The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Swith Witherward]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

What do you think of the fact that gender studies programs, particularly in the anglosphere, are feeding the victim narrative? Do you think it would be better to stop funding them and to instead just make sure that subjects are taught fairly? (for example the role of early feminists in shaping Canadian social history was focused on in my Canadian history class last year.)

I have mixed feelings regarding the various gender studies programs. I feel it depends greatly upon the university and how it's presented to the student body.

We shouldn't overlook the roles women have played in the shaping of society but we should not allow that topic to eclipse everything else unless the course is specifically designed for it. In your example, I see no problem with devoting a few days towards early feminists that shaped Canadian social history. It's a standard history class, yes? If it were a "Women of Canadian History" course, I'd expect it to dedicate itself solely to this purpose.

[New Edom]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

What do you think of the fact that gender studies programs, particularly in the anglosphere, are feeding the victim narrative? Do you think it would be better to stop funding them and to instead just make sure that subjects are taught fairly? (for example the role of early feminists in shaping Canadian social history was focused on in my Canadian history class last year.)

I have mixed feelings regarding the various gender studies programs. I feel it depends greatly upon the university and how it's presented to the student body.

We shouldn't overlook the roles women have played in the shaping of society but we should not allow that topic to eclipse everything else unless the course is specifically designed for it. In your example, I see no problem with devoting a few days towards early feminists that shaped Canadian social history. It's a standard history class, yes? If it were a "Women of Canadian History" course, I'd expect it to dedicate itself solely to this purpose.

Yeah it was an overview course on Confederation to Constitution, so basically from 1867-1970s. I wrote a paper actually on how feminsm would not have been effective in Canadian society had there not been men who agreed in principle with equality for women for whatever reasons. I used the Persons Case as the central example. (paper did very well) However one of my advisers was antsy about the apper because she said it made her feel like women had simply been handed equality and had little to do with it. Which was odd since I used the Persons Case to back up my thesis that activism by women had partnered with a sense of justice in men in positions of power to establish women's rights. So for instance when I referred to how the Attorney-General for Alberta had respected Emily murphy's legal acumen and intelligence..somehow that wasn't enough. And I've gotten a lot of that sort of thing from feminists, as though they don't want to believe that men can be just and fair outside of being schooled by feminists and humbled by them . I think it's ridiculous.

[Frenline Delpha]

I have mixed feelings regarding the various gender studies programs. I feel it depends greatly upon the university and how it's presented to the student body.

We shouldn't overlook the roles women have played in the shaping of society but we should not allow that topic to eclipse everything else unless the course is specifically designed for it. In your example, I see no problem with devoting a few days towards early feminists that shaped Canadian social history. It's a standard history class, yes? If it were a "Women of Canadian History" course, I'd expect it to dedicate itself solely to this purpose.

Yeah it was an overview course on Confederation to Constitution, so basically from 1867-1970s. I wrote a paper actually on how feminsm would not have been effective in Canadian society had there not been men who agreed in principle with equality for women for whatever reasons. I used the Persons Case as the central example. (paper did very well) However one of my advisers was antsy about the apper because she said it made her feel like women had simply been handed equality and had little to do with it. Which was odd since I used the Persons Case to back up my thesis that activism by women had partnered with a sense of justice in men in positions of power to establish women's rights. So for instance when I referred to how the Attorney-General for Alberta had respected Emily murphy's legal acumen and intelligence..somehow that wasn't enough. And I've gotten a lot of that sort of thing from feminists, as though they don't want to believe that men can be just and fair outside of being schooled by feminists and humbled by them . I think it's ridiculous.

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

[Natapoc]

Yeah it was an overview course on Confederation to Constitution, so basically from 1867-1970s. I wrote a paper actually on how feminsm would not have been effective in Canadian society had there not been men who agreed in principle with equality for women for whatever reasons. I used the Persons Case as the central example. (paper did very well) However one of my advisers was antsy about the apper because she said it made her feel like women had simply been handed equality and had little to do with it. Which was odd since I used the Persons Case to back up my thesis that activism by women had partnered with a sense of justice in men in positions of power to establish women's rights. So for instance when I referred to how the Attorney-General for Alberta had respected Emily murphy's legal acumen and intelligence..somehow that wasn't enough. And I've gotten a lot of that sort of thing from feminists, as though they don't want to believe that men can be just and fair outside of being schooled by feminists and humbled by them . I think it's ridiculous.

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

[Alvecia]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

If a fella has to be taught how and why he shouldn't be raping people I think they have slightly more severe underlying issues that need to be taken care of.

