One of the clever things about feminist marketing of mainstream feminism is presenting a problem. This is a marketing ploy. You don't start off by saying what you want to do or want to get others to do, you start off by presenting a problem or pain, like "Do you suffer from sleeplessness/sniffles/gut cramps?" Any problem. Bored? Lonely? Sexually unsatisfied? Then you need PRODUCT X!
Well that's what many mainstream feminists do. A good example is Jessica Valenti right here on this podcast. Take a listen. it's about 25 minutes so give yourself some time. What she starts off by doing is saying "how can we involve men in dealing with sexual violence against women" and then goes on to say "when we frame sexual assault as a women's issue we leave men out of it". Realy I can't think of anything that is described as a women's issue that is not expected to be dealt with by our civiliation as a whole. Whether it's illnesses, pregnancy, menstruation, education, athletics, roles in movies, custody of children, or this sexual assault thing--since when do only female authorities dealw ith that? Most police are male--looks like they deal with sexual assaut issues. Overwhelmingly male authorities and male citizens are called on to deal with whatever appears to bother women. So what's her issue here? Jessica Valenti does say that there are male victims, but of course she says that overwhelmingly the attackers are male.
However she does say the bizarre contradiction of acceptance of a small percentage of men who do the atacks but that men are overwhelmingly taught that women are objects. So let's see if this makes sense--most men don't treat women as objects--or do they?--but only some men actually carry that out. I'm not sure how that works exactly. This would be like saying "most people are taught that whatever they desire, they ought to have no matter who owns it. But few people really steal." I feel stupider for having listened to that.
Anyway: the problem presented--does it actually exist? Are women really told that they hae sole responsibility for prevention of harm against themselves?
I don't think so. The problem is that women and men have equality now, and women have been told that theya re responsible for their safety. Now when men hear this, they don't think that it is entirely up to them if someone does a criminal act against them--that is the responsibility of the criminal and it is dealt with by society ideally, though often not well to be fair. But the idea of personal responsibility is not an outrage. So why is it to women?
Well let's be honest, it's a double standard. It used to be that men were supposed to just protect women, and there were few ways they could be hit legitimately. But certainly getting into a fist fight with a woman was not done. Women were not supposed to go to war, and people were not supposed to hit a woman outside of the trope of shaking her out of her hysteria or giving her some smacks on the bottom (check out some old John Wayne or Elvis movies.) But you can also see how in those old tropes men are supposed to rush to the aid of women. it's even ingrained in us--the damsel in distress still works though feminists have this weird attitude about it--you're supposed to respond but it's bad to depict it. Meh.
Anyway check it out. i had to take it in small doeses because it was exasperating to listen to, but this drivel is typical of what is being taught. The supposed experts need a dose of reality after haring them too.
