|
On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html
More statistics: "A University of Maryland study found that when the gender of an online username looks female, they are 25 times more likely to experience harassment. "
Also, whoever it was that pretended that female and male circumcision are equivalent should just stop arguing on the internet.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX"
That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed.
There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic.
|
Yeah..after reading that i can really feel for her... i mean ,its just so stupid the way people behave...
Speaking of stupid, i dont wanna be THAT guy,but i got probably 20-25 videos that are probably one of the reasons why girls may seem "hated" on the internet , its pretty simple really.. Some girls "set the bar" online and do some stuff,everyone sees it and then hate it,and it reflects onto other girls.. its the same thing with boys, so iant saying its a "gender thing".
Alot of people hate X because of Y,etc.
IF i were a girl,id DEFFO be a gamer... yes people are Aholes.. but i dont see it as a bad thing,i see it as a challenge !
Ive never been one to care to much what anyone say towards me on the internet, if one just remember its the internet ,its fine.
|
On May 02 2013 22:26 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral. No it is not just about women. Yes, it mostly aims at improving conditions for women. This only makes sense. Why should we worsen conditions for men in order to achieve equality? So that everyone is equally bad off? No, of course, where possible it is always preferable to improve the disadvantaged side of the equality scale instead of the other way around.
The point is that the popular feminist movement is entirely against anything that would have a negative effect on women, even if the women are in the indisputable position of power, EG alimony and child support. Most feminists wouldn't be too thrilled about not receiving an engagement ring (bride price?) either. You can't say that feminism is concerned with gender equality when it only seeks to make one side greater than or equal to the other in all issues. It's the greater than which invalidates your opinion.
|
On May 02 2013 22:38 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:33 Darkwhite wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is an umbrella term housing a lot of different ideologies. As with any order word in the world, the meaning of feminism derives from how people use it. You making up a definition is not really helpful. Feminism is not a synonym for gender equality. Alright fair enough. Feminism the way I use it and everyone I know who calls themselves a feminist, including prominent figures who fight this out publicly, use it to mean gender equality. There might be others who use it differently, even with derogatory connotation like we see in this thread. There is little I can do about it other that explaining what I believe the correct interpretation of the term is.
Everyone who calls themselves a feminist? Does this include Andrea Dworkin?
In practice, feminism tends to include an opinion that women are presently victims of discrimination in some or other sense. Gender equality does not include this connotation. You might as well say that marxism is synonymous with equal pay.
|
On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX"
Just because the judicial system got the wrong guy doesn't mean the girl wasn't raped -_-
|
On May 02 2013 20:03 Ahelvin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 20:01 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:56 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:55 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:52 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:49 Nausea wrote:
I like how one in this thread called this "attention seeking blog". Ah the sexism shines through like a bright light.. Can you tell me any blog you can point to that is not in its nature attention seeking. I think if you post anything on the internet you are attention seeking. Wow look at all the news posts on this site, how attention seeking. I liked your attention seeking post btw. But as a women when she speaks she speaks purely to get male attention because she's overreacting. Literally the response in this topic. I was expecting more from you KwarK. But if you're going to turn this into a circle jerk of "feminism is right" without bringing any semblance of an argument that pertains to the case in question, and not some vague "woman have it rough irl" that isn't even relevant, I'll just concede and find something better to do with my time. You're objectively wrong. The topic is better without more wrong on it. Feel free to leave. Thanks for pointing out how I'm wrong with actual examples other than "you're wrong". I didn't see the point if you were already passive aggressively leaving. I'm interested because you always claim that some of the views I agree with are "objectively wrong" and "sexist" but in no thread that I have seen you post in, did you actually refute any of it other than just fluff circlejerky statements that weren't even relevant to the case at hand. So in that sense, I'm really wondering if you can follow through and make an actual case. Ok. Would you argue that men and women are considered in the same way when it comes to what they are expected to do, how they should react given a certain situation, and that they have absolutely equal opportunities no matter what kind of activity they want to engage into? If you do not, please explain why.
No. Nor should they be. Women and men are not the same. Our brains work differently, our bodies work differently. Expecting men and women to be the same in every way is a false goal, because we have strong biological reasons for being different.
