The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Natapoc]

When Mary Koss starts putting men in ovens you two may have a point. Until then this is an unnecessary and ridiculous way to Godwin a thread.

Words are just as valid as actions, and if they're hateful, even more. Koss doesn't need to put men in ovens. She does enough as it is by spreading a hateful rhetoric.

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

[Keyboard Warriors]

How are there any positions of power in feminism? In case you're confused, it's not an organized movement. I'd like to think I identify as a feminist, yet I don't take orders from the feminist hivemind about conduct and nor do I sit down and read feminist literature to learn how to be a proper feminist. All I do is accept that women should have the right to work in any profession they want, earn as much as I do, be treated with the same respect that would be given to men and not have to tolerate sexual harassment. If you're opposed to feminism, it should logically follow that you're opposed to those things which is why you're being called anti-egalitarian. When you clarify that you support those things yet still oppose feminism, you sound absolutely bewildered about what feminism really is.

For the record, absolutely nobody is making you pay any attention to radfems. If you see them as representative of modern feminism, that's your choice and frankly it's the wrong choice. Nobody can help those who choose to be ignorant, and it does seem like you're pretty ignorant as to what feminism really is.

I don't necessarily think radfems are representative of all feminists (in much the same way republican politicians are very poor representatives of the voters... hell, that's true of most democratic politicians too), but they are the ones who seem to be in positions of power doing very very bad things with the tacit approval of many feminists everywhere.

What positions of power? What positions are these?

[Highfort]

How are there any positions of power in feminism?

There are certainly feminists in positions of power in both the media and in academia. Don't be semantic, it's not cute when you're talking about a serious issue.

In case you're confused, it's not an organized movement.

Well that's just totally false. Feminism is in fact as much an organized movement for women's rights as it is a position on women's rights.

I'd like to think I identify as a feminist, yet I don't take orders from the feminist hivemind about conduct and nor do I sit down and read feminist literature to learn how to be a proper feminist.

You probably should read the literature of a group before you start claiming you're a part of it. Small wonder so many ignorant people claim to be communist and then when you ask for their opinion on the Communist Manifesto or any of the writings of people they claim to stand with, they stare at you like you're speaking a foreign language.

All I do is accept that women should have the right to work in any profession they want, earn as much as I do, be treated with the same respect that would be given to men and not have to tolerate sexual harassment.

I support those things, too, and I do not identify as a feminist. I refused to be labeled as one with the position that the movement is currently in.

If you're opposed to feminism, it should logically follow that you're opposed to those things which is why you're being called anti-egalitarian.

"You're either with us... or you're with the terrorists." Thank you, Mr. Bush, but no thank you.

When you clarify that you support those things yet still oppose feminism, you sound absolutely bewildered about what feminism really is.

I'm really not, considering that I know that feminism has had many advances made for gender equality, mostly under liberal feminists. Radical feminists seem to not understand the difference between gender equality and matriarchy.

For the record, absolutely nobody is making you pay any attention to radfems. If you see them as representative of modern feminism, that's your choice and frankly it's the wrong choice. Nobody can help those who choose to be ignorant, and it does seem like you're pretty ignorant as to what feminism really is.

Don't patronize me, I know there's different forms of feminism and I am critical of those forms which are not for gender equality and yet claim to be egalitarian.

You know why I have to pay attention to radfems? Because they can and do influence policy - policy which is not egalitarian and which is against my principles as an egalitarian.

[Natapoc]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

How are there any positions of power in feminism? In case you're confused, it's not an organized movement. I'd like to think I identify as a feminist, yet I don't take orders from the feminist hivemind about conduct and nor do I sit down and read feminist literature to learn how to be a proper feminist. All I do is accept that women should have the right to work in any profession they want, earn as much as I do, be treated with the same respect that would be given to men and not have to tolerate sexual harassment. If you're opposed to feminism, it should logically follow that you're opposed to those things which is why you're being called anti-egalitarian. When you clarify that you support those things yet still oppose feminism, you sound absolutely bewildered about what feminism really is.

For the record, absolutely nobody is making you pay any attention to radfems. If you see them as representative of modern feminism, that's your choice and frankly it's the wrong choice. Nobody can help those who choose to be ignorant, and it does seem like you're pretty ignorant as to what feminism really is.

