Retroactive Rape

[The Congregationists]

Its amazing how much anti-porn and anti-sex feminists have with evangelical Christians. Its kind of why they're not taken seriously by anyone.

You're right to point out how feminism and conservative Christianity overlap - the granola crunchers have pretty much picked up where the Vatican left off in jurasdictions where religion has lost its credibility.

As for not taken seriously, well nobody takes anti-sex feminism seriously. Nobody except:

* the courts
* the media - informational AND entertainment
* colleges and universities (especially)
* politicians and legislators to the left of Rick Santorum
* Women with college degrees
* Men eager to prove how progressive and enlightened they are

What I said earlier in this thread was actually quite serious. This WILL be what rape law looks like in fifteen years.

[Tahar Joblis]

...You're correct that they're concerned with the problems of women and not of men, but that doesn't mean feminists aren't out for equality. Widespread sexism does in fact exist (it didn't go away with the 19th amendment), and feminists are concerned with the female side of that because it is a one-way street.

But it's not a one-way street. There are plenty of ways in which men are discriminated against, and these ways are getting worse rather than getting better. And the unintended consequences of short-sighted remedies for women's problems sometimes create new men's problems.

And that means that feminists who focus only on the female side of the equation are not working for gender equality in fact, regardless of intention; and most especially not when they reflexively attack anyone attempting to work to protect men's rights.

[Tahar Joblis]

Its amazing how much anti-porn and anti-sex feminists have with evangelical Christians. Its kind of why they're not taken seriously by anyone.

You're right to point out how feminism and conservative Christianity overlap - the granola crunchers have pretty much picked up where the Vatican left off in jurasdictions where religion has lost its credibility.

As for not taken seriously, well nobody takes anti-sex feminism seriously. Nobody except:

* the courts
* the media - informational AND entertainment
* colleges and universities (especially)
* politicians and legislators to the left of Rick Santorum
* Women with college degrees
* Men eager to prove how progressive and enlightened they are

What I said earlier in this thread was actually quite serious. This WILL be what rape law looks like in fifteen years.

The sex-negative vein of feminism is very much the dominant vein in the here and now; in part because it can work hand in hand with more conservative groups on a number of issues.

Sex-negative feminists have a broader range of support that reaches further around the political spectrum. Sex-positive feminists cannot compete for the support of more conservative types; but sex-negative feminists can compete for the support of more liberal types.

[The Congregationists]

You're right to point out how feminism and conservative Christianity overlap - the granola crunchers have pretty much picked up where the Vatican left off in jurasdictions where religion has lost its credibility.

As for not taken seriously, well nobody takes anti-sex feminism seriously. Nobody except:

* the courts
* the media - informational AND entertainment
* colleges and universities (especially)
* politicians and legislators to the left of Rick Santorum
* Women with college degrees
* Men eager to prove how progressive and enlightened they are

What I said earlier in this thread was actually quite serious. This WILL be what rape law looks like in fifteen years.

The sex-negative vein of feminism is very much the dominant vein in the here and now; in part because it can work hand in hand with more conservative groups on a number of issues.

Sex-negative feminists have a broader range of support that reaches further around the political spectrum. Sex-positive feminists cannot compete for the support of more conservative types; but sex-negative feminists can compete for the support of more liberal types.

Word.

That men aren't good enough for women to have sex with is one of the very very few things the entire political spectrum agrees on. They just couch it in different terms - though among men we all seem to think ourselves exempt somehow. What I think this REALLY boils down to is survival of the fittest and competition for mates. Men who go down on false rape accusations, for example = one less competitor. So men either don't care, or are on some level actually kind of glad it happened. Especially if said man actually had more luck with women and made other men jealous. If it's too easy for men to find mates, the weak are more able to 'make the cut' and that goes against our instincts.

[The Congregationists]

...You're correct that they're concerned with the problems of women and not of men, but that doesn't mean feminists aren't out for equality. Widespread sexism does in fact exist (it didn't go away with the 19th amendment), and feminists are concerned with the female side of that because it is a one-way street.

But it's not a one-way street. There are plenty of ways in which men are discriminated against, and these ways are getting worse rather than getting better. And the unintended consequences of short-sighted remedies for women's problems sometimes create new men's problems.

And that means that feminists who focus only on the female side of the equation are not working for gender equality in fact, regardless of intention; and most especially not when they reflexively attack anyone attempting to work to protect men's rights.

