Feminist Frequency needs a fact check?

[Keith_F]

I've only read the first two pages of this thread but I'll chime in with two quick points.

The OP raised a good point that no one seems to have addressed (as far as I got) which is his concern that he fears he can't argue against the Feminist Frequency without being labelled a sexist. He then goes on to list some very relevant points that call her argument into question in a very specific way. This is exactly what you should be doing. This is not being sexist. This is taking her argument seriously and engaging in a discourse that helps us understand the issue more accurately. Good on you OP.

This is also exactly what is wrong with those (either in the original wave of YouTube responses or in this very thread) that go with the knee-jerk, "this-is-feminist-BS" response and immediately dismiss her ideas and defame her for wanting to make them. People who do this effectively shut down the possibility of a dialogue by creating an atmosphere where the OP decides he doesn't want to weigh in on the issue because he doesn't want to get dragged into the quagmire of labels being tossed around.

You know what? Maybe Anita doesn't have a good point. Maybe she is exaggerating the potential sexism inherent in Lego's marketing and the influence of Lego on gender politics in general. The OP's argument seems to suggest there are holes in her research. But the way you find out is by engaging in a discourse and the second you tell someone their idea isn't worth considering is the second you shut down that possibility.

My second briefer point is in response to someone who said something to the effect of "it's not Lego's fault because they are just reacting to existing sexism in society. You got a problem, take it up with society." That's what this is. This thread, these YouTube videos, this whole little internet news story. This her taking it up with society. This is what that looks like. This is also why we can talk about something as benign as Legos as a relevant gender issue, rather than just talking about the more damaging forms of sexism such as income disparity. Because at the root issues of gender equality are a matter of cultural and social conventions. So thanks for making that point.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The slutwalk was set off when a cop mentioned that walking alone in a bad part of town in the middle of the night drunk and dressed like a "slut" was a stupid thing to do that added to the risk of stranger rape, and suddenly a whole movement sprung up over the word "slut" and the concept of victim blaming -- which has apparently spread from simply meaning "blaming the victim for being victimized" to "suggesting that women have it in their power to do absolutely anything to minimize their risk of getting raped." To hear the activists from that particular event talk, so much as telling a woman she should probably lock her door at night is tantamount for blaming her for getting raped if someone manages to get into her house and rape her. Personally, I find the whole thing both misogynistic and misandristic, since on the one hand it paints women as delicate little flowers incapable of doing anything to minimize their chances of getting raped, and on the other hand it paints men as either rapists waiting for a chance to strike, or idiots who need to be taught something as basic as "rape bad." So I guess it's essentially misanthropic.

Anyway, I guess it was my mistake for assuming anyone reading this thread would be well versed enough in the subject that I could allude to it without spelling out what each reference was talking about.

I understand what you're saying, but I also understand why this advice is still fundamentally a form of victim blaming. You're treating rape as a force of nature, like "you shouldn't have gone outside in this rainy weather without an umbrella, of course you'll get wet". Like the threat of rape is a cosmic inevitability, and thus the onus lies with women to do everything in power to minimize their risk. This is something we, as guys, generally do no not need to concern ourselves with. I don't need to worry about whether or not the pants I'm putting on might result in me getting raped on the way home because they were just too sexy. What was I thinking!? Wearing such sexy pants! Why, this rape is as much my fault as the rapists! It's like telling a victim of a mugging that they should have thought twice about leaving the house wearing something nice, or with money in their pocket.

So while I agree that sometimes people will get carried away with this, as people are wont to do, and that the advice was probably well intentioned if not well delivered, I do understand the premise behind "Slut Walk", and I don't think it's particularly ludicrous. I may be preaching to the choir, though. Your position on this subject is hard to read.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The slutwalk was set off when a cop mentioned that walking alone in a bad part of town in the middle of the night drunk and dressed like a "slut" was a stupid thing to do that added to the risk of stranger rape, and suddenly a whole movement sprung up over the word "slut" and the concept of victim blaming -- which has apparently spread from simply meaning "blaming the victim for being victimized" to "suggesting that women have it in their power to do absolutely anything to minimize their risk of getting raped." To hear the activists from that particular event talk, so much as telling a woman she should probably lock her door at night is tantamount for blaming her for getting raped if someone manages to get into her house and rape her. Personally, I find the whole thing both misogynistic and misandristic, since on the one hand it paints women as delicate little flowers incapable of doing anything to minimize their chances of getting raped, and on the other hand it paints men as either rapists waiting for a chance to strike, or idiots who need to be taught something as basic as "rape bad." So I guess it's essentially misanthropic.

