When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?

[Debater Slayer]

Are they so much less in control?
- They, as a group, can determine who wins any election.
Gender Gap In 2012 Election Aided Obama Win
- They have greater privilege in the justice system (friend of the court, presumption of capability of violence, preferential treatment in sexual assault cases).
- They have no military obligation.
- They benefit from affirmative action.
Add to this their greater life span, & their lot in life looks pretty good compared with men's.

This is an interesting claim to victimhood. Women freely choose to elect many male politicians thru the primary & actual elections, yet the net effect is blamed on the "patriarchy". How does the patriarchy force them to advocate for these candidates, & then vote this way?

You should note that many women are anti-choice (or pro-life if you prefer), & would force their personal preferences on other women. (As I see it, it's not right to limit someone else's bodily autonomy just because they're of the same gender.) But there's another side to this coin.....when someone like Ms Warren makes hawkish statements, she knows that if war erupts to the extent that the draft is reactivated, only men are currently required to register & serve if called up. Is she part of the "patriarchy"? Are all those anti-choice women part of it too?

I don't know. But if women decide upon those in power being in power, do you discount this as having power?

Centuries ago there was slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, corporal punishment, & other societal ills. Are they still around in full force just because they once were? Of course not.....which illustrates that it's dysfunctional to use language as though we live in the 18th century.

Well, for the sake of consistency, I think it would be better for us to pursue this discussion in another thread, since I hate it when someone derails threads about women's rights.

To summarize what I think about the above: I confidently assert that every single issue you mentioned has to do with patriarchy. Explaining why would take more than a few paragraphs, which is why I don't feel like doing it here.

Would you like to continue this discussion elsewhere?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, for the sake of consistency, I think it would be better for us to pursue this discussion in another thread, since I hate it when someone derails threads about women's rights.

Derailment happens everywhere. Green forums don't discourage it, & I don't belong to an appropriate blue forum. So one must learn to tune out that which distracts.

To summarize what I think about the above: I confidently assert that every single issue you mentioned has to do with patriarchy. Explaining why would take more than a few paragraphs, which is why I don't feel like doing it here.

I confidently assert that there's no reasonable basis for (or usefulness in ) claiming "patriarchy" as the root cause of those or any other current problems in N Americastan. (Other countries will differ.)

Would you like to continue this discussion elsewhere?

No, this thread is as good as any. Things are disjointed enuf what with all the locking, moving, & poofing of threads on this topic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Where is your proof that it is a myth? Oh right, you have'nt got any.
And why is it, I wonder, that just because something is old or ancient, it is of no value? Perhaps that is your lack of ability to understand what is written. Now that really is sad. Just ''imagine'' that <trend.

I don't need to prove that Green Eggs and Ham is a fictional book either. There's no need to disprove something that was never proved to begin with.

I love Imagine. I think it summarizes the fundamentals of a healthy worldview a lot better than many supposed manuals of ethics.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't need to prove that Green Eggs and Ham is a fictional book either. There's no need to disprove something that was never proved to begin with.

I love Imagine. I think it summarizes the fundamentals of a healthy worldview a lot better than many supposed manuals of ethics.

It was proved to me! Shame he did not prove it to you. But that does not mean it is not correct and true just because you do not see... that is a fundamental error.

And to ''imagine '' something is akin to ''faith'' is it not <jus for you. Being nice, or sarcastic? I'll let you decide,

 

[Debater Slayer]

Derailment happens everywhere. Green forums don't discourage it, & I don't belong to an appropriate blue forum. So one must learn to tune out that which distracts.

I confidently assert that there's no reasonable basis for (or usefulness in ) claiming "patriarchy" as the root cause of those or any other current problems in N Americastan. (Other countries will differ.)

No, this thread is as good as any. Things are disjointed enuf what with all the locking, moving, & poofing of threads on this topic.

I believe we can pursue this discussion in General Debates. Perceived derailment of other threads is not justification for derailing another one.

I'm going to start one when I'm back on a computer. Feel free to join or not based on whether you want to continue this discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe we can pursue this discussion in General Debates. Perceived derailment of other threads is not justification for derailing another one.
I'm going to start one when I'm back on a computer. Feel free to join or not based on whether you want to continue this discussion.

I post wherever I'm allowed & interested.
Your post seems peevish in its implication that I'm justifying derailing this one by my objection to derailment of others by other posters. I don't see that my point is derailment. Sexism against males in embedded in some of the divisive language in feminism, eg, "patriarchy", "mansplaining".
Feel free to disagree, but not by misrepresenting my intent.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I post wherever I'm allowed & interested.
Your post seems peevish in its implication that I'm justifying derailing this one by my objection to derailment of others by other posters. I don't see that my point is derailment. Sexism against males in embedded in some of the divisive language in feminism, eg, "patriarchy", "mansplaining". Feel free to disagree, but not by misrepresenting my intent.

