsh*t. And so far in this discussion, the effort seems to be much more aligned with defining them away than it does with owning them as a real problem within the organization.


The Republican Party is an actual organization with membership. There is a core group that are actual appointed leadership.

PETA is an organization with actual employees, membership, etc. 

Feminism is not an organization. It's an idea. There is no organization from which they can be cast out. Why should I or anyone else have to 'own' things that someone we do not even know says? It's not like I or most people are spending 24/7 surfing the blogosphere to find all the nonsense written.


Just about every woman on this thread says that they do not support radical feminists.

One of the problem is that these conversations are usually focused on something that has no real definition... radical feminism and/or 3rd wave feminism. So how can anyone address an entity if that does not exist? There are some organization that were created to further feminist ideals/thought. There are some people who speak out about their radial feminist thoughts. But none of these define feminism. They are only a small part of the millions of people who support feminism and/or self identify as feminists.


Instead of arguing over things like how evil ALL feminism is because some small, vocal bunch of independent entities spew nonsense. Perhaps we could talk about particular things people said and/or are doing. 


For example person "A" said "X"... what are your thoughts about it.


----------



## Cletus

Bah, I deleted a bunch of mangled text on most of this post that wasn't coherent, so I'll just stick to the last part. 



> Perhaps we could talk about particular things people said and/or are doing.


Err, I have one that's gotten me beat up pretty bad in the past here. I'm no fan of the recent movement towards active consent. Now I don't know precisely who started it and don't have time to investigate right now, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it's roots are in the feminist movement. 

See what you've started now?


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> Feminism is not an organization. It's an idea.


Most of the criticism of "Feminism" is not directed at the idea; it's directed at a relatively tiny group of professors and other academicians in our colleges.

I can respect that they don't speak for the average self-identified feminist in anything approaching an official capacity, but I also think it's a mistake to write them off as irrelevant. 

It many ways, it strikes me as analogous to the average, self-identified Christian who doesn't attend any particular church, writing off the relatively tiny group of theologians and Bible scholars within Christianity as irrelevant. They may be a tiny group, but they are defining the basic terms of the discussion.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Err, I have one that's gotten me beat up pretty bad in the past here. I'm no fan of the recent movement towards active consent. Now I don't know precisely who started it and don't have time to investigate right now, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it's roots are in the feminist movement.
> 
> See what you've started now?


I'm not sure of the origins of active consent either. And I get the issues that some have with it.

I think that both active (affirmative) consent and "No means no" have serious flaws. 

"No means no" has really not helped to lower the number of assaults/rapes. In the same light I don't think that affirmative consent will either.

In most cases of rape, two people are alone. Absent evidence of an assault (burses, cuts, vaginal damage) there is no way to prove either "no means no" or "affirmative consent".

Humans have tried all kinds of things that have not worked well. Everything from not allowing women to leave their home without male family member escort... to chaperoned dates... to arranged marriages marrying off girl as soon as they reach puberty... to no means no... to affirmative action.

The issue with "no means no" is that there are circumstances under which the victim cannot say "no", like if drugged, drunk, or frozen from fear. So I guess some think that getting an affirmative "yes" at least means that the person is wake and functional. 

Here is a link to a video that I posted a few pages back. It talks about the concept of affirmative consent.

The Affirmative Consent Standard & Rape / Sexual Assault Education - *SGV-NOW Project

In the end, I think that affirmatives consent will be just a ineffective as "no means no". Not very effective at all.

What do you think is a solution?


----------



## MountainRunner

A couple of years ago, I was up in NorCal visiting friends as they needed me to setup a wireless surveillance network on their property. anyway, that evening, my friend took us all out to a nice dinner. The joint was jumping and there was a number of us in our party. Two of my friend, Dustin and Steve are usually two very nice guys...That night I found out what they're like under the influence of alcohol.

A young lady at the bar decided to join us as she was a bit distraught over her relationship ending and my two friends were all to willing to "help" her and the three of them proceeded to quaff large amounts of hard liquor. This young woman eventually was incoherent and my two "friends" used that to their advantage...I caught them in a hallway about to rape this woman.

It ended with me taking her out of there and driving her home. If it wasn't for respecting the friend that invited me up and asking me to help him (as these two losers were employee/friends of his), I would have seriously hurt these two.

"No" DOES MEAN "NO"...Too bad some guys didn't get the memo, yeah?


----------



## tom67

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dfLKbToIGQ
Equality right???

Oh wait that is harassment.
Now I'm triggered.:smile2:


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> Most of the criticism of "Feminism" is not directed at the idea; it's directed at a relatively tiny group of professors and other academicians in our colleges.


 I can go through this thread and many others like this one on TAM and show you post after post that is not directed at a group of professors and other academicians in our colleges. They are criticisms against any woman who dares to say that she’s for equality.

If I can get some time in the next few days I might do that.

