Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Riverwolf]

Man parked up by Deal beech, looking out to sea. Stranger (a man) rushes up to man's car.... 'Help! Help! my little dog is in the sea. Please come!' Sightseer goes to help, and at the bottom of the beech, out of sight, the stranger attacks man, throws him on his front and rapes him, right there on the beech, then says, 'Stay here. Don't move or I will kill you'. Leaves.

Man had the guts to report this to Police, and be recognised by the press as the victim. Many don't. They know they got raped.

I'm glad he reported it and was recognized as a victim. The media seems to have problems with proper recognition of who the victim is, lately...

But the thing is, that kind public assault rape is a relatively uncommon form of it.

That one can be difficult. A bloke I knew 50 years ago would boast that if a girl resisted his advances (initial resistance) he would stop dead, let go, end of..... and this (he boasted) would almost always result in the girl's surprise, and then her touching cuddling and acceptance when he resumed his advances, on to intercourse.

It's the Jury that decides.

That's not the sort of thing that was on my mind(and frankly it sounds incredibly suspicious and even more creepy).

Ever see Goldfinger?

...... So, basically, the only way that a woman can rape a male is by seducing a minor? Any others? I can't think of any. Sexual assault is different, I'm thinking of rape...... ?

Not a very good book IMO, and out of style for the author, but check out Michael Crichton's Disclosure for an example of what adult woman on adult male rape can look like. (There's a movie, but I never saw it, so I don't know if it's accurate).

 

[oldbadger]

I'm glad he reported it and was recognized as a victim. The media seems to have problems with proper recognition of who the victim is, lately...

But the thing is, that kind public assault rape is a relatively uncommon form of it.

I don't think we can ever know, because many similar victims will never report such crimes. Victims suffer from shame....... isn't that bloody awful?

 

[oldbadger]

That's not the sort of thing that was on my mind(and frankly it sounds incredibly suspicious and even more creepy).

I don't think it's suspicious at all. A person says (or shows) 'No', so the other person stops completely. Does not move, does not continue...... the contrary factor? I believed him.... still do.

Ever see Goldfinger?

Yeah...... but long time ago..... what did he do, apart from collect gold, play golf and paint women gold all over to kill them? (Well.... you know what I mean).

 

[Leftimies]

What you describe is just the tip of the iceberg.



And that's the goal. What you describe is something that aspires to maintain an egalitarian status quo.

But we have to be in an egalitarian state, first, and the US isn't anywhere near that, yet (though we're a lot better than we were 50 years ago).



Google "Anita Sarkeesian harassment" and I think you'll see what I mean.

After googling that, I feel violated. Physically violated and utterly disgusted. I did not know that kind of phenomena existed in internet. Sure I knew some twelve-year olds practiced that, but I had no idea it reached such extents. Definitely work to be done in the States, then.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think we can ever know, because many similar victims will never report such crimes. Victims suffer from shame....... isn't that bloody awful?

Yes, and it needs to stop.

The solution? Education. (As always. ^_^)

I don't think it's suspicious at all. A person says (or shows) 'No', so the other person stops completely. Does not move, does not continue...... the contrary factor? I believed him.... still do.

If it weren't for the fact that you're talking about 50 years ago, I wouldn't believe it. Not one girl I know would go for that kind of tactic.

I'm not saying it's rape, but the fact that he boasted of it is what makes it creepy, not the act itself. It basically means he treated those women like prizes rather than people, and pretending to offer respect was his method of taking that prize. Boasting about it, however, reveals the true character.

Yeah...... but long time ago..... what did he do, apart from collect gold, play golf and paint women gold all over to kill them? (Well.... you know what I mean).

Actually, I'm not talking about anything Goldfinger did. I'm talking about Bond himself.

The scene near the end, when all hope seems lost, Bond and his female captor (whose name is "***** Galore", by the way) are in a barn, and they wrestle around for a little bit (he's being playful, she's not). Bond then pushes her to the ground, and despite her attempts to push him away, he manages to start making out with her. She's resistant at first, but quickly accepts it. We never see any clothes come off, since it's the 60s, but come on, this is James Freaking Bond we're talking about here.

That's rape.

 

[Apex]

I know this might surprise some people, but I am a feminist. Just not in the same manner as most self avowed feminists on this forum. I am a LDS Feminist. I consider feminism to be a term best applied in specific and limited ways. Basically akin to a scalpel. And in the LDS milieu I find feminism to fit perfectly.

