Poll: Emma Watson's Speech on Gender Equality

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Grahav said:
That is why I love Christina Sommers.
I watched a "Factual Feminist" video that made the rounds here lately. I saw a condescending woman make vague, hilariously unsupported arguments, hand wave her opposition, poison the well, fling ad hominems around like candy, and basically commit every single one of the same logic and substantiation gaffes that people have accused other commentators on social issues of making, often much more egregiously. Yet, she is embraced with almost religious fervor by a demographic on this website.

Perhaps that video represented her at her worst, but I saw in her mannerisms and talking points the worst kind of polarizing, hostile ideologue.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Inglorious891 said:
Considering HeForShe is a global, UN campaign, I'm not surprised it's just for women. My issue isn't with that, it's with the fact that it advertised itself as a campaign to help men when it's not to help men. It's just the dishonestly that gets me, and the fact that most egalitarianist campaigns are actually feminist campaigns that just advertise themselves as helpful for men when in reality the main thrust of their campaign is purely for women, not men. I'd consider supporting a UN feminist campaign if it wasn't for this dishonesty, but because of it I'm cautious to throw myself behind them.
Well...again...I don't consider the notion that by solving problems facing women we also solve some problems facing men to be "dishonest" in the slightest. I also consider helping people in my community, both locally and globally, to be a net benefit to me, because it works towards the kind of world I want to live in. It's why I happily pay taxes for services I don't personally use, or put my shoulder into causes that may never directly address any of my personal issues. I'm hardly a scion, I can be very selfish. I guess I just see "human problems" as opposed to "woman problems", and don't consider addressing them to be working against my interests in any way.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Grahav said:
That is why I love Christina Sommers.
I watched a "Factual Feminist" video that made the rounds here lately. I saw a condescending woman make vague, hilariously unsupported arguments, hand wave her opposition, poison the well, fling ad hominems around like candy, and basically commit every single one of the same logic and substantiation gaffes that people have accused other commentators on social issues of making, often much more egregiously. Yet, she is embraced with almost religious fervor by a demographic on this website.

Perhaps that video represented her at her worst, but I saw in her mannerisms and talking points the worst kind of polarizing, hostile ideologue.
So I guess all the sides are the same thing them.

Yay, we have achieved ideological equality!
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Fappy said:
I've felt confined by my gender at times, but I don't think it happens very often. While it is a problem for men, gender roles are a lot more debilitating for women imo.
I think this is a very patriarchal view to take. I think sexism is a result of the unreasonable expectations for men and women based on traditional gender roles. It's not a problem "for men" or "for women", it's a problem for humanity as a whole because sexism against men perpetuates sexism against women and vice versa. Sexism breeds sexism and the only way to get rid of the problem is to get rid of gender prejudice as a whole, a very difficult task as everyone has some degree of gender prejudice (we evolved with it, sadly) but the trends in society seems to be moving towards a more androgynous kind of culture, something that'd benefit everyone in the long run.

Feminism has a bad reputation because it is seen as being concerned with women's issues only. I don't think this is entirely the case but despite my opinion that men and women face an equal amount of gender expectation, patriarchal culture relies on the dominance of men and submission of women. While many men don't wish to be dominant, it's the ones that do that get a disproportionate amount of cultural influence. I think the tendency for many feminists to overlook men's issues does more harm than good, and undermines the goal of feminism in the first place. That's why I liked Emma's speech, she recognises that the problem is the patriarchy-propagated gender stereotypes and not some sort of worldwide conspiracy to put women down. All this "straight white male is the easiest difficulty setting" bullshit suggests a widespread ignorance of constructive feminism.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Grahav said:
So I guess all the sides are the same thing them.
Well, yes, if you choose a "side" of a polarized debate, you are very likely to rapidly become polarized yourself. There are certain debates where it very literally has to be "us or them". Hard to find a compromise on issues like, say, abortion, or the death penalty. But human rights? Not a zero sum proposition.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I think it would be healthy to recognize that there are real differences between the sexes without assuming that someone failing to display what one views as "typical" masculine or feminine behavior is somehow wrong.

A woman can manage a company, and should receive appropriate respect from her employees in doing so.

A man can raise children, and should receive appropriate respect from those he associates with in doing so.

If that woman needs that man to take care of a big hairy spider, or that man wants them to watch an action movie rather than a rom-com, that should be okay, too.
 

Edl01

New member
Apr 11, 2012
255
0
0
Yeah it is true for sure. I mean you hear Girls talking about how each other look all the time, but if a guy ever comments on some guy looking good/attractive it is assumed they're gay. That is something that's just always bugged me.
As well as that I've received quite a few looks for the fact I refuse to drink Beer(because it's disgusting) and drink cocktails and other drinks often viewed as, "Girly".

I have more examples, but I'll leave it at that. However I am quite happy to see someone who people will actually listen too acknowledging that women aren't the only people who can be hurt by stereotypes.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
DizzyChuggernaut said:
Fappy said:
I've felt confined by my gender at times, but I don't think it happens very often. While it is a problem for men, gender roles are a lot more debilitating for women imo.
I think this is a very patriarchal view to take. I think sexism is a result of the unreasonable expectations for men and women based on traditional gender roles. It's not a problem "for men" or "for women", it's a problem for humanity as a whole because sexism against men perpetuates sexism against women and vice versa. Sexism breeds sexism and the only way to get rid of the problem is to get rid of gender prejudice as a whole, a very difficult task as everyone has some degree of gender prejudice (we evolved with it, sadly) but the trends in society seems to be moving towards a more androgynous kind of culture, something that'd benefit everyone in the long run.

