|
On January 27 2014 03:51 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote:
Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back.
Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently. There's also a tendency for women to make false accusations of rape, ergo explaining why judge tend to be lenient in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeFalse accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
Ignoring the 10-50% thing, what exactly is the significance of "It is a 100% women practice."
Also I see no reason why the prevalence of false accusations should cause leniency for those who are deemed guilty.
|
On January 27 2014 03:51 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote:
Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back.
Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently. There's also a tendency for women to make false accusations of rape, ergo explaining why judge tend to be lenient in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeFalse accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
I don't see 10-50% in the link you posted; most studies in it seem to agree it's less than 10%, others being biased by using subjective police reports as material. It's the belief that victims must behave in a certain way, be dressed in a certain way, fight to a certain degree and other weird expectations that lets people of the hook despite obvious guilt.
As an example, in Sweden, which seems to be seen as some weird feminist controlled socialist state by some people, there were 4134 reported rapes in 2010, 313 went to court, and of those 33% of the accused were acquitted. That's hardly a statistic that favors the victims when the studies you linked show less than 10% false accusations.
|
On January 27 2014 03:35 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 02:10 kwizach wrote:On January 27 2014 01:52 SiroKO wrote:Interisting marxist opinion on the subject from a French polemist (Alain Soral). + Show Spoiler +Fr SUB Eng. Don't forget to mention that the "polemist" worked for the French "Front national" for a few years, an extreme right-wing party, and left the party not because he disagreed with them but because he did not receive a position high enough in the hierarchy. He's clearly anti-feminist and has very little respect for women overall. He's also made anti-Semitic and anti-immigration comments in the past. Over 25% of French youth (18-24) support the Front National, it's not an "extreme right-wing" party. Besides, it's your right in France to be anti-immigration and anti-jewish, as long as you don't call to violence or blind hatred.
Uh, yes it is an extreme right-wing party.
And exactly like farvacola said, you have the right to hold any opinion you want in your head, but that doesn't mean some opinions aren't despicable.
|
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
|
On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote:
The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut.
I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?.
As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me.
I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him.
|
On January 27 2014 07:52 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote:
The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut. I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?. As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me. I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him.
I agree that both the concept of "innocent until guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to rape, however your post seems to expect an unrealistic standard of evidence.
There are no physical evidence following a rape which can't be explained by consensual sex. The only benefit of the gynecological examination is that one can establish whether there has been an actual intercourse. It is essentially impossible to prove, purely from the physical exam, that it was a rape.
EDIT: I am pretty sure that it is possible to sue the accuser in case of an acquittal - or well at least the police can charge the accuser for wasting public resources. Problem is that it is such a fine line before you begin to discourage people from reporting rape which is already a major problem.
|
On January 27 2014 03:51 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote:
Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back.
Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently. There's also a tendency for women to make false accusations of rape, ergo explaining why judge tend to be lenient in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeFalse accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice.
Where exactly did you pull this stat?
Following this case and in order further to support prosecutors in their decision making, I published new legal guidance on perverting the course of justice in July 2011. For a period of 17 months, I also required CPS areas to refer all cases involving an allegedly false allegation of rape, domestic violence, or both, to me personally to consider.
This report outlines the key findings from the review of those cases and the steps that we plan to take. Importantly, what it shows is that charges brought for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time for such "false" allegations need to be considered in the context of the total number of prosecutions brought for those offences. In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
Source
Also, there seems to be a misconception on how many rapists actually get placed into jail. People believe that there are many men in prison that have been falsely accused for whatever reason which is just not true. Here is a chilling statistic just to prove this.
The majority of sexual assault are not reported to the police (an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported).1 Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison.
Source
|
On January 27 2014 08:47 almart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 03:51 SiroKO wrote:On January 26 2014 23:21 sushiman wrote:
Yes, in some cases that is true, but there's also been cases of actual physical injury where the perpetrator(s) have gone free on dodgy grounds. In the case I mentioned, both parties are in agreement that the girl said no several times, but the man was still acquitted since the court judged that he misjudged the no as part of an act; that's just downright insulting to the victim and sets a standard that lets people get away just by claiming they 'misjudged' the victims protests and/or fighting back.