The feminist hive mind has instructed me to agree with your statement. And also to add "Resistance is futile!". Wait... Wrong collective consciousness...

[Galloism]

I don't necessarily think radfems are representative of all feminists (in much the same way republican politicians are very poor representatives of the voters... hell, that's true of most democratic politicians too), but they are the ones who seem to be in positions of power doing very very bad things with the tacit approval of many feminists everywhere.

What positions of power? What positions are these?

I don't really care all that much about Mary Koss. I'm sure she's a nice lady when she's not trying to minimize the experience of male rape survivors. She sounds like a passionate feminist who is mostly on the right track but with whom I have a couple fundamental disagreements with.

She seems to be an old feminist professor has almost no power except to her students. She's not the reason men are being raped and she's not the reason male rape is not taken seriously. Wasting our time arguing with women who mostly agree with us already is not the way to move forward.

Mary Koss, PhD, is a Regents’ Professor in the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health at the University of Arizona. She is co-editor a two book series for the American Psychological Association, Violence Against Women and Children (2011). She published the first national study on acquaintance rape in 1987 and developed the most frequently used survey to measure unwanted sexual experiences. She consults nationally and internationally on sexual assault. She was the principal investigator of the RESTORE Program; the first restorative justice program for sex crimes among adults that was quantitatively evaluated. Her current projects include developing risk assessment and therapeutic approaches for those found responsible for campus sexual misconduct and a primary prevention program focusing on alcohol serving establishments. She is a member of the working group to develop a Best Practices manual for the assessment of campus climate and a second group to develop and advocate for innovation in collegiate response to sexual misconduct within OCR and VAWA guidelines. She has been selected by the American Public Health Association and the US Departments of Justice and Education to serve on the CDC Think Tank to create a comprehensive approach to sexual violence prevention as part of Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. She was the 8th recipient of the Visionary Award from End Violence Against Women International, the law enforcement training and technical assistance organization. In 2013 the Mary P. Koss Profile in Courage Award was created by the One in Four USA Organization to honor her career contributions to using science to heighten awareness of rape.

https://publichealth.arizona.edu/directory/mary-koss

I think it is no coincidence that the CDC's definition of rape follows Mary Koss's sexist definition very closely.

She's part of the think tank on how to address sexual violence - while trying to suppress reporting of sexual violence (provided the perpetrator has the right genitalia).

She's just one person, her views matter no more or less than yours or mine. I don't see why you make a big deal of her.

Because she has institutional power and has guided government policy in such a way as to suppress and minimize male victims of rape. And no one stopped her. No one questioned her. No one stood up to say "that's not right!"

False. But typical MRM propoganda. You're doing good for being a newly minted MRM. Congratulations!

Okay.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms

... for starters. I can keep going if you want.

[Cat Rangoon]

Words are just as valid as actions, and if they're hateful, even more. Koss doesn't need to put men in ovens. She does enough as it is by spreading a hateful rhetoric.

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

I'm not comparing her to Hitler. I am saying the we are and should be responsible for our words. If her rhetoric is shit, she's to be held accountable for it. See, the reason we are here discussing this is that yes, the definition of rape is unequal and it excludes victims. Solely on the basis of their genitals.

Bad on Koss and bad on anyone who defends such inequities. If you do, I advice you take a step back and give this issue a good thought.

[Valystria]

Words are just as valid as actions, and if they're hateful, even more. Koss doesn't need to put men in ovens. She does enough as it is by spreading a hateful rhetoric.

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

So she's like those people who say same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. They just want to use a different WORD for the same thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

I'm not comparing her to Hitler. I am saying the we are and should be responsible for our words. If her rhetoric is shit, she's to be held accountable for it. See, the reason we are here discussing this is that yes, the definition of rape is unequal and it excludes victims. Solely on the basis of their genitals.

Bad on Koss and bad on anyone who defends such inequities. If you do, I advice you take a step back and give this issue a good thought.

It's not that they defend the inequality of it that often.
It's that statistics based on Koss's definition are often peddled to show that rape is a womans issue. This makes the people who spread these studies, essentially, people who are repeating Kosses bullshit constantly, even if they don't realize it.

[Natapoc]

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

I'm not comparing her to Hitler. I am saying the we are and should be responsible for our words. If her rhetoric is shit, she's to be held accountable for it. See, the reason we are here discussing this is that yes, the definition of rape is unequal and it excludes victims. Solely on the basis of their genitals.