Feminism has a bad reputation because it is seen as being concerned with women's issues only. I don't think this is entirely the case but despite my opinion that men and women face an equal amount of gender expectation, patriarchal culture relies on the dominance of men and submission of women. While many men don't wish to be dominant, it's the ones that do that get a disproportionate amount of cultural influence. I think the tendency for many feminists to overlook men's issues does more harm than good, and undermines the goal of feminism in the first place. That's why I liked Emma's speech, she recognises that the problem is the patriarchy-propagated gender stereotypes and not some sort of worldwide conspiracy to put women down. All this "straight white male is the easiest difficulty setting" bullshit suggests a widespread ignorance of constructive feminism.
I'm not quite sure why you think what I said was "patriarchal". Are you saying it's something that supports patriarchy or that it insists there is a patriarchy to begin with? Please clarify.

I was speaking in the micro sense while you're talking global equality. I agree with most of what you said above, but I think it's pretty clear that women suffer due to gender inequality more so than men in our society. We all suffer for it of course, but I am just saying that women carry the heavier burden here. That doesn't mean men's issues are less important, because as you say, gender inequality hurts everyone.

Just to be clear, I agreed 100% with everything Emma said in her speech.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Fappy said:
I'm not quite sure why you think what I said was "patriarchal". Are you saying it's something that supports patriarchy or that it insists there is a patriarchy to begin with? Please clarify.
I think underplaying problems with males goes along with the patriarchal view that men can deal with their problems more efficiently than women. My suspicion is that the higher expectations thrust upon men when it comes to financial responsibilities, emotional stability, competitiveness and sadly even things like sexual prowess are a contributing factor to their disproportionate suicide rate. I would like to say that these expectations are more often than not spread by other men rather than women, but it indicates a toxicity and fragility with masculine identity.

We all suffer for it of course, but I am just saying that women carry the heavier burden here.
I really think it depends on the context. Men seeking to display a sense of dominance will attack those that they feel are weaker than them. This includes women, gay men and men that don't adhere to masculine stereotypes. I think that ultimately they all suffer the consequences of toxic masculinity. That's not to say that there aren't awful expectations of femininity either like abstinence, submission, familial responsibility, etc. but I think the burden on women (which in many cases is much heavier) is largely a result of the faults of problematic men that seek to enforce such a basic view of gender roles in order to gain acceptance from their peers.

It's something Emma Watson brought up. That gender is a spectrum or at least an irrelevant feature when it comes to defining someone's character. I think this is what feminist discussion should focus on more often. I'm not a straight male so I might be mistaken, maybe life is objectively easier in Western society just for being male, disregarding other factors. My suspicions is that it is a lot more complicated than that.

tl;dr : I think most of the problems with sexism are caused by men but I think men are the victims of these problems just as much as women.
 

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
The answer is no, because I'm going to be who/what/how I want to be regardless of what anyone thinks.

I have no use for society's silly male stereotypes, and since I disregard them entirely, they cannot confine me.
If they happen to line up with me, fine. If they don't, whatever.
 

Kameburger

Turtle king
Apr 7, 2012
574
0
0
Awesome! lets keep this going! This is very helpful!

thaluikhain said:
Kameburger said:
In this case I think there can absolutely be bad or less productive decisions that could be reached here. I've never been personally attached to the idea of doing something automatically trumping nothing. Not say that we should do nothing, but more so that consequences can be negative.
Certainly, that can be a concern, though I'm not seeing much of that as a problem as the moment.

Well, you get lots of presumably well meaning people trying to address rape as something it's up to victims to prevent, which is going about it the wrong way, but that is widely condemned by feminists.
I supose we shouldn't split hairs on the level of concern, I would say that's a discussion that's probably best had on a case by case bases anyway.

I have some very complex thoughts on the idea of rape and victim blaming suficet to say that I believe that the victim of rape is never the one at fault for inviting this crime onto themselves, but that really wasn't what I was getting at. My concern was more so talking about enacting specific legislation designed to correct imbalances that might end up having greater and more profound impact on the practical construct of our society that may be well intentioned but possibly dangerous and difficult to dismantle or fix if there are flaws.

Kameburger said:
Most of humanity is aware that there are women out there, and that woman are being treated differently, and will hold some sort of opinion on the issue.
Strongly disagree there. You constantly have people claiming that we are in a post-feminist society, that sexism doesn't exist, or if it does, it's all against men.

Alternatively, people believing in sexism in a vague nebulous way, but who would deny any given example.

On a related note, I'd imagine for many gamers, Sarkeesian was the first example of a woman being inundated by rape threats as a response to talking about feminism on the net, and yet this happens to any feminist of note. People just aren't aware of it.
I think I'm having a bit of a hard time with this one because I think it relates to what I said about language a bit. I think many of the above examples you've given are not people who I aren't "aware" that there is a problem in the distinct definition that word. They may have poorly infromed opinions or remain willfully ingnorant and/or be dening legitimacy but I supose the point I'm making is to say that the people that say there isn't a problem don't need to be taught that there is a problem but rather convinced that the problem is real.

