Speaking of entitlement feminism...
05 Oct 2012, 11:54 am
Hopper wrote:
Pick a feminist argument - there's plenty out there - and point out why said argument is wrong.
that in itself is also the problem. while we all argue over the little things related to feminism (or other evil movement), the true core is being avoided. arguing over the points of said movement is just another technique to help itself maintain momentum. its the same trick governments use. While everybody is arguing over item A they will do item B while nobody is looking.
05 Oct 2012, 12:08 pm
Hopper wrote:
TheDarkMage wrote:
isnt it amazing when feminist lies are under threat they always resort to the same tactics - belittling or pure anger.
Feminism presents a series of arguments and challenges to the social/economic/cultural/political etc status quo and the place and perception of women therein. It is no threat to those arguments and challenges to cry 'rubbish! You're only after money!'. All you've done there is assert your opinion, and very flimsily so. At best, it's a little bewildering.
Pick a feminist argument - there's plenty out there - and point out why said argument is wrong.
Just about everyone who isn't rich is after money...At least in my country! But I think that what feminists are seeking most of all is power rather than wealth.
05 Oct 2012, 12:09 pm
GGPViper wrote:
I'm sorry. I might have been absent from the world for... well forever.
But could someone tell me what feminism actually *is*?
But could someone tell me what feminism actually *is*?
Hopper wrote:
Pick a feminist argument - there's plenty out there - and point out why said argument is wrong.
In my opinion, feminism has so many (sometimes conflicting) definitions that one could perhaps find a feminist argument to support *any* post within this thread (including this one, and any replies to it).
Google-Fu demonstrates that apparently both Valerie Solanas and Sarah Palin are feminists....
What gives?
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
05 Oct 2012, 12:15 pm
TheDarkMage wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Pick a feminist argument - there's plenty out there - and point out why said argument is wrong.
that in itself is also the problem. while we all argue over the little things related to feminism (or other evil movement), the true core is being avoided. arguing over the points of said movement is just another technique to help itself maintain momentum. its the same trick governments use. While everybody is arguing over item A they will do item B while nobody is looking.
the real issue is anyone that takes any ideology too seriously, this includes capitalism and anti feminism.
anything taken into the meotional extreme becomes something beyond idotic.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
05 Oct 2012, 12:41 pm
Hopper wrote:
TheDarkMage wrote:
isnt it amazing when feminist lies are under threat they always resort to the same tactics - belittling or pure anger.
Feminism presents a series of arguments and challenges to the social/economic/cultural/political etc status quo and the place and perception of women therein. It is no threat to those arguments and challenges to cry 'rubbish! You're only after money!'. All you've done there is assert your opinion, and very flimsily so. At best, it's a little bewildering.
Pick a feminist argument - there's plenty out there - and point out why said argument is wrong.
The core problem is that some of us have been doing that in just about every feminism discussion I've seen on this board in the last 6 months to a year, and every time its ends up in the same unproductive standstill.
This is due to both parties mostly being stuck in their original view, and resorting to ignoring/devaluing/degrading the sources, statistics and arguments presented by the other party, and holding up their own as absolute truth. When the truth of the matter, most likely lies somewhere between extremist A and extremist B.
If we take the "women make less money than men" statement for instance, it is technically true if you take "money earned by women in the workforce/number of women in the workforce" and "money earned by men in the workforce/number of men in the workforce" and compare the numbers.
However, there is a whole row of things that need to be adjusted for in order for the statement to reflect reality.
- Working hours.
- Geographical location.
- Profession.
- Company
- Position
- Field
- Credentials.
- Experience.
- Tenure with the same company.
- Number of job changes.
- Specialization within a profession.
and I'm sure I probably left out several other things that need to be accounted for.
Overall, its a highly complex set of arguments, which cannot really be proven to be true or false based on the data that can be collected. Some of the data are based on estimates, some on surveys, others on experiments which all suffer their own problems. Then you have various definitions, that can skew numbers to be inaccurate.
Fundamentally speaking, my problem is with the certainty and absolutism some claims and arguments are made, and the extreme lack of nuance from both sides. I've noticed that my own position becomes more extreme and more confrontational in the face of some of the "feminist brigade" on this forum for instance due to certain methods which are used, not to have a discussion, but to force anyone who has objections to certain arguments to silence.