Bad on Koss and bad on anyone who defends such inequities. If you do, I advice you take a step back and give this issue a good thought.

I disagree with any definition of rape that takes into account the genitals that the perpetrator or victim have. I believe that this understanding is more in line with feminism than the one that permits the more traditional understanding of rape which was prevalent before feminism.

[Galloism]

Words are just as valid as actions, and if they're hateful, even more. Koss doesn't need to put men in ovens. She does enough as it is by spreading a hateful rhetoric.

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

Here's the thing: sexual assault doesn't have the same impact as rape on the collective consciousness.

If you punch someone in the tit in a sexual way (without consent), it's sexual assault, but it's not rape. Mary Koss is no fool - she has a PhD. She knows the impact that words have on the consciousness. If they allowed men who were raped to be called "rape victims", it would undermine the narrative that women are the true victims of society when it comes to sexual violence.

So she crafted her definition down to sexual assault, so no one would give a damn.

Then she attained institutional power and her definitions have become used by the government - further marginalizing and suppressing male victims of rape to further an agenda of eternal female victimhood.

[Natapoc]

To bring this hyperbole back to planet earth for a moment... The hateful rhetoric she is alleged to have suggested is that rape should be reserved for sexual violence against women. She's not saying that men can't suffer sexual assault. She just has an argument about semantics. She's not saying men should be hurt or that crimes against men should be ignored. She simply wants to use a different WORD.

It's misguided and she's wrong but she has her reasons and they make sense to her.

So argue that she's wrong but don't argue that she is Hitler. lol

So she's like those people who say same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. They just want to use a different WORD for the same thing.

Yeah it's kinda similar to that I suppose. So yeah it's messed up but it's not even close to Hitler level messed up.

[Cat Rangoon]

I'm not comparing her to Hitler. I am saying the we are and should be responsible for our words. If her rhetoric is shit, she's to be held accountable for it. See, the reason we are here discussing this is that yes, the definition of rape is unequal and it excludes victims. Solely on the basis of their genitals.

Bad on Koss and bad on anyone who defends such inequities. If you do, I advice you take a step back and give this issue a good thought.

It's not that they defend the inequality of it that often.
It's that statistics based on Koss's definition are often peddled to show that rape is a womans issue.

And I happen to think that Koss should be held accountable for that.

I'm not comparing her to Hitler. I am saying the we are and should be responsible for our words. If her rhetoric is shit, she's to be held accountable for it. See, the reason we are here discussing this is that yes, the definition of rape is unequal and it excludes victims. Solely on the basis of their genitals.

Bad on Koss and bad on anyone who defends such inequities. If you do, I advice you take a step back and give this issue a good thought.

I disagree with any definition of rape that takes into account the genitals that the perpetrator or victim have. I believe that this understanding is more in line with feminism than the one that permits the more traditional understanding of rape which was prevalent before feminism.

Sadly, though, that is what is happening, exclusion on the basis of genitalia. Institutionally.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not that they defend the inequality of it that often.
It's that statistics based on Koss's definition are often peddled to show that rape is a womans issue.

And I happen to think that Koss should be held accountable for that.

I disagree with any definition of rape that takes into account the genitals that the perpetrator or victim have. I believe that this understanding is more in line with feminism than the one that permits the more traditional understanding of rape which was prevalent before feminism.

Sadly, though, that is what is happening, exclusion on the basis of genitalia. Institutionally.

Just Koss?
Or the people peddling the statistics too?

[Galloism]

So she's like those people who say same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. They just want to use a different WORD for the same thing.

Yeah it's kinda similar to that I suppose. So yeah it's messed up but it's not even close to Hitler level messed up.

You ready to admit you were wrong about her having institutional power?

I notice you never responded to that post that shows all the institutional power she peddles.

[Cat Rangoon]

And I happen to think that Koss should be held accountable for that.



Sadly, though, that is what is happening, exclusion on the basis of genitalia. Institutionally.

Just Koss?
Or the people peddling the statistics too?

Them too.

See, I am responsible for what I say and do. Especially if I'm molding minds around me, like she is a professor and an activist.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just Koss?
Or the people peddling the statistics too?

Them too.

See, I am responsible for what I say and do. Especially if I'm molding minds around me, like she is a professor and an activist.