Most rape cases gets dropped before going to court anyway, and there's a tendency to be very lenient towards the rapists which is why law changes are suggested frequently. There's also a tendency for women to make false accusations of rape, ergo explaining why judge tend to be lenient in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rapeFalse accusations of rape account for 10-50% of the total cases of rape. A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge. It is a 100% women practice. Where exactly did you pull this stat? Show nested quote +Following this case and in order further to support prosecutors in their decision making, I published new legal guidance on perverting the course of justice in July 2011. For a period of 17 months, I also required CPS areas to refer all cases involving an allegedly false allegation of rape, domestic violence, or both, to me personally to consider.
This report outlines the key findings from the review of those cases and the steps that we plan to take. Importantly, what it shows is that charges brought for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time for such "false" allegations need to be considered in the context of the total number of prosecutions brought for those offences. In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence. SourceAlso, there seems to be a misconception on how many rapists actually get placed into jail. People believe that there are many men in prison that have been falsely accused for whatever reason which is just not true. Here is a chilling statistic just to prove this. Show nested quote +The majority of sexual assault are not reported to the police (an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported).1 Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison. Source
Considering that the western judicial system is built upon the concept of "rather let 10 guilty walk then condemning 1 innocent" I think it is a very reasonable perception that there are too many innocent in jail even if the number is only 1.
|
On January 27 2014 08:17 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 07:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote:
The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut. I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?. As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me. I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him. I agree that both the concept of "innocent until guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to rape, however your post seems to expect an unrealistic standard of evidence. There are no physical evidence following a rape which can't be explained by consensual sex. The only benefit of the gynecological examination is that one can establish whether there has been an actual intercourse. It is essentially impossible to prove, purely from the physical exam, that it was a rape. EDIT: I am pretty sure that it is possible to sue the accuser in case of an acquittal - or well at least the police can charge the accuser for wasting public resources. Problem is that it is such a fine line before you begin to discourage people from reporting rape which is already a major problem.
bruises? torn clothes (with assaulters dna) ? A gun/knife (if there are no bruises)?
|
On January 27 2014 09:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 08:17 Ghostcom wrote:On January 27 2014 07:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 26 2014 23:13 Yurie wrote:
The problem with proving rape is that it in many cases is two people that say the opposite thing. Many rapes don't leave physical problems either. So in many cases it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This results in cases as the ones you mentioned sushiman. It probably was a rape, but probably isn't enough.
I had a friend in Sweden that was (wrongly) accused of rape after breaking up with his girlfriend. It never went to court, but it wasn't exactly pleasant. She accused him of raping her two days prior to them being seen together at a social function. It could have been rape and her being forced to go along. But witnesses at that event freed him. If she accused him a different time after the last time they were seen together things wouldn't have been so clear cut. I don't understand why "reasonable beyond doubt" does not apply to rape?. As a terrible crime as it is, I don't think a guy should ever be prosecuted unless there is clear evidence of physical lesions on the victim was druged by the perpetrator. Putting someone in jail solely because of the claims of another person seems completely insane to me. I also think the defendant has the right to sue back for libel, given how devastating the consecuences are for him. I agree that both the concept of "innocent until guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply to rape, however your post seems to expect an unrealistic standard of evidence. There are no physical evidence following a rape which can't be explained by consensual sex. The only benefit of the gynecological examination is that one can establish whether there has been an actual intercourse. It is essentially impossible to prove, purely from the physical exam, that it was a rape. EDIT: I am pretty sure that it is possible to sue the accuser in case of an acquittal - or well at least the police can charge the accuser for wasting public resources. Problem is that it is such a fine line before you begin to discourage people from reporting rape which is already a major problem. bruises? torn clothes (with assaulters dna) ? A gun/knife (if there are no bruises)?
My gf happens to have bruises half the time from various sports and stuff. She plays softball and other things. "Weapons" are not necessarily indicative of rape and one of the problems is that they can be put away. Clothes can be torn in general too, at least that's what a defense lawyer would bring up if his client is pleading not guilty.
My understanding is that certain doctors in hospitals are trained to do the forensics after a rape happens. I have no clue how they do it. Besides that, prosecution is outrageously difficult.
|
United States42548 Posts
A lot of situations don't fit the conventional home invasion knife at throat with the chaste woman scratching her rapist to protect her virtue narrative but still qualify as rape. If you insist that it needs the above to be rape then you end up disqualifying the awful crimes inflicted to a lot of victims, or worse, blaming them for their rape not following your idea of what a rape should be. Now obviously a balance needs to be struck and I'm in no way suggesting that we lower the standard of evidence for rape, I'm completely okay with the police saying "look, we've interviewed the guy and lacking any further evidence we don't have enough to pursue this because he insists it's consensual, we'll pass you onto our trauma support people and we'll log the accusation but we don't have enough to prosecute". But it's definitely wrong to say "if there aren't X then it's not rape" because it just doesn't work that way.