That doesn't mean there is any reason that women should be treated as inferior. And any situation where that happens I will always support the woman. However gender equality is a straw man: very few eomen actually want to be treated like a man.
|
I don't see why it's such a big ask for people not to be assholes. Is it really that hard? There's no reason to be a dick, there's no excuse for being a dick, and there's no valid reason to defend dickheads. People shouldn't need to have "thick skins" on the internet because of the "inevitable" harass, it should be possible to be on the net without being harassed. It's very simple.
If you value the pleasure you (or others) get through harassment more than how the recipient of harassment feels, I'd suggest you have a long think about what you're really arguing for.
|
I'm super excited to hear the posters defending sexism as standard internet protocol go through that article, mental edit out the horrific sexism for horrific racism, and defend it.
-Cross
|
On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic.
Have you actually checked out the stats in the link?
If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible.
If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible.
If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible.
If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible.
If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible.
If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later.
|
On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html
I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:26 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral. No it is not just about women. Yes, it mostly aims at improving conditions for women. This only makes sense. Why should we worsen conditions for men in order to achieve equality? So that everyone is equally bad off? No, of course, where possible it is always preferable to improve the disadvantaged side of the equality scale instead of the other way around. The point is that the popular feminist movement is entirely against anything that would have a negative effect on women, even if the women are in the indisputable position of power, EG alimony and child support. Most feminists wouldn't be too thrilled about not receiving an engagement ring (bride price?) either. You can't say that feminism is concerned with gender equality when it only seeks to make one side greater than or equal to the other in all issues. It's the greater than which invalidates your opinion.
Well, maybe the discussion in my country is on another level. Or it is just my perception. But I just don't see anyone arguing against equality when it would benefit men. Custody and alimony are recent examples that have been changed in favor of men in the name of gender equality over here, and there was no one from the popular feminist movement arguing against it. Quite the opposite, there is strong support for equality, regardless of who benefits on the surface.
To me, the very meaning of the word equality means that it has to consider both genders.
|
On May 02 2013 22:41 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:23 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:
Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence.
I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden:
1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923.
2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition.
3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime.
4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's.
5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him.
6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus.
7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime.
Actual points, good. 1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919. 2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes. 3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic that in many other countries, which is good. 4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal. 5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good. 6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic. 7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well. Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man. Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few. 1. No. Until 1923, men still had to perform military duty to earn their ability to vote. Women were allowed to vote simply for having a vagina. 2. The Left Party, Social Democrats and Green Party voted against. They happen to be the parliamentary parties that officially label themselves as feminist. 3. They make less, for different work. See http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Löneskillnader_mellan_män_och_kvinnor_i_Sverige#Sverige where several studies report very small differences, and see also the rightmost column demonstrating that there are still relevant factors that were not taken into account. 6. Again, when the examiner does not know the gender of the person they are grading, girls do not get better grades than boys. But when the examiner does know that, girls do get better grades. This is a very demonstrable case of discrimination. I covered the pay issue above. More likely to be hired is a big joke, see affirmative action and the fact that more men than women are unwillingly unemployed (and the difference is increasing). I don't even know what higher tolerance for eccentricity is supposed to mean.
1. Military service was mandatory. If you did not participate you were a criminal and would lose your right to vote anyway.
2. They are leftist parties, not feminist parties. They support feminism as a principle. Important distinction.
3. A half-truth.
http://www.scb.se/statistik/AM/AM9902/2004A01/AM9902_2004A01_BR_AM78ST0402.pdf
http://www.utredarna.nu/ulrikahagstrom/2012/08/24/vad-sager-den-officiella-statistiken-om-loneskillnaden-mellan-kvinnor-och-man-2011/
part of it is explained by a difference in career paths, but not all of it. Within the same fields, with identical credentials, women still make less. Women also, on average, have a higher degree of formal education.
6. They actually do, girls have been consistently outperforming boys in just about every area. Higher education has a massive overrepresentation of women; http://www.hsv.se/download/18.6923699711a25cb275a8000278/
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX"
A) Not relevant to people blaming the victim for rape.
B) Claim not substantiated by evidence.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape.
Feel free, the results are echoed pretty much whenever people are asked. Victim blaming is prolific.
|
On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape.
Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 21:48 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:37 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:26 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:19 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:07 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:03 Kreb wrote:On May 02 2013 20:51 McBengt wrote:
Feminism is one of the most misunderstood and vilified terms in modern politics. I know several people who would never call themselves feminists because the term is so loaded and toxic, but when you actually ask them about core feminist issues like equal pay, right to choose, anti-discrimination laws, protection from sexual harassment in the workplace/school etc, they are all aboard.
The challenge generally is not to make people agree with (most)feminist agendas, instead it's getting them to understand that fighting for them is what actually constitutes feminism in the first place. The women, and men, who fought for the right to vote, the right to control their own bodies, the right to participate in government and positions of power, they were all feminists by definition. Yet few people recognise or even comprehend this, they see it as an excuse for angry shrews to bitch and moan.
Whenever I'm asked about this I always say; "yes I am a feminist, and so are you, even if you don't know it." While I somewhat agree with what you say, whats the difference between "feminism" and "equality" (between sexes) then? The word feminism is kinda missleading in that case, since it quite clearly indicates its about something related to..... females. Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. The two are interchangable, the reason it was called feminism was simply because females have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. That is not its actual definition, and feminism is not *the* struggle for equality between the sexes. The definition of feminism is more complicated than that (first of all it requires that you subscribe to patriarchy theory), and there are other struggles for equality between the sexes. See for example MRA. There is a huge difference between feminism (an ideology) and equality (which is the alleged goal of said ideology). To try to equalize feminism with either equality or "the" struggle for equality, is nothing but an attempt to silence differing opinions ("you think X so you must be a feminist, but you also said Y which is not feminist so you have to stop saying Y"). Furthermore, people can have different opinions about what equality truly means. Bob defines equality as when all men go to work and all women stay at home to cook and clean, but both these jobs are equally valued. You wouldn't call Bob a feminist, would you? It's the same error as, say, labeling libertarianism as "the" struggle for freedom. Freedom is the goal of libertarianism, but it's not the only ideology that aims for freedom and different people have different ideas of what freedom really is. So no. Stop telling lies about feminism. It does not do your movement any good anyway. I never suggested it was the only struggle, or that it would confine anyone to a specific set of values. It's a malleable concept, more a general idea than a laundry list of issues. I'm not really sure how anyone could not recognize at least parts of the patriarchy, it has some fairly extensive historic backing. As for Bob, I'd probably call him an asshole. Yes you did. Right here: Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. Patriarchy theory states, in general terms, that society benefits men at the expense of women. In my opinion the reverse is closer to the truth: if society can be said to have a purpose, it is to protect and serve women. Usually at men's expense. If you look at the groups in society with the lowest standing, they are all male. We think to ourselves that it is their own faults for ending up there, but if a woman were to end up there with them, we look for a culprit. When girls do poorly in school, we blame the school system, but when boys do poorly in school we blame the boys. Ironically, the reason that feminism sees such success is also the very thing that feminism tries to fight. Because at its core it is still a bunch of women complaining about stuff, and society doing what it has always done: rising to fix their problem. It is a very sexist behavior, but it is one that benefits women. Oh, ok, you're one of those. I am sorry that you have this strange persecution complex and that you labour under the massive misapprehension that society does not generally favour males. Your claims are a tad bit ridiculous, but I am glad you agree with yourself. Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence. I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden: 1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923. 2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition. 3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime. 4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's. 5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him. 6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus. 7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime. Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man.
I really feel like the sheer stupidity of your post needs to be addressed.
