But "permissive" begins with a "p" too?
This type of analysis is too sophisticated for me.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why I'm Not A "Feminist"
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
- Status
This type of analysis is too sophisticated for me.
Will do!
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So does poo-poo.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
She even refused to pay taxes to protest the war. Feminists do not want to see any child go off to war whether that child is male or female.
Note that I was addressing the draft, not the war.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
They weren't pro-draft either. Robin Morgan was particularly vocal and more when it came to the draft.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Confirmation bias at work on your part. I can see that time more objectively because I have distance from it. And I know for a fact that most of the prominent feminist of the time were against both the draft and the war.
The doling out of rewards to those who "get with the program" or "play the game" or "abide by the system" is not liberation or freedom, it just extends and perpetuates the system of dominance. It's is the accumulation and control of wealth and power into the hands of the few that is the problem.
I am not a victim, I am a rebel.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Everyone was against the draft, I think what he's getting at is, did they address the sexist nature of the draft or were they just anti-draft in general?
I did not say they were pro-draft.
We all feel immune to confirmation bias, but fall short.
I notice how your posts miss the specificity of my claims, which suggests you're biased to see my views differently from what I state. Let's not try to justify why one is right & the other is wrong. This thread is about personal perspective & perception.
That's a rather broad claim, so I don't know how to address it.
This is good. But I still sense what I sense.
Not everyone was against it. There were different reasons proffered:
- It was fair in the sense that males with low draft numbers represented racial & socio-economic diversity. Of course, money & connections skewed that a little, eg, Bill Clinton.
- It was cheap because gov didn't have to pay a wage & bennies which would attract someone voluntarily. Of course, the long term costs received little attention because they were deferred, eg, lifetime health care for the survivors. And the loss of life hurt the economy.
- It was patriotic. I can't recall the tortured argument to justify this one.
Even as recently, some Democrats tried to revive the draft for the above reasons, eg, Charlie Rangel.
Caution:
Before anyone takes feminist oriented offense at this post, let me state that this one is not about feminism.
Now to poke the hornet's nest another time.....
I'd forgotten one thing common among feminists which always puzzled & shocked me.
It might just be a vocal feminist element which gives me this impression, but their attitude towards sexual assault is horribly dysfunctional & vociferously proffered. Whenever the discussion turns to taking responsibility avoiding rape, it always (yes, always) devolves into empty accusations of "blaming the victim". It's often justified by saying they shouldn't have to do anything because it's the rapist who is in the wrong. Well of course they're in the wrong...which is why one should take reasonable measures to reduce the risk one of these wrongdoers might rape one. To advise taking steps to reduce the risk of assault is so worthwhile (I gave sources in another thread), yet some avowed feminists say it is entirely ineffective to take any reasonable step to mitigate risk, eg, avoid getting drunk, avoiding dangerous situations. It seem there is no one more immediately dangerous to my daughter than feminists who advise her to engage in risky behavior without a care in the world. Fortunately, she has better sense.
Note: If this seems harsh, bear in mind that far darker thoughts are roiling in my head.
I've exercised discretion.
I'd forgotten one thing common among feminists which always puzzled & shocked me.
It might just be a vocal feminist element which gives me this impression, but their attitude towards sexual assault is horribly dysfunctional & vociferously proffered. Whenever the discussion turns to taking responsibility avoiding rape, it always (yes, always) devolves into empty accusations of "blaming the victim". It's often justified by saying they shouldn't have to do anything because it's the rapist who is in the wrong. Well of course they're in the wrong...which is why one should take reasonable measures to reduce the risk one of these wrongdoers might rape one. To advise taking steps to reduce the risk of assault is so worthwhile (I gave sources in another thread), yet some avowed feminists say it is entirely ineffective to take any reasonable step to mitigate risk, eg, avoid getting drunk, avoiding dangerous situations. It seem there is no one more immediately dangerous to my daughter than feminists who advise her to engage in risky behavior without a care in the world. Fortunately, she has better sense.
Note: If this seems harsh, bear in mind that far darker thoughts are roiling in my head.
I've exercised discretion.
Last edited:
Perhaps because for male and female victims of rape, roughly 85% of the perpetrators are people the victims know and trust. Risk assessment in these scenarios are only effective for 15% of sexual assaults.
There is a page on RAINN that discuss how to prevent stranger rape. So, I don't believe you've accurately portrayed the argument.
But for 85% of sexual assaults, it isn't because of risky behavior. It is because a victim has been targeted and the crime has been pre-meditated by someone the victim knows or is acquainted with.
No, I've reviewed the current thread on rape & blame, & stand by what I say.
You may argue that taking precautions is ineffective in most cases, & thereby dismiss the advice.
But resistance to even reasonable advice, disagreements or criticism is a problem in feminism, making
it abundantly clear that I do not belong in the movement. (It ain't like I'd get along in that DIR anyway.)
I'll just stick with the equality thingie. We can remain allies.
Even then, to dismiss out of hand the possibility that one can reduce risk is dangerous in its oblivity.
I fear for those who take this to heart.
Now for a trite quote:
"By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail." - Ben Franklin
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well....... yes.
I have noticed that when writing about rape, feminists refer to 'female victims and targets'. And so an unknown and (so far) immeasurable % of the victims, the males, are not included. Rape victims are people.
Alceste
Vagabond
Read the Gloria Steinem essay work in progress posted and you'll find that she felt that women should (and wanted to) carry an equal load in indochina, but did not believe in the draft system.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Risk reduction and avoidance should not be a choice, it should be considered as a responsibility.
I can't complete the other half of that tenet for fear that it would start a row, but amongst Eggies I could. Straight up.
Alceste
Vagabond
I haven't seen much of that here, to be honest. I'm always careful to use gender neutral terms to describe victims and assailants, and often find myself reminding people that we are NOT only talking about female victims of male sexual assault.
If anything, it's the "careful what you wear" crowd that persistently frames rape as something men do to women because they're showing too much cleavage, walking alone at night, having a drink in a pub or other such nonsense.
You could post it to me by PM or use a spolier.
(Things can't get worse than they are....I think.)
Hey, a related story:
As a landlord, I've dealt with 3 (possibly 4) Unity Church ministers, & got to know'm pretty well. The church had a philosophy that whatever you think of will be delivered by the universe. One minister said he was severely criticized for wanting to put curtains on the window to hide his new computer. (This was back in the day when the things were spendy & theftogenic.) Some in his flock said that even thinking of a robbery would cause it to happen. Wearing seat belts? It will cause you to get into a fender bender. They really believed in going thru life with a Pollyanna attitude. Some people's brains just work differently from ours, & the like minded flock together. I like many of the people in Unity Church & feminism, but I wouldn't want to join'm.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Let me try. One 'Mens' issue', not particularly with feminists but with a significant % of females is that they expect men to be the ones to walk into conflict on their behalf. This is an imprinted mindset but it must change now.
One example that springs to mind is our brave merchant seamen, Canadians, Americans and Brits, who were insulted and given white feathers by women whilst they waited, ashore, to run the gauntlet again....... and again....
The mindset exists, and it existed, even as women prepared to demonstrate for their right to vote..... terrified young men were preparing to be cannon (and torpedo) fodder.
- Status