Anyway, I guess it was my mistake for assuming anyone reading this thread would be well versed enough in the subject that I could allude to it without spelling out what each reference was talking about.

I understand what you're saying, but I also understand why this advice is still fundamentally a form of victim blaming. You're treating rape as a force of nature, like "you shouldn't have gone outside in this rainy weather without an umbrella, of course you'll get wet". Like the threat of rape is a cosmic inevitability, and thus the onus lies with women to do everything in power to minimize their risk. This is something we, as guys, generally do no not need to concern ourselves with. I don't need to worry about whether or not the pants I'm putting on might result in me getting raped on the way home because they were just too sexy. What was I thinking!? Wearing such sexy pants! Why, this rape is as much my fault as the rapists! It's like telling a victim of a mugging that they should have thought twice about leaving the house wearing something nice, or with money in their pocket.

So while I agree that sometimes people will get carried away with this, as people are wont to do, and that the advice was probably well intentioned if not well delivered, I do understand the premise behind "Slut Walk", and I don't think it's particularly ludicrous. I may be preaching to the choir, though. Your position on this subject is hard to read.

Actually I'm treating rape as a crime. Would it be victim blaming if I replaced "rape" with "mugging?" What about if I switched out the advice to leaving a nice car parked in a bad part of town with the windows rolled down, and said "don't do that, otherwise it's likely to get stolen?"

Face it, it's not victim blaming. It's good advice.


Edit: I mean, if anything it's the anti-victim blaming activists who treat it like a force of nature. Like saying "hey, that's a rough part of town, be careful" is tantamount to saying "Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God!"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Actually I'm treating rape as a crime. Would it be victim blaming if I replaced "rape" with "mugging?" What about if I switched out the advice to leaving a nice car parked in a bad part of town with the windows rolled down, and said "don't do that, otherwise it's likely to get stolen?"

Face it, it's not victim blaming. It's good advice.

It's completely 100% victim blaming. You're treating theft, brutality and rape as inevitabilities that must simply be accepted. And while theft, or a mugging motivated by theft, often come about as a result of certain economic realities, rape is a little more difficult to pin down.

And really, think about the logic behind this. A car with open windows and valuables in easy reach represents a crime of opportunity. Is a short skirt really a good analogue? Like, that guy wouldn't ordinarily be a rapist, but that short skirt just sent him right over the edge, yo! Crime of opportunity! Are we to understand that rapists are everywhere, and that the only thing keeping them in check is the clothing equivalent of a strong lock? That as long as women dress more conservatively, this whole rape problem will go away, because then men will be able to keep their rampant, unchained lust under control?

It's fucking ludicrous, seriously.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually I'm treating rape as a crime. Would it be victim blaming if I replaced "rape" with "mugging?" What about if I switched out the advice to leaving a nice car parked in a bad part of town with the windows rolled down, and said "don't do that, otherwise it's likely to get stolen?"

Face it, it's not victim blaming. It's good advice.

It's completely 100% victim blaming. You're treating theft, brutality and rape as inevitabilities that must simply be accepted. And while theft, or a mugging motivated by theft, often come about as a result of certain economic realities, rape is a little more difficult to pin down.

And really, think about the logic behind this. A car with open windows and valuables in easy reach represents a crime of opportunity. Is a short skirt really a good analogue? Like, that guy wouldn't ordinarily be a rapist, but that short skirt just sent him right over the edge, yo! Crime of opportunity! Are we to understand that rapists are everywhere, and that the only thing keeping them in check is the clothing equivalent of a strong lock? That as long as women dress more conservatively, this whole rape problem will go away, because then men will be able to keep their rampant, unchained lust under control?

It's fucking ludicrous, seriously.