I agree. And as a result of that, would you say that people have a responsibility to fact check statistics before they use them, and that negligence is not an excuse?

[Cat Rangoon]

Them too.

See, I am responsible for what I say and do. Especially if I'm molding minds around me, like she is a professor and an activist.

I agree. And as a result of that, would you say that people have a responsibility to fact check statistics before they use them, and that negligence is not an excuse?

Oh, absolutely. We should never take anything at face value either. Sure, we listen, but just because your professor tells you doesn't mean they hold all the facts. You should exercise caution and make sure that the information you are being fed is accurate, and that there aren't any other sides to it. Because if there are other sides to it, then not everything is as it seems.

[Natapoc]

It's not that they defend the inequality of it that often.
It's that statistics based on Koss's definition are often peddled to show that rape is a womans issue.

And I happen to think that Koss should be held accountable for that.

I disagree with any definition of rape that takes into account the genitals that the perpetrator or victim have. I believe that this understanding is more in line with feminism than the one that permits the more traditional understanding of rape which was prevalent before feminism.

Sadly, though, that is what is happening, exclusion on the basis of genitalia. Institutionally.

Yes and this is unfortunate.

It's important to note that before feminism the whole idea of that men could be raped was inconceivable to most people. Now we've reached the point where finally we can talk about this. It's a triumph of feminism that we can now have this discussion without ridicule or that we could even think to have it in the first place.

It may be true that some feminists have sided with definitions of rape that are rooted in patriarchy (for those who don't believe in patriarchy read: Historically male dominated cultures where women had few legal rights)

And those feminists were wrong to do so. But that's not feminism. That's a few feminists sticking to old definitions, probably because they grew up in a different time and still cling to some ideas rooted in patriarchy.

[Cat Rangoon]

And I happen to think that Koss should be held accountable for that.



Sadly, though, that is what is happening, exclusion on the basis of genitalia. Institutionally.

Yes and this is unfortunate.

It's important to note that before feminism the whole idea of that men could be raped was inconceivable to most people. Now we've reached the point where finally we can talk about this. It's a triumph of feminism that we can now have this discussion without ridicule or that we could even think to have it in the first place.

It may be true that some feminists have sided with definitions of rape that are rooted in patriarchy (for those who don't believe in patriarchy read: Historically male dominated cultures where women had few legal rights)

And those feminists were wrong to do so. But that's not feminism. That's a few feminists sticking to old definitions, probably because they grew up in a different time and still cling to some ideas rooted in patriarchy.

Natapoc, with the amount of information available to us now, and how the movements progress and how the thinkers update, it is rather reprehensible for these feminists to stick to outdated information just because they grew up in a different time.

I do agree with the rest of your position, though.

[Natapoc]

Yeah it's kinda similar to that I suppose. So yeah it's messed up but it's not even close to Hitler level messed up.

You ready to admit you were wrong about her having institutional power?

I notice you never responded to that post that shows all the institutional power she peddles.

Perhaps she had more of an impact than I realized. I don't know how much power she had in her role or what exactly she did.

[Natapoc]

Yes and this is unfortunate.

It's important to note that before feminism the whole idea of that men could be raped was inconceivable to most people. Now we've reached the point where finally we can talk about this. It's a triumph of feminism that we can now have this discussion without ridicule or that we could even think to have it in the first place.

It may be true that some feminists have sided with definitions of rape that are rooted in patriarchy (for those who don't believe in patriarchy read: Historically male dominated cultures where women had few legal rights)

And those feminists were wrong to do so. But that's not feminism. That's a few feminists sticking to old definitions, probably because they grew up in a different time and still cling to some ideas rooted in patriarchy.

Natapoc, with the amount of information available to us now, and how the movements progress and how the thinkers update, it is rather reprehensible for these feminists to stick to outdated information just because they grew up in a different time.

I do agree with the rest of your position, though.

Have you ever met old people?

[Keyboard Warriors]

You know, if you read the whole thing instead of nitpicking and addressing sentence by sentence, you'd grasp the bigger picture much better.

There are certainly feminists in positions of power in both the media and in academia. Don't be semantic, it's not cute when you're talking about a serious issue

Oh right, so we're talking about all positions of power. In that case, how do you know that only radical feminsists hold those positions? Sounds like you're assuming a person holding these positions is either a radical feminist or they're not a feminist at all? I don't know how else you could come to such an inane conclusion that only radical feminists hold positions of power in academia and the media while more moderate feminists are completely un-involved in either of those things. Senseless.

