1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics On gender politics

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Shadowex3, Nov 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shadowex3

    Shadowex3 Very Tilted

    That would be the reasonable and sane option... which is probably why ideologues are so vitriolically opposed to it.
     
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Under the U.S. criminal code, when a woman coerces a man into having sexual intercourse, it can be considered rape. This is regardless what some researchers want or what the FBI wants in terms of definitions.

    Do some researchers take a myopic view on rape? Yes. Did the FBI's updated definition of rape not go far enough? Yes. Does more research need to be done on female-on-male rape? Yes.

    It's an uphill battle because of entrenched societal preconceptions/biases/double-standards, but we can only hope that people are starting to realize the impact this sort of thing has.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. OtherSyde

    OtherSyde Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ugh. Gender politics are such a convoluted clusterfuck, full of hidden agendas and angry people looking to use social movements as their personal revenge weapons. I've been reading a lot of MRA and RadFem stuff (and the obligatory parodist stuff) over the last year or so, and tend to fall into the middle - neither of the extremist sides will ever (or should ever) really "win out," it's just going to be a long road of gradual social evolution as all the chaos of a recently-shaken-up social hierarchy sort of shakes out into what will hopefully be a functional social model in the future. I don't think any of them have the real answers - all of their answers are geared to serve their own specific gender/demographic, but assuming we don't destroy ourselves, I think society will naturally adapt, reconstitute itself, and form coping mechanisms to tie up the loose ends over the coming decades out of sheer necessity for balance and survival.

    Great articles posted though, I've heard of GirlWritesWhat before on various MRA blogs (and also on ManBoobz/We Hunted The Mammoth, mostly being ridiculed) and hadn't really read a lot of her stuff so far, but her piece is pretty hard to refute. And of course, I always love a good RationalWiki page.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Agreed. The more I read about this stuff, the more I fall straight in the middle of the picture that is populated with so many angry, retarded camps.

    Fuck their obtuse culture of nitpicking.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany


    I love how the public reaction to incidents like this vs something like Chris Brown/Rihanna never fails to bring the current prejudices and double standards to the foray.

    Chris clearly deserved to go to jail. So does Solange.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Jail? Really?

    I don't see the equivalence here.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Yes, because the injuries determine whether an assault has taken place, and whether it was criminal. /s

    Maybe jail isn't what is deserved, but criminal charges of some form? Certainly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek

    I am not so sure that criminal charges are necessary, but wouldn't be opposed to having the police investigate to determine if they are.

    I think the important thing, for me in this case, is the level of violence perpetrated. One is a beat down, resulting is serious bodily harm, the other is a school yard tussle by comparison. I don't see a double standard because there really isn't equivalence between the two events.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. OtherSyde

    OtherSyde Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Yeah, Chris Brown is one unstable ego-maniacal violent psycho. Then again, what if Jay Z were a bit weaker or maybe caught off-guard, and Solange were a bit stronger and there wasn't a convenient body guard present to restrain her, she might have bruised him up pretty good. Maybe scratched up his face or put an eye out for good. The violent intent was there for sure, she just didn't have the physical power or opportunity to execute it. She maybe ought to be charged with assault, and although maybe not go to jail since no real harm was done, people really do need to realize that that crazy violent psychotic intent to harm is no different in one human than it is in the other - feeling and truly believing you have the right to bash someone else's face in just because you're angry at them or angry at life in general is pretty sociopathic, dysfunctional, and malicious any way you look at it. :eek:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Plan9 FORMAT C:

    Location:
    This Island Earth
    Yeah, Jay-Z was in the tough-guy celebrity Screwed Either Way! box:

    1. Fight the woman, get arrested for being a woman-beater.
    2. Don't fight the woman, get called a bitch by your peers.

    Archaic gender roles still apply to gangsta rappers, right?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. OtherSyde

    OtherSyde Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    San Diego, CA

    Ugh. Our cultural ideals and norms are in such a tangled self-contradictory catch-22 clusterfuck right now.
     