I don't blame women's groups for this. Not one bit. Women are doing what virulant and healthy animals in a state of nature do - they look out for themselves, individually and collectively. Their actions are rational and completely understandable.

What I don't get is why men don't do likewise.

[Raeyh]

"Self-esteem/Respect of others"

Besides, if you have family, you already have fulfilled Love/Belonging.

A few things:
1. It's a hierarchy, the upper levels mean less if the lower levels are incomplete (although this is debated)
2. You've never heard of a dysfunctional family?
3. Did you not notice that both "sex" and "sexual intimacy" were on that chart?

Edit: typo and counting error

I can't accept it as factual if that's the case. It's basically saying sex is necessary to feel safety (the next step up), which is ridiculous and counter intuitive.

[Wikkiwallana]

A few things:
1. It's a hierarchy, the upper levels mean less if the lower levels are incomplete (although this is debated)
2. You've never heard of a dysfunctional family?
3. Did you not notice that both "sex" and "sexual intimacy" were on that chart?

Edit: typo and counting error

I can't accept it as factual if that's the case. It's basically saying sex is necessary to feel safety (the next step up), which is ridiculous and counter intuitive.

Funny thing, counter-intuitive is not the same as wrong. Figuring that out was one of the biggest leaps forward science ever made.

[Raeyh]

I can't accept it as factual if that's the case. It's basically saying sex is necessary to feel safety (the next step up), which is ridiculous and counter intuitive.

Funny thing, counter-intuitive is not the same as wrong. Figuring that out was one of the biggest leaps forward science ever made.

Usually science makes at least some sense. What if I put cobalt and diamonds on that chart? Everyone needs cobalt to be safe and diamonds for esteem. Having sex and sexual intimacy is just as random and inexplicable.

[Wikkiwallana]

Funny thing, counter-intuitive is not the same as wrong. Figuring that out was one of the biggest leaps forward science ever made.

Usually science makes at least some sense. What if I put cobalt and diamonds on that chart? Everyone needs cobalt to be safe and diamonds for esteem. Having sex and sexual intimacy is just as random and inexplicable.

Or, you know, researched by a psychologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs

[Aorum]

Really, there are people who say Valerie Solanas was purely satirical in writing SCUM, even after she shot a man and said that the manifesto should cover all her reasons for doing so. She was pretty clearly a nutter and mentally ill, and there folks are trying to say that she was writing deep satire, rather than sincerely expressing one heck of a fucked-up view of the world.

I consider that a moral act. And I consider it immoral that I missed. I should have done target practice.
—Valerie Solanas on her assassination attempt on Andy Warhol.

[Aorum]

The same way blacks can be disadvantaged even though we have a black president.

Being disadvantaged is different to oppressed.

[Aorum]

Having made those positive assertions and used the word "always," I assume you are prepared to back them up with facts and figures. And remember, you said "always." Take your time, be accurate.

As for the things under your spoiler, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Always was the wrong wording, my apologies.
But it is most of the time, just look at recent court documents of divorces involving parents in your area.

The images under my spoiler were not intended to be a representation of the entire female gender, but rather something to show that women are not always the "oppressed ones".

The point is that sexism against men is acceptable, not many women are sexist, but those who are tend to be praised by their fellow women and even by the male-dominated legal system.

[Aorum]

Oh god just shut up already.
"System of male privilege"
That's bullshit and you know it. If anything, men are disadvantaged.

Who gets all the money in a divorce? Women. Whomever the courts decide is most deserving of it depending upon the circumstances presented. In almost all circumstances the woman gains more than the man.
Who can scream rape and ruin your life? Women. Anyone. Men get raped, too. In the UK it is legally impossible for a man to be raped.
Who is obligated to pay for the dinner at a date? MenWhomever is in the most desperate need of getting laid. There is a cultural assumption that men should always pay.
Who is obligated to buy their partner nice things? Men Mutual obligation. How many wives buy the wedding rings?
Who is obligated to pay support for the child in a divorce? Men Whomever has custody of the children. I don't think that's true.
Who always gets custody of the child in a divorce? WomenThe most fit parent. Almost always the mother.
Who decides when the couple can / cannot have sex? Women Both parties, unless it's rape. There is a stereotype that men are sex obsessed, which women frequently use against them.

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

I'm not saying women are inferior to men, but god damn it FST, your arguments are completely flawed. Perhaps 60 years ago, they would be valid points. But now? No. Get over it, you are not automatically an oppressor if you have something protruding out of your pelvic area.