[New Edom]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

1. It's one sided. If women also rape and sexually abuse people, then it's not necessarily just a male thing, it's a human thing. It should be fair. Saying "teach men not to rape" is saying "most men probably will rape unless we teach them not to, but we don't need to teach women anything."

2. For men who have been raped or abused by women, it's insulting and dehumanizing to them. I am a sexual abuse survivor; I don't need to be told not to rape. I want to know that I will be treated with respect and compassion if I ever have to deal with it again, God forbid.

3. It's pointless. The kinds of people who commit such crimes are either stupid/selfish/entitled people anyway and according to RAINN probably already commit other crimes or they're sociopaths who don't value other human lives anyway. The first category only learn through being told that there are penalties enough to warn them off, and seeing examples of the penalties carried out effectively; the second category are much the same but are often more crafty about avodign consequences. They are the same people who drink and drive, cheat, lie and steal and would commit violence if they thought it made sense to do so. This is a political statement and police departments and governments adopt it because it gives them political cred; I doubt any of them are actually dumb enough to think it really works.

[Frenline Delpha]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

This is a joke, right? Are you actually serious?

[RFI]

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

This is a joke, right? Are you actually serious?

Nope.
I'm sure that Natapoc is absolutely serious and I fully agree with her.
That isn't just only about mere numbers (and I don't agree with most numbers presented here) but also, and in some ways even more, about an unbalancement of power within our still patriarchal society, and different consequences due such unbalancement of power.

[Frenline Delpha]

This is a joke, right? Are you actually serious?

Nope.
I'm sure that Natapoc is absolutely serious and I fully agree with her.
That isn't just only about mere numbers (and I don't agree with most numbers presented here) but also, and in some ways even more, about an unbalancement of power within our still patriarchal society, and different consequences due such unbalancement of power.

Ha.

[Galloism]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

Yes, but given women rape at rates not significantly disparate to men, it should be "teach people not to rape". Otherwise, you're being sexist.

Like those campaigns to "teach men not to hit their wives". You've missed reality in favor of ideology.

[Kelinfort]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

Why not teach women not to rape as well? Even if you believe the vast majority of rape is due to men, it wouldn't hurt to teach women not to rape as well.

[Philjia]

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

Yes, but given women rape at rates not significantly disparate to men, it should be "teach people not to rape". Otherwise, you're being sexist.

Like those campaigns to "teach men not to hit their wives". You've missed reality in favor of ideology.

It's not like having campaigns specifically oriented at one particular gender is bad; there should just be an analogue for the other.

[Galloism]

Yes, but given women rape at rates not significantly disparate to men, it should be "teach people not to rape". Otherwise, you're being sexist.

Like those campaigns to "teach men not to hit their wives". You've missed reality in favor of ideology.

It's not like having campaigns specifically oriented at one particular gender is bad; there should just be an analogue for the other.

As you said though, there's an analogue for women encouraging women to also use contraception.

[Philjia]

It's not like having campaigns specifically oriented at one particular gender is bad; there should just be an analogue for the other.

As you said though, there's an analogue for women encouraging women to also use contraception.

Precisely. Enforcing some stereotypes while removing others doesn't help anyone.

[Agerland]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

You know, you're right. I'm sure all those rapists just weren't aware that rape is bad, and as soon as we tell them so, rape will immediately disappear. Also female rapists and men who aren't monsters don't real.

[Frenline Delpha]

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

You know, you're right. I'm sure all those rapists just weren't aware that rape is bad, and as soon as we tell them so, rape will immediately disappear. Also female rapists and men who aren't monsters don't real.

Pretty much this. Sometimes, I just don't get it.

[New Edom]

You know, you're right. I'm sure all those rapists just weren't aware that rape is bad, and as soon as we tell them so, rape will immediately disappear. Also female rapists and men who aren't monsters don't real.

Pretty much this. Sometimes, I just don't get it.

1st Wave Feminism, arguably, was divided into two main parts as I see it. The main thrust was to allow women to be involved with public life in law, finance, property and politics. one part was simly tacked on to then Judeo-Christian values and was mostly about making society better in that Victorian sense of tidying things up and making things more efficient. The other side of it was a bit more perfectionist than that. 1st Wave Feminism has a dark side, leaders who believed in eugenitcs. Family values were strong in some elements of 1st Wave Feminism but even then there were some leaders in the movement who resented men and wanted women to be entirely independent from men.

2nd Wave Feminism was largely about equal opportunity in terms of careers, marriage, family life, education and had more of an emphasis on middle class values and transforming them. Within this movement lay a strong radical strain. At the time it was reletiavely isolated and was ofte mocked, and liberal feminism tended to be more popular well into the 90s. However a number of more radical feminist leaders had begun creating their own schools of thought in universities in many nations in the West, and this has fnially born fruit.