Regarding suing back, I imagine you could try but you'd run into the same problem because the court would again find that they cannot prove that it didn't take place. Insufficient proof to secure a conviction of rape does not amount to sufficient proof that there was a malicious false accusation of rape.
|
On January 26 2014 18:54 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 09:56 almart wrote:On January 26 2014 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On January 26 2014 07:26 almart wrote:On January 26 2014 04:55 Crushinator wrote:Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming. In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something. That top photo has always bothered me!
Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible". I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone. I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL. I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this. I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what? The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example. You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues? But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right? Citation needed... I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous. http://www.canada.com/technology/internet/Trans women face incessant attacks online/9427402/story.htmlhttp://twanzphobic.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/militancy-is-our-only-option/http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/jessica-valenti-calls-for-end-to-presumption-of-innocence-due-process/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#In_feminist_thoughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism Like you, these took me under a minute to find. I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations. Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science. I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously? And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't. I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side.
You said it yourself and I agree with Kwark's post that MRA's at times focus more on derailing feminism rather then focusing on issues. There are problems for men such as...
to graduate from college, attain a high GPA, be active in extracurricular organizations or seek leadership roles; or why men in general have always been more likely to be caught up in the criminal justice system or be homeless. These are real issues, surely, and things our society should work to correct. (quote from popular feminist blog) but why do MRA's have to attack and blame feminism for these problems? Both groups are constantly battling each other with fire, but nobody knows who shot first. A voice for men for example is vehemently against feminism
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/whats-the-difference/
In this post (linked from sidebar of r/mensrights) it states "there can't be a common ground". So is mens rights trying to be the main solution for society and dismiss feminists? I think we both can agree that is simply ignorant and silly.
To me the mens rights movement is laughable because it's more concerned about fighting feminism and being the most oppressed group rather then actually do anything to support men. You stated that we can have both movements, but MRA's clearly disagree, why is that? Just reading from popular blogs on feminism about mens issues I agree that at times mens issues are underplayed within the movement, but feminism still benefits men even if they aren't directly solving all of mens issues. I just believe that the mens rights movement is not effective in solving any problems that men face in our society. I also think it is perfectly justifiable to criticize r/mensrights when for the top posts all they do is derail feminists because why can't they ignore the "hate" from "rad-fems" and just highlight issues in the world. One movement is trying to empower women and equal the playing field between women and men (feminism) and the other is attempting to remove feminism and promote more mens rights I just don't understand how that possibly can make sense to anyone. If mens rights didn't seem to be pushing such a heavy agenda then I would be perfectly fine with it because like I and many feminists agree that there are mens issues and feminism doesn't deal with all of them, but why do MRA's have to attack feminism in the process? They aren't only attacking radicals too they are criticizing the entire movement even though they look to do similar things so it's not like I'm saying feminists can't be criticized etc.
|
Because they don't share the perfectly fluffy definition of feminism that we have. And it's not just radfems and other transmisogynists, perfectly (otherwise) reasonable women and women's interest groups oppose attempts at the removing of gendered terms or inequalities in law all the time if it is felt that an equal law would be too damaging for women.
Things like neutral language in rape laws and legal parental surrender are always opposed by somebody or other. And we might say, 'that's not really a feminist or feminism', but you're just talking about the definition of words. If you say the things they oppose aren't really feminism, you're also saying they don't really oppose feminism.
There are a huge amount of people drawn to MRA movements trying desperately to cling to their misogyny and legitimise it and it's a big problem, but it's not like it's any easier to deal with than transphobia and misandry within feminism.
|
On January 27 2014 10:14 almart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2014 18:54 Crushinator wrote:On January 26 2014 09:56 almart wrote:On January 26 2014 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On January 26 2014 07:26 almart wrote:On January 26 2014 04:55 Crushinator wrote:Rape culture is a questionable term, in my view. Rape is the most despised crime in our culture, with child rape the most despised subset. Though there might be cultural factors that contribute to the prevalence of rape, our culture does not systematically facilitate or encourage rape. Even if you don't agree that it doesn't exist, at the very least questioning the existence of such an insidious sounding thing is not ridiculous or hate speech. Blaming the victim is not something I agree with, but I can't find any upvoted comment that I would interpret as victim blaming. In the thread about the domestic assault case, I think the posters were reasonable, for the most part I don't think this compilation makes a good case for your opinion that r/mensrights is a horrible place, unless I am missing something. That top photo has always bothered me!