I find feminism as defined as equality of all genders in the general world to be unnecessarily divisive. The name itself is a misnomer when used in such a way and simply has far too much baggage. Neither has the behavior of individual feminists I have seen online (both on and off this forum) made me very eager to join their cause, much less think I would even be welcome.

 

[Curious George]

I do wish I had been just a little older, and that Miss Wells (teacher) had raped the hell out of me. But I was only 11.
...... So, basically, the only way that a woman can rape a male is by seducing a minor? Any others? I can't think of any. Sexual assault is different, I'm thinking of rape...... ?


Fair enough..........


Interesting....... A man I knew well enough to confide with (He has died) had a fetish for cunnilingus on younger male adults (18-20ish). His fetish was particularly absurd to me because he needed the partner to be unwashed. This got started, (he confided to me) when much older boys forced him to do this when he was very young. Initially, he discovered that these same boys came to value him and protect him from any others.......... it built from there. Decades later, and still locked into this fetish, he could not recognise that those serious assaults, all those years before, had changed (screwed up?) his life forever.

I think you are using your personal definition of rape. different laws define rape and sexual assault differently. Some places have no rape laws, only sexual assault. What you are terming sexual assault is statutory rape. However, it is possible for a woman to put herself on an erect penis. An erection does not necessarily mean the guy is "into" it, or consenting. Moreover, a man does not have to be erect for oral sex, nor does a man have to be erect to have any number of things inserted into his anus. I personally find it disgusting that you would encourage molesters with your fantasies.

 

[Riverwolf]

I know this might surprise some people, but I am a feminist. Just not in the same manner as most self avowed feminists on this forum. I am a LDS Feminist. I consider feminism to be a term best applied in specific and limited ways. Basically akin to a scalpel. And in the LDS milieu I find feminism to fit perfectly.

I find feminism as defined as equality of all genders in the general world to be unnecessarily divisive. The name itself is a misnomer when used in such a way and simply has far too much baggage. Neither has the behavior of individual feminists I have seen online (both on and off this forum) made me very eager to join their cause, much less think I would even be welcome.

Gender equality is just the core value; there's a lot of variation.

The reason it's called "feminism" is because our culture sees masculine as the default, and feminine as deviation from the default. Seeking equality means we have to elevate the feminine into being part of the default, but not to the extent of bringing down the masculine in any way. The behavior you see is a natural reaction to the way we've been treated for identifying as feminists lately, and for recent events that have all but proven our cause is worth pursuing. Once the self-righteous fire burns, reason can easily be clouded. (When I realized that that fire was burning in me yesterday, I backed off until it died down.)

Could you explain why you think it's divisive?

 

[Apex]

Could you explain why you think it's divisive?

Here is an example: My wife was watching a youtube video of one of the popular youtubers. I don't know her name but she is a lesbian feminist and does a lot of videos on feminism and feminist issues. She had a guest on this particular video (I think he was a singer from a popular band) and her first question to him was this:

"Are you a Feminist or MRA?"

As if those terms are mutually exclusive. That is the kind of mindset that instantly turns me off to support feminism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is an example: My wife was watching a youtube video of one of the popular youtubers. I don't know her name but she is a lesbian feminist and does a lot of videos on feminism and feminist issues. She had a guest on this particular video (I think he was a singer from a popular band) and her first question to him was this:
"Are you a Feminist or MRA?"
As if those terms are mutually exclusive. That is the kind of mindset that instantly turns me off to support feminism.

I've gotten the impression here that female feminists are more accepting of argument from their fellows, than from males. It's as though they expect an anti-feminist script from men, & see that instead of actual language in the posts. Where this is apparent is in recommending taking steps to avoid rape. To generalize, if a male says the victim is not to blame, but advocates avoidance, this is initially decried as blaming the victim. (Some will even advocate against precautions, & there is tacit acceptance of this among them). But if a female feminist says the very same thing, the response is more accepting. This seems an anti-male bias which discourages taking full responsibility for their own safety.
This doesn't prevent me from adopting the label of "feminist", but it gives the culture of feminism a black eye, & makes'm difficult to talk to.