A short skirt? No. A heavily drunk woman alone in the dark in an area where muggings and the like are already common? Who's gonna notice that she's getting raped? And what's she gonna be able to do to defend herself? That's the point here. This whole idea treats rape as if it's special, as if it's some magic thing that there is nothing a victim can do to minimize their risk of. That it just happens. And the sad thing is, it doesn't just happen. The one thing rape victims -- and victims of most crime, for that matter -- have in common is a moment of vulnerability. What's wrong with suggesting ways to minimize that vulnerability? It's not blaming the victim. It's empowering them.

By the way, you will never end rape, anymore than you will end theft or murder. There will always be fringe elements in any society that break the law. You can reduce the crime rates, which actually is happening, but you can't drop them to zero. Not recognizing that is not recognizing reality. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where sometimes, would be victims have to defend themselves. You can't blame them for being unable to do it, but you can help them learn what they can do better so it doesn't happen again -- or, if they get the help in time, so they can prevent it altogether.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

By the way, you will never end rape, anymore than you will end theft or murder. There will always be fringe elements in any society that break the law. You can reduce the crime rates, which actually is happening, but you can't drop them to zero. Not recognizing that is not recognizing reality. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where sometimes, would be victims have to defend themselves. You can't blame them for being unable to do it, but you can help them learn what they can do better so it doesn't happen again -- or, if they get the help in time, so they can prevent it altogether.

I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the best way to mitigate against, say, theft, is to try and treat the underlying issues of poverty and economic inequality. It's not to tell people to stop having so much nice stuff so as to not tempt all the poor bloody thieves with no impulse control. Rape prevention should be focused on identifying potential rapists and treating them before they actually take that next step, not on identifying potential rape victims and telling them to stop dressing like sluts.

It's this premise that the trigger for rapes is a scantily clad woman that I find disturbing in its implications. Especially since it's been used as a defense by rapists in court as evidence that A) the woman was "asking for it", and B) that they couldn't be expected to control themselves in the presence of such fine booty.

And let's face it, rape is not restricted to bad parts of town, nor is it restricted to drunk girls in positions of extraordinary vulnerability. Stranger rape is what, one fifth as commonplace as rape at the hands of someone you know? What was the trigger there? Were you ever hanging out with a female friend when her revealing top made you go berserk and throw her to the ground?

 

[Dastardly]

What irritates me the most is the things people pick on to make a statement of "sexism".

LEGO for christs sake.

Issues like job equality, same pay rate and the like? No, fuck that, lets have a bash at little plastic bricks you make things with. That is clearly a huge issue.

In fairness, I think the point being made is that the current social structure (including toy manufacture and marketing) is self-replicating because of this kind of stuff. We continue to divide "girl toys" from "boy toys" based on color and activity. Girl toys, by and large, promote a very, very different set of activities than boy toys.

We don't try to sell girls spaceship toys. Why? Well, we say "Because girls don't like spaceship toys, and boys do." But why is that? Perhaps because, early on, parents and toy manufacturers and cartoon creators are teaching boys and girls to align with certain preferences... because that's how they remember it always being. I don't think it's malicious or intentional, but that doesn't mean it's not problematic (if I accidentally shot you, you wouldn't be "less dead" than if I did it on purpose).

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

By the way, you will never end rape, anymore than you will end theft or murder. There will always be fringe elements in any society that break the law. You can reduce the crime rates, which actually is happening, but you can't drop them to zero. Not recognizing that is not recognizing reality. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where sometimes, would be victims have to defend themselves. You can't blame them for being unable to do it, but you can help them learn what they can do better so it doesn't happen again -- or, if they get the help in time, so they can prevent it altogether.

I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the best way to mitigate against, say, theft, is to try and treat the underlying issues of poverty and economic inequality. It's not to tell people to stop having so much nice stuff so as to not tempt all the poor bloody thieves with no impulse control. Rape prevention should be focused on identifying potential rapists and treating them before they actually take that next step, not on identifying potential rape victims and telling them to stop dressing like sluts.

It's this premise that the trigger for rapes is a scantily clad woman that I find disturbing in its implications. Especially since it's been used as a defense by rapists in court as evidence that A) the woman was "asking for it", and B) that they couldn't be expected to control themselves in the presence of such fine booty.

And let's face it, rape is not restricted to bad parts of town, nor is it restricted to drunk girls in positions of extraordinary vulnerability. Stranger rape is what, one fifth as commonplace as rape at the hands of someone you know? What was the trigger there? Were you ever hanging out with a female friend when her revealing top made you go berserk and throw her to the ground?