I don't think "patriarchy" and "mansplaining" are divisive; they are mere descriptions of issues that feminists are noting and challenging. I also think "male gaze" is a very precise and useful description of another social phenomenon.

You are free to point out where you believe anyone has misrepresented your intent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think "patriarchy" and "mansplaining" are divisive; they are mere descriptions of issues that feminists are noting and challenging. I also think "male gaze" is a very precise and useful description of another social phenomenon.

While "male gaze" is a gender based term, I didn't include it in that particular post because is objectively descriptive (even if so broad as to offend, as with terms like "jungle fever"). Terms to describe an issue can be neutral or divisive. Should the looting in Ferguson be called "black looting" or "blooting"? It would be accurate, but it would be decried as racist because the term taints all black folk, not just the offenders. Feminism has built-in sexism when it plays this same game with terminology. "Mansplaining" is.....dang....is it really necessary to explain why it's a sexist term? "Feminazi" is a "very precise and useful description of another social phenomenon" also, but I avoid it because it's divisive.

Terminology which carries adverse judgement of an entire group carries more meaning than is ostensibly intended. Think of the problem of "women drivers". Why not just say "bad drivers"? Because it bespeaks the utterer's animosity towards the group. One might defend by saying, "But I like & respect women!". The language says otherwise.

You are free to point out where you believe anyone has misrepresented your intent.

I accept your clarification that you didn't intend that.

 

[Revoltingest]

On divisive language

A group of people who are comfortable with a particular vocabulary will feel a certain way about employing it. They can honestly think it's acceptable to all. But they might not understand that people outside that group will read their jargon very differently. You defend it as precise, neutral & useful because that's what you feel. But how you feel doesn't govern my take on the same language. If you have no intent to insult, but I tell you that it does, & you continue to use the language, then this becomes an intentional act conveying an insult.

Let's analyze "patriarchy".
The problem is unfair restrictions on women relative to men (& vice versa to some of us). But "patriarchy" isn't about the problem...rather, it's about the cause.

From etymonlinecom....
patriarchy (n.)
1560s, in ecclesiastical sense, from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhes (see patriarch). Meaning "system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community" first recorded 1630s.

....we see that this term presumes description of the source of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Id est, it is a judgement instead of the problem. There are certainly historical bases in patriarchy which linger in problems we have today, but it is false to allude to those historical structures holding the same gender disparity of power in this age. Better terms would be "gender inequity", "gender disparity", or "sexism" because they describe what is wrong, rather than proffering the cause.

 

[dust1n]

When did I ever say it was me?

Well, I fail heavily to see the connection between my post three years ago and speculating on whether "someone" wouldn't feel bad for a rape victim.

There was certainly no implication in my original post to suggest rape victims deserve less care in anyway. Thanks for your... interesting post.

 

[dust1n]

But that curry is in fact dead.
Zing!

Dang. I should have went with Raita.

Back to your earlier post.....
What's your opinion about the significance of anarcho-feminist flag slogan, "Dead men don't rape"?

Well, at the time, I think I meant to communicate that Mystic's means of communicating feminist ideas are admirable. "Dead men don't rape," is like the 19 year old middle class equivalent of someone having like a "Property protected by AR-15" on their porch. Crass, I suppose, but perhaps effective? Either way, it's not a serious discussion.

Anyway, retrospectively, it didn't bother me that much, since I don't really remember it at all. I'd be hypocritical to complain about a lack of tact in a little pointless slogans, considering the jokes I try to sell on stage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, at the time, I think I meant to communicate that Mystic's means of communicating feminist ideas are admirable. "Dead men don't rape," is like the 19 year old middle class equivalent of someone having like a "Property protected by AR-15" on their porch. Crass, I suppose, but perhaps effective? Either way, it's not a serious discussion.
Anyway, retrospectively, it didn't bother me that much, since I don't really remember it at all. I'd be hypocritical to complain about a lack of tact in a little pointless slogans, considering the jokes I try to sell on stage.

Perhaps it should bother us to have the misandrist element of feminism proclaiming "Dead men don't rape". This differs from "Property protected by AR-15" because it addresses would be burglar or assailant, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. To make an analogy, would a flag saying "Dead blacks don't loot" be acceptable? People generally don't like seeing slogans about how great it would be if they were dead.