Her story sounds like she got drunk, willingly cheated on her boyfriend, and then saw a radfem blog that convinced her that counts as a rape. When she told her friends she was now calling her consensual encounter a rape, they told her it wasn't and she got even more upset http://i.imgur.com/pgTWTTP.jpg These are the top posts on this thread which are pretty self explanatory on why they are "horrible". I can link more threads if you want because I understand that three posts may just be minor incidents, but the majority of what I have read on r/mensrights is really this ridiculous. My main point is that when a community constantly uses slurs such as "cunt" and "bitch", are trans-phobic in many of their posts, or dismiss privilege I just find it hard to believe they are for equality of everyone. I think the post you are talking about is jumping to conclusions, assuming someone wasn't raped is admittedly strange. But this is not victim blaming, as in, "well if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have gotten drunk, or wore a short skirt", the poster is disputing that the girl got raped at all. But I will give you this one as a a single upvoted comment that I find disturbing. I don't dispute that there are some less-than-reasonable users, the same goes for TL. I don't think those slurs are at all common, you offer no evidence for this. I don't know what it means to dismiss privilege, appeals to your opponents privilege are not impressive to me, and they shouldn't be impressive to anyone. Being privileged in some areas, does not detract from the fact that you may be disprivileged in others. There is some petty discussion about who was it worse, ofcourse, but so what? The fact is that men's issues are almost entirely ignored, and it is because feminists are hostile towards taking any privilege from women. In most western countries the mother of a child is pretty much automatically given primary custody of a child in the event of seperation, with little regard for the situation. Feminists are for the most part opposed to equal parental rights for men, and this is just an example. You, and others, would probably say that if men's issues are to be taken seriously MRAs need to stop being such misogynistic pigs, and get a better reputation. But how is this going to happen when people immediately assume any men's rights activist is like that regardless of reality, and feminists will repeatedly attack anyone that is concerned about men's issues? But ofcourse these people aren't real feminists right? Citation needed... I don't understand how people come up with the idea that feminists ignore mens issues when in reality they are fighting equality for all. It just seems to me people like to create "straw feminists" without ever providing any actual evidence where feminists actually say anything just as extreme or ridiculous. http://www.canada.com/technology/internet/Trans women face incessant attacks online/9427402/story.htmlhttp://twanzphobic.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/militancy-is-our-only-option/http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/jessica-valenti-calls-for-end-to-presumption-of-innocence-due-process/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#In_feminist_thoughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism Like you, these took me under a minute to find. I also recommend Steven Pinker's writings and the many examples of feminist attacks on academia that they believe are detrimental to their cause, without regard for truth. Feminism will insist that any aspect human culture is arbitrary social construct, and do not accept any evidence to the contrary. Recognising that some aspects of gender and gender relations are due to human nature is important, if only because it gives us better insight into how to resist the natural aspects of gender relations. Now, ofcourse many of these positions are minority positions. The same goes for MRAs that post ridiculous shit. There is selective outrage here, all these radical feminists are just a minority we shouldn't worry about, but we can't take MRAs seriously because of the same minorities. Hell, radical feminism is taken seriously as an intellectual position in much of social science. I just don't buy that feminists are fighting for men, they just aren't all that concerned with men's issues. Tell me what percentage of posts on r/feminism mentions the difficulties of men? Tell me what you think about the number of tumblr blog entries attacking men vs entries that take men's issues seriously? And that is fine, we can have two movements. But don't tell me feminism will take care of things, it just won't. I won't bother responding to any of your examples of supposed hate speech in MRA communities, I think anyone who approaches these communities with an open mind will find that they are fairly benign, and I challenge feminists to actually try to understand what these people are fighting for. I went in there a while ago with the expectation that I would find a bunch of male supremacists being horrible. I was quite pleasantly surprised that the community was for the most part quite resonable, though often quite negative and cynical, more interested in fighting the negative effects of feminism than making any positive contribution. Can hardly blame them for that, they are under constant attack by feminists and other commentators who are scared of getting on feminism's bad side. You said it yourself and I agree with Kwark's post that MRA's at times focus more on derailing feminism rather then focusing on issues. There are problems for men such as... Show nested quote +to graduate from college, attain a high GPA, be active in extracurricular organizations or seek leadership roles; or why men in general have always been more likely to be caught up in the criminal justice system or be homeless. These are real issues, surely, and things