That's getting into acquaintance rape. I (and the cop who everyone got so mad at) was talking about stranger rape. With acquaintance rape it's still about vulnerability, it's just that those rapists are a lot more choosy, and tend to create that vulnerability themselves.

About telling women not to dress like "sluts": that's not a good thing. Suggesting they shouldn't dress like prostitutes while all of the other things I mentioned that make them vulnerable are also in effect, on the other hand, is probably not as bad an idea as it's been made out to be. Part of this relies on the idea that rape is absolutely 100% not about sex, and is absolutely 100% about power. Logically speaking, some percentage has got to be about sex. Otherwise we'd be hearing more stories about other forms of torture being randomly perpetrated.

As for fixing theft by ending poverty, and otherwise ending crime by ending the situations that lead to it: first of all, good luck with that. Its not going to happen completely, because we live on Earth, not in heaven[footnote]Not implying a religious argument here, just saying, earth is not perfect and you won't make it perfect.[/footnote]. However, let's say there is a way to end all crime. You're still not going to be able to do it overnight, meaning that in the present, crime is still happening, and it is still possible -- maybe even necessary -- to learn to minimize your risk of being the victim of one of those crimes.

 

[Dastardly]

I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the best way to mitigate against, say, theft, is to try and treat the underlying issues of poverty and economic inequality. It's not to tell people to stop having so much nice stuff so as to not tempt all the poor bloody thieves with no impulse control. Rape prevention should be focused on identifying potential rapists and treating them before they actually take that next step, not on identifying potential rape victims and telling them to stop dressing like sluts.

It's this premise that the trigger for rapes is a scantily clad woman that I find disturbing in its implications. Especially since it's been used as a defense by rapists in court as evidence that A) the woman was "asking for it", and B) that they couldn't be expected to control themselves in the presence of such fine booty.

And let's face it, rape is not restricted to bad parts of town, nor is it restricted to drunk girls in positions of extraordinary vulnerability. Stranger rape is what, one fifth as commonplace as rape at the hands of someone you know? What was the trigger there? Were you ever hanging out with a female friend when her revealing top made you go berserk and throw her to the ground?

I've never heard anyone present "Don't Dress Slutty" as a solution for rape, though. While there are those rape-apologists who go the "She was asking for it" route, that's not what I usually hear with this.

It's presented as one way to reduce your chances. It's not saying that a woman dressing slutty will somehow create rapists, any more than it's saying someone carrying $100 glued to their forehead will somehow compel people to be thieves. It's simply a recognition that, for now, those people are out there, and here are some of the things we've learned about how they select their targets -- so, in turn, here are some ways you can lower your chances of being on that list.

Identifying rapists before they rape is really not possible, because they only become rapists after committing the act. And while we definitely need to focus on catching, prosecuting, and punishing rapists, there's nothing wrong with doing what we can to help someone avoid being made a victim.

So we tell women:
- Don't walk alone at night or in dark areas
- Have some device for self-defense
- Have your car keys ready before you get to the car
- Don't accept drinks from strangers, or leave a drink unattended
- If a friend is drunk, try to steer them away from going home with strangers

Now, should any women have to behave according to such a list? Of course not. Is it a woman's "fault" if she doesn't abide by "the list" and she gets attacked? Not in any way whatsoever. But do you think that exoneration from blame makes her feel better about what was taken from her?

It's natural, after bad things happen, that we look for ways we can keep it from happening again. We do it to regain our sense of control when someone takes it from us. If your house is destroyed by a hurricane, you might be inclined to add all kinds of extra hurricane-proofing to it -- you can't stop the hurricane, but you can increase your chances of coming through it okay.

So, that established, it's also natural for us to encourage people to take some of those steps before it happens. That is not the same as blaming them when it does happen.

It's also not mutually exclusive. People aren't saying, "We need to stop pursuing and prosecuting rapists, and instead just tell women not to dress all rape-y." People are saying, "We can really only catch rapists after it happens (or is attempted), so we should also help would-be victims recognize warning signs and take steps that reduce their chances of being targeted by these awful people."