There is also a matter of "what am I supposed to argue against?" due to the fact that "feminists" tend to have extremely fleeting and varied definitions of not only what constitutes a "feminist" but also what "feminism" stands for" and what feminist policies and ideas actually are.
There are at least two completely opposed views on pornography, prostitution and sex.
There are varied views on where men fit into the feminist ideology, in deed on what "men" and "masculine" should actually be, and some even want to reshape what "men" and "masculine" are.
There are first wave feminists, second wave feminists, third wave feminists, and post-feminism feminists, who all tend to have slightly different views on both feminism and each other. Like I've alluded to before, its a lot like religious people, who will argue "no those aren't real members of [insert religion], we are, and out views are [insert views]" whereas the other members will argue "No the people who made the first statement are not real members of [insert religion] we are, and our views are [insert views].
I love to argue and have discussions, but if its to be productive, then I require you to state "this is what I believe, and these are my arguments" and stick to that, and I require the same from every other feminist that wishes to partake, just so that we can be somewhat productive in our pursuits.
05 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm
I'm not touching the "pay gap" issue with a 10 foot pole ITT. But I want to point out once again that people often do not practice what they preach! And feminists are no exception. I don't automatically think they're eevil, I just think that they're simply flawed human beings who are selfish and self-interested like the rest of us but try in vain to make us go along with the notion that they're being honest when ultimately, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. I don't care if you say that your ideology is about equality! Show me that this true in what you actually do and then I might be convinced.
But I do notice that when feminists are criticized they have a whole bag of ad hominem attacks to dish out.
05 Oct 2012, 2:29 pm
I don't expect special privileges because I'm a chick,I expect to be treated with the same respect that ALL humans deserve.If I do the same job as you I deserve the same pay.
I know a man that was raped but he didn't report it because no one would believe him.He was passed out in a chair(too much to drink) and what woke him was a woman had unzipped his pants and had attached her mouth to his source of male pride.He did free himself but he was a victim.He did not consent to what happened.Granted this is something that does not happen that often ,but men can be victims too.
I like it when men open doors for me,and I'm very grateful to the nice gentlemen who have helped me with flat tires.I don't think they expected anything,I think they were being nice.I have had some very bad experiences with men also.they had three things in common,they were in a position of power over me,they were all NT,and they were all 100%as*holes.
05 Oct 2012, 2:30 pm
I would heartily recommend Nina Power's 'One Dimensional Woman'. It can be read here:
http://libcom.org/files/onedimensionalwoman.pdf
but should you buy a copy, proceeds go to The Fistula Foundation.
She has a good article on Palin here:
http://flowtv.org/2008/10/sarah-palin-c ... niversity/
which I should warn does contain ideas/language from psychoanalysis - I'm sure that sort of thing would make a fair few here vomit in rage. However, it does a useful job of viewing feminism through the prism of the phenomeon of Palin. Excerpt:
Quote:
Jacques-Alain Miller, arch-Lacanian and part-time moralist, recently published a piece entitled ‘Sarah Palin: Operation “Castration”‘. In it, he argues that Palin represents a certain kind of ‘post-feminist’ woman, one who knows that ‘the phallus is a semblance’ (more on this anon). Jessica Valenti, in the Guardian states that Palin is an ‘anti-feminist’ through and through, because, among other things, she would limit women’s right to choose and abolish sex education. Palin herself is a member of the advocacy organisation ‘Feminists for Life’, who take the apparently feminist commitment to ‘non-aggression’ to mean that any violence directed towards a foetus (even if the pregnancy is the result of rape) is incompatible with the supposedly natural non-belligerence of the female sex.
Here we have three different takes on the same word, in which a) for Miller, a pre-Palin feminist would be a woman (Ségolène Royal, for example) who ‘imitated man, respected the phallus, and performed as if they had one’ and thus would be easy to dismiss as lesser or sub-standard men b) for Valenti, a feminist is someone who supports a woman’s right to choose, who fights for equality in every walk of life and c) for Palin herself, who is both fiercely maternal and politically aggressive, a feminist would indeed be a ‘pitbull in lipstick’. A shallow conception of feminism, and a common response whenever individual women achieve power of any substantive kind, would be to say ‘look, there’s a woman Prime Minister! A woman CEO!’ Haven’t you gotten what you wanted?’ As Valenti puts it, this position merely believes ‘that all women want is … another woman.’ Beyond whatever she actually says or does, Palin is painted as a success story for women, simply because she is one.