Well that's just totally false. Feminism is in fact as much an organized movement for women's rights as it is a position on women's rights.

So prove it. As a non-feminist, please lecture me on how feminism is organized and structured beyond a group of people having the same broad ideas.

You probably should read the literature of a group before you start claiming you're a part of it. Small wonder so many ignorant people claim to be communist and then when you ask for their opinion on the Communist Manifesto or any of the writings of people they claim to stand with, they stare at you like you're speaking a foreign language.

I wasn't aware that books changed beliefs?

I support those things, too, and I do not identify as a feminist. I refused to be labeled as one with the position that the movement is currently in.

Then, that's just insane. You're saying 2+2 = 4 but you don't want it to equal 4 so you're going to write 5 instead. Right.

"You're either with us... or you're with the terrorists." Thank you, Mr. Bush, but no thank you.

Nice try, but there is no middle ground here. You're either egalitarian or you're not. Here it's really difficult to point out the error of your logic in a coherent way because you, for some weird reason, insisted on splitting this up into sentences. If I wanted you to do that because I thought it would have been easier, I would have replied to you with dot points.

I'm really not, considering that I know that feminism has had many advances made for gender equality, mostly under liberal feminists. Radical feminists seem to not understand the difference between gender equality and matriarchy.



Don't patronize me, I know there's different forms of feminism and I am critical of those forms which are not for gender equality and yet claim to be egalitarian.

You know why I have to pay attention to radfems? Because they can and do influence policy - policy which is not egalitarian and which is against my principles as an egalitarian.

Radical, misandrist feminists have had an absolutely minuscule effect on policy since feminism have started and you know it. For all the bitching about Mary Koss that's gone on in this thread, people seem to be absolutely clueless that the definition of rape that's so unfair to men was reviewed by men and agreed to by men.

Here's a thought. Maybe Mary Koss wasn't a radical feminist and instead was absolutely clueless about force-to-penetrate rape? If not, why do the other males involved in the passing of that law get a free pass while she is stuck with the label of man-hating feminist?

Radical feminists have utterly no power whatsoever. They are a minority inside a minority.

[Valystria]

Natapoc, with the amount of information available to us now, and how the movements progress and how the thinkers update, it is rather reprehensible for these feminists to stick to outdated information just because they grew up in a different time.

I do agree with the rest of your position, though.

Have you ever met old people?

I've met some quite progressive and liberal-minded ones. Being old isn't exactly an excuse for having hateful views.

[Cat Rangoon]

Natapoc, with the amount of information available to us now, and how the movements progress and how the thinkers update, it is rather reprehensible for these feminists to stick to outdated information just because they grew up in a different time.

I do agree with the rest of your position, though.

Have you ever met old people?

Yup. And I've met some who are actually quite willing to fact check, and read. Even when perhaps that is a bit more difficult for them to do. Not every person who is a senior citizen or thereabouts is rigid and opposed to change.

[Galloism]

You ready to admit you were wrong about her having institutional power?

I notice you never responded to that post that shows all the institutional power she peddles.

Perhaps she had more of an impact than I realized. I don't know how much power she had in her role or what exactly she did.

Well, the CDC now uses her sexist definition of rape. Coincidence?

She also devised what we know about campus rape - no doubt minimizing or suppressing evidence about male victims of females along the way. This is part of what has led to the current lopsided discussion about campus rape (when she knew that a study using her methodology - focused at men - showed 16% of men were raped on campus, about 1 in 6). She advises the US Department of Justice and the American Public Health Association, plus was awarded by a Law Enforcement Training association. And many of the men I talk to are flat out laughed at by police if they say they've been raped by a woman. Coincidence?

... all while no doubt peddling this falsehood that men who are raped by women aren't real rape victims and that women are victims now and forever of male violence, when violence in the reverse direction in much the same way is almost as common, and she knew it.

She's almost as prominent as they come when it comes to feminists, and she supports rapists.


Edit: There's also this from her wiki:

In her academic career, Koss has published close to 300 works on violence against women, including 145 peer-reviewed scientific articles as well as books, book chapters, and briefs. In addition to the Ms. Study, Koss has led 10 other federally funded research projects.