  12. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    I can buy this, especially the last part.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    There are different levels of assault to handle these situations. Solange could have been trying to slap Jay-Z. That is far different than brown systematically punching rihanna. Maybe she was planning on gouging his eyes out, but there is no proof of that. You have to go by the evidence. Most reasonable people can recognize the difference between a scuffle where two guys are punching each other, which could be assault three, and where one guy is in the mount beating someone senseless. It's like menacing. It's far different when someone is walking away from a street argument and yells"I'm going to kick your ass"as they get in a car and drive away, then the person who is twenty feet away with their fists up coming towards you and saying"I'm going to kick your ass".
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I just want to point out that a patriarchal system isn't a system where men only derive benefit for power differentials. In fact, it stands to reason, and is evident in how all systems with power imbalances exist in reality, that the people in power are also harmed by their power and the expectations that power burdens them with.

    Patriarchy is a manifestation of the notion that men are better able than women to exercise power and control. The fact that this notion actually proves harmful to men in a lot of ways doesn't in any way disprove the existence of patriarchy. For example, patriarchy says that men are powerful, and so it stands to reason that men can't be raped by women, because men are more powerful. This is how patriarchy fucks men. Literally.

    More generally (but perhaps less aptly), when one chooses the path of domination (or has it chosen for them by the expectations of society), one is obligated to dominate. Domination is in no way negated by the fact that it is unpleasant.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Plan9 FORMAT C:

    Location:
    This Island Earth
    Only if you're a pussy.

    *rimshot*
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany

    True, I definitely agree with this.
     
  18. Shadowex3

    Shadowex3 Very Tilted

    I refer you back to the original post:

    No theory can be both itself and its opposite and be logically valid. Furthermore privilege by definition does not "backfire" anymore than harmful oppression is ever "benevolent". To claim either is specious, the product of a failure to comprehend basic logic at best or far more often I suspect deliberate sophistry. Trying to say that "The Patriarchy" can hurt men, that privilege can "backfire", or that women are victims of "benevolent" sexism is like trying to say the rules of a coin toss are "Heads I win, Tails you lose". What's truly ironic in all of this is how misogynist it really is to play that game. Patriarchy rhetoric treats women as so feckless and incompetent, so lacking in any agency or capability, that they're nothing more than static pawns acted on by outside forces.


    The truth about the world is a lot uglier. It's not "The Patriarchy" that says women can't rape men, it's feminism (repeatedly):

    And this isn't some one-time thing in some backwater journal in nowhere. Dr. Koss is a leading feminist academic who's not only consistently worked to erase or obfuscate male victims but alsoworked with the CDC for years and used that position to completely erase over a million victims of rape simply for being male, hiding them instead under the category of "other sexual assault". Now you tell me, if feminism fights "The Patriarchy", and "The Patriarchy" is all about "rape culture" (which even RAINN calls out as politicking), then why would one of the leading feminist researchers in the United States singlehandedly do everything in her power to ensure that rape victims are completely erased?

    The answer is simple. If you create a boogeyman that's impossible to ever disprove and then continuously manufacture false statistics to prop it up you can accuse anyone who ever questions you of being part of the problem. What would be hilarious about all of this, if the cost in human life weren't so absolutely catastrophic, is that the mere fact feminists are so successful at getting everything they want even while claiming the opposite should in and of itself disprove the whole mess:

     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    I would argue that how the issue is framed is the problem, not logic itself. The idea that patriarchy benefits men absolutely is ridiculous. As a man, you should be sure of its folly. "Men don't cry." is a perfect example of how patriarchy provides a disservice to men everywhere. There is no feminist bogeyman in the notion that "men don't cry," it's pure patriarchy.

    So you can appeal to notions of basic logic, but whatever. Logic is a garbage in garbage out endeavor. I know that as a man who grew up in a society that taught me that women are to be protected rather than respected that your perspective is flawed. I know that growing up in a society where, as a fucking 8 year old boy, I thought I had an obligation to protect my mother from the fucking bullshit of the world, that your perspective is flawed.

    Men run shit. It sucks for everyone that society acts like it must be so. Ignoring this fact doesn't help anything, regardless of your personal hurt feelings.

    I obviously can't talk you out of your choice of villain, and I don't care to. No feminist that I know in the real fucking world would ever claim that a woman couldn't rape a man.

    Look at me, not giving two shits about boogeywomen. Andrea Dworkin was a troll. Trolls play important roles in social movements, even if everyone agrees they are full of shit. Who cares?

    You seem to be acting under the idea that sociology is the equivalent to physics. Here's an idea: people believe in ideas that make them feel good. In the absence of solid objective evidence (ie in all real-world situations) people believe in the sociological theories that make them feel the warmest and the fuzziest. You think feminists are the enemy. Whatever. I don't. Whatever.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Pretty much this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.