I feel like it's too difficult to talk about Anita Sarkeesian without talking about the whole issue, and I think she ends up being a focal point for a variety feminist arguments as well as critisms. I feel like maybe my point about her is not quite getting across and like religion and politics maybe Anita Sarkeesian is best left discussed between the people I know and trust. So I'm going to take a step back on that one.

Kameburger said:
It's for this reason that I am of the opinion the language we use and the approach itself needs to change fundamentally. I think Emma Watson is absolutely right that a lot of men feel alienated by the term Feminism, and that they feel antagonized. I think that is separate from feeling imprisoned by masculinity, but I am sure some people do feel that way and I wouldn't refute it.
This is an idea which comes up a lot, and IMHO, is rather missing the point.

The language isn't the problem, people are unhappy with the content. If you are comfortable with the status quo and don't want to change, it doesn't matter what the people challenging the status quo call themselves, you will be unhappy with them. And what they call themselves will become a label they feel threatened by.

By way of comparison, the way the euphemism treadmill works in regards to the mentally handicapped. Every so often, people change the terminology, because the official terms become insulting, simply because of who they are used for. "Retarded" becomes an insult, so you replace it with "special needs", which becomes an insult. You can do that as many times as you want, as long as the hostility towards the people in question is there, the name will become a slur.

(This is something many feminists had written about at great length, you might want to wander through google on this one.)
I get what you're saying here I think but I don't know if I feel I'm being understood if that makes sense. Not to point fingers but I think that quote was a bit cherry picked. I think my bringing up Emma Watson in reference to someone who had employed what I believed to be more healthy language than I am used to hearing on the matter. I did pick one point I disagreed with, which for the sake of clarity was probably a mistake on my part, but really I think what she said was precisesly what I am trying to refer to about language. She wasn't antagonistic, but she also wasn't daidactic. She didn't start by assuming we knew nothing, she began by assuming we (and when I say we I mean everyone that is not her) knew the word feminsim, but we had a fundimental misconception of what the goals are, and she tried to bring her would be detracters on board. As a tactic quite brilliant. She will make a brilliant figure in politics should she decide to have a career. Se didn't take herself to seriously, but took the issue seriously, which takes serious tact and communication talent. I am saying that its not a bad model to follow. I am sure me and her have disagreements, but I'd rather her brand of activism over most others.

Kameburger said:
I guess I understand this idea that feminists are still ironing out these issues among themselves. But it's a lot to wrestle with if you don't keep up with it regularly, but I also don't like to be approached constantly with new and drastically different view points that I must adopt. So now you're telling me Nintendo is sexist for Starfox? (Sarkeesian pointed this out in a video) This is so weird for me because it's such a random assertion to just accept. I have a lot of memories tied to that game, and a lot of those decisions were made behind closed doors 8000 miles away from where I grew up. It's like having someone go through my child hood room and saying "this is sexist that is sexist, this is all sexist. All your stuff has had a notable negative impact on my life." I personally could never rationalize harassing anyone for thinking this or threaten them or what ever, that part is deplorable, but I think these people also have deeper issues. But on the other hand if you are going to tell me that I am a lifetime consumer of something that really hurts you, than it might be nice to give me an idea of how I'm supposed to cope with it all. Sure I would like to help but the best I can do is tell you how I feel, and inform you of my reaction right?
Well, you don't have to adopt, or agree with, every feminist on the net or anything. It's something to keep an open mind about, and there is a lot of useful information, however.

In regards to that particular example, though, was the complaint that it was sexist, or that it has sexist elements? Not quite the same thing.

Also, there's no reason you can't like things that have problematic elements. For example, I quite like the Lord of the Rings movies, which are about a bunch of rich, white, straight guys who go off and fight brown people and monsters with working class accents. There are issues there, and I recognise them. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the movies...if you were to only consume stuff that was perfect, you'd run out very quickly.

However, it is important to recognise it. The normal, instinctive response is to say "No, I like this, stop attacking my childhood", which really isn't helpful.
I think for the most part there is a tremendous pressure to, while not agree with all feminists, at least agree with some. And I do agree with some, but I find that I want to debate, and I want to do so in a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable. In person, this is easier, but on the web it can be very difficult. Even a lot of the parts you took issue with, were someone segmented and off in my head when I read my replies to myself.

I don't know if I would say my childhood is under attack. Although admittedly it might have sounded like that. It's more so that I never felt as though I was being abusive or negative toward woman, but I would certainly say that games like Mario etc. helped form who I am today and in doing so make me feel as though I have been malformed (man that word sounds strong). But let's say for the sake of argument I'm not a bad guy, if the stuff I like enforces negative stereotypes, a term which essentially means: makes me think bad things, if I don't believe in those stereo types or bad things, than I'm left with the only thought that makes sense, that this stuff is problematic because of absence of equality. It is sexist because there is in imbalance of poorly written and poorly imagined female characters in relation to men, and a lack of better written ones. So in my mind, isn't the best course of action to create more of those things?

In all honesty the star fox example looking back on it isn't really all that relevant. Just a nostalgic property that I remember her commenting on. But in reading your post it did lead me to an interesting though which is that I never really looked at Lord of the Rings that way. Is Lord of the Ring's problematic? Is it problematic because it stars white guys? How many of them are actually rich? Some of them seemed quite poor to me. Also is the context of any note?

Honestly it is hard to convey to you how much I want to understand as much as I can about this issue, because I feel like it might be a bit difficult to communicate sincerity or criticize with the appropriate inflection. But in any case thank you for keeping this conversation going.
 
