Lol, my bad. Didn't have much time to comment previously so I probably should have left it until I could comment in more detail. The basic principle is that the claim that feminism has any relevance in the beneficial treatment of women is, well, it's a bit of a sadistic joke to be perfectly frank and at best a half truth. It suggests that feminism has genuinely or positively helped the rights of women and that, following fundamental feminist theology, men have been the problem for women through history and women have always been oppressed. When the reality is...I can't really see the evidence to back this assertion. That some progress has been made, I'll accept - but even this progress has been fundamentally backward and based on absolute absurdities. I think personally, I've hated on them before and I'll hate on them again, the Suffragettes are the perfect icons and representations of the feminist movement. Racist, elitist terrorists with more privileges than the vast majority of the people in the world, demanding attention for things that men were already working towards, proclaiming themselves the eternal victims whilst simultaneously ignoring the history or reasoning before and after and ignoring how crappy society is to people as a whole. That crappy treatment of people is not a gendered issue at all. Suggesting that feminism is actually helpful to women (certainly third wave western feminist) in the modern era holds the same fundamental issues. The reality is that feminism is doing little more than promoting a kangaroo court culture founded on blatant, unchecked bigotry and sexism with massive propaganda campaigns and it needs to stop. It literally covers nothing that society does not already cover. We already have anti-murder laws (not a gender issue). We already have anti rape laws (not a gender issue). We already have anti-sexism laws and social "mob justice" (aka Twitterati or in this case the "Clitterati" - and is still not a gender issue) when people are douchebags. We already have anti-violence laws that cover domestic violence (not a gender issue despite the feminist push that it somehow is). Society already condemns all of these things. All feminism has done has taken all of these things and slapped a gynocentric focus on it and preach it's about "equality". It's literally become nothing more than Marxism - except rather than it being about the wealthy vs the poor, it's become about men being the overlords and women being the victims. Despite the fact that progressively more evidence has appeared to demonstrate this is not a one sided issue. It's simply a very dark joke. But we are talking about a movement that actually came out with #starerape and #fartrape. Because, you know, farting louder than a woman is a form of oppression and plays into rape culture because it exercises psychological dominance over women. Same with looking at people and thinking someone is attractive. I'm not actually making this up either. I actually did a blog post in more detail on it here. It is long though (I've posted it to try and clarify my position further but if the MODs feel this violates ToS I'll accept that):http://grumpypurplesloth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/rape-cultures-exist-but-feminists.html (Insert several posters conforming to Lewis' Law on this one - "comments on anything about feminism justify feminism". HAHAHAHAHA Fair enough, I get that.
It was intended as a bit of fun and silliness and was basically me parodying a cyanide and happiness video I'd watched a few minutes before rather than being just a dig. But fair's fair, I'll knock it on the head.
It was a general warning bud. You had the misfortune of being the first post I saw when I was posting is all
I think that's a fair concern. But I'm also not sure that any system is perfect. Additionally, perhaps somewhat ironically, the assessment of whether someone has consented in the hands of someone else is very much a real thing that happens in the legal system and even in relationships. The sad fact of all this is rape is often notoriously difficult to prove. I think that's relatively fair actually. I mean yeah, the suggestion that taking a MA class would have stopped you being raped is not particularly fair or accurate. But at the same time, suggesting it's wrong to suggest people should take up MA classes to protect themselves and the fact that this could potentially help reduce the risks of being raped is IMO a little backwards. I know I only speak for myself as a father with a daughter and I can't speak for all dads. Ironically compared to many of the fathers local to me, I'm one of the few who doesn't make jokes about buying a shotgun the first time my daughter brings home a boyfriend. I know she's a human being with her own opinions, feelings and desires and though I may not always approve of her choices, I also recognise they are hers and I can't protect her from everything - much as I want to. But I'd suggest it isn't about being less than human and locking them away, but being terrified of the risk to their health, the biological cost of pregnancy (including risks to her health) and the impact on her future life regardless of what she does - all choices have consequences after all. Of course I want my daughter to grow up happy and healthy, with someone who cherishes and loves her (just as I do for my boys) and their future health and happiness means the world to me. I guess I'm saying that saying it's about treating them as less than human isn't a fair statement to make. Too true. All statistical trends and evidence indicate that rape is (in the vast majority) done by people we know intimately. Also: HAHAHAHAHA! I'll come to this in a bit but yeah, she's built herself a reputation on saying things that get people rather worked up so yeah, you could say she uses trolling as a method of promotion. Made me giggle
It seems to me that 'feminism' (like quite a few other 'isms') is one of those things with such a broad definition that it can mean very different things to different people, and encompasses a wide spectrum of different viewpoints and ideas. You seem to be focussing very much on the most radical strands of feminist thinking, whereas I was talking simply about the movement (in the loosest possible sense) for greater gender equality. So I don't think that you are 'wrong', or I am 'wrong', I just think that we are talking about very different things here. What I am saying that there is still a need for is not the sort of thing that you are talking about, which is stuff that I find very difficult to comprehend, and which always seems completely bonkers to me.
