Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Guess you missed the pages and pages long thread on the males can be raped by women topic.
What do feminists want?
- Thread starter shawmutt
- Start date
I support groups fighting for women's rights because they're right to do so and because women deserve equality -- not because I believe doing so will benefit men.
Am I right to read this as saying that you support groups fighting for men's rights specifically because you believe those groups also help with women's rights? That's certainly better than open opposition, but it seems a bit... weak as a grounds of support, if you get what I mean.
Actually I did. Link?
bookitty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 5,732
A lot of stuff overlaps. Child care and custody battles are the two biggest. It's sort of the way that I'm an activist for gay marriage but still call myself a feminist, not a gay rights activist. Or put together fund-raisers for films about food-insecurity but call myself a feminist. Or volunteer with a group that plants gardens in public schools, but don't call myself an environmentalist. (Although that does slip in sometimes because it makes it easier for other people.)
I can't see a way to make things better for women without making things better for everyone. It's not just about "the patriarchy," it's about how we treat other people.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
I'd like to see that, too.
ETA: I do remember a thread where it came up, but the relevant comments did not make pages.
Last edited:
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Good thread. As for myself, the reason I missed it was that I wasn't paying attention to this board a year and a quarter ago.
One thing I do like about this site is that some sense gets talked more than on other sites I shall avoid naming. It's not universal, but the signal-to-noise ratio is relatively good.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
Who could have foreseen that a thread about a woman's impression of an encounter would morph into a thread about males just not getting enough respect?
Truly a radical development.
What would you think of someone in 1950 that in a discussion about lynchings in the South pointed out that there were some white people killed by black people? Those poor whites, who's looking out for their interests?
And to prevent an obvious rebuttal, on an individual level a crime is a crime. Just because it's a statistical irregularity (like female->male sexual assault. Males are victims at a far lower rate and the vast majority of males were assaulted by other males) doesn't mean it's any less destructive and painful. It does, however, change the nature of the discussion.
We do not have a societal epidemic of females sexually assaulting males. There are times when this happens, and it's terrible, but it's dwarfed by the problem of females being victimized.
Male victims are certainly worth discussing. There are a number of interesting social problems involved--like the under-reporting of incidents--but when it's raised in the context of a discussion about assault aimed at women, it's an attempt to change the discussion, minimize the problem, and support a contention that women are irrational for pointing out the degree to which the threat of assault affects their lives: "Hey, men get assaulted to, you don't see us whining about being on an elevator with a chick."
Again, place that tactic in the context of racial violence and it becomes patently absurd. Throughout our nation's history racists have used examples of black people commiting crimes against white people to excuse and justify brutual social repression. Yes, a white person murdered by a black person in 1915 was a tragedy and a crime, as are all murders. But in an era with thousands of lynchings, more murders, and countless crimes that were ignored and covered up, the distraction inherent in complaining about white victims in the context of racial violence is obvious.
Start another thread about males suffering sexual assault. Again, it's a valid topic worthy of discussion, but it's use here is simply diversion.
Truly a radical development.
What would you think of someone in 1950 that in a discussion about lynchings in the South pointed out that there were some white people killed by black people? Those poor whites, who's looking out for their interests?
And to prevent an obvious rebuttal, on an individual level a crime is a crime. Just because it's a statistical irregularity (like female->male sexual assault. Males are victims at a far lower rate and the vast majority of males were assaulted by other males) doesn't mean it's any less destructive and painful. It does, however, change the nature of the discussion.
We do not have a societal epidemic of females sexually assaulting males. There are times when this happens, and it's terrible, but it's dwarfed by the problem of females being victimized.
Male victims are certainly worth discussing. There are a number of interesting social problems involved--like the under-reporting of incidents--but when it's raised in the context of a discussion about assault aimed at women, it's an attempt to change the discussion, minimize the problem, and support a contention that women are irrational for pointing out the degree to which the threat of assault affects their lives: "Hey, men get assaulted to, you don't see us whining about being on an elevator with a chick."
Again, place that tactic in the context of racial violence and it becomes patently absurd. Throughout our nation's history racists have used examples of black people commiting crimes against white people to excuse and justify brutual social repression. Yes, a white person murdered by a black person in 1915 was a tragedy and a crime, as are all murders. But in an era with thousands of lynchings, more murders, and countless crimes that were ignored and covered up, the distraction inherent in complaining about white victims in the context of racial violence is obvious.
Start another thread about males suffering sexual assault. Again, it's a valid topic worthy of discussion, but it's use here is simply diversion.
Last edited:
This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the issue being brought up in this thread, rather than you actually following the discussion.