Mar 29, 2008
361
0
0
I do find the masculine stereotype confining, but not so much for most of the reasons cited in the speech, and often others. While I have felt some external pressure to like traditional sports, not show emotion, not be super into cooking, art and the like, I never felt restrained by that, and mostly just confused by society's insistence on that point.

However, as a heterosexual male raised by a hippie and an engineer, I was raised with a combination of repressive gentlemaness (???) and equality, not because it is what women want (or 'should' want) and that will earn me 'good guy' points, but because that's the way that I was taught was right. Even after many of my dates explained that I shouldn't wait for the second date to make at least a token move (like a kiss), every time I go in for that first kiss I have this extreme terror that she will take it as me forcing myself on her, and it is hard to move past. Despite being a passionate, confident, self-assured (some say arrogant) person, I am very timid when it comes to the initial physical intimacy/affection, and that completely overrides most of my dates' perception of me. So from those sets of external pressure points, I have this outmoded masculine valiance forcing me into one subset of behavior while I have what I've learned from actual females my age pushing me in the other direction, neither of which really allow for a well formed human being.

Now in the several times that she left me for an abusive womanizing psychopath, because he did fit the overly dominant template that matches the submissive template she had been forced into, I reacted with sadness for the loss but also her present state, but as we can see with the rise of these bs male rights groups, many in the same situation react with anger. That's why when we have some piece o crap go and kill some women crying about how he wasn't the alpha male or whatever, its ridiculous that most of the media reacts with, "Be sure to teach your kids to respect women" it should instead be something a bit more "Its time to eliminate our social expectations for gender based behaviors, and maybe the disconnect between our conflicting, often arbitrary, and typically very old value systems should be addressed at the same time." Well that'd be a terrible headline, but my point is is that its a significantly more complex issue than guys aren't treating girls the right way, or aren't being a good guy for the right reasons, etc.
 

CFriis87

New member
Jun 16, 2011
103
0
0
I answered "Maybe".
I don't consider gender roles to be having a significant effect on how I carry myself and act these days, but I know for a fact that they used to.

As for her speech, I wasn't impressed in the least.
Yes, it was emotional, as most speeches about women's rights held by feminists are, her voice all a-quiver throughout it.
Yes, she mentioned a handful of men's issues that definitely need dealing with, and MRAs have been trying to drum up attention for, for a few years now.

But I had my suspicions about the campaign she was promoting as soon as the video started, and those suspicions were all but completely confirmed by the time she said the name of the campaign for the first time.

#HeForShe...
Not #WeForAll, not #WeForWe, not #OneForAll...
#HeForShe...

She said that traditional gender roles are harming men and that men don't have the benefits of equality either, which is probably why she decided to put her face on this campaign that wants to mobilize everybody into equally helping both men AND wom... wait...
http://i.imgur.com/4bAPtLT.png

Huh... well maybe that was just badly worded, I mean, it is a campaign for equality after all, they can't possibly be trying to abolish gender roles for both sexes while calling for one half of the world to be the chivalrous defenders of the other half.
That would just be stup...
http://i.imgur.com/EG2qaSa.png

*sigh*
See... this is why I'm an anti-feminist and have been for a couple of years now.
Even when they propose the most moderate of feminist campaigns they can think up, even when actively trying to get rid of the idea that feminists don't care about and even hate men...
Even then, THIS is what they come up with.
Was I expecting anything better from UN Women?
http://i.imgur.com/6QzcZi8.png

In a word: No.

Because feminists don't care about men, they care about women, they care about what men can do TO women, they care about what men can do FOR women, but they don't. care. about. men.
And that would all be perfectly fine, even with me, if they weren't actively pushing to be the only voice and view on what constitutes equality and either co-opting or destroying every other single human rights group in existence.

I suggest reading about the the suffragists in the UK and their involvement in The White Feather Campaign which was used to shame both men and underage boys into enlisting into the military during World War 1.
Incidentally these suffragists didn?t even try to get the vote for all women (only the rich women like themselves were of any concern) back then, which I suppose is fair enough, since at the time, most men didn?t actually have the vote either.
The suffragists in the U.S. more or less originated from the Women of the KKK, and wanted the vote and other privileges for white women only.
It wasn't until much later that Feminism co-opted the Human Rights Movement to bolster their numbers.
Men were universally given the vote in Britain when the First World War started as a privilege earned through military service, a privilege that would be taken from them if they refused to serve up their lives.
The suffragists on the other hand demanded the vote (for some women) for free, and used vandalism and arson to get their way, the majority of women opposed the suffragists either because they only demanded voting rights for wealthy women or because they were afraid that they too would have to pay for the privilege with military or some other kind of community service.
Soon after the first world war, when the suffragists had finally gained the support of the majority of women, women were given their voting rights for free, just like they wanted, a whole 10 years after men did.
Meanwhile, men?s voting privileges could still be revoked for refusing to serve in the military.
Suggested reading:
"The Suffragette Movement" by Sylvia Pankhurst, especially read up on people like Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst as well as Mary Augusta Ward.
Incidentally, men STILL have to sign up for Selective Service to get their voting privileges, the right to federal financial aid and the right to work in federal offices.
Rights are not rights if they are conditional on your service to the government.
Rights that women have just for being women, thanks to feminists and their fight for ?equality?.