If ‘feminism’ can mean anything from behaving like a man (Miller), being pro-choice (Valenti), being pro-life (Palin), and being pro-war (the Republican administration), then we may simply need to abandon the term, or at the very least, restrict its usage to those situations in which we make damn sure we explain what we mean by it.
Miller’s argument is not merely that Palin makes a ‘better man’ than Obama, for example, but that she alone realises that ‘the phallus is only a semblance’ – that is, pretending to have power when one does not is not nearly as effective as understanding the contingent nature of the field of power (or meaning) and exploiting it at every turn. Palin is not pretending to be a man – she is pretending to be all women at once, and yet perfectly mundane. The Facebook group ‘I Am Terrified of Sarah Palin’ perhaps captures some of Miller’s fear: ‘For the moment, a woman who plays the “castration” card is invincible.’ For Miller, Palin’s ability to castrate – to invoke the fear of emasculation by undermining the very symbolic register in which castration anxiety can be warded off – is literally petrifying: ‘they [her political opponents, her media enemies] have no idea how to attack a woman who uses her femininity to ridicule them’.
America has found its new hero, and she’s a woman who turns the insults that every successful woman has hurled at her (dog, b***h, flirt) into ammunition to shoot dead her accusers. She turns maternity into a war-weapon, inexperience into a populist virtue and Feminism into something that even the Christian Right could approve of. She is absolutely, limitlessly terrifying.
Here we have three different takes on the same word, in which a) for Miller, a pre-Palin feminist would be a woman (Ségolène Royal, for example) who ‘imitated man, respected the phallus, and performed as if they had one’ and thus would be easy to dismiss as lesser or sub-standard men b) for Valenti, a feminist is someone who supports a woman’s right to choose, who fights for equality in every walk of life and c) for Palin herself, who is both fiercely maternal and politically aggressive, a feminist would indeed be a ‘pitbull in lipstick’. A shallow conception of feminism, and a common response whenever individual women achieve power of any substantive kind, would be to say ‘look, there’s a woman Prime Minister! A woman CEO!’ Haven’t you gotten what you wanted?’ As Valenti puts it, this position merely believes ‘that all women want is … another woman.’ Beyond whatever she actually says or does, Palin is painted as a success story for women, simply because she is one.
If ‘feminism’ can mean anything from behaving like a man (Miller), being pro-choice (Valenti), being pro-life (Palin), and being pro-war (the Republican administration), then we may simply need to abandon the term, or at the very least, restrict its usage to those situations in which we make damn sure we explain what we mean by it.
Miller’s argument is not merely that Palin makes a ‘better man’ than Obama, for example, but that she alone realises that ‘the phallus is only a semblance’ – that is, pretending to have power when one does not is not nearly as effective as understanding the contingent nature of the field of power (or meaning) and exploiting it at every turn. Palin is not pretending to be a man – she is pretending to be all women at once, and yet perfectly mundane. The Facebook group ‘I Am Terrified of Sarah Palin’ perhaps captures some of Miller’s fear: ‘For the moment, a woman who plays the “castration” card is invincible.’ For Miller, Palin’s ability to castrate – to invoke the fear of emasculation by undermining the very symbolic register in which castration anxiety can be warded off – is literally petrifying: ‘they [her political opponents, her media enemies] have no idea how to attack a woman who uses her femininity to ridicule them’.
America has found its new hero, and she’s a woman who turns the insults that every successful woman has hurled at her (dog, b***h, flirt) into ammunition to shoot dead her accusers. She turns maternity into a war-weapon, inexperience into a populist virtue and Feminism into something that even the Christian Right could approve of. She is absolutely, limitlessly terrifying.
06 Oct 2012, 8:14 am
AspieRogue wrote:
Jono wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Oh, pfft.
The general gist of the thread is about men understanding (or rather, not) when or not to make a move with women. That's why discussion here has been framed as such. I don't see any sort of double standards. If you want to talk about women making moves on men, do so. Don't jump into a conversation about men making moves on women and say 'yeah, it's always the man's fault, isn't it?'. It's bad form.
I think the general sensible, fair conclusion is that, where someone senses something in a situation that might be a 'come on', and they want to take that 'come on' up, they should check. I haven't seen any feminist post to say that shouldn't be the case.