 

[Riverwolf]

Here is an example: My wife was watching a youtube video of one of the popular youtubers. I don't know her name but she is a lesbian feminist and does a lot of videos on feminism and feminist issues. She had a guest on this particular video (I think he was a singer from a popular band) and her first question to him was this:

"Are you a Feminist or MRA?"

As if those terms are mutually exclusive. That is the kind of mindset that instantly turns me off to support feminism.

That's just one feminist, and it's possible you misunderstood the context. I can't speak for the feminists I follow, since I don't know if they've been in that position, but I would NEVER do that. While I have problems with the original MRM, the concept of fighting to address and correct sexism towards men is part of modern sex-positive feminism, far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, thanks for finally providing a source! You get frubals.

 

[Riverwolf]

I've gotten the impression here that female feminists are more accepting of argument from their fellows, than from males. It's as though they expect an anti-feminist script from men, & see that instead of actual language in the posts. Where this is apparent is in recommending taking steps to avoid rape. To generalize, if a male says the victim is not to blame, but advocates avoidance, this is initially decried as blaming the victim. (Some will even advocate against precautions, & there is tacit acceptance of this among them). But if a female feminist says the very same thing, the response is more accepting. This seems an anti-male bias which discourages taking full responsibility for their own safety.
This doesn't prevent me from adopting the label of "feminist", but it gives the culture of feminism a black eye, & makes'm difficult to talk to.

When a violent crime happens, full responsibility is on the criminal, not the victim. Not even partially on the victim. The reason is because the victim is circumstantially present; the criminal would likely have committed the crime regardless.

That's not to say prevention isn't important, and I've never seen anyone say otherwise. But in addition to teaching people (men and women) how to avoid being raped (self-defense is a great tool for that), we should also be teaching people (again, men and women) how not to rape. Therefore, prevention goes both ways.

That script you mention isn't entirely unfounded; it's what they constantly hear over and over and over and OVER from men, rarely women, who seem quite serious about blaming the victim. It's been bad enough that key phrases can trigger an emotional response that obfuscates the intended argument. Happens to all of us on touchy subjects.

 

[Revoltingest]

When a violent crime happens, full responsibility is on the criminal, not the victim. Not even partially on the victim. The reason is because the victim is circumstantially present; the criminal would likely have committed the crime regardless.

Do you see no distinction between blame, & advocacy of exercising the ability to reduce the risk of assault?

That's not to say prevention isn't important....

Then why do feminists object so strongly to advocating it?
Or do they only object to measures taken by the potential victim?
I've heard the rationale that one shouldn't have to do personally do anything
because it's the rapist who is at fault. This is simply illogical, so I don't buy it.
Some have even poo pooed risk reduction as ineffective, suggesting inevitability.
That's embracing powerlessness.

and I've never seen anyone say otherwise.

I have.

But in addition to teaching people (men and women) how to avoid being raped (self-defense is a great tool for that), we should also be teaching people (again, men and women) how not to rape. Therefore, prevention goes both ways.

I've no argument with this. But I regularly get accused of "blaming the victim" when I state it.
And this is more to the point that I find feminists, particularly females, hostile to male views
(even when shared).

That script you mention isn't entirely unfounded; it's what they constantly hear over and over and over and OVER from men, rarely women, who seem quite serious about blaming the victim. It's been bad enough that key phrases can trigger an emotional response that obfuscates the intended argument. Happens to all of us on touchy subjects.

It "isn't entirely unfounded" is one of the most generous responses I've elicited here from a feminist. But if they prejudge us & ignore what we actually say, this is the very sexism they'd normally oppose. It matters little that I favor gender equality & that I say victims are blameless....as a male who doesn't adopt the brand, I'm often the enemy. It's a problem of the feminist culture (not the same as feminism) worth fixing if they want to spread awareness of their concerns & gain allies.

It seems no coincidence that we (a male feminist & a male non) can discuss it more easily than
I can with others here. (Of course, we share the trait of being unmanly....I saw your post there.)

Lest anyone think I'm not friends with some of the feminists I find prickly at times, fear not!
I see some of their personal histories, & understand how it can affect one. So I cut some slack.
Ain't none of use perfect, so a little spat shouldn't get in the way of conversation & friendship.

 

[Bunyip]

To clarify what this thread is about, I put "feminist" in quotation marks because I do not identify
with the label. But I favor gender equality as do many mainstream feminists. Heckfire, I even
took a test which classified me as a feminist. (Shocker, eh?)
So why eschew the label?
Tis because I see feminism as a movement embodying some general (with some diversity) traits.