I think that's a fair comment. Indeed feminists often object to each other on a frequent basis (like on pornography) But I'm going to be a little harsh when I say this. If you identify feminism with more than just "equality" but with these as well: 1) Patriarchal dominance in society 2) Rape culture 3) Patriarchal tyranny of violence 4) Historical oppression. Then you are part of the feminism I lambaste and despise so very much. This isn't radical feminism, this is regular feminism with radical individuals. If on the other hand your sole concern is with equality and not with the above, then I can respect and support that. But I'd also suggest that feminism might not be the movement for you. Or at the least you might want to take the time to do some research onto what feminism actually says and does. The clue is in the name after all. [EDIT: Because you are to feminism what "armchair football coaches" are to football /EDIT] I can respect that. In the same way we need anti-racism groups, anti-disability discrimination movements and so forth. My concern is that pro men/women movements usually make the matters worse and more divisive rather than less. Even if we do argue a women's group is needed, I don't believe feminism should be it. Does that make sense?
Some people are talking about coffee shop feminism and others ideological/activist feminism. This much has been clear for quite a while. Issue is, we're talking about rape culture theory, which was born in the ideological feminist blogosphere / women's studies classes, and continue its path through political and social activism. The average coffee shop feminist stance is of very little value and immediate relevance here.
Nonsense. The "prevalent attitudes, norms, practices and media" in the western culture do not "condone, normalize, excuse, or tolerate sexual violence against women". That only exists as systemic truth in modern feminism's collective hysteria. Back in the real world, our culture portrays rape as one of the most heinous crimes and egregious wrongs imaginable. Claim: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape. Fact #1: The granddaddy - or grand mommy, rather - of all sexual violence factoids is based on a 1985 feminist study commissioned by none other than Gloria Steinem’s (the same Gloria Steinem who claims that women in the west or more oppressed today than they were in the 60s…) Ms. Magazine. Its researcher - Mary Koss - was handpicked by Steinem herself. Koss later disclosed that 73% of the women counted as rape victims answered no to the (interrogation-markless) “question” “it was definitely rape”, meaning that 3 out of 4 of the women counted as rape victims did not consider themselves so. 43% of them were even dating their “rapist” again. The researcher, notthe women themselves, decided whether a sexual assault was committed. Counted as sexual assault were “attempted kissing”, “forced kissing” “attempted forced kissing” or “alcohol and drug facilitated penetration”. In another feminist study – and I poop you not – a “hey baby” directed at a woman at a red light was counted as sexual assault. Feminists are now trying to make “rape stare” a punishable offense. When they use the 1-in-4 figure, they are cramming together women violently gang raped along with women who felt uncomfortable when a man tried to kiss them. If the guy leans in for a kiss goodnight and the woman turns him down, he’s a rapist. That’s modern feminism’s intellectual honesty for you right there. Meanwhile, in Realityville, serious reports tell a different story about sexual violence on US campuses. The DOJ found 6 cases of sexual assaults per 1000 female students per year between 95 and 2002. That's 0.6%: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs02.pdf The DOJ also finds that the rate of sexual assaults is in sharp decline since the mid-90s, down about 60 percent: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf Fact #2: More men get raped than women. About 240,000 women are victims of sexual assault each year. In prisons alone, 300,000 male inmates are raped every year. To that you can add the number of men and boys raped in the general population. But only man-on-woman sexual violence is worthy of consideration. Woman-on-man rape is considered a non-issue while man-on-man victims are barely deserving of a self-serving footnote in the feminist narrative on how - wait for it - patriarchy oppresses men too. But it’s not enough for modern feminism to sell the idea of an out-of-control epidemic of sexual violence against women. In order to justify its relevance, the movement must up the antes and does so by painting a culture that downright condones and even encourages rape. A culture so pernicious that it not only produces rapists but also rape-“apologists” and - why not, let’s push the lunacy to the nth degree - people who are downright pro-rape. Modern feminism turns sexual violence - presented one-sidedly, through manipulated statistics and grossly incoherent ideas - into a mere narrative tool to advance its political and ideological agenda because the movement's very subsistence is dependent upon feeding the hysteria machine. There is no rape epidemic and no rape culture. The 1-in-4 / 25% figure commonly spat out by feminists is blatantly manipulated and way, way off. So why do they keep using numbers that are as incendiary as they inaccurate, even after they’ve been factually debunked time and time again? Because it catches people’s attention and outrages them. Those practices are not just dishonest and corrupt, but are also shamelessly disrespectful and exploitive of real rape victims.