The general gist of the thread is about men understanding (or rather, not) when or not to make a move with women. That's why discussion here has been framed as such. I don't see any sort of double standards. If you want to talk about women making moves on men, do so. Don't jump into a conversation about men making moves on women and say 'yeah, it's always the man's fault, isn't it?'. It's bad form.
I think the general sensible, fair conclusion is that, where someone senses something in a situation that might be a 'come on', and they want to take that 'come on' up, they should check. I haven't seen any feminist post to say that shouldn't be the case.
Alright, when it comes to men making moves on women(particularly when they are mutual strangers) the only general rule is that if you don't pick up on NONVERBAL CUES that she's open to you approaching her then you're supposed to move on. Aspie men often don't pick up on these, and sometimes even NT men don't, so that's why women do have the responsibility of saying no and/or "leave me alone" and then it is certainly is the guys responsibility to back off and vamoose. IDC if it's not in your nature to be direct, ladies! You need to speak up sometimes for your own damn good and stop playing damsel in distress. Sheesh!
The way the blogger phrased it was particularly bad form and instead of getting her point across she sounded like a whiny, entitled, self-righteous little twat.
I was specifically addressing the case when nonverbal cues are not picked up on, that is why I was suggesting that verbal consent would still be possible.
Jono, with regards to this as well as your prior post in reply to TM, you sound like what you are talking about is bedroom conduct and NOT interacting with a female stranger in public. THAT is where the 'consent' issue comes into play! And I certainly would say that it's probably for the best to get her verbal consent or better yet discuss what you guys are going to to do before you take off your clothes and get it on so there isn't any confusion.
But would you REALLY go up and ask a woman you've never met "can I approach you"? That's cheesy as hell. The blogpost I linked to dealt with aspie guys hitting on/approaching women out in public and was NOT dealing with what couples should do in the bedroom.
If you're talking about approaching someone, I sort of agree but wrote about that in the first post I made in this thread. The blog post you linked to did talk about men approaching but it also talked about the "bedroom conduct" issue later on which I tried to address as well. That is also specifically what I was talking about when I replied to LKL initially because that's what I think she was talking about.
06 Oct 2012, 1:54 pm
Hopper wrote:
Am I the only one who keeps reading this thread as 'enlightenment fetishism'?
now i got a visual thanks. Entitled to a fetish. And a formation of a group of fetishists! 
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
06 Oct 2012, 11:07 pm
TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
All of which is beside the point, since you initiallly brought up the subject to claim that restraining laws are sought frivolously in order to punish innocent men.
Well it is true that restraining orders are grossly abused and sought frivolously to screw over innocent PEOPLE as a nasty vindictive tactic.
evidence, please, beyond an anecdote or two, that restraining orders are abused more than any other facet of law?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-manda ... 37636.html
I don't find it hard to comprehend that some women would use legitimate tools illegitimately in divorce proceedings, in the same way that men used to have their wives declared insane when they wanted to get rid of them (and in the same way that men often continue to gaslight women when they can't argue with them).
I have little problem with the proposals presented by the author in the article above; the problem is that men sometimes control their partners with threats of violence, rather than actual violence, so there's no 'record of abuse' when the separation finally occurs. I do not, however, have any statistics on that; only anecdotes.
WRT. the gender pay gap: The GAO put out a very well-researched study not too long ago that controlled for all of the elements suggested by TM, and found that there is still ~$0.20/$1.00 of disparity that remains unaccounted for. Can't link to a pdf on this computer, but it comes up first if you google 'GAO Congressional Report on Women's Earnings.'
07 Oct 2012, 11:02 am
LKL wrote:
TM wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
All of which is beside the point, since you initiallly brought up the subject to claim that restraining laws are sought frivolously in order to punish innocent men.
Well it is true that restraining orders are grossly abused and sought frivolously to screw over innocent PEOPLE as a nasty vindictive tactic.
evidence, please, beyond an anecdote or two, that restraining orders are abused more than any other facet of law?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-manda ... 37636.html
I don't find it hard to comprehend that some women would use legitimate tools illegitimately in divorce proceedings, in the same way that men used to have their wives declared insane when they wanted to get rid of them (and in the same way that men often continue to gaslight women when they can't argue with them).