3rd Wave feminism is arguably more ideology than activism, more religiion than philosophy. Women and Gender Studies classes often approach male-female issues as though there is a catechism they are teaching. There is a lot of indoctrination. Some would argue all teaching involves indoctrination, and that's true, but the difference here is that 3rd Wavers often seem to have been taught to believe that men hate women and that it's true and any attempt at arguing about it is proof of misogyny and male privilege. It is not optional among thm to believe this or not believe this--women's lives depend, you are told, on beleiving this.

Most people who follow modern 3rd Wave feminism believe this to one extent or another. Men who join it beleive it is their role to protect women, humbly and without thanks, in order to be good people. Women who bellieve in it often seem to believe it explains why there is evil in the world, and it in theory helps them feel good about themselves. Like many religions, it is easy to go in the direction of 'it's all someone else's fault' and not take any responsibility for bad things that happen. INdeed, taking responsiblity just means blame to most 3rd Wave feminists.

It is also a form of magical thinking. In magical thinking, things just ARE. So you don't have to explain why objectification leads to rape culture or even why you think it exists, it's a given as in the way that some people believe that bread and wine when blessed by a priest become spiritually the blood of Christ. A key difference is that with most modern religions in the West, you choose whether or not to belong to them, and while they may be admired and believed in by poltiical leaders, they are not supposed to favour one over the others. If they do this, people should be rightly suspicious since we all believe in so many. Feminism is a weird exception to this as 3rd Wavers often sem to get away with stating things that are more belief than fact as though they ARE fact.

Just to add: there are lots of approaches to understanding equality. 3rd Wave feminism has been stating that theirs is the ONLY approach for years and claims all approaches to gender equality as feminism, then proceeds to define how that woris. It's politically shrewd.

So that is my long winded response.

[Costa Fierro]

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

Fuck, I don't know, maybe the implication that all men are rapists with little or no self control?

[Frenline Delpha]

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

Fuck, I don't know, maybe the implication that all men are rapists with little or no self control?

But logic is the tool of the patriarchy!1!

[Chestaan]

The most infuriating example is teach men not to rape.

Why would that upset you? Don't you think men should be informed so they avoid hurting someone and potentially going to jail?

Didn't you previously attack Chessmistress for advocating education on this matter? I think you said something like "men who rape know what they are doing, its not a mistake". Paraphrasing of course

Anyway, I'm all for consent education provided it teaches both both men and women not to rape. The problem myself and others have with "Teach men not to rape" is that it implicitly is saying that women do not rape or that women committing rape is not a problem.

[Hirota]

1st Wave Feminism has a dark side, leaders who believed in eugenitcs.

In fairness, eugenics was kind of a growing fad at the time. But I'm not convinced it was a "dark side" - eugenics were being advocated by a "leader" in late 19th century suffrages, Victoria Woodhull - probably best known for being the first woman to run for president, but also the first English translation of Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto.

[Hirota]

In other news, NOW (the national Organisation for Women, and generally held up to be fairly mainstream) has completely jumped the shark and called "Jackie" (of the rolling stone fame) a "sexual assault survivor." This is in spite of the evidence coming out in the court case.

This is the same group that last month named "Mattress girl" a "woman of courage" for making allegations that even under the lowered standards required by Title IX to establish guilt could not find even the required "preponderance of evidence" for her alleged attacker

Apparently NOW has decided silly things like facts and truth don't matter when a woman cries rape.

Edit: When I first posted this, I believed that NOW had submitted their "appeal" on the 1st June 2016, forgetting that the US date format is mmddyy. Therefore this would have been before the events of the court case came to light, but after the failures of the rolling stone article were in the public domain.

[Costa Fierro]

Because as long as she is portrayed as a victim, the cycle of ignorance can continue.

[Costa Fierro]

So in additional news, Israel is trying again at joint custody for children after divorce. And once again, feminists are opposing this law, because it means women don't get automatic custody of children under six years old.

[Galloism]

So in additional news, Israel is trying again at joint custody for children after divorce. And once again, feminists are opposing this law, because it means women don't get automatic custody of children under six years old.

Let's keep in mind what happened last time.

Yes, that's right, the head of the women's rights and gender equality commission managed to oppose it hard enough to get it killed, saying this:

MK Aida Touma-Sliman (Hadash – Joint List), head of the Women Rights and Gender Equality Committee in the Knesset said after the vote that “the attempt to revoke the preferred custodianship of mothers is an attempt to create a formal equality which in a reality that is patently unequal. I’m proud of my female colleagues in the opposition for their cooperation in defeating this bill.”

http://maki.org.il/en/?p=6094

Yeah. The only way to equality is... mandated custody based on gender.

Or something.