Entirely separate from the "Watson in an elevator" incident (by which I mean, as someone's glib response to the raw question "what do feminists want?"), the topic of equality and how to define it was brought up. In that context, it was also discussed whether feminism should reasonably cover both men's and women's rights, and whether treating women and men the same was enough.
Never at any point in this thread were men's issues used to trivialize the specific incident in the OP or women's issues in general.
So check the evolving discussion again, and see if your response wasn't a bit off-target in this case.
Also, consider the possibility that when someone says, "This isn't really specifically a women's issue; it happens to men, too and is just as severe when it does," this is not a trivializing statement but an attempt to point out that the problem may be wider than its gender context.
The typical counter-response that indicates that either the incidence or severity is greatly reduced for men in an attempt to distinguish between the two, is deliberately trivializing, however.
One more point -- we're talking about the discomfort felt when turning down inappropriate sexual advances in an isolated situation. However rare you think female-on-male sexual assault is (and you're wrong, but that is a topic for another thread), this is not uncommon at all.
The typical counter-response that indicates that either the incidence or severity is greatly reduced for men in an attempt to distinguish between the two, is deliberately trivializing, however.
One more point -- we're talking about the discomfort felt when turning down inappropriate sexual advances in an isolated situation. However rare you think female-on-male sexual assault is (and you're wrong, but that is a topic for another thread), this is not uncommon at all.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
I usually like your stuff, but you are way reaching here.
The problem with lynchings in the South was that, overall, Black people were way more likely to be targeted than White people (or at least White people who weren't also Jews).
In modern times, men are way more likely to be targeted for violence than women. So it's not "some"; it's "most." Even sexual violence, if you count things that happen in prison and in the Catholic Church.
The only problem is that it is false. You're just wrong about that.
No, we don't. Mostly, males are the ones doing the assaulting. I accept that as a fact; it's been well documented. The only exception seems to be domestic violence. But mostly, when overall patterns of violence are looked at, it's men doing it.
This is sort of interesting, but it does not offend me to point it out, because it's true. Personally, I think that male aggressiveness has its bad points and its good points. It makes men into supreme monsters, sometimes. It also makes them do things like build the Saturn V. Which is, of course, a giant phallus plooking the solar system. It's a valid observation; I just don't think it's all bad. It embarrasses me, but I can't say that it isn't true.
However, when you consider victims, that's not the picture. There are lots and lots of male victims.
The problem with this is that it is false.
If you want only to concentrate on female victims for political purposes, we can deal with that. However, the statement that male victims are dwarfed by female victims is just wrong, in the sense of being inaccurate.
No. You just do not have an accurate perception of reality.
It may be a diversion, but if it is, it is for other reasons that you have presented.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
That's the reason that it's a valid point. These issues are very broad. They have to do with general ideas about social interaction, not just colored by feminism.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
This is the EXACT context in which it is a distraction. There is no equivalency and trying to create one detracts from the actual problem.
Was violence by black people directed at white people relevant to the question of equality in the first half of the 20th century?
So you agree that Watson was justified in feeling scared in that elevator and requesting that men avoid approaching women in that manner?
If you think that point was perfectly legitimate given the reality of sexual assault, then I'll apologize, I have misunderstood your argument.
It happens from time to time.
Last edited:
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
The idea that Rebecca felt scared seems to be an invention of the drama surrounding this issue, but was never part of the original complaint, maybe she should have felt scared (plenty of people seem to think so) but that as not part of her message- which has now been blow up out of all proportion.
bookitty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 5,732
Agree, I think everyone has forgotten that her original message was more along the lines of "Almost everyone there was great, there was one guy, he made me uncomfortable in this way, please don't be that guy."
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
We're talking about a specific type of violence, sexual assault. Women are disproportionately victims:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32369
Of those men who were sexually assaulted, almost all of them were assaulted by other men.
But not of sexual assault, or at least not nearly as many as there are female victims.
17.7 million female victims, 2.8 million male victims. The 17.7 for females was specific to rape, the 2.8 million males included all forms of sexual assault.
It's just not close.
Again, we're talking about a specific type of violence relevant to the topic of this thread and the question of equality, in general.
The type of assault or crime where men are more likely to be the victim is of a very different sort that we're discussing.
The facts are the facts. I don't know what else to tell you. More than 90% of sexual assault victims are female, and of the men, almost all were assaulted by other men. There is a serious problem in our society with men assaulting women, there is an almost statistically invisible issue with women perpetrating sexual violence.
If we want to discuss equality, we need to deal with the male problem with sexual violence. Just like segregation, not black people harming white people, was the societal problem with race in the 60's. There simply is no equivalency.