Further, even when there are criticisms of a relatively tiny group of professors and other academicians in our colleges, it’s done with a broad sweep that talks about an impression the criticize has, not about specific things that have been said and/or done.



ocotillo said:


> I can respect that they don't speak for the average self-identified feminist in anything approaching an official capacity, but I also think it's a mistake to write them off as irrelevant.


Saying that those particular people do not represent most women/feminists is not writing them off. It’s saying that there are other voices that count. These voices count because in the end society is created by the people how the “boots have on the ground”.


ocotillo said:


> It many ways, it strikes me as analogous to the average, self-identified Christian who doesn't attend any particular church, writing off the relatively tiny group of theologians and Bible scholars within Christianity as irrelevant. They may be a tiny group, but they are defining the basic terms of the discussion.


I see a huge difference. Christianity has a Bible that all Christians use as the basis of their faith… it’s their guide, their law book, etc. Now of course different Christians interpret the Bible differently. 

There is no bible for feminists, there is no manifesto. The only thing that ties all feminist together is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. There is no bible telling us how to accomplish this. There are no appointed leaders.

If those who claim to oppose only radical feminism were being honest that they only opposed radical feminism and not women's rights, they would be attacking only radical feminism. Their words would not be laced with angry attacks again women's rights in general. 

There is another issue... what exactly is radical feminism? What defines it? Who is a radical feminist? Is every feminist in academia radial? Before we can discuss something, we need to know exactly what we are discussing and who fits in that shoe box. This has yet to be defined.

I have yet to read anyone, man or woman, on this thread, or any other thread on TAM, who says that they support radical feminism. But I have a suspicion that not everyone is defining radical feminism the same.


And it is why I suggested that we discuss particular topics instead of this nebulous, undefined thing called "radical feminism".


----------



## EleGirl

tom67 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dfLKbToIGQ
> Equality right???
> 
> Oh wait that is harassment.
> Now I'm triggered.:smile2:


What's harassment?


----------



## DayOne

Had the "white male privilege belonging to a patriarchal culture" card thrown at me yesterday, by a good lady friend of mine. 

Right out of left field, over a discussion about the movie Ant Man! And the resultant subject of Hollywood being sexist. Which I agree with, BTW. 

A real WTF moment.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Most of the criticism of "Feminism" is not directed at the idea; it's directed at a relatively tiny group of professors and other academicians in our colleges.
> 
> I can respect that they don't speak for the average self-identified feminist in anything approaching an official capacity, but I also think it's a mistake to write them off as irrelevant.
> 
> It many ways, it strikes me as analogous to the average, self-identified Christian who doesn't attend any particular church, writing off the relatively tiny group of theologians and Bible scholars within Christianity as irrelevant. They may be a tiny group, but they are defining the basic terms of the discussion.


Most of the criticism of feminism is directed not at *the* idea, but at very specific ideas that feminists have had. Most of these particular ideas do come from the academy, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that this tiny group of professors and academicians have any sort of agreement whatsoever. For this group, there are whole conferences full of feminists disagreeing with each other and presenting different analyses, approaches, and solutions. To think that even radical feminists agree on all points is simply wrong.

So yes, they most certainly do influence the debate, and often push boundaries and forge new territory, but it's not as if they do so with a particular agenda or conspiracy. There is a whole lot of dissent within feminism, and always has been. 

However, certain ideas will hit the mainstream, and of course, the most sensationalized ones will lead the headlines. And this is where most of the rants against feminism come from, IMHO. Right now the hot button is affirmative consent. Personally, I don't quite get why so many think it so bloody awful to make sure that the person they're having sex with actually wants it, but apparently somehow it is a travesty of justice to be expelled from university for having non-consensual sex. (!!!???!!) At any rate, this policy was most certainly launched in the university system, and likely by feminists. It is gaining traction because it addresses a particular problem: one where people think it's okay to get someone drunk or wasted and then take advantage of their lack of coherence. But it isn't a feminist plot, or a war on men, or an assumption that all men are rapists, or anti-sex, or any of these things that people who hate feminism will paint it out to be.


----------



## always_alone

MountainRunner said:


> "No" DOES MEAN "NO"...Too bad some guys didn't get the memo, yeah?


And this is exactly the problem. There have been quite a few surveys done that have shown that people actually don't get that "no" really means "no". They think it means try harder.

Or they say things like "it wasn't really a no" or "I didn't know that it's not okay to have sex with someone when they are drunk/asleep/incoherent -- they didn't say "no" afterall."

Such surveys show a shocking number of people who admit to simply taking their advantage wherever possible, much like the two in your story, and thinking that there's no problem with it.

So good of you to help her out on that one!


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Personally, I don't quite get why so many think it so bloody awful to make sure that the person they're having sex with actually wants it, but apparently somehow it is a travesty of justice to be expelled from university for having non-consensual sex. (!!!???!!)