I should have to lock my house at night. And if someone walks into my unlocked house and steals all of my belongings and stabs me, I bear absolutely no fault for that. However, that knowledge doesn't give me my stuff back or un-stab me, does it? Taking responsibility for what I can control is not even remotely the same as taking blame for what I can't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the best way to mitigate against, say, theft, is to try and treat the underlying issues of poverty and economic inequality. It's not to tell people to stop having so much nice stuff so as to not tempt all the poor bloody thieves with no impulse control. Rape prevention should be focused on identifying potential rapists and treating them before they actually take that next step, not on identifying potential rape victims and telling them to stop dressing like sluts.

It's this premise that the trigger for rapes is a scantily clad woman that I find disturbing in its implications. Especially since it's been used as a defense by rapists in court as evidence that A) the woman was "asking for it", and B) that they couldn't be expected to control themselves in the presence of such fine booty.

And let's face it, rape is not restricted to bad parts of town, nor is it restricted to drunk girls in positions of extraordinary vulnerability. Stranger rape is what, one fifth as commonplace as rape at the hands of someone you know? What was the trigger there? Were you ever hanging out with a female friend when her revealing top made you go berserk and throw her to the ground?

I've never heard anyone present "Don't Dress Slutty" as a solution for rape, though. While there are those rape-apologists who go the "She was asking for it" route, that's not what I usually hear with this.

It's presented as one way to reduce your chances. It's not saying that a woman dressing slutty will somehow create rapists, any more than it's saying someone carrying $100 glued to their forehead will somehow compel people to be thieves. It's simply a recognition that, for now, those people are out there, and here are some of the things we've learned about how they select their targets -- so, in turn, here are some ways you can lower your chances of being on that list.

Identifying rapists before they rape is really not possible, because they only become rapists after committing the act. And while we definitely need to focus on catching, prosecuting, and punishing rapists, there's nothing wrong with doing what we can to help someone avoid being made a victim.

So we tell women:
- Don't walk alone at night or in dark areas
- Have some device for self-defense
- Have your car keys ready before you get to the car
- Don't accept drinks from strangers, or leave a drink unattended
- If a friend is drunk, try to steer them away from going home with strangers

Now, should any women have to behave according to such a list? Of course not. Is it a woman's "fault" if she doesn't abide by "the list" and she gets attacked? Not in any way whatsoever. But do you think that exoneration from blame makes her feel better about what was taken from her?

It's natural, after bad things happen, that we look for ways we can keep it from happening again. We do it to regain our sense of control when someone takes it from us. If your house is destroyed by a hurricane, you might be inclined to add all kinds of extra hurricane-proofing to it -- you can't stop the hurricane, but you can increase your chances of coming through it okay.

So, that established, it's also natural for us to encourage people to take some of those steps before it happens. That is not the same as blaming them when it does happen.

It's also not mutually exclusive. People aren't saying, "We need to stop pursuing and prosecuting rapists, and instead just tell women not to dress all rape-y." People are saying, "We can really only catch rapists after it happens (or is attempted), so we should also help would-be victims recognize warning signs and take steps that reduce their chances of being targeted by these awful people."

I should have to lock my house at night. And if someone walks into my unlocked house and steals all of my belongings and stabs me, I bear absolutely no fault for that. However, that knowledge doesn't give me my stuff back or un-stab me, does it? Taking responsibility for what I can control is not even remotely the same as taking blame for what I can't.

Thank you. Dastardly, that's two threads in one day on two wildly different topics where you've not only agreed with me, but done so in a very well thought out way.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Stuff!

More stuff!

You guys are making cogent arguments, and we're fairly close to an accord, so this will be pretty brief.

Again, I understand and appreciate the motivation behind the warning, I do. As I originally said, I do believe it was well intentioned, and Dastardly makes a strong point as to why it's probably fair (if unfortunate) advice. My original response to Owyn was to simply indicate that I understood why it would be interpreted as victim blaming. If I was a victim of rape or a violent crime, and a well intentioned person indicated that I could've prevented it if I'd done X Y or Z differently, I'd probably feel pissed off too.

As Owyn points out, we live in an imperfect world, and in the world we live in, the "she was askin' for it, check out that outfit" defense is commonplace. It's also commonplace for a woman's sexual history or proclivities to be used as defense in a rape case. Say, if she's into BDSM, or she has multiple partners, well that right there is grounds for exoneration! I can understand why, living in that world, and wondering whether these shoes with this dress is going to make you look too rapey for a night on the town, that advice might not have registered as friendly. And I don't think an aggrieved reaction necessarily makes them uppity bitches who don't want to take any personal responsibility for their own safety. It's an emotional subject. Particularly for those who have been victims.