Are we changing topics mid conversation to avoid having to admit that we we're wrong now? Are we doing so by making excuses for women in the form of "men used to do" much in the vein of "white guilt"
Also, if "gas lighting" of women by men is as common as you claim, I have no doubt that you can present me with similar evidence that I presented you of women's use of restraining orders.
LKL wrote:
I have little problem with the proposals presented by the author in the article above; the problem is that men sometimes control their partners with threats of violence, rather than actual violence, so there's no 'record of abuse' when the separation finally occurs. I do not, however, have any statistics on that; only anecdotes.
Some times women threaten men with accusing them of child molestation, domestic abuse, violence, spousal rape or a number of other things. There is also the very gorgeous "psychological abuse" which cannot be proven in any objective manner.
Can we please get back to facts now?
Quote:
WRT. the gender pay gap: The GAO put out a very well-researched study not too long ago that controlled for all of the elements suggested by TM, and found that there is still ~$0.20/$1.00 of disparity that remains unaccounted for. Can't link to a pdf on this computer, but it comes up first if you google 'GAO Congressional Report on Women's Earnings.'
I think
Quote:
While our analysis used what we consider to be the most appropriate
methods and data set available for our purposes, our analysis has both
data and methodological limitations that should be noted. Specifically,
although the PSID has many advantages over alternative data sets, like any
data set, it did not include certain data elements that would have allowed
us to further define reasons for earnings differences. For example, until
recently, the PSID did not contain data on fringe benefits—most
importantly, health insurance and pension coverage. Because data on
fringe benefits were not available for each year that we studied, we did not
include it for any year. If more women than men worked in jobs that
offered a greater percentage of total compensation in the form of fringe
benefits, part of the remaining gender earnings difference could be
explained by differences in the receipt of fringe benefits. Similarly, the
PSID does not contain data on job characteristics such as flexibility that
men and women may value differently.
In addition, the PSID does not contain data on education quality or field of
study, such as college major. It also does not contain data on cognitive
ability or measures of social skills, all of which may affect earnings. For
example, studies of earnings differences that used the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth have used a measure of ability in addition to
work experience, education, and demographic variables.13 This data set,
however, follows a specific cohort of individuals over time and is
therefore not representative of the population as a whole.
Our model is also limited in that the industry and occupation categories
that we used are broad. Gender earnings differences within these
categories are not reflected and could account for some amount of the
remaining difference. In addition, we did not explicitly model an
individual’s choice of occupation and industry and how these choices
relate to earnings differences. Also, although PSID collects information on
work interruptions, the detail of some of the survey questions limited our
ability to fully explore reasons why individuals were out of the labor force.
We used dummy variables for years to control for general economic
conditions and year-specific effects. In some specifications of the model,
we added national unemployment rate data to the PSID sample in order to
control for national labor market conditions. We did not access the PSID
Geocode Match file, which contains more detailed information on the
location of residence of survey respondents. We could not, therefore,
incorporate a measure of local unemployment rates in the analyses
methods and data set available for our purposes, our analysis has both
data and methodological limitations that should be noted. Specifically,
although the PSID has many advantages over alternative data sets, like any
data set, it did not include certain data elements that would have allowed
us to further define reasons for earnings differences. For example, until
recently, the PSID did not contain data on fringe benefits—most
importantly, health insurance and pension coverage. Because data on
fringe benefits were not available for each year that we studied, we did not
include it for any year. If more women than men worked in jobs that
offered a greater percentage of total compensation in the form of fringe
benefits, part of the remaining gender earnings difference could be
explained by differences in the receipt of fringe benefits. Similarly, the
PSID does not contain data on job characteristics such as flexibility that
men and women may value differently.
In addition, the PSID does not contain data on education quality or field of
study, such as college major. It also does not contain data on cognitive
ability or measures of social skills, all of which may affect earnings. For
example, studies of earnings differences that used the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth have used a measure of ability in addition to
work experience, education, and demographic variables.13 This data set,
however, follows a specific cohort of individuals over time and is
therefore not representative of the population as a whole.
Our model is also limited in that the industry and occupation categories
that we used are broad. Gender earnings differences within these
categories are not reflected and could account for some amount of the
remaining difference. In addition, we did not explicitly model an
individual’s choice of occupation and industry and how these choices
relate to earnings differences. Also, although PSID collects information on
work interruptions, the detail of some of the survey questions limited our
ability to fully explore reasons why individuals were out of the labor force.