our society should work to correct. (quote from popular feminist blog) but why do MRA's have to attack and blame feminism for these problems? Both groups are constantly battling each other with fire, but nobody knows who shot first. A voice for men for example is vehemently against feminism http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/whats-the-difference/In this post (linked from sidebar of r/mensrights) it states "there can't be a common ground". So is mens rights trying to be the main solution for society and dismiss feminists? I think we both can agree that is simply ignorant and silly. To me the mens rights movement is laughable because it's more concerned about fighting feminism and being the most oppressed group rather then actually do anything to support men. You stated that we can have both movements, but MRA's clearly disagree, why is that? Just reading from popular blogs on feminism about mens issues I agree that at times mens issues are underplayed within the movement, but feminism still benefits men even if they aren't directly solving all of mens issues. I just believe that the mens rights movement is not effective in solving any problems that men face in our society. I also think it is perfectly justifiable to criticize r/mensrights when for the top posts all they do is derail feminists because why can't they ignore the "hate" from "rad-fems" and just highlight issues in the world. One movement is trying to empower women and equal the playing field between women and men (feminism) and the other is attempting to remove feminism and promote more mens rights I just don't understand how that possibly can make sense to anyone. If mens rights didn't seem to be pushing such a heavy agenda then I would be perfectly fine with it because like I and many feminists agree that there are mens issues and feminism doesn't deal with all of them, but why do MRA's have to attack feminism in the process? They aren't only attacking radicals too they are criticizing the entire movement even though they look to do similar things so it's not like I'm saying feminists can't be criticized etc.
I think your argument is reasonable. The movement as a whole is too dismissive of feminism as a whole. I think the whole "more opressed than you" thing is counter productive.
But my opinion of feminist activism is very low for similar reasons. Casual feminists with reasonable opinions are a majority, but they are a silent majority. They don't speak out against the radicals, self-criticism is not something the movement does. It is completely closed to criticism from the outside, feminism does not tolerate dissent. Defense against criticism is apparently easy: if you are not a feminist, then you are a bigot, what else is there?. Dismissing or triviliazing the problems of men is very common, and a great source of comedy for even casual feminists.
Those are the main reasons MRAs are so hostile to feminism. Clearly most active members are not opposed to gender equality for women, they just want gender equality for men too. The goal is not to destroy feminism, but to bring attention to the detrimental effects the movement too often has. You can't say the same about the feminist attitude to MRAs, they don't think men have any right or reason to fight for gender issues, because as soon as feminism destroys the patriarchy there won't be any problems anyway.
I am not going to list all of the things MRAs are fighting for, but almost all of them should be legitimate goals in anyone's eyes. You accept that the feminist movement has many flaws, yet you are supportive of the movement as a whole because, ultimately, they are fighting for gender equality. Why don't you show the same courtesy to MRAs?
By now the feminist movement has alienated many, if not most, women. I bet if you were to ask around, a majority of women would say they are not feminists, for the reasons I have described above.
Edit: On the topic of common ground. I think there is plenty, and I am not impressed with the arguments in the article you linked. But I do think there is a need for two movements, feminism is not effective at addressing men's issues.
|
On January 27 2014 07:18 WhiteDog wrote:Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man. But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
|
On January 27 2014 19:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 07:18 WhiteDog wrote:Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man. But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me. Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman? Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms).
|
On January 27 2014 19:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 07:18 WhiteDog wrote:Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man. But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me. Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman? Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video.
But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services).
You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ?
And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men.
For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide.
And his point about Simone de Beauvoir is just spot on, anybody who tried to put in perspective her "philosophical" work with her lifestyle would come to the same conclusion. We are talking about a girl who used her position as a teacher to seduce students (something that I personally cannot accept), it's nothing but domination.
|
When Soral isn't talking about Jews and Geopolitics he is usually "right" lol.
|
On January 27 2014 20:05 Boblion wrote:
When Soral isn't talking about Jews and Geopolitics he is usually "right" lol.
Yeah but that's like 1% of anything he says, since he sees jews everywhere lol.
|
Yea lately he is getting insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