Fix'd

Also: "Shut up" is not typically conducive to the proceedings of a debate. Just saying.

Let's be real here

[Malgrave]

This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

[Wikkiwallana]

This has got to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

Don't be so modest. It's got to be one of the worst ideas anyone's ever heard.

[Whakeheke]

I'll listen, It just doesn't mean I think you're right.

Also, I think I may have mis-phrased this. I often hear feminists say their out for gender equality, but they only try to fix the issues of women. Rarely have I heard a feminist whine about an issue affecting men.

I'm saying they are hypocrites. You can't be for Gender Equality and only focus on one of the sexes.

I'll listen, but I don't think you're right at all.

Men are in a dominant position (or, at the very least, if you don't believe this yourself, this is the standpoint feminism works from). If you're out for gender equality, why should you focus on men as well? Why NOT focus on the one sex that is disadvantaged? In the same way, if you're out for racial equality, why should you agitate for the white man? Why not just agitate for people of color? What's the reason for this mysterious balance of yours?

It isn't as though men and whites and whatever the hell can't fight *back*. It's not as though they don't have a voice, or that people working for the disadvantaged get to decide everything. All you're doing is placing some mysterious burden on people fighting for justice and equality, the idea that they have to consider both themselves and the enemy. Do whites consider those of other races when they try and maintain a racist order? Do men consider women when they maintain sexist positions? You are, effectively, doubling the burden of everyone who might be trying to fight against the status quo. Whites and men *can fight back*. If the playing field isn't level, there's no point trying to consider how to make everyone exactly equal with not a whit of imbalance on one side or the other - the first order of business is to *level the playing field*, and that isn't accomplished by considering the advantaged just as much as you consider the disadvantaged. As though working to help the poor means you need to consider the rich just as strongly. This is a silly fallacious thing. I don't meant to say that a lack of consideration is a tit for tat retribution for an equal lack of consideration, but that it's an irrelevant issue.

[Gravlen]

In the UK it is legally impossible for a man to be raped.

You should tell that to Andrew Richards:

1995: First man jailed for male rape
A man with a history of sex offences has been jailed for life for the attempted rape of another man, in the first case of its kind.

In sentencing 26-year-old Andrew Richards, Judge Richard Lowry said he was using new powers provided by last year's Criminal Justice Act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/9/newsid_2500000/2500803.stm

i.e. you're mistaken.

[Whakeheke]

...You're correct that they're concerned with the problems of women and not of men, but that doesn't mean feminists aren't out for equality. Widespread sexism does in fact exist (it didn't go away with the 19th amendment), and feminists are concerned with the female side of that because it is a one-way street.

But it's not a one-way street. There are plenty of ways in which men are discriminated against, and these ways are getting worse rather than getting better. And the unintended consequences of short-sighted remedies for women's problems sometimes create new men's problems.

And that means that feminists who focus only on the female side of the equation are not working for gender equality in fact, regardless of intention; and most especially not when they reflexively attack anyone attempting to work to protect men's rights.

Culturally speaking, many of the ways men are "disadvantaged" (ie being expected to put women first, to offer them the best, to ply them with gifts, etc.) are seen by many feminists as part of the patriarchal system (this is not an argument I am familiar with, do not ask me to explain it, but I am aware that it exists) - I would think you've heard of feminists who reflexively attack men opening doors for them, paying for them, etc. Some of that applies in a legal sense too - some have argued that divorce courts place the burden on men and take custody away from them more frequently due to old ideas about a woman's ability to support herself/a family and her natural role as a caretaker.

Do I buy all these arguments? No, not quite. Is it quite one-way? No. Are there points where men are disadvantaged? Sure. But frankly? It is still mostly one-way. Women are objectified to a degree that has nothing even resembling an equal when it comes to men. In businesses and corporations, women are still unable to rise to the top ranks and are passed up for promotions in the low and medium ranks too - you can argue that they're simply not as good, but given the attitudes towards women reflected by IMF personnel and employees of places like Goldman Sachs (and extrapolating those attitudes to similar elite institutions), it is very obviously not a matter of actual competence deficiencies. Women constantly have to walk around with a fear of rape or assault - you may argue that this is simply due to their natural physical deficiencies, but that wasn't the case in many cultures (ie what we know of Incan and Mongolian order). Women constantly have to deal with being *blamed* for being raped. Women still receive less income on average for the same jobs (much as people of color do). Etc. etc. etc. In light of what's faced by women, frankly, I would say it is effectively one-way, and for feminists to focus on the female side of things (given the long steps that still need to be taken) doesn't mean they're anti-equality, just that they are focusing on the female side of things. Having that focus doesn't mean equality isn't a concern.