Feminism:
- Focuses on females.
Sure, sure, some feminists also address disadvantages visited upon men.
But by & large, it's about the females. I noticed that they were very
silent about the military draft of men.
- Tends to dismiss the MRM (men's rights movement) as reactionary,
anti-feminism, whiny, or a subset of feminism (since their approach to
gender equality would fix all men's problems too).
- Advocates increased government authority. Affirmative action was a
fine tool for women, but it legalized active discrimination against men.
- Tolerates hostility in its own ranks against males. All gender inequity
is chalked up to "patriarchy", ie, it's the man's fault.
- Sees women as victims, failing to recognize & use the power they already have.
- Polarizes the abortion debate, making anti-abortion advocates out to be
anti-woman. I'm pro-abortion, but see this as a question of when life & attendant
civil rights begin. The whole "war on woman" campaign seems dishonest & divisive.

Is anyone else here a "non" (non-feminist) despite sympathy for the cause?
Why?

Note:
Don't take my generalities too far. I only see them as slight group tendencies.
Moreover, I don't say my perspective is THE TRUTH or any such foolishness.
I merely explain what I see, how I react, & what I believe.

Rules for this thread:
- Be civil to each other. After all, we're just disagreeing about important things.
- Go ahead & generalize, but be careful about over-generalizing.

I don't understand the argument here - sure feminism is focussed on women. The slow food movement is focussed on food, the Veterans affairs movement is focussed on Veterans affairs.

Of course feminism is primarily concerned with womens rights. Just as the Hotrod movement is primarily focussed on hotrods - and tends to ignore animal rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't understand the argument here - sure feminism is focussed on women. The slow food movement is focussed on food, the Veterans affairs movement is focussed on Veterans affairs.
Of course feminism is primarily concerned with womens rights. Just as the Hotrod movement is primarily focussed on hotrods - and tends to ignore animal rights.

It isn't an argument.
I don't want feminists to stop being feminists.
I just relate what about feminism keeps me from joining.

 

[freethinker44]

I've gotten the impression here that female feminists are more accepting of argument from their fellows, than from males. It's as though they expect an anti-feminist script from men, & see that instead of actual language in the posts. Where this is apparent is in recommending taking steps to avoid rape. To generalize, if a male says the victim is not to blame, but advocates avoidance, this is initially decried as blaming the victim. (Some will even advocate against precautions, & there is tacit acceptance of this among them). But if a female feminist says the very same thing, the response is more accepting. This seems an anti-male bias which discourages taking full responsibility for their own safety.
This doesn't prevent me from adopting the label of "feminist", but it gives the culture of feminism a black eye, & makes'm difficult to talk to.

That is interesting. I wonder how much of that behavior is an over reaction derived from a feeling of needing to protect women. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

 

[Bunyip]

It isn't an argument.
I don't want feminists to stop being feminists.
I just relate what about feminism keeps me from joining.

What I am asking is, why would you criticise the women's rights movement for being focussed on women's rights?

You also criticise feminism for being in support of women's reproductive rights, surely being pro-choice is in line with feminism in that it gives the right to choose to the woman who is pregnant? Not all feminists are pro-choice, but that many are seems a strange thing for you to object to.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I am asking is, why would you criticise the women's rights movement for being focussed on women's rights?

It isn't a criticism in the sense that I think it's wrong.
It just doesn't appeal to me.

You also criticise feminism for being in support of women's reproductive rights....

No I don't. But I do criticize an aspect of their campaign.
I find the "war on women" claim to be false & divisive.

....surely being pro-choice is in line with feminism in that it gives the right to choose to the woman who is pregnant? Not all feminists are pro-choice, but that many are seems a strange thing for you to object to.

I don't object to that at all.

 

[Bunyip]

It isn't a criticism in the sense that I think it's wrong.
It just doesn't appeal to me.


No I don't. But I do criticize an aspect of their campaign.


I don't object to that at all.

What is it that doesn't appeal to you about an issue based movement being focussed on that issue?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is it that doesn't appeal to you about an issue based movement being focussed on that issue?

There's no fundamental problem with the underlined portion.
I listed my reasons in the OP, & elaborated throughout the thread.