1) From youtube: \
"In 1862 tax-paying women of legal majority (unmarried women and widows) were again allowed to vote in municipal elections, making Sweden the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote.[51] The right to vote in municipal elections applied only to people of legal majority, which excluded married women, as they were juridically under the guardianship of their husbands. In 1884 the suggestion to grant women the right to vote in national elections was initially voted down in Parliament.[63] In 1902 the Swedish Society for Woman Suffrage was founded. In 1906 the suggestion of women's suffrage was voted down in parliament again.[64] However, the same year, also married women were granted municipal suffrage. In 1909 women were granted eligibility to municipal councils, and in the following 1910–11 municipal elections, forty women were elected to different municipal councils,[64] Gertrud Månsson being the first. In 1914 Emilia Broomé became the first woman in the legislative assembly.[65]
The right to vote in national elections was not returned to women until 1919, and was practised again in the election of 1921, for the first time in 150 years.[10] In the election of 1921 more women than men had the right to vote because women got the right just by turning 21 years old while men had to undergo military service for the right to vote. In a decision 1921 men received the same right as women and this was practised in the election of 1924"
So, in the entire pretty much history of the world, in one country, for one year, for one election, more women had suffrage then men due to a fuck-up by the people who wrote the law that was rectified the same year as a trend towards general universal suffrage. Jesus Christ, 50 years earlier married women weren't even allowed to vote because they were under the guardianship of their husbands (basically, their property). And you're trying to tell me society was set up FOR women, and use women's suffrage in Sweden to argue that they have more power? Honest to god, this point that you make is so f-ing stupid, I don't even know where to begin. There was an entire worldwide suffrage movement to get women the right to vote when men already could...It's not debatable. Men could vote before women. Universally, too. In Sweden, every year except the single anomaly you noted had more men able to vote.
2) Honestly, I couldn't find anything on this one except for the mainstream leftist parties (which are feminist) that actually supported an expansion of the conscription to include women before the draft was scrapped entirely. So maybe some fringe crazy group thought this, I don't know. Otherwise I think you're actually just full of shit on this one.
3) There IS a general consistent 5% unexplainable wage gap between men and women. I think it's less than that in Sweden, though. However, if they make up for it in different benefits, so what? Maybe if you want mothers to be primary caregivers you support them throughout their life. Women also can have more complex medical issues (being pregnant fucking sucks). If the benefits are given on a needs basis, and women need them more, then that's fine. Be more specific, if you think something is unreasonable.
4) Although male circumcision is definitely questionable, comparing male and female circumcision is absurd. They are totally different things, and one results in a LOT more harm to the individual undergoing it (no foreskin vs. no clitoris? Come the fuck on...)
5) So? Women have to endure pregnancy in their bodies (again, this is actually a serious health issue, I don't understand why more people don't consider how serious it actually is), and are generally the ones left to care for the child if the man leaves. It's their body, their choice. Although related to feminism, this is in general a slightly separate philosophical issue, anyways.
6) Okay, fine, that's bad. No-one would argue that's a good thing. So let's try to deal with it? It's still pretty weak evidence that society is set up to benefit women over men. And also, I'm pretty sure that would be a very, very recent phenomenon. It still deserves addressing, but isn't a reason to scrap feminism.
7) I'm going to need a study here on this one. There's so much subjectivity in sentencing, like previous criminal record, degree of violence associated with the crime, etc., that there might be underlying causal trends associated with men and women that result in different sentencing trends.
Basically, you define feminism a specific doctrine requiring a subscription to "patriarchy theory", and then when people disagree with your definition, you still use it in your attacks on feminism. Personally, I generally agree with patriarchy theory, although it is weakening (pre-1990s or so, though, 100% was true, and it still is present today in most developed countries and indisputably present in the third world). But most people I know define feminism as equality between sexes. It's just that women have, indisputably, been the persecuted sex for the vast, vast majority of human history. Hence the term "feminism".
|
On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later.
How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later.
What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process.
You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous.
If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple.
|
On May 02 2013 22:52 Hairy wrote:
I don't see why it's such a big ask for people not to be assholes. Is it really that hard? There's no reason to be a dick, there's no excuse for being a dick, and there's no valid reason to defend dickheads. People shouldn't need to have "think skins" on the internet, it should be possible to be on the net without being harassed. It's very simple.
If you value the pleasure you (or others) get through harassment more than how the recipient of harassment feels, I'd suggest you have a long think about what you're really arguing for.
The one to find offense is always the recipient. If I walk outside with a shirt that says "I like the colour green" and you are offended by that, who's fault is it, me or you? This is a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the point. Likewise, if I go out with a shirt that says "Black pride" and I'm white, if you're black you might be offended, even though I am blatantly supporting a cause that you do.
Also note that the taking of offense is independent of whether the person who's being "offensive" is INTENDING to cause offense or not. It's quite different if get in a car with the INTENTION of killing someone and subsequently do, or if I get in the car with the INTENTION of going somewhere and because it's dark and they jump out on the road I still kill someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