Not that either of you are saying that, but it certainly does get said. It gets said often enough here, where feminism is the devil and any woman who dares to call attention to a "woman's issue" is the tall blade of grass just waiting to be cut by a furious rat pack of disenfranchised men.

Okay I lied. That wasn't brief at all!

EDIT - There are some pretty clear warning signs for potential rapists, such as public exposure and groping, a pattern of escalation leading up to outright rape (particularly with "gentlemen" rapists). So I do think there is some room for preventive justice to be applied.

 

[Dryk]

My Facebook friends were having an argument about this today. While I feel that in theory people should be mindful of potential risk factors I found that we have very little data on what those risk factors actually are. I found just as many arguments for not dressing conservatively and standing sheepishly in a corner as I did for dressing provocatively. What that says to me is that it's a complicated issue and it depends a lot on the individual's motive and the situation on the day just like any other crime. But again there isn't much data and what data there is is sketchy at best, as apparently rapists and rape victims don't react too well when you try to study them.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's simply a recognition that, for now, those people are out there, and here are some of the things we've learned about how they select their targets -- so, in turn, here are some ways you can lower your chances of being on that list.

Do you know who is actually likely to rape you?

It's not some random guy on the street who thinks you have nice boobs because you're wearing a low cut top. It's your husband or boyfriend or a close friend. Heck, your dad is more likely to rape you than some random dude on the street.

All of you have absolutely missed the main issue here, which is that you're fixating on a very particular narrative of what rape is that almost never happens, and when everyone does that (including the police and the criminal justice system) it is incredibly harmful.

Your advice is pretty good. However, it has nothing to do with women. Noone should accept drinks from a stranger. Everyone should avoid walking home alone or carry a personal defence alarm. This is not a special women's issue, it's a basic issue of safety.

You're actually far more likely to be a victim of a crime walking alone at night as a man. This is not a special thing which women have to be aware of, it is something everyone should be aware of. If you don't think this advice is important enough for men to follow, then it's not important enough for women to follow either.

Now, if you want to stop talking about rape and start talking about lesser offences like street harassment, then we can talk. But that's a far more complicated discussion than this entirely fictitious discussion about rape prevention.

OP: I think you're perfectly right. Anita Sarkeesian does not research well and I don't even think she's particularly knowledgeable about gender theory. However, that's not something you can extrapolate or generalize.

 

[Cobalt180]

As far as feminism is concerned, it is a wholly important issue, the idea that, in this day and age, we are not judged by our ability, rather than having our options limited because we do not meet a certain criteria, be is race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, etc. is interesting.

Feminism as it is understood by the general public, is the idea that females wish to be treated the same as males. With that basic line of logic as a starting point, if not a base definition to work off of, it might be valuable to really examine what we're seeing here, as well as examining the myth of male superiority from both sides.

The idea of equality between genders has some of the largest hurdles to overcome, those in particular being: basic genetic characteristics, human nature, human history/origins, and sociological standards. To start, it is a well-known fact that the human male has more upper body strength than a human female. In terms of relevance to feminism, it can be linked to human history, as well as basic natural (if you will call it God-given) gender roles. The male is expendable, they are hunters, fighters, and defenders of their territory, by nature, they are angry, always on the lookout to defend what they say is theirs; their religion, their country, their home, and their wife. Feminists have said that males are misogynists all, who wish to see women submitted to a sexual slave role in life. This is untrue by those with happy marriages, and, also in defiance of the base genetic role of the female, which, in terms of Darwinism, is perhaps the greater role than males: birth. Birth is a specifically-female role, and it is due to them that we have survived as a species up until this point. Were it not for the female's ability to give birth, we would have died off as a species long before now. (NOTE: Arguments against the above statement citing the male seahorses ability to give birth should not be considered, as male seahorses incubate the young, they do not have the proper organs to be come pregnant on their own, the female will transfer care of the fertilized eggs to the male after a certain time after their conception)

Human History also plays an important role in where we are now. Due to the gender roles in terms of basic human survival, females would stay in the camps, or established communities, caves, what have you, and generally try to stay out of sight to avoid predators, other tribes or rival clans, to ensure the survival of the group. The males would act as soldiers as they would with hunting, because they were, as stated before, expendable. Were they to die, a child may still grow up to replace him and have children of their own. The clan would be safe, sans the dead male. Over time, as humanity established themselves, the gender roles remained, but were largely the same. However, during the Roman Empire (in theory), the idea of male-female inequality could perhaps have been reduced there, or at least starting there, since gender roles are more important in dire survival situations. The Pleistocene Era was far more rugged than the Bronze Age, and the Modern Era less so than that. During the years that followed, females were still confined to the house, not forcefully, but their roles in life were to provide offspring (still a necessary part of survival of the species, and to a smaller part, the nation they male and female belonged to). Males would hunt, females would cook, however, with the introduction of perhaps-superfluous activities such as a bureaucratic society provides, women's roles as a general caretaker were expanded, and their ability to integrate into a human-made system was perhaps far more viable an option than sitting at home, I'm sad to say we missed that opportunity as a species, to our detriment, to be sure.

One statement to take from the previous paragraph is the phrase "general caregivers". The idea that women are better suited to give care to a community is not a new notion, and is certainly not an insult (although it may be depending on who you ask), it is also known scientifically, that males and females think differently. Males tend to think more logically, closer to a problem solving standpoint, while females, as may not be surprising based on their naturally established role in the human species, think more about community, emotions, and feelings. Males are logical, females are nurturers. This is not meant to sound demeaning, and should not be seen as such, the female has an important role in society for which their body and mind are equipped to act a certain way to protect the young and ensure the survival of the species, where as men have that same drive, to find food, one must know how to approach it, how to gather it, and how to use it.

All in all, feminism didn't emerge until the 1960's, as an after-effect of the WW2 drives to get females to take the manufacturing jobs that men were forced to leave in order to fight. Now, with technical issues like wage differences, it is important to note which jobs females are left out of. Manufacturing positions are dangerous, with the natural bias towards trying to keep women safe, perhaps THAT is a reason why Sally didn't get the job for welding plates onto submarine hulls. Why did Joshua not get a nursing position? Because Sally has inborn natural skills with dealing with the sick and young.

Feminism is not a bad thing, there are many ideas that are brought up that can make our species stronger, but the prevailing sentiment that "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" only serves to widen the gap between to sides of the same coin, one cannot have a heads without a tail, and even as that phrase may not directly point out, a head and a tail are important parts of the body, and both might not survive without the other.

 

[aestu]

In short if she does make the videos with the same emphasis on nit-picking on facts that are inconsequential and also flat out lying to the audience, then our collective media culture will be made worse.

Policiticizing children's toys and making everything into an ideological battleground is what is making our culture "worse". Parity in genders is political nonsense and turns our culture into an irrelevant, dysfunctional mess by divorcing it from reality.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

 

[aestu]

Feminism as it is understood by the general public, is the idea that females wish to be treated the same as males. With that basic line of logic as a starting point..

Everything that follows is lies and nonsense because your initial premise is malarkey. Women do not want to be treated the same as males nor is the goal of feminism "equality".

As far as feminism is concerned, it is a wholly important issue, the idea that, in this day and age, we are not judged by our ability...

And you prove my point. Feminists do not argue about equality of opportunity, they argue about equality of results. They support and abuse laws that judge equality based on outcome irrespective of the availability, inclination or basic ability of women to do the jobs in question.

And "equality of results" only applies to the jobs that are fun, glamorous, and high-paying - never to those that are dreary, difficult or dangerous. Women sue for under-representation in management etc arguing that inequality of outcome proves inequality of opportunity but never do you see them do the same for farming, mining, maintenance, etc.

 

[Dastardly]

If I was a victim of rape or a violent crime, and a well intentioned person indicated that I could've prevented it if I'd done X Y or Z differently, I'd probably feel pissed off too.

Oh, as would I. It reeks of "I told you so." But the problem is that's not what's happening here. What we're doing is deconstructing past events and saying, "Based on what we've seen in the past, here's what we could tell people for the future." We're not saying you should walk up to a rape victim and tell them all of the Hindsight Highways they could have taken to avoid Rape Road.