And this doesn't go into the idea of patriarchy harming men either. This is brought up in feminist theory, bell hooks being a prominent proponent, but the enforcement of sexist gender normative roles also forces men into certain roles - the warrior, the strong man, the emotionless provider, etc. Boys being berated for being "sissy" or forced to "man up" is pretty common (in media as well) - that's one of the examples, but the main idea is that misogyny forces both men and women into certain roles (women's role being degraded by far), harming both of them. This is one of the things that's often brought up

You can believe that or not as you please, but there ARE, in fact, feminists who fight for men's side of things where they are actually unfairly treated by the system. As I said earlier, this is what happens every time - those agitating are judged by their worst, those in the status quo are judged by their betters. But feminists aren't about fighting for equality, 100%, full-stop - they fight to knock down the system where inequality is ingrained. If working for social equality required one to be constantly on guard for going too far or stepping on toes, it would be hell and impossible. The burden of the disadvantaged can't be twofold, to care both about their own position AND the position of their oppressors.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but at any rate, I'm done doing a rough unpacking.

[Tahar Joblis]

The point is that sexism against men is acceptable, not many women are sexist, but those who are tend to be praised by their fellow women and even by the male-dominated legal system.

I disagree.

Most men and most women are sexist.

Men are in a dominant position (or, at the very least, if you don't believe this yourself, this is the standpoint feminism works from). If you're out for gender equality, why should you focus on men as well? Why NOT focus on the one sex that is disadvantaged? In the same way, if you're out for racial equality, why should you agitate for the white man? Why not just agitate for people of color? What's the reason for this mysterious balance of yours?

Because life isn't one dimensional; and because making space in both directions is how the balance moves.

In the case of blacks and whites, matters were much more unilateral than with the sexes. Dominant or not, men and women have had for quite some time unique opportunities that the other did not.

Even so, historically black universities could and did admit more white students after desegregation. Think about that for a minute.

The premise that men are advantaged is at best simplistic, and at worst inaccurate. We know - and by we I can include many feminist intellectuals - that it's important to consider the male half of the problem of sexism. Gloria Steinem knows that it is important to rethink masculinity (here if you don't believe me) and I fully agree.

But what Gloria Steinem says, one of leading lights of feminism or not, does not reflect the actual action of feminist lobbying groups on the ground. It is much simpler to be simplistic.

And at this point in time, it is very much not clear that men are advantaged as a class. Some men are; the richest and most powerful people are men. But more ordinary men are not. They are imprisoned with great frequency; they are falling behind in the educational system; they are unable to work with or be around children without worrying about accusations of pedophilia; et cetera. What we have in the here and now is not a clear case of male advantage; it is instead a case where men are advantaged or disadvantaged depending on context.

[Tahar Joblis]

Culturally speaking, many of the ways men are "disadvantaged" (ie being expected to put women first, to offer them the best, to ply them with gifts, etc.) are seen by many feminists as part of the patriarchal system (this is not an argument I am familiar with, do not ask me to explain it, but I am aware that it exists) - I would think you've heard of feminists who reflexively attack men opening doors for them, paying for them, etc.

It isn't necessarily reflexive. It's often a carefully thought-out reaction.

Some feminists are reacting reflexive to the behavior because it seems like an old-fashioned gender-based norm. Others do so out of careful forethought; they understand that when one party goes to great and obvious trouble to smooth the way for the other party, it incurs obligation; that equal benefits require starting with equal obligations and equal investments.

Women constantly have to walk around with a fear of rape or assault - you may argue that this is simply due to their natural physical deficiencies, but that wasn't the case in many cultures (ie what we know of Incan and Mongolian order).

IMO, women don't have to walk around with a constant fear of rape or assault.

They do so now more than twenty or forty years ago, even though their odds of becoming a victim are lower now. Fear is a part of our culture; we teach it to women.

[Raeyh]

Usually science makes at least some sense. What if I put cobalt and diamonds on that chart? Everyone needs cobalt to be safe and diamonds for esteem. Having sex and sexual intimacy is just as random and inexplicable.