The Tender Years Doctrine which has been abolished, but is still common practice in family courts today all over the western world, was penned by prominent British feminist Caroline Norton and supported by the rest of the British feminist movement.
Some feminist writers like Julia Tolmie, Martha Fineman and Michael Flood have accused the father's rights movement of putting the interests of fathers above the interests of children, for example, by suggesting that it is acceptable for fathers to withdraw child support if they are not given access to their children, or lobbying for changes in family law that would allegedly "heighten children's exposure to abusive fathers.? as well as criticized the movement for allegedly perpetuating negative stereotypes of women as deceptive, vindictive, and irresponsible, as well as the stereotype that women are out to take advantage of men financially.
For more information, read up on: Custody of Infants Act 1839 and Custody of Infants Act 1873.
The doctrine was spread to the rest of the western world through the British Empire (which was still a thing back then), officially mostly abolished by the end of the 20th century, but somehow still in effect in legal practice today.
http://www.separateddads.co.uk/
As for the National Organisation for Women opposing and lobbying against equal parenting?
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
"Discrimination against women in family courts." What world do these people even live in?
http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html
Every single custody arrangement by family courts is already mandated/enforced by law, whether they be 50:50, 70:30, 90:10 or 100:0. Saying that they are against the presumption of 50:50 shared parenting/custody because it would be enforced by law basically just means they are against the presumption of equal shared parenting? period.
It's a good thing their former presidents Warren Farrell and Karen DeCrow cut their losses and bailed out of there in time.
Here's what actual discrimination in the family courts looks like:
http://freekeene.com/2011/06/16/thomas-james-ball-self-immolated-in-protest-of-the-justice-system/
http://www.ibtimes.com/american-father-self-immolates-protest-against-family-courts-291497

And now we get to Mary P. Koss and her cronies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_P._Koss
Here are a few citations from work of her?s that for some reason is not listed on her Wikipedia page.
"Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206"

"It would also be desirable to conduct further quantitative inquiry using the revised SES (Koss et al. 2007), which contains items that have been crafted with behavior-specific wording to elicit information on a range of SV experiences. This will make it possible to base men?s rape prevalence estimates with more specificity on acts that involve sustaining forced penetration, leaving less leeway for men?s individual perceptions of what constitutes ?forced sex.?"

"We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men?s experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women?s experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported. (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).
We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men?s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. The revised wording is discussed in more detail later in the article."

This woman has been informing the CDC on issues of sexual violence since 1996 when she was appointed a seat as their "Expert Panel Member, 'Definitions of Sexual Assault,' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.".
Resulting in nationwide studies with gems like this:
http://i.imgur.com/EiRQcj1.png

She also happens to be the one of the authors of the first study to use the oft repeated "1 in 4"-statistic saying that 1 in 4 college women will be raped during their time at college.
This number was reached through fiddling with the qualifiers for what constituted rape to include anyone (oops, any woman... my bad) who answered yes to questions like this: "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn?t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"
Given the frequency of college age women who party and end up having sex with someone and later regretting it, and given the social pressure still on men to provide alcohol and other party materials for women?s pleasure, Koss? question was a set of brass knuckles hidden inside a boxing glove. It got her just the result she was looking for.
Two follow-up statistics demonstrate the point well enough. One, 42% of these "rape victims" went on to later date and have additional sexual relations with their "rapists," and, get this, only 25% of the women surveyed that Koss counted as victims agreed that they had been raped.
At this point an honest scholar would just acknowledge their methodological errors, write off their study and start from scratch again in an attempt to obtain some valid conclusions ? which explains why Koss went full steam ahead with the results.
It did not take long for Koss to come up with a 1 in 4 number like that. In fact, if men were asked the same questions as qualifiers for being a rape victim, the same exact number, 1 in 4, would emerge from the research. With Koss? methodology, twenty?five percent of the men you know, your fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands and sons are rape victims. One fourth of the males in this culture have been egregiously violated in the very worst of ways.
After long discussions and deliberations with as far as I know unnamed political lobbying groups, the FBI changed their definition of rape in January 2012 to this:
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
In other words, you are only a victim of rape if you are penetrated and only a rapist if you penetrate.
Again, erasing most male rape victims and practically all female rapists, while increasing the prevalence of female victims and male rapists.

Now Miss Koss is an American feminist and meaning she has little to no influence on Rape statistics in the UK, sadly she doesn?t need it.
In Britain the legal definition of rape is the following:

?1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if?
(a) HE intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with HIS PENIS,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.?
This is the definition as it stands in the Law, not in a study, or a survey, or opinion poll.
According to british law, only men are capable of perpetrating rape which is counted as a crime separate of sexual assault and of course also means that rape statistics in the UK become skewed to show only men as perpetrators.

The White Ribbon Campaign is a current world-wide feminist campaign saying that non-violent men are to be held responsible for ending violence against women.
This is all despite the fact that men are by far the predominant victims of violence, but are not seen to be as important as women to protect.