The reality of slogans exhorting violence against males in general is that it could contribute to an inordinate fear of men & rape, leading to calls for lower standards of justice for accused males. This is leading to actual cases of injustice, & also to exposure of sloppy persecution of innocent defendants. This harms not only the falsely accused, but also rape victims who might become more afraid of being doubted upon coming forward.

 

[dust1n]

Perhaps it should bother us to have the misandrist element of feminism proclaiming "Dead men don't rape". This differs from "Property protected by AR-15" because it addresses would be burglar or assailant, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. To make an analogy, would a flag saying "Dead blacks don't loot" be acceptable? People generally don't like seeing slogans about how great it would be if they were dead.

The reality of slogans exhorting violence against males in general is that it could contribute to an inordinate fear of men & rape, leading to calls for lower standards of justice for accused males. This is leading to actual cases of injustice, & also to exposure of sloppy persecution of innocent defendants. This harms not only the falsely accused, but also rape victims who might become more afraid of being doubted upon coming forward.

Personally, slogans exhorting violence against someone attempting to rape you are entirely fine with me. I believe people have the right to defend themselves, up and including the taking of a life. I suspect your analogy might as off as mine may be.

It would be more analogous to a sign that says "Dead People Don't Rob." Although "Dead People Don't Rape" would be more appropriate, I'm not naive enough to pretend like women are very much concerned with other women raping them, presumably because the risk is much lower.

The silly slogan doesn't implicate all living males as rapists, it indicates that attempted rape will be met with violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, slogans exhorting violence against someone attempting to rape you are entirely fine with me. I believe people have the right to defend themselves, up and including the taking of a life. I suspect your analogy might as off as mine may be.

The problem with the feminist slogan "Dead men don't rape" is that it isn't about rapists...it's about men....dead ones....presumably making them dead so they won't rape. This is a problem I see with some highly visible elements of feminism....they say things like this, & they blithely defend them, unaware of the bigotry so apparent to others.

It would be more analogous to a sign that says "Dead People Don't Rob." Although "Dead People Don't Rape" would be more appropriate, I'm not naive enough to pretend like women are very much concerned with other women raping them, presumably because the risk is much lower.
The silly slogan doesn't implicate all living males as rapists, it indicates that attempted rape will be met with violence.

The "silly" slogans, along with vicious false accusations we endure, alienate people who don't identify as a feminist.

 

[dust1n]

The problem with the feminist slogan "Dead men don't rape" is that it isn't about rapists...it's about men....dead ones....presumably making them dead so they won't rape. This is a problem I see with some highly visible elements of feminism....they say things like this, & they blithely defend them, unaware of the bigotry so apparent to others.

No, it's about rapists, as this would be basically obvious to anyone who would be sporting that. I suspect the majority of feminists are far more concerned about being raped than how to perceive the highly visible elements of feminism.

Either way...

I see it was tactless sloganeering,

You see it as an attack and any and all man,

And the other dude sees it as a reason why "someone" would care less about rape victims.

OH well, it's not something I drop most emotional stock into.

But I would recommend steering clear of my comedy routine, but a slogan like that is like child's play compared to my sensibilities.

The "silly" slogans, along with vicious false accusations we endure, alienate people who don't identify as a feminist.

What vicious false accusation have you endured?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it's about rapists, as this would be basically obvious to anyone who would be sporting that.

This relates to a problem I pointed out earlier. A slogan's intent can differ from likely inferences. To care not about the effect on others, is where the bigotry lies.

I suspect the majority of feminists are far more concerned about being raped than how to perceive the highly visible elements of feminism.

I've heard this before, ie, they don't care how they're perceived. But this raises a question....why discuss it with non-feminists if they don't care about perceptions of feminism? To not care about generating loathing is very counterproductive...unless it's about the catharsis of railing against one's perceived foes.

Either way...
I see it was tactless sloganeering,
You see it as an attack and any and all man,
And the other dude sees it as a reason why "someone" would care less about rape victims.
OH well, it's not something I drop most emotional stock into.

Oh, boy.....the stage is set for 2 polarized camps to merely fling poop at each other. (I'd prefer civil discourse, & picking parasites from each other's hair.)

But I would recommend steering clear of my comedy routine, but a slogan like that is like child's play compared to my sensibilities.

Duly noted.

What vicious false accusation have you endured?

Let's see......"misogynist", "rape apologist", lying, & psychological abuse by fraud ("gaslighting") come to mind. I don't think people grok that such rhetoric inspires loathing. (I have thin skin, you know.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nonetheless, an historical myth of interest only to martial arts historians should not be expected to be as significant today as Bruce Lee's place in modern culture around the world, & in martial arts. His own style left Wing Chun in the dustbin of obsolete artifacts.
Are we seeing a feminist attempt to minimize his accomplishments in favor a woman who likely never even existed? Oh, how utterly lame & sexist that would be! Add to this the irony of anti-male sexism in this very thread.

I'm not trying to minimize anything. Rather, I am pointing out that to many, who do believe Wing Chun was started by a woman, it isn't considered lowly or shameful. You probably aren't going to find many among that group who would laugh a woman and underestimate her in a fight just for being a woman.

 

[dust1n]

This relates to a problem I pointed out earlier. A slogan's intent can differ from likely inferences. To care not about the effect on others, is where the bigotry lies.

Whatever dumb knick-knack you keep in your room has little to no effect on others. It certainly has none on me, and I was a roommate. By the way, I didn't state anyone doesn't care about how people perceive feminism, but that people tend to have a higher set of more immediate needs. Most people are not polite about their notions of self defense.

But speaking of intentions and inferences, I tend not to pay much attention anymore to things people say or believe, mostly because they generally hold no weight. Most people don't even put effort into communication. No one knows much about themselves, their aims, their goals, their perceptions of a complicated world narrated by a collage of nonsense commentators.

My roommate wasn't a perfect person. But I tend to let whatever miniature psychosis people foster for themselves, and rather observe how they interact with others than manipulate it, lest it becomes problematic.

Oh, boy.....the stage is set for 2 polarized camps to merely fling poop at each other. (I'd prefer civil discourse, & picking parasites from each other's hair.)

Well, let them have at it. I was just responding to responses 3 years too late.

Let's see......"misogynist", "rape apologist", lying, & psychological abuse by fraud ("gaslighting") come to mind. I don't think people grok that such rhetoric inspires loathing. (I have thin skin, you know.)

Oh I see. You seem to be mixing up whatever experiences you have independent about my roommates dumb slogan, and interactions you've had with various people. I don't see how they connect though. But like I implicated earlier, words are sort of meaningless, people don't really know how to use and most don't really tend to care to know how to use it, and its prevalent in most people in most social groups. But they're trying their best and all, for the most part.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not trying to minimize anything. Rather, I am pointing out that to many, who do believe Wing Chun was started by a woman, it isn't considered lowly or shameful. You probably aren't going to find many among that group who would laugh a woman and underestimate her in a fight just for being a woman.

I'm not one to laugh at people for being tiny or frail anyway. Still, I don't buy into the martial arts cliche that size doesn't matter. I'll add that a gal skilled in modern MMA would likely take apart a Wing Chun practitioner. Just guess'n.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever dumb knick-knack you keep in your room has little to no effect on others.

As is a bed sheet with eye holes, such an artifact itself is innocent of any wrongdoing. But its very existence speaks to someone's attitude.

It certainly has none on me, and I was a roommate. By the way, I didn't state anyone doesn't care about how people perceive feminism, but that people tend to have a higher set of more immediate needs. Most people are not polite about their notions of self defense.

I don't speak of you as not caring....but others on RF said so. We may be vigilant & vocal about our intent to defend ourselves, but we needn't say we're specifically out to kill, men, women, blacks, or groundskeepers.

But speaking of intentions and inferences, I tend not to pay much attention anymore to things people say or believe, mostly because they generally hold no weight. Most people don't even put effort into communication. No one knows much about themselves, their aims, their goals, their perceptions of a complicated world narrated by a collage of nonsense commentators.

I sympathize.....I recommend avoiding most TV & radio talk shows....& most electioneering. (As 2016 approaches, we're coming upon the dark days of communication.)

My roommate wasn't a perfect person. But I tend to let whatever miniature psychosis people foster for themselves, and rather observe how they interact with others than manipulate it, lest it becomes problematic.
Well, let them have at it. I was just responding to responses 3 years too late.

Necromancing posts & threads is weird to come across...the context has been long forgotten.

Oh I see. You seem to be mixing up whatever experiences you have independent about my roommates dumb slogan, and interactions you've had with various people. I don't see how they connect though. But like I implicated earlier, words are sort of meaningless, people don't really know how to use and most don't really tend to care to know how to use it, and its prevalent in most people in most social groups. But they're trying their best and all, for the most part.

Words do have meaning. But I see that many are careless about their usage....altering meaning, & thoughtless about effects. The connection is that jargon unifies a group, & bespeaks shared attitudes.