We used dummy variables for years to control for general economic
conditions and year-specific effects. In some specifications of the model,
we added national unemployment rate data to the PSID sample in order to
control for national labor market conditions. We did not access the PSID
Geocode Match file, which contains more detailed information on the
location of residence of survey respondents. We could not, therefore,
incorporate a measure of local unemployment rates in the analyses
Says it all.
07 Oct 2012, 11:49 pm
Oh, was I supposed to be ashamed of admitting that the problem was worse than I was aware? How Bushian of you; I would think that you've clashed with me enough to know that I'm not blind to the humanity of half the population. It was not meant to deflect, only to point out that people do foul things to each other when they're going through a divorce (which, IIrc, was not the context in which restraining orders were initially brought up), and I shouldn't have been surprised to see that women would use a loose legal outlet in a nefarious manner in such a case. As for stats on gaslighting: well, no, which you knew before you even asked the question, since the entire point was that it works on a man's say-so only, whether the woman is actually crazy or not, and there can be no unbiased data.
As for how often it happens now, how often have you seen a woman ad-hominemed with the suggestion that she's crazy/emotional/menstruating/whatever, and therefore no one needs to listen to her? It's just not quite as bad now as it was in the Victorian era because it's harder to lock people up in psych wards without their permission.
http://www.helium.com/items/1846276-gaslighting
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... slighting/
http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/20 ... %E2%80%9D/
http://jebrown.us/Relationshop/Definiti ... hting.html
WRT. the GAO report: yes, there are weaknesses in it. There are weaknesses in any study; it does not lessen the impact of my claim that the source is not perfect. However, overall, it did account for many of the factors that you previously claimed hadn't been accounted for, and still found a significant pay gap; rather than just your pull-quote, I suggest that any interested readers look it up (GAO report to congress on women's earnings) and read at least the introduction themselves.
08 Oct 2012, 9:52 am
SOMEONE MADE A BLOG POST! URRR
Quote:
What frustrates me most of all is how the MAJORITY of aspie women out there seem to identify more with being female than being an aspie.
Those monsters!
Quote:
Well, EVEN IF a man is NT and seemingly normal/non-creepy that still is no guarantee that he won't rape you!! ! I can't believe that it isn't common knowledge among feminists so concerned with "rape culture" that women are far more likely to be raped by a man who they ALREADY KNOW(or are at the very least acquainted with)then they are to be raped by a stranger Exclamation Many rapists are manipulative and socially adept enough to deceive women they meet in public into trusting them since they know how to make her feel safe. Most men are not rapists.
Since I am not a rapist, this does not worry me at all. The truth is that rape is one of the most terrible things that could happen in life and it is good to be wary about this. The truth is also that autistics don't have proven higher chance of not being a rapist. So, it is fair to tell women not to trust autistics more just because they are autistic.
It appears your main concern or fear about this is that you will now have to win a woman's trust ? ... Well, it is a tough world, I guess.
You may criticize them for being "entitled" . Well, I actually guess they are entitled to this. Let us consider the opposite world. In which they are not wary of stranger encounters. The difference is now that your life is a bit easier as you no longer need to earn trust whilst their lives' have more rape. Call it entitlement or whatever, but rape is a very real risk and I think that a person truly is entitled to take measures to avoid it.
It is a very milder version, but when I talk with strangers, I avoid becoming a scam/fraud/swindle victim. When I get an email from a stranger, I try very hard not to be a Nigerian scam victim. When I am out at night I avoid dark corners with suspicious looking men because I could be assaulted. If you sent me an email, claiming to be TM from wrongplanet.net and saying you think we could have a business opportunity, it would be dumb for me not to think "This is a scam" by default. I will first need to know you a bit better. It sucks to be you in that case, because even if you really know that you are honest and do not intend to scam people, you still have to earn trust. But this is true for everyone in the world. You would not give me your car's keys the first night we meet - Does this mean you are promoting a "car theft" culture or are you instead taking reasonable measures to protect yourself?
You mention, quite rightly that women are more likely to be raped by someone they know. But the message I receive from this is that women should be even harder than they are now at the time of giving trust to men. That they should be even warier.
You have to consider this: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest ... ing-maced/
_________________
.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| GenZ More Likely Than Boomers To Believe Feminism Harmful |
01 Feb 2024, 5:48 pm |
| Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm |
