why do feminist

Post Reply New Topic

Anywho I dont have issues with the movement itself just the radical loudmouths of the movement I dont really identify myself as a feminist nor a MRA but more of an egalitarian or a humanist. Since both parties claim to be going for gender equality like feminism but at the same time ignores the issues of members of the opposite gender face as well. Apathy towards male victims of the same system if men get abused they scoff it off and called those same men the same as those who abuse women and lack the sympathy. And without further ado I introduce girl does rant have a nice day! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPok3q932rk[/youtube] We need humanism more than MRA or Feminism we all need to work together every human is exploited regarded of gender age and creed etc. This person is like the female version of me and I totally agree with her.

the only thing i got from that video is "i'm justified in my wrong actions, but no one else is."

Yeah,feminist,it's called freedom of speech.Feminist,you
don't speak for all women.

Anywho I dont have issues with the movement itself just the radical loudmouths of the movement I dont really identify myself as a feminist nor a MRA but more of an egalitarian or a humanist. Since both parties claim to be going for gender equality like feminism but at the same time ignores the issues of members of the opposite gender face as well. Apathy towards male victims of the same system if men get abused they scoff it off and called those same men the same as those who abuse women and lack the sympathy. And without further ado I introduce girl does rant have a nice day! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPok3q932rk[/youtube] We need humanism more than MRA or Feminism we all need to work together every human is exploited regarded of gender age and creed etc. This person is like the female version of me and I totally agree with her.

One of the stories in mass circulation today is a very old one, but it’s taken on new vigour: women in general are out of control, and feminism in particular is to blame. It is odd to think that misogynist jokes used to attack women for wanting to trap men into marriage. Now the attacks run the opposite way. The tabloids bitterly quote young mothers who say: “So who needs men?” Feminism today has become a bogy, a whipping boy, routinely produced to explain all social ills. Women struggle for equality of choice in matters of sex, their grasp of sovereignty over their bodies; are blamed in particular for the rise in family breakdown, the increase in divorce, and the apparently spiralling delinquency and violence of children. In these lectures I will be looking at the mythic accretions clustering stickily to these themes: men are no longer in control, mothers are not what they used to be, and it’s the fault of Germaine Greer, Cosmopolitan and headline stars who choose to be single mothers like Michelle Pfeiffer. By holding up to the light modern mythical nodes of this kind I hope to loosen in some cases their binding grip on our imaginations. Replying to one story with another which unravels the former has become central to contemporary thought and art, text as well as image. The idea of a kind of cultural kontakion, the Greek antiphonal chorus across the nave of response and reply, invocation and challenge opens a new angle of view.

The she-monster is hardly a new phenomenon. The idea of a female untamed nature which must be leashed or else will wreak havoc closely reflects mythological heroes’ struggles against monsters. Greek myth alone offers a host - of Ceres, Harpies, Sirens, Moirae. Associated with fate and death in various ways, they move swiftly, sometimes on wings; birds of prey are their closest kin - the Greeks didn't know about dinosaurs - and they seize as in the word raptor. But seizure also describes the effect of the passions on the body; inner forces, madness, art, folly, personified in Homer and the tragedies as feminine, snatch and grab the interior of the human creature and take possession. Ungoverned energy in the female always raises the issue of motherhood; fear that the natural bond excludes men and eludes their control courses through ancient myth, which applies various remedies. In Aeschylus’s Oresteia, when Orestes has murdered his mother Clytemnestra, the matriarchal Furies want justice against the matricide - but they find themselves confronting a new order, led by the god Apollo. Orestes is declared innocent, and in a famous resolution which still has power to shock audiences today, the god decrees:

The mother of what’s called her offspring’s no parent
but only the nurse to the seed that’s implanted.
The mounter, the male’s the only true parent.
She harbours the bloodshoot, unless some god blasts it.
The womb of the woman’s a convenient transit.

In this brutal act of legislation, the god of harmony declares that henceforward, in civilised society, only the father counts. The mother is nothing more than an incubator.

The spectre of gynocracy, of rule by women, stalks through the founding myths of our culture: both Theseus and Hercules fight with the Amazons - and vanquish their queens. The Amazon’s separatist queendom made them tantalising but also monstrous in the eyes of the Greeks; the terrible massacres of their army depicted on stone reliefs and vases redounded to the fame of the Greek heroes as surely as cutting off Medusa’s head.

In the folklore of the past, classical and medieval, the female beast was sometimes cunning and purposely concealed her true nature: the Sirens lured men with their deceitful songs, and later tempted fierce anchorites in the desert, approaching St Anthony for instance, with honeyed words, hiding their diabolical nether parts under sumptuous dresses. Male beasts, as in Beauty and the Beast, or male devils, as in the temptations of St Anthony, don't possess the same degree of duplicity; you can tell you’re dealing with the devil on the whole, but when evil comes in female guise, you have to beware: the fairy queen may turn to dust in your arms, and poisonous dust at that.

"Person on YouTube finds what they have to say agreeable, what others have to say disagreeable".

Eesh. Did she use a pitch shift or something? I assume it's the mask that makes the voice sound weird. And boy, do I not like being pointed at.

"All men are inherently rapists", she mocks.

Is this not the concept behind victim-blaming? Behind the idea that, where a woman does not take sufficient care (in what she wears, how much she drinks, where she is, who she's with) and is sexually assaulted, well, what did she expect? That any man, when given the chance, will take advantage? This idea finds wide, unconsidered acceptance within society, but rephrase it bluntly as 'all men are inherently rapists', and suddenly there's an outrage - 'how ridiculous! Sheer misandry! Man haters!'.

Feminism considers the inequality and exploitation of women as women, usually by men. There is a lot of disagreement between people who sincerely consider themselves feminists as to how such things come to be, and what to do about them, and what a 'feminist' world might look like. And of course, feminism - as any movement of social or political analysis/action - will bear the marks of the culture in which it emerges. This is why we need structural analysis - considering matters of culture and media and economics and politics and race/ethnicity and sexuality etc - or, as the kids have it nowadays, 'intersectionality'. Most feminists I've come across are aware of such.


MRA considers....what? That feminism has gone too far? That men and women have 'proper', 'natural' places/roles, and that when we stray from that, it all goes to hell? I'll grant, I've seen them highlight some child custody decisions that, if accurately reported, were terrible. But as far as the MRAs were concerned, this was because of the evil feminists.

But these are old, old stories. Nothing new. This is the mythographer Marina Warner, from a lecture given in 1994:

I would beg to disagree that that attitude towards rape is as prevalent as you suggest. What I have heard a lot more of is remarks to the effect that "well, she got offended because some men made some advances, what did she expect". And people making advances certainly doesn't equal rape.

I think it is a reflexive attitude, not one come to through thought. But, in my experience and observation, it's more prevalent and socially acceptable than saying 'all men are inherently rapists'. That women have to be careful - that, say, if she gets drunk to the point of passing out around men she can pretty much expect to be sexually assaulted, is taken as a kind of common sense. The assumption being all men are looking for the slightest opportunity to sexually assault a woman. Or, in fewer words, all men are inherently rapists.

The woman in the 'Radical feminism' video AspieOtaku linked to is having a go at what she calls 'radical feminists'. In the course of doing so, she uses the phrase 'all men are inherently rapists' in a mocking, dismissive way. The idea she's referring to is one found in some feminist discourse, but I don't think it's all that widespread. Certainly it is one readily mocked by society at large, and sometimes used as evidence that 'feminists hate men'.

But it struck me the other day that this is essentially the premise behind victim-blaming, and the 'common sense' idea that women simply have to be careful as to how they dress, where they go, who they're with, how much they drink etc. These warnings can only make sense if one assumes that any man will take advantage of any such situation, that in some - many - instances they simply can't help themselves.

I find it ironic that these two opposing ways of thinking share the same premise, and that those of the latter view all but say 'all men are inherently rapists', but would likely cry outrage and 'man hater!' if you phrased it as such.

Im getting tired of conservative bashing from leftist and feminist.
I get shamed for not supporting feminist.

I don't blame victims, and would be on the side of the lady every time.
If a woman gets taken advantage of in the way you described, you tell her to be careful regardless.
You wouldn't let someone walk into that situation again would you?

Saying all men are rapists, has nothing to do with women being careful or learning self defense. If I was a woman, I'd be careful too, and ask someone I know to have my back, or have a buddy system. I'm not a woman, but I don't understand why telling women to be careful is seen as victim blaming. That is absurd.

is it absurd instead to ask men: don't rape? because guess what--if men stop raping, women won't have to be careful of being raped. asking women to be careful is putting the responsibility of not being raped on the women, not on the rapists. is this really a difficult concept to grasp? when a woman is raped, NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES (whether she was walking in a dark alley alone or not, whether she was drinking or not, what she was wearing, etc.) the responsibility is 100% ON THE RAPIST.

not complicated. rape is the fault of rapists, and NO ONE ELSE BUT RAPISTS. full stop.