Or, you know, researched by a psychologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs

From this point forward I respect Maslow as much as I respect Freud. Which is to say, I think he's a total pervert who has no basis in reality.

[Arkinesia]

You're still forgetting that I'm not necessarily endorsing it. I simply posted it and played devil's advocate for it. I was ambivalent from the start, if you actually read the OP.

We have ALL dealt with you enough to know how you work. And that the mods will be here in a few hours, Days at most and shut it down for being a blog. As is the natural way

I don't think you understand how ‘get a blog’ posts play out.

They usually don't include fodder for discussion like this OP.

[Socialdemokraterne]

As for not taken seriously, well nobody takes anti-sex feminism seriously. Nobody except:

* the courts
* the media - informational AND entertainment
* colleges and universities (especially)
* politicians and legislators to the left of Rick Santorum
* Women with college degrees
* Men eager to prove how progressive and enlightened they are

What I said earlier in this thread was actually quite serious. This WILL be what rape law looks like in fifteen years.

But "guilty until proven innocent" makes a mockery of due process. It's an insult to any justice system that can actually legitimately be called such! What steps can we take to halt this insanity? Accusers should always have to prove the guilt of the accused, the accused should never have to prove their innocence. To set up the system otherwise would be a travesty.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

As for not taken seriously, well nobody takes anti-sex feminism seriously. Nobody except:

* the courts
* the media - informational AND entertainment
* colleges and universities (especially)
* politicians and legislators to the left of Rick Santorum
* Women with college degrees
* Men eager to prove how progressive and enlightened they are

What I said earlier in this thread was actually quite serious. This WILL be what rape law looks like in fifteen years.

I've got a couple of quotes to share with you.

"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand."

-Bodie Theone

"All that is required for evil to flourish, is that good men do nothing."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

These [notions, or more accurately in this case, this agenda] can be effectively combated, but it will be an uphill battle. However, pretty much every existing example of major social progress was also an uphill battle.

If this was honestly what I saw happening in 15 years (which I don't), I would promulgate my warnings and fight tooth and nail to defeat it. If this is truly how you feel, I suggest you do the same, and whether this is where current trends are driving us or not, fighting this agenda still can't hurt. You have already demonstrated in the past that you are quite capable of making an effective case against this agenda without coming across as being some sort of sexist, chauvinist, etc. This is a valuable trait, considering that sex-negativists will try to portray you as such, and the less justified and more idiotic they look before the public, the better. Remember, a common tactic I see in these types of extremist movements is what I call "moderate-jacking", the use of more reasonable-appearing arguments and goals, disinformation (including strawmen against enemies), faux-populist rhetoric, etc to draw in a more moderate crowd that would otherwise oppose their true agenda, and further propagandize them. This is because these extremists know that they themselves are a small minority, and without using a front to appeal to the moderate crowd, they can't generate mass support, without which they cannot succeed. The thing here is that they are taking a risk, because it takes time to generate support in this manner, and the moderate folks can be just as easily disillusioned. One of the best things you can do to fight the sex-negativists and the agenda they are pushing is to make sure that they remain exposed for the truly insane nutters that they are. The general reaction to this proposal as seen in this thread demonstrates beautifully how effective an active and well-informed populace can be against such bullshit as that recently perpetrated by FST.

[Individual Impersonators]

But it's not a one-way street. There are plenty of ways in which men are discriminated against, and these ways are getting worse rather than getting better. And the unintended consequences of short-sighted remedies for women's problems sometimes create new men's problems.

And that means that feminists who focus only on the female side of the equation are not working for gender equality in fact, regardless of intention; and most especially not when they reflexively attack anyone attempting to work to protect men's rights.

I don't blame women's groups for this. Not one bit. Women are doing what virulant and healthy animals in a state of nature do - they look out for themselves, individually and collectively. Their actions are rational and completely understandable.

What I don't get is why men don't do likewise.

By that logic it would be in the interests of men to
a) Never have allowed women the vote
b) Never have allowed women a say over abortion
c) Never have allowed equal work for equal pay
d) Never have allowed a female to be educated as much as a male
etc etc

I am a Man and I think that kind of attitude is horrible for all invovled. The proposed law is just a thought bubble and I doubt it will ever be succesful because like the male population that has decided to increase female rights for the benifit of all society, there will be females seeing how bad this kind of law is.

Plus what is to stop a male from complaining rape over the same circumstances? If the law can not go both ways it is sexist and I am against it on that principle alone.