Just to add here because greg nailed it: Some have claimed that Koss had already started the study before Steinem got involved. I've only seen a couple of sources cite this and no evidence has been provided to verify the claim. Not that it changes the outcome or the fact that Steinmen provided funding and a platform for Koss' study to be published. It's also worth pointing out that Koss actually published a previous article in 1982 stating "rape represents an extreme behaviour but one that is on a continuum with normal male behaviour in the culture" and trying to claim 1 in 8 women had been raped, but it gained virtually no attention. However, Koss is testified to have received a phone call out of the blue from Steinem, inviting her to lunch. Shortly after, it was announced that Ms. Magazine decided to do a massive survey and Koss was directed to lead it. She claimed the study conformed to the "legal definition" of rape but later admitted it didn't. Insert "Yeah, but they're prisoners so they don't count" claim. That is one of the only good things to have come out of the last couple of decades of claims about Patriarchy actually, acknowledging men get hurt too. However it is at best a side consideration to the theory rather than part of the main focus and doesn't even come close to understand how screwed up society can be to men too. Nailed it in one
Koss '85 was funded by the NIMH (not just for making smart rats): http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED267321.pdf. Ms. Magazine did not publish the study - they published an article on it, which I guess publicizes it, but yeah, did not publish the study.
It's not that Koss had started the study before Steinem got involved, it's that she had already developed the shoddy methodology used in the study and was a feminist already committed to rape culture theory. Like I said earlier, the ideological agenda drove the findings instead of the other way around.
That's what I get for trying to read stuff late at night when I should be in bed You're right. Ms. Magazine did provide additional support to get the study published and recognised on a national level but she didn't fund it. Comment withdrawn. Also: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2014/02/17/who-defines-rape/ https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w2NPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XgMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5854,2479318&hl=en You're right, I was careless with that point. But I also think you know that was a bit of a nit pick It doesn't do anything to change the absurd bias that Koss had when performing her study (who as someone who has a decent academic background in psychology, she should have known better. It's literally nothing more than fraudulent scholarship at that point).
Sarkeesian is far from the worst of modern feminism. She's a fraud selling idiotic ideas, but complaining about video games and barbie dolls while defrauding people of their money, though stupid and reprehensible, is not on the same plane of vileness as hate-spitting left-radical activists like Vanja Krajina, Ashleigh Ingle or Amanda Lickers - all featured on the University of Toronto protest by the way. Canada has it the worst. Sarkeesian is from Canada, btw.
The strange thing is I feel sorry for her. I mean yeah, she really is essentially a bit of a fraud & liar and at times has come out with some absurd and frankly abusive comments. And yeah, she does my nut in and I wish she'd understand (a) sexism doesn't exist in the way it does in the areas, (b) people don't hate her because she's a woman, they hate her because she came out of the comparative blue to lambaste them with her vitriol that people who enjoy a hobby are woman haters (weird that women haters get so worked up over it, no?), (c) people use gender related insults because it's easy to make them personal and (d) some people are massive douchebags. But she doesn't deserve some of the abuse she's had at times. I get more irate at Jessica Valenti TBH. Her coverage of the UVa campus rape story and some of her comments have just been awful.
Oh I'm not trying to dump Her in the same camp by any means. Only that the idea of approaching supposed studies with a preformed result to look for
No, there's a huge difference between publishing a government funded study in an academic journal and getting a piece published inside a pop magazine. Huge. Yeah, I guess I'm just not seeing the absurd bias. I think the SES was flawed (especially the alcohol question - man that one dropped the ball), but she's gone back and modified it several times, lo and behold, still found similar numbers. Again though, don't take her word for it: Eg: http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publication-detail.aspx?ncjnumber=172837 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf http://amptoons.com/blog/files/rape_in_america.pdf Critiques from your two sources do not seem substantial but I'd be happy to address what you think are the salient points. Dirty secret? Every study conducted in science is conducted with some idea about what you're going to find. Only way to get funding these days really.
True but the hypothesis shoule be either proven or not - you do not ignore the evidence just because it does not support said hypothesis or else you have the Targ/Puthoff/Geller effect
I don't think that Koss ignored the evidence. She's shown that ~70% of women who were raped were not comfortable saying that they were definitely raped, but she also showed that around 70% physically tried to resist their attacker and 85% tried to reason the fellow out of it. Is it an imperfect study? Yes (good thing there are others that have been conducted!). Is it a fraudulent work of conspiratorial mass hysteria that exaggerates the incidence of rape by 250-fold? Probably not.