The American Law Institute can answer that question better than I can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0

No doubt a lot of words will be expended here telling us why the best legal minds in the country are wrong, and that the shifting of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused is a good thing. 

I'm with Ele. Affirmative consent as an ideal is admirable. Affirmative consent as a law will prove to be unworkable and will have little impact on the problem it is attempting to solve. It will likely become more notorious for its unintended legal consequences than for any actual reduction in sexual assault.

I have nothing further to add on this. I got burned too badly the last time by the affirmative consent police to try to have a passion free discussion.


----------



## FeministInPink

always_alone said:


> And this is exactly the problem. There have been quite a few surveys done that have shown that people actually don't get that "no" really means "no". They think it means try harder.
> 
> Or they say things like "it wasn't really a no" or "I didn't know that it's not okay to have sex with someone when they are drunk/asleep/incoherent -- they didn't say "no" afterall."
> 
> Such surveys show a shocking number of people who admit to simply taking their advantage wherever possible, much like the two in your story, and thinking that there's no problem with it.
> 
> So good of you to help her out on that one!


My boss's philosophy is "never take no for an answer," but I've come to learn that this has a sexist double standard. He encourages my male colleagues to "push back" when they get "no" for an answer; but if I push back an refuse to accept "no," he says that I'm being a bull in a china shop. If I say "no" to something at work, and he disagrees, he basically tells me that I don't have the right to say "no" because he's my boss--but when my male colleagues say "no," he listens to their reasons why.

I wonder how much of this trickles down, outside the office, in terms of the way some men think?


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl



EleGirl said:


> I can go through this thread and many others like this one on TAM and show you post after post that is not directed at a group of professors and other academicians in our colleges. They are criticisms against any woman who dares to say that she’s for equality.
> 
> If I can get some time in the next few days I might do that.


I was thinking more along the lines of credible criticism such as a Sociologist who has formally studied the movement might respectfully offer. 

Most of my experience with internet discussion prior to stumbling upon TAM was through forums and mailing lists dedicated to the translation of Biblical languages. Because of the sensitive nature of points of translation touching upon matters of faith, a very rigid standard of academic decorum was enforced, which included addressing the failings of fellow participants in the first person. 

Because of the sensitive nature of this topic, I think that would probably serve us well here (?) I don't think I would have a terribly hard time producing examples where even some of the regular female participants have inadvertently slipped now and then into the rhetoric and _a priori_ assumptions associated with more militant strains of feminism.

Although I think these _faux pas_ speak to the impact of those elements upon the movement as a whole, I don't think they are particularly relevant and pointing them out would probably start a big fight. 






EleGirl said:


> I see a huge difference. Christianity has a Bible that all Christians use as the basis of their faith… it’s their guide, their law book, etc. Now of course different Christians interpret the Bible differently.


Your observation above is true among some of the mainstream denominations within Protestantism and rests upon a doctrine known as _Sola scriptura_, which in turn, rests upon the assumption that the sixty-six book compilation should be viewed as a single, monolithic work indirectly written by God himself. Orthodox flavors of Christianity generally reject that idea, viewing the seventy-three book compilation as a loosely organized anthology of Judaic and Christian writings, which should, at times, be taken with a generous grain of salt. The _ex cathedra_ authority of living, breathing church leaders is therefore held to be equally authoritative. 






EleGirl said:


> There is no bible for feminists, there is no manifesto. The only thing that ties all feminist together is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


Is there a social movement that cannot be subjected to a similar distillation? Not to harp on the Christian analogy, but arguably the single most prominent figure within Christianity did virtually the same thing as you have done with feminism, summing it all up as simply a matter of loving God and loving your neighbor. 

While that's a most eloquent thumbnail summary, the details of how this actually works in the real world would fill many books as the saying goes.

Let's forget Christianity. The point I'm driving at here can be illustrated with pretty much any social issue or movement. Let's take gun control for example. The average, ordinary gun owner does not hold a PhD in linguistics, criminology, history, etc. and probably thinks gun rights activists don't really affect his/her thinking that much. I would argue that court decisions like _District of Columbia v. Heller_ have not only affected law, they've affected the basic scope of the whole debate. 




EleGirl said:


> There is another issue... what exactly is radical feminism? What defines it? Who is a radical feminist? Is every feminist in academia radial? Before we can discuss something, we need to know exactly what we are discussing and who fits in that shoe box. This has yet to be defined.


You're asking for a concrete definition of a subjective term and that's just not going to happen. Personally, I don't consider my wife to be a radical feminist. I don't consider my eldest daughter to be a radical feminist. I don't consider Martha Nussbaum, whom I've already expressed open admiration for on this thread to be a radical feminist. 

Baumesiter has observed that there are two main schools of thought as to why things have historically been so unfair to women. One holds that societies naturally drifted into patterns that although horribly unfair, were very efficient. Peaceful, egalitarian societies simply could not compete with their ferocity and brutal efficiency. The other school of thought holds that men consciously worked together to subjugate women for a litany of mean-spirited and selfish reasons. 

Again, this is all very subjective, but I think this observation makes a fairly decent litmus test. There are certainly feminists who hold the latter view and by and large, they did not come up with that idea on their own.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Most of the criticism of feminism is directed not at *the* idea, but at very specific ideas that feminists have had. Most of these particular ideas do come from the academy, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that this tiny group of professors and academicians have any sort of agreement whatsoever. For this group, there are whole conferences full of feminists disagreeing with each other and presenting different analyses, approaches, and solutions. To think that even radical feminists agree on all points is simply wrong.


Yes. You've expressed it better than I have. Thank you. 







always_alone said:


> Right now the hot button is affirmative consent. Personally, I don't quite get why so many think it so bloody awful to make sure that the person they're having sex with actually wants it, but apparently somehow it is a travesty of justice to be expelled from university for having non-consensual sex. (!!!???!!) At any rate, this policy was most certainly launched in the university system, and likely by feminists. It is gaining traction because it addresses a particular problem: one where people think it's okay to get someone drunk or wasted and then take advantage of their lack of coherence. But it isn't a feminist plot, or a war on men, or an assumption that all men are rapists, or anti-sex, or any of these things that people who hate feminism will paint it out to be.


If I'm understanding the incident at Occidental College correctly, (And maybe I'm not..) the policy is being criticized because it does not seem to recognize the concept of drunken sex.

In other words, when two willing parties are equally inebriated it's still incumbent upon the man to gauge his partner's ability to give consent. On the surface, that seems contradictory because any substance that degrades your ability to give consent is also going to degrade your ability to judge consent.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> The American Law Institute can answer that question better than I can.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0
> 
> No doubt a lot of words will be expended here telling us why the best legal minds in the country are wrong, and that the shifting of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused is a good thing.
> 
> I'm with Ele. Affirmative consent as an ideal is admirable. Affirmative consent as a law will prove to be unworkable and will have little impact on the problem it is attempting to solve. It will likely become more notorious for its unintended legal consequences than for any actual reduction in sexual assault.
> 
> I have nothing further to add on this. I got burned too badly the last time by the affirmative consent police to try to have a passion free discussion.



I'm really not inclined to get into an involved discussion about this, but let's just say that the "best legal minds" in the country aren't in total agreement about the effect of this particular law. I mean, the bill passed, right?

Just a couple of thoughts: the law we are talking about here is not criminal law, but educational policy for the safety of students. And it doesn't shift the burden of proof from accuser to accused. From the article that you posted:



> As Judge Gertner pointed out to me, if the law requires a “no,” then the jury will likely perceive any uncertainty about that “no” as a weakness in the prosecution’s case and not convict. But if the law requires a “yes,” then ambiguity will bolster the prosecutor’s argument: The guy didn’t get unequivocal consent, therefore he must be guilty of rape.


If no means no, then you need a few bruises before anyone believes your no, and even still it might be okay: maybe you "like it that way". If yes means yes, then you still need to prove that the accused did something without your consent. It is just more likely that your argument will appear stronger. So, agreed, more people will likely find themselves penalized under this law, but given that so few actual rapists are successfully prosecuted, I'm not convinced this is a terrible thing.

The fact is these cases are always he said/she said, and there are always problems, no matter how the law is written. The main difference that I see is that the new approach shifts from a view where we are somehow entitled to each other's bodies until we scream "no" to a view where we are no longer entitled to sex, and must be sure to have consent. It works for thievery. Why can't it work for rape?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> If I'm understanding the incident at Occidental College correctly, (And maybe I'm not..) the policy is being criticized because it does not seem to recognize the concept of drunken sex.
> 
> In other words, when two willing parties are equally inebriated it's still incumbent upon the man to gauge his partner's ability to give consent. On the surface, that seems contradictory because any substance that degrades your ability to give consent is also going to degrade your ability to judge consent.


The way that the law is written (at least the versions I have seen), it is not just the man who needs to gauge his partner's ability to give consent: both parties must be in agreement, and a man is just as entitled to file a complaint as a woman is. 

And sure, drunken hook-ups are common, and we don't want to be calling every drunken hook-up a rape. But again, the way the law was written it isn't just drunkenness that makes a sexual act a rape. It is where the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the accuser was too incapacitated, or unaware of what they were getting themselves into. And the accused needs only show that they took reasonable steps to ascertain said consent.

Not saying that there isn't lots of grey zones there. But there always are in crimes of this nature.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The way that the law is written (at least the versions I have seen), it is not just the man who needs to gauge his partner's ability to give consent: both parties must be in agreement, and a man is just as entitled to file a complaint as a woman is.
> 
> And sure, drunken hook-ups are common, and we don't want to be calling every drunken hook-up a rape. But again, the way the law was written it isn't just drunkenness that makes a sexual act a rape. It is where the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the accuser was too incapacitated, or unaware of what they were getting themselves into. And the accused needs only show that they took reasonable steps to ascertain said consent.
> 
> Not saying that there isn't lots of grey zones there. But there always are in crimes of this nature.



Here are a few excerpts from the Business Insider Article:




> "In the early morning of Sept. 8, 2013, after a long night of drinking that left the students more drunk than either had ever been, two Occidental College freshmen, one male and one female, had sex. Evidence indicates that the sex appeared consensual at the time it occurred.
> 
> A week later the female student, Jane Doe, filed a complaint with Occidental, saying she'd been the victim of a sexual assault. Just over three months later, and following an intensive official college investigation, the male freshman, John Doe, was notified he had been found responsible of sexual assault and non-consensual sex and was expelled from Occidental. Weeks later, he lost an appeal to overturn the decision.
> 
> An outside lawyer hired by Occidental to adjudicate the sexual-assault hearing found that John was impaired beyond the point where he could have understood Jane's condition but should nonetheless be held as responsible as if he had been sober.
> 
> In the end, having found that "all elements of sexual assault under the College's Policy have been established," the adjudicator found John to have violated the school's sexual-misconduct policy and expelled him from Occidental."



This appears to be a matter of expulsion under college policy rather than a matter of prosecution under law. And in that regard, the college policy seems to go far beyond the law itself. Disparity of intoxication level is a key element mentioned in the publication, _Prosecuting Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault_ that distinguishes sexual assault from drunken sex and that appears to be missing here. The reader is therefore left to wonder whether John Doe would have an identical and equal claim of sexual assault as Jane Doe.


----------



## Pluto2

ocotillo said:


> Here are a few excerpts from the Business Insider Article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This appears to be a matter of expulsion under college policy rather than a matter of prosecution under law. And in that regard, the college policy seems to go far beyond the law itself. Disparity of intoxication level is a key element mentioned in the publication, _Prosecuting Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault_ that distinguishes sexual assault from drunken sex and that appears to be missing here. The reader is therefore left to wonder whether John Doe would have an identical and equal claim of sexual assault as Jane Doe.


From a legal point of view, the victim's intoxication may preclude consent, the same way someone who is asleep cannot give legal consent. The perpetrator of the crime can't use intoxication as a defense to his crime. He's left with what he "knew or should have known". If he was aware the victim had been drinking, he "should have known" she could not give consent. He can't assert that he was too drunk to know if she actually consented.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> It works for thievery. Why can't it work for rape?


Sorry, here comes a wall of text. I'm not trying to get you to agree with my opinion, only to understand why I hold it. 

The reason it works for thievery is that everyone knows that stealing ANYTHING from you is a theft. All the time, every time. I don't have to ask what things of yours you don't want me to take, because I know that the answer ahead of time is 'nothing'. When we're in a physical relationship, I assume that you want me to take 'something', but have to endlessly guess at where you want me to stop because the law does not require you to tell me unless I ask the question first. It's like a game of "What's my Line?".

The problem with these laws is that not only does the initiator have to ask permission, he also has to a) know ahead of time which things to ask about or b) litter every encounter with an endless stream of requests for permission. To use the example from the article, maybe the girl your with considers hand-holding to be tantamount to rape, but is so paralyzed with fear that when you take her hand she says nothing. 

You just raped her. Because you didn't even realize it was in the realm of the possible that an act of hand-holding required permission, and she wasn't willing or able to say no, which of course now she is not required to do anyway. 

This absolutely shifts the burden on to the accused. Rather than a law that says "when someone says 'no', or is not in a position to say 'no', though shalt stop", we have a law that says "whenever you think you might be acting like a rapist, ask permission, but we're not going to tell you what behaviors are rape, because only your victim knows". 

Third, universities should insist that determinations of guilt or innocence rely on a “reasonable-person test,” according to which the accused is only culpable if a reasonable person would have considered his actions to be wrong. Without that standard, his fate may rest on her subjective judgment — if she feels that he imposed unwanted sexual contact on her, no matter what he actually did, then he can be found to have harassed or raped her. (Harvard’s controversial new policy leaves out the reasonable-person standard, which is partly why 28 of its law professors have publicly objected to it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-best-way-to-address-campus-rape.html
​
Lax enforcement is an enforcement issue, not a law issue. I'm sorry that it's hard to get a conviction in a rape case, but it actually should be hard to get a conviction - the word of the victim cannot be the standard we set for a criminal conviction, and I assume you understand that. It goes back to a fundamental precept of our justice system that it is better to allow the guilty to go free than to incarcerate the innocent. 

Proponents of this approach seem to me to have a nod-nod, wink-wink understanding of what things should require you to ask and what things do not, but the law isn't written that way. Which is what the legal folks are concerned about. As a single male in this situation, without hyperbole, I would be tempted to carry around a checklist in my pocket with questions to ask a potential sexual partner concerning what is and what is not acceptable, and hope to hell and my future as a registered sex offender that I thought of absolutely everything. 

In the end, as you agree, it will still come down to he-said/she-said, hardly any rapes will have been prevented, and some innocent men will be thrown in jail who just didn't know to ask a question he thought was assumed in a social situation fraught with miscommunication and ambiguity. 

So let's put this discussion on concrete terms. When exactly in a physical encounter do YOU consider rape or assault to be the appropriate verb if I don't explicitly ask you for permission? Remember, even if I try it, notice your negative response and stop, I have already committed rape. Can I:

Hold your hand
Touch your arm
Touch your face
Touch your bare skin
Kiss you on the hand
Kiss you on the neck?
Kiss you on the face?
Touch your fully clothed abdomen?
Touch your fully clothed thigh?
Touch your fully clothed butt?
Touch your fully clothed breast?
Touch your foot?
Touch your fully clothed genitals?
Remove your shirt?
Remove your pants or skirt?
Remove your bra?
Remove your panties?
Touch you bare breast?
Touch your bare thigh?
Touch your exposed genitals?
Remove my own clothes?
Make contact with your bare skin with my genitals?
Put my mouth on your genitals?
Attempt intercourse?

In this less-than-exhaustive list, I just asked permission 25 times, assuming you were OK with every item. Ok, so you don't think that's a mood killer, and I can live with that. What I can't live with is wondering what I didn't think to ask that makes you go to the police the next day. Or perhaps it's everything on the list because you had that second ****tail, feel the tiniest bit tipsy, and no longer felt like saying "no" to any of those items and think you were raped even though you could pass a field sobriety test. Or maybe I assumed that touching your thigh implied that touching your ass is OK, but you don't agree. 

What about retraction of consent? It seems that once given, the only way to retract your consent is to say "no", unless the you partner is also required to reaffirm his permission every 60 seconds for the duration of the event. Or is it sufficient to say "I decided I didn't like what I agreed to, and now I feel raped" in the middle of the encounter? 

No one is a mind reader, and we should not be writing laws that pretend that we are.


----------



## Cletus

ocotillo said:


> This appears to be a matter of expulsion under college policy rather than a matter of prosecution under law. And in that regard, the college policy seems to go far beyond the law itself.


The ALI is currently investigating active consent with the intent of updating criminal law, not just college expulsion policies. It will probably become the law of the land in some form in the not-too-distant future.


----------



## ocotillo

Pluto2 said:


> From a legal point of view, the victim's intoxication may preclude consent, the same way someone who is asleep cannot give legal consent. The perpetrator of the crime can't use intoxication as a defense to his crime. He's left with what he "knew or should have known". If he was aware the victim had been drinking, he "should have known" she could not give consent. He can't assert that he was too drunk to know if she actually consented.


How do you distinguish between perpetrator and victim under this theory?


----------



## Pluto2

Change victim to complainant, or the person who is alleging consent was not given. You can have cross-complainants if you like.


----------



## ocotillo

Pluto2 said:


> Change victim to complainant, or the person who is alleging consent was not given. You can have cross-complainants if you like.


You're mixing civil law with criminal law. Are you really talking from a legal perspective or is this personal speculation on ways that criminal law could be changed? I'd be happy to discuss either, but I'm genuinely confused.


----------



## Pluto2

ocotillo said:


> You're mixing civil law with criminal law. Are you really talking from a legal perspective or is this personal speculation on ways that criminal law could be changed? I'd be happy to discuss either, but I'm genuinely confused.


This is existing statutory criminal law.

Take rape out of the equation for a minute.
Lets say there's a bar fight. Both parties were drunk, both parties were injured. Both parties allege self-defense. It happens more frequently that many think. The local sheriff can charge both and let the DA sort it out.


----------



## ocotillo

Pluto2 said:


> This is existing statutory criminal law.
> 
> Lets say there's a bar fight. Both parties were drunk, both parties were injured. Both parties allege self-defense. It happens more frequently that many think. The local sheriff can charge both and let the DA sort it out.


From back to front in your scenario:

Does local law enforcement actually charge people with crimes? 

If in the process of sorting things out, a prosecuting attorney decides that criminal charges should be filed, who then becomes the plaintiff?

How then would the concept of a cross-complaint apply?

This excursus is fun, because (a) I'm Jewish and this is dinnertime entertainment for some of us and (b) I've been watching spinning Windows doughnuts all day long. 

I think it's a little wide of the point though. AFAIK, the incident at Occidental College is not a criminal matter and prosecution guidelines published by The National District Attorneys Association *do* distinguish between rape and drunken sex.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> The American Law Institute can answer that question better than I can.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html?_r=0
> 
> No doubt a lot of words will be expended here telling us why the best legal minds in the country are wrong, and that the shifting of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused is a good thing.
> 
> I'm with Ele. Affirmative consent as an ideal is admirable. Affirmative consent as a law will prove to be unworkable and will have little impact on the problem it is attempting to solve. It will likely become more notorious for its unintended legal consequences than for any actual reduction in sexual assault.
> 
> I have nothing further to add on this. I got burned too badly the last time by the affirmative consent police to try to have a passion free discussion.


I just reread that article. An example it gives is that persons A & B are walking together. Then A takes B's hand and holds it while walking alone. A feels sexual arousal. B does not. So 6 months later B brings charges against A for sexual assault.

I've read the sexual assault laws in my state. They require a lot more than holding someone's hand while walking.. usually touching of certain body parts at the very least.

If any law is so lose that holding hands is enough for bringing sexual assault charges, then it needs to be re-written. Perhaps it would help if people would actually read the laws for their state and become active in the dialogue and even in creating those laws.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> The reason it works for thievery is that everyone knows that stealing ANYTHING from you is a theft. All the time, every time. I don't have to ask what things of yours you don't want me to take, because I know that the answer ahead of time is 'nothing'. When we're in a physical relationship, I assume that you want me to take 'something', but have to endlessly guess at where you want me to stop because the law does not require you to tell me unless I ask the question first. It's like a game of "What's my Line?".
> 
> The problem with these laws is that not only does the initiator have to ask permission, he also has to a) know ahead of time which things to ask about or b) litter every encounter with an endless stream of requests for permission. To use the example from the article, maybe the girl your with considers hand-holding to be tantamount to rape, but is so paralyzed with fear that when you take her hand she says nothing.


Cletus, that is quite the list you've generated. My take on it is simple:. What we are talking about here is sexual assault. And in my jurisdiction, sexual assault is defined legally as any sexual activity without the *explicit* consent of the victim (emphasis mine).

And since the "explicit" part is already part of the definition, the language around affirmative consent is a question of emphasis, rather than difference of kind. If an accused can show that they had reasonable belief of consent, they will not be found guilty. 

This isn't presuming guilt or shifting the burden of proof any more than requiring an accused of some other crime to provide an alibi, take a polygraph, or provide a dna sample or fingerprint is IMHO.

Personally, I find all the hand-wringing about "ruining sex" by needing consent a bit rich. If it's too much to ask a person to pay reasonable attention and ensure their partner is enthusiastically participating in sexual activity, then, well, I'm going to find it pretty hard to muster sympathy, and would be inclined to think that person probably ought not be dating or having sex at all.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> This appears to be a matter of expulsion under college policy rather than a matter of prosecution under law. And in that regard, the college policy seems to go far beyond the law itself. Disparity of intoxication level is a key element mentioned in the publication, _Prosecuting Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Assault_ that distinguishes sexual assault from drunken sex and that appears to be missing here. The reader is therefore left to wonder whether John Doe would have an identical and equal claim of sexual assault as Jane Doe.


Yes, as I understand it, the affirmative consent laws are all part of educational policy, and related to student conduct and safety. This is not criminal law!

It strikes me that you"re right on about the disparity of intoxication piece, and I would think that indeed, John Doe would (could?) have an equal and identical claim. But then that would also depend on the actual facts of the case, wouldn't it? What evidence indicated the sex was in fact consensual, and what evidence swayed the decision against the accused?


----------



## ConanHub

It is so much easier when women are ripping their clothes off and yours while stuffing your junk in their mouths.

This will probably net a lot more sex for aggressive women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

EleGirl said:


> If a Muslim believes that radical/terrorist Muslims are wrong, they why would they call themselves Muslims?


The Muslims actively speak out / denounce the radicals amongst them, even for some it's not enough, many have even renounced their faith!

I don't see much (if any) denouncement of radicals amongst today's feminists. Perhaps it's due to the radicals being a "vocal minority" who knows, my observations are just based on what I've seen.



> Those things do not really affect your life. You married who you wanted to marry. Whether or not animals have rights or someone choses to be vegan does not impact your life much at all, if any.


Actually it does, I DO care.



> But what about if there was something that made it so that you could only get a job that paid half of the minimum wage paid to others for the same work? You were not allowed to get an education, become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or get into some other field that you were interested in. Instead all you were ALLOWED to do was to work in a menial job.
> 
> Would you then care enough to be involved in changing your own circumstance?


I was in a situation just like it for 6 years in my youth. Full-time work could not pay my rent, could not support me finishing high school, fell through the loophole in the welfare system due to being a minor. What did I do? Complain? Ha!

Regardless I'm not criticising what 1st or 2nd wave feminism achieved, but the 3rd.



EleGirl said:


> There are a few definitions of patriarchy. Its sounds like you culture follows #1 & #3 below most closely...


When you condemn patriachy you are also condemning hundreds of patriachal cultures around the world including the MODERN society we currently live in. My point is condemn the sexism, condemn the chauvanism, but claiming patriachy as the cause of all evils?

Regardless Elegirl your arguments are sound, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I do have a different perspective.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> The Muslims actively speak out / denounce the radicals amongst them, even for some it's not enough, many have even renounced their faith!


And many say and do nothing. 
You might have noticed that there are a lot of women who will no longer say that they are feminist as a protest against what they consider ‘radical feminists.’ There was a statistic quoted on this thread that most men and women say that they agree with “the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” Which is of course the basis of feminism. But they do not consider themselves to be feminists because they do not agree with some of the outlandish things that some “radical feminists” say. 


There are two ways to look at this. 


One is to run from it (it being Islam, or feminism, or whatever) because there are some loud mouth nuts who do/say things they do not believe in.


Or, don’t run away and instead be a voice of reason and doing what needs to be done… in this case for “the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.”

IMHO, what’s going is just an underhanded way to shut down all discussion and changes in society… even to roll them back.


RandomDude said:


> I don't see much (if any) denouncement of radicals amongst today's feminists. Perhaps it's due to the radicals being a "vocal minority" who knows, my observations are just based on what I've seen.


Yes it’s because radicals are a “vocal minority”. It’s also because we are living over lives. Most people do not even hear/read much of anything written/said by the “vocal minority”.




RandomDude said:


> I was in a situation just like it for 6 years in my youth. Full-time work could not pay my rent, could not support me finishing high school, fell through the loophole in the welfare system due to being a minor. What did I do? Complain? Ha!


Ah, but that’s not what I was talking about. Working for low wages as young person is just about a right of passage. And after gaining experience you did want a lot fo people do… you sought a career/business so that you could earn a good living. 
You see that’s a completely different scenario that what I was talking about. What I was talking about is living in a society that would not allow a person to work and earn enough to live. That the reason they were not allowed to do it was because some something that they can never change.. their gender.
You opened a business. When I was in my 20’s I tried to open a business. I could not legally do that without a letter of permission from my husband. Did you have to give anyone a letter of permission showing that someone else who had authority over you gave you permission?


RandomDude said:


> Regardless I'm not criticising what 1st or 2nd wave feminism achieved, but the 3rd.


Here is the problem. There is little consensus as to how to characterize these supposed three waves of feminism. Basically, there is no definition of what 3rd wave feminism is. So it seems that each person who objects to 3rd wave feminism has their own idea of what it is.

How on earth can we address something when we do not even know what it is.

Plus, on this thread, and many others on this topic of what some are all up in arms about tends to go after things that were what some seem to think are 1st & 2nd wave.
How is anyone supposed to agree with or oppose something that has no definition? That’s why I keep saying let’s address issues. If you have an issue that bothers you, let’s talk about it. If something someone said bothers you, we can talk about it.

But we cannot really talk about 3rd wave feminism because we do not know what it is. From what I have read… some believe that 2nd wave and 3rd wave exist simultaneously, and continue to today.. but who knows.




RandomDude said:


> When you condemn patriachy you are also condemning hundreds of patriachal cultures around the world including the MODERN society we currently live in. My point is condemn the sexism, condemn the chauvanism, but claiming patriachy as the cause of all evils?


“Condemn” is a strong word. 

In the past, it was just a social structure that existed. The only relevance is has today is historical in some societies. 

In societies today that are strongly patriarchal, the people in those societies will decide for themselves the direction that their society will take. Now I did live is some very patriarchal countries. It was downright scary. I’m soooooo glad that my parents moved us all out of there. I can tell you horror stories. 

The form of patriarchy that women have been trying to change is a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. I’m not going to apologize for believing that this is an outdated social construct that has to be changed. Human society has evolved over time. For the last few hundred years the evolution has been from only a few people having rights to all people having rights.

There is absolutely no need to day for a societal system or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded.



RandomDude said:


> Regardless Elegirl your arguments are sound, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I do have a different perspective.


I think it might be different sides of the same coin.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> But then that would also depend on the actual facts of the case, wouldn't it? What evidence indicated the sex was in fact consensual, and what evidence swayed the decision against the accused?


In this particular case, there were apparently a chain of text messages between the two as well as eyewitnesses to their interactions prior to shutting the door. The problem is that neither one of them seems to remember much about it.


----------



## sapientia

This was an interesting read. Radical feminists no longer getting airtime from men and women so they are fighting with transgenders? This is one of the many reasons I avoid associating myself with self-proclaimed feminists.

The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism - The New Yorker


----------



## Mr The Other

I am going to revive this one, just to balance out the surprisingly good 'Slight Rant' thread.


----------



## FeministInPink

Now I have to find this "Slight Rant" thread to which you refer. You have piqued my curiosity, sir.


----------