But what follows are some fundamental misunderstandings about our justice system:

...and in the world we live in, the "she was askin' for it, check out that outfit" defense is commonplace.

While I might ask your sources for just how commonplace this defense is, what matters is whether or not this defense stands up in court. It doesn't. I can be put on trial for robbing a liquor store and tell them I was stealing it for biofuel for my orphan-saving spaceship if I wanted, but it's not going to work. People will try ridiculous "defenses."

It's also commonplace for a woman's sexual history or proclivities to be used as defense in a rape case. Say, if she's into BDSM, or she has multiple partners, well that right there is grounds for exoneration!

There's a reason things like that come up in some cases. A "rape trial" isn't an event where we "put a rapist on trial." It's an event to determine whether or not the defendant committed rape. At the point of trial, it's still if he's a rapist, not how big of a rapist is he.

Our system of "innocent until proven guilty" assumes the possibility that someone may be wrongly (or even falsely) accused. That doesn't change just because the charge is rape. A defendant is still presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the prosecution has to prove A) that the alleged victim and the defendant had sexual contact, and B) that contact was without the consent of the alleged victim.

Depending on the specific case, the alleged victim's sexual history with the defendant can have a lot of bearing on B. (Usually, witnesses or evidence establish A.) This is particularly the case with acquaintance rape, as "stranger rape" is usually easier to prosecute based on proof of sexual contact only.

Too often, the public takes Ingredient A, adds to it the accusation of rape, and presumes that to mean a conviction... so if and when a conviction doesn't follow, the assumption is that a rapist went free. And rather than looking into why this decision is reached, people just store it away as "yet another example" of injustice. (Why? Because no one wants to sound like the guy defending the dirty "rapist!" See how cyclical it can be?)

I can understand why, living in that world, and wondering whether these shoes with this dress is going to make you look too rapey for a night on the town, that advice might not have registered as friendly. And I don't think an aggrieved reaction necessarily makes them uppity bitches who don't want to take any personal responsibility for their own safety. It's an emotional subject. Particularly for those who have been victims.

And for me, I don't put as much weight on a woman's choice of attire. Now, I think a woman who dresses "slutty" is going to end up attracting what I feel would be "the wrong type of guy," that doesn't mean rape. It just means she'll attract guys that are primarily interested in whatever happens to be "on display."

When it comes to rape, it's behaviors that I focus on. Basically, avoid doing stuff that puts you in that position of vulnerability. The outfit will just get you a lot more attention, but playing smart and safe can ensure that you're able to filter through that attention and avoid the ones that mean you harm before they ever "find their chance."

(Again, this isn't to say it's a woman's job to "look out for rapists." But it's worth noting rapists certainly aren't going to "look out" for themsevles...)

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Our system of "innocent until proven guilty" assumes the possibility that someone may be wrongly (or even falsely) accused. That doesn't change just because the charge is rape. A defendant is still presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the prosecution has to prove A) that the alleged victim and the defendant had sexual contact, and B) that contact was without the consent of the alleged victim.

Firstly, to prove that someone committed rape you actually have to prove that they knew their victim did not consent at the time the offence occurred. The only difference in recent years is that many countries have inserted the extra caveat that this belief must be reasonable.

Secondly, the burden of proof you're describing is almost impossible to reach. There is no forensic test which can tell the difference between injuries sustained during violent consensual sex and rape.

So actually, there's a flip-side to what you're saying, which is that we cannot possibly assume that a verdict of not-guilty in a rape trial means that the victim has not been raped or that the accused was not responsible. Not-guilty does not mean innocent, it means that there is insufficient evidence to convict. That's another distinction which certain members of the public routinely seem to forget.

Frankly, a lot of men who take this position are defending rapists, not directly of course, but by seeking to minimize the crime and to suggest that it's somehow not as big an issue as all these nasty irrational women are claiming. The hysterical focus on a very, very small number of "malicious" allegations, and the consequent fear of them in the courts system and particularly among the police, is a good example. I'm not saying that these things don't happen, just that many people seem to have got the impression that they happen a lot.

For the first time in decades, allegations of a very serious crime which is unfortunately very common in our society are now relatively close to being taken seriously. I really have no sympathy for anyone who finds that threatening or scary.