Aaaaand we're on to VAWA (and the UK policy of ending violence against women and girls in the UK, the Duluth Model and Predominant Aggressor Policies (which also exist in the UK).
Mandatory arrest policy:
Thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, states are encouraged to enact ?mandatory arrest? policies when it comes to domestic violence. This means that when someone calls the police alleging partner abuse, an arrest has to be made, even if the allegation looks to be false. Mandatory arrest policies completely ignore a Constitutional right known as ?Probable Cause.?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/

Arrest the male
Thanks to ?predominant aggressor? (aka arrest the male no matter what) policies, usually stating that no more than 15% of arrests in domestic violence cases may be female arrests, men who call the police on their violent wife are often the ones arrested, or threatened by police with arrest.
Predominant Aggressor policies came into being after mandatory arrest policies were instated, because while the mandatory arrest policies did mean arrest rates of men went up by some 20-30%, they also meant that arrest rates of women went up by about 400%.
According to a study by George and Yarwood (2004), police have threatened 47% of male victims of intimate partner violence with arrest. George and Yarwood also found that the police ignored 35% of male victims and 21% were actually arrested instead of the female perpetrators
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/carolettaijcjs2010vol5iss1.pdf

Another Study by Linda Kelly found that when abused men call the police to report domestic violence committed against them they are three times more likely to be arrested than the wife that is abusing them.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

A good example of this is the case of Pro Footballer Warren Moon. Moon was arrested after he tried to restrain his wife from assaulting him after she threw a candlestick at this head and kneed him in the groin. Police came, arrested moon and he was charged with domestic violence but only acquitted after his wife confessed that she was the violent one. Women?s groups were not happy and wanted Moon to be charged.

The Duluth Model:
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PowerandControl.pdf
Notice the assumptions about the gender of the victim? Go ahead and look through the rest of their resources, you'll see the same tendencies in all of them.
On the other hand I have here a collection of 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews/analyses showing gender symmetry in both perpetration and victimization of Domestic Violence:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
And yes, VAWA ensures funding for police officers to be trained in the Duluth Model, that's why it's the Violence Against Women Act, and not the Violence Against People Act.

Interesting people of note to read up on would be someone like Erin Pizzey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
She was the one to open the first battered women?s refuges in Britain (indeed in all of Europe in fact), but when her work with the women in her shelters taught her that most of the women there, were at least as violent and abusive as the men they had sought shelter from, she decided to publish her findings and work to open a men?s shelter as well.
This earned her repeated death threats to her and her children and grandchildren from fellow British feminist and ended in Erin herself leaving the country and living in the US until the 1990s after her family dog was shot and killed.
Erin Pizzey is now a staunch anti-feminist and a supporter of the Men?s Rights Movement.

And now they're trying to gain control over every bit of informative media available to people, in order to make sure that no matter what kind of media you consume, they agenda will be supported by it.
That's why we have things like Feminist Frequency and Silverstring Media working the gaming industry.
That's why we have Atheism+ trying to police the skeptic community into their ideology.
That's why we have the Women's Media Center working TV, movies and music.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/
That's why we have dedicated groups of feminist activists editing articles on Wikipedia to conform with feminist thought.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5028
That's why there are groups lobbying for ever more restrictive community guidelines on sites like Facebook and Twitter, disallowing criticism of feminism and women under the guise of labeling it as "hate-speech".

So no... feminism is not, has never been and will never be about equality.
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
So, poll question and discussion...do you feel that traditional definitions and expectations of masculinity are confining for you? Do you feel forced to assume roles that run against your nature? Would you be interested in seeing a gradual cultural tear-down of the "Masculine ideal" in the same way feminism tried to tear down antiquated notions of femininity and expand the parameters of how they could express themselves? Or are you happy with the status quo? Do you not want to lose traditional definitions of manliness and manhood? Do you think there is value in expressing sexual dimorphism socially?
I personally don't feel that the traditional definitions and expectations of masculinity are confining for me, but I'm a bit of an odd duck. Mrs. Makt is in the Trades and is one of only a handful of women in her particular trade in our city, and I'm an administrative-clerical type person who has proven to be far more patient with our toddler. (which isn't to say that Mrs. Makt is a bad parent! She's a great parent, but I just have more patience.) Mrs. Makt is also of the belief "If it don't move the first time, PUSH HARDER. If it don't move the second time, PUSH EVEN HARDER!!!! And if it still don't move, go get WD-40." whereas Mr. Makt is of the belief "If it won't move the first way, try a different way of moving it." We tend to invert the stereotypes on a regular basis.

As for a breaking down of the masculine ideal... we're already seeing it. And while it may be a good thing, it's causing a hell of a lot of problems in our society because as with ALL tear downs (I've worked in construction too) there is a not-insignificant portion of time where the old is gone and the new is not yet up, so there is a blank space staring right at you. A small portion of the masculine idea in our society is in that "blank space" right now where we've torn down the old (Domestic Violence, in particular in dealing with a woman who won't "obey" her husband, was accepted. Not celebrated, but men could say "I gave her a smack and she smartened up" in most polite company without much repercussions, it wasn't illegal to rape your wife(!??!), etc.) and there isn't a clearly defined new there yet. (How do you treat your wife properly when there's a disagreement? How do you deal with your wife saying "No" to sex? It's generally left to common sense and "Treat her "right"." but it's not as ubiquitous as the old standards yet, nor as easy to define.) It varies by location as well; I live in a city of millions with well publicized anti-domestic violence campaigns. And where Religion is not very strong. Our families come from small towns where the local churches are still the centre of the towns social scene, and where there is still an unspoken problem with domestic violence. It still happens but it isn't discussed anymore, probably for fear that the "PC Police" will come and arrest the man for simply following the guidelines found in the Bible. But it's changing, slowly.

Also look at the changing definition of femininity - it's in flux too, with parts that have been torn down and not yet permanently replaced. Look at sexual activity; the old normal was "Women are Chaste." The new normal is... what? Women can be as sexual as they want to be? That seems to be where we want it to go but I am often left absolutely astounded at just how vicious young WOMEN are about other young women who act like men, sexually, and how willing they are to talk about it face to face. I keep on expecting women to be more accepting of this new potential standard and I'm regularly running into women of all ages who are just nasty in their criticism of women who are embracing it. I expect men to be both completely accepting "Sleep with me!" while at the same time judgemental "Dumb whore.", and sadly this expectation is met on a far too regular a basis. (We want the best of both worlds.) This isn't the only pressure; Mrs. Makt was subjected to an unusual amount of pressure to stay home to look after Baby Makt when Baby Makt was an infant, and the majority of the pressure came from other women. (Mr. Makt stayed home with Baby Makt for 4 months alone, another example of how we invert the stereotypes.) Men that we talked to, particularly her boss and coworkers, were quite happy to have her back after just 16 weeks (we're Canadian so there is a significant Maternity leave offered to women for medical reasons. We took it to the max.) It's been changing for longer than the masculine ideal, but it's not set yet either.

As for the rest, I'd argue there isn't a status quo right now because we're in flux. I believe there is a great deal of value in keeping some of the traditional aspects of masculinity. Particularly some of the more violent and protective aspects - the majority of men around the world are still brought up in cultures which have men being powerful, violent and aggressive. And there will always be a problem with ruthless and selfish people of all genders who aren't technically violent, but a competitor coming into a new business area and trying to drive established companies out of business to eliminate competition is something that the masculine ideal is still better suited for dealing with. Dealing with children in general requires aspects of the feminine ideal that we need to keep. And as for displaying sexual/gender dimorphism in culture? On one hand I'm all for that. On the other hand, I would be wary of how that dimorphism would be enforced socially.

One more thing I'd like to mention: all this change of the ideals will take centuries. Not years, not decades, not even generations. Centuries. Centuries of constant work to keep things moving forward. A big reason is that there is not underlying narrative propelling it - there is no Bible or Koran for this. There is no appeal to a higher power (God) that can deny all arguments against it. When I have a problem with how the ideals are changing, I can argue against the person who is arguing for that change. I can argue against the arguments of a person who is not present. But we don't have the luxury of having a "god" who has written a holy book that is inviolate to handle tough questions that we can't quite answer. "Why is it okay to (Action A)?" "God said it's okay." is near impossible to argue with. "Why is it not okay to (Action A)?" "Because Mary did a lot of research and found that it hurts everyone involved." is far easier to argue with. So we're going to have centuries of people going "Well Mary's research was flawed because of X, therefore her conclusion is wrong, therefore it's still okay to (Action A)." These arguments are going to go on for centuries before we come to a new normal, a new set of ideals.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
Kameburger said:
I think for the most part there is a tremendous pressure to, while not agree with all feminists, at least agree with some. And I do agree with some, but I find that I want to debate, and I want to do so in a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable. In person, this is easier, but on the web it can be very difficult. Even a lot of the parts you took issue with, were someone segmented and off in my head when I read my replies to myself.

I don't know if I would say my childhood is under attack. Although admittedly it might have sounded like that. It's more so that I never felt as though I was being abusive or negative toward woman, but I would certainly say that games like Mario etc. helped form who I am today and in doing so make me feel as though I have been malformed (man that word sounds strong). But let's say for the sake of argument I'm not a bad guy, if the stuff I like enforces negative stereotypes, a term which essentially means: makes me think bad things, if I don't believe in those stereo types or bad things, than I'm left with the only thought that makes sense, that this stuff is problematic because of absence of equality. It is sexist because there is in imbalance of poorly written and poorly imagined female characters in relation to men, and a lack of better written ones. So in my mind, isn't the best course of action to create more of those things?

In all honesty the star fox example looking back on it isn't really all that relevant. Just a nostalgic property that I remember her commenting on. But in reading your post it did lead me to an interesting though which is that I never really looked at Lord of the Rings that way. Is Lord of the Ring's problematic? Is it problematic because it stars white guys? How many of them are actually rich? Some of them seemed quite poor to me. Also is the context of any note?

Honestly it is hard to convey to you how much I want to understand as much as I can about this issue, because I feel like it might be a bit difficult to communicate sincerity or criticize with the appropriate inflection. But in any case thank you for keeping this conversation going.
In talking with people about this stuff, there seems to be a very all-or-nothing attitude about it, so when someone like Sarkeesian points to one bit that she considers sexist, then the response is "what, the whole thing is sexist? That's ridiculous." And more often than not, they're reading the criticism out further than it was ever intended it to go. There can be troubling moments in entertainment which don't taint the larger work.

And quite frequently these moments come from progressives, such as in the mid-70s Doctor Who made a point of teaming up the Doctor with a Feminist companion, Sarah Jane Smith and there's a lot of odd dialogue that slips into the mix because of it. Such as at one point she meets up with a female scientists and scientist chides her about just assuming she was a man. Or in another where the Doctor insults her for being a useless girl in order to spur her to try harder. These scenes are weird artifacts of their time and kind of sexist.

So, yeah, James Bond is an artifact of a more sexist age, and bits & pieces of his lineage stick to the character. You can't completely defend Craig's Bond from accusations of sexism, but then you don't need to completely defend him. The film series has opted to make up for it in other ways, so you have more dynamic, interesting female characters than the book series was known for. Acknowledging the original books have some issues to modern eyes doesn't diminish them as works of entertainment.