Even after reading this thread I still have no idea what Feminist want since the discussion seems to be taking play in theoretical world and not in the real world. If you want to use the broadest definition of feminist than its all but a fairly small number that would disagree but that is not how the major feminist groups in the US and most of the rest of the English speaking world believe at least based on their actions and writings. The problem to me is that these groups pretend to believe in equality when their actions are radical pro woman and many times anti man. To use but one example the boys crisis in schools the feminist group AAUW has repeatedly over the last 20 years misrepresented data to show such a problem in fact they used data that boys are disciplined more often than women to claim that boys get imply boys get more positive attention in school. Just a couple of years ago the released a paper that try to claim that there was no boy crisis by eliminating from their sample males from African American and Latino backgrounds and tried to compare all girls with middle class and rich white and Asian males. This type of example can be found on issue after issue from the major feminist groups and press another big one is the pay gap. These groups use the raw totals which does have a pay gap but ignores hours worked, job title, etc which taken together shows a gap less than 10 percent and of course ignores the damage done when a woman takes more than maternity leave off when having kids which explains about 8 percent of the total leaving a gap around 2 percent (which can be anything) and ignoring the new data showing under 35 women in cities are now making more than males.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
She cited two main issues with that elevator encounter: her objection to being sexually objectified in that way (I don't find that argument particularly convincing), and a discussion about why it made her incredibly uncomfortable separate from the basic objectification.
That second part had to do with the approach in the elevator--an isolated, vulnerable environment. Perhaps my use of the word "scared" wasn't accurate, but that's the essence of the complaint. She was uncomfortable because of the topic of conversation and the environment where it took place.
I read that as something more than just being annoyed, but again, the only thing I really agree with Rebecca Watson about is the inappropriateness of the approach. That is a troubling way for a gentleman to handle his business, and I understand why she would be concerned. Perhaps that's better than "scared?"
Tranewrek- Don't believe the numbers. There are several problems with those numbers but I will start with the 1 out of 6 women in their lifetime number. These numbers come from a phone survey where several of the questions asked that they used to claim that the person was raped do not meet any states defination of rape a couple of examples of this include have you had sex while under the influence of drugs, have you had sex after a person bought you booze, have you had sex after being saying no but later changed your mind due to pressure and several other similar questions. Just under half of the people in this survey that where labled rape victims not only did not feel it was raped but continued to have sexual relationships with the person. All of this can actually be found in the Dept of Justice report that RAINN used to get these numbers.
The other problem is 65,000 men a year are raped in US prisions and almost never report and when reported never have a serious investagation. Of course these rapes are almost all men raping other men and because of a lack of investagation can not be sure of the true number. http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/prison-rape.htm
The other problem is 65,000 men a year are raped in US prisions and almost never report and when reported never have a serious investagation. Of course these rapes are almost all men raping other men and because of a lack of investagation can not be sure of the true number. http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/prison-rape.htm
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
But again, it was just as horrible when a black person murdered a white person in 1920 as the opposite, but our society suffered from an epidemic of one, not the other. I think it's clear why opponents of integration and equality in general would bring up the significantly more rare examples of white victims.
Whether you intend the same derailing, it's a similar tactic.
Please, I brought this up in my original post. It's not trivializing white murder victims to point out that the real problem was Jim Crowe. Once again, you're trying as hard as you can to create an equivalence where none exists.
It's a fallacious argumentative technique: pretending isolated counter examples are sufficient to reject claims about broad trends. It's not minimizing Lou Gehrig's disease to point out that our society has a problem with deaths caused by drunk driving. If we want to have a discussion about ways to broadly increase the life-spans of Americans, focus on specific, rare diseases is not really relevant. That doesn't mean we should cut funding for ALS reasearch or that the victims are irrelevant, it just means it's rare.
No, I'm not wrong. The statistics are as they are.
But now we witness an effort to minimize the seriousness of a woman's claim by creating a false equivalency. A woman uncomfortably coming on to a man is annoying, and innapropriate (assuming all relevant facts), but it doesn't carry the spectre of assault in REMOTELY the same way (the implication). It's just absurd to try and pretend that these two things are in any way similar, and you are absolutely creating distraction and intentionally minimizing the female experience of the world when you try to do so.
Look, some white people get beat up by police officers. Is there a problem with white people being targeted for police violence because of their race? The average black person in America has a very different relationship with police officers than the average white person does, even within a single city, like Chicago.
Any effort to try and explain that black experience by reference to the white experience is absurd. Equally, pretending like the incredibly rare examples of women sexually assaulting men gives we of the male species some insight into what it's like for a woman to be isolated and vulnerable with a strange man propositioning her is ridiculous. That's why this discussion is a distraction.