Relatively few bits of entertainment become unsupportable. Yeah, the Black & White Minstrel Show is hard to watch today and parents aren't buying their children Golliwog dolls anymore, despite neither being intended to be hateful. In those cases, it's just too close to hateful portrayals of racism for people to be comfortable with them. I'm wracking my brain and finding it hard to come up with anything like that with sexism. Duke Nukem 3D is a knuckle-dragger, but while it happily objectifies women it's not really mean spirited in doing it. Shadow Warrior was much cruder and half the joke was women were justifiably irritated by Lo Wang's sexist comments... it got more grief for its racism.

So, yeah, like you said, you really only need to acknowledge they have a point. A great deal of the problem isn't the negative portrayals of women, but they're not off-set with enough positive ones. So it's not really a problem that a particular movie doesn't have any female characters or the only characters in the piece are victims or femme fatales or whatever stereotype we often see; but that the entertainment media as a whole doesn't do enough to portray women in more positive lights. It's the macro, not the micro.

So I don't find myself overly bothered by someone pointing out the prostitutes in Far Cry 3 are really only there as set dressing. The game really didn't do anything interesting with them at all, but it's still a really good game and I can them trying to craft a better story than the two previous entries in the series, trying to deal with the criticisms of racism and sexism they've experienced with those games. They want to make a better game with a better story and largely succeeded and I really look forward to seeing if they continue to improve in these regards with Far Cry 4. The criticism so far have made the series better, taking what they know works and weeding out the elements which aren't.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
To Watson's point

Emma Watson said:
But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
"Feminist" is the unpopular word, not feminism, and the definition provided.
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
Grahav said:
Ri-iiight. Because what guys really need is to be liberated from "prescribed gender stereotypes." All the hot babes like Emma Watson are crazy for guys who don't fit "prescribed gender stereotypes," right? So you won't be surprised to learn that Emma Watson is dating a bald scrawny impoverished poet
Looool, so to prove she wants to be liberated from gender stereotypes Emma Watson should aim way below her league and date some ugly wart? What does attractiveness have to do with gender stereotypes anyway? Is that what equality is to you? Hot chicks having to date ugly guys to lest they get criticism? You're already way more likely to see attractive women with unattractive men. If anything gender equality would be more hot guys dating ugly chicks.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,795
1,413
118
DizzyChuggernaut said:
Feminism has a bad reputation because it is seen as being concerned with women's issues only.
I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing anyway.

Being a feminist doesn't mean you aren't allowed to care about other issues. Caring about women's issues doesn't mean you are making things worse for men. We don't condemn the fire brigade for concerning themselves with fires, to the exclusion of other problems.

Kameburger said:
My concern was more so talking about enacting specific legislation designed to correct imbalances that might end up having greater and more profound impact on the practical construct of our society that may be well intentioned but possibly dangerous and difficult to dismantle or fix if there are flaws.
That there might be unforeseen problems cause by them? Well, certainly...but this is a concern with every piece of legislation passed, every decision taken.

Kameburger said:
I think I'm having a bit of a hard time with this one because I think it relates to what I said about language a bit. I think many of the above examples you've given are not people who I aren't "aware" that there is a problem in the distinct definition that word. They may have poorly infromed opinions or remain willfully ingnorant and/or be dening legitimacy but I supose the point I'm making is to say that the people that say there isn't a problem don't need to be taught that there is a problem but rather convinced that the problem is real.
You mean that they don't see the problem or significant, or it isn't one that they see in their own lives, and thus is unreal to them? I'd tend to agree with that.

Kameburger said:
I get what you're saying here I think but I don't know if I feel I'm being understood if that makes sense.
Yeah, I don't quite get what you are saying here.

Kameburger said:
I think for the most part there is a tremendous pressure to, while not agree with all feminists, at least agree with some.
I'd strongly disagree there. As Watson said, feminism has become a dirty word, you can look at many of the responses to her speech for proof of this.

Kameburger said:
And I do agree with some, but I find that I want to debate, and I want to do so in a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable. In person, this is easier, but on the web it can be very difficult. Even a lot of the parts you took issue with, were someone segmented and off in my head when I read my replies to myself.
I can understand that. When I'm disagreeing with someone you've written, it's because you look like there's a point to talking to you about this, that you are interested in what I have to say, that we aren't just having an argument.

Kameburger said:
I don't know if I would say my childhood is under attack. Although admittedly it might have sounded like that.
Well, I didn't mean that you'd actually believe that, but it is, IMHO, normal to feel uncomfortable and (to an extent) vaguely threatened when something you liked as a kid is pointed out to have issues. Just part of being a fan. Fans can keep this under control, or not, as they wish.

If I say that Joss Whedon isn't a good writer, fans will get angry and deny it. If I say that the original Star Wars wasn't really better than the prequels, fans will get angry and deny it. If I say that a beloved franchise is a bit sexist, same thing happens. Admittedly, sticking gender issues into it gets me more of a response, there is more baggage, but it seems similar.

Kameburger said:
It's more so that I never felt as though I was being abusive or negative toward woman, but I would certainly say that games like Mario etc. helped form who I am today and in doing so make me feel as though I have been malformed (man that word sounds strong). But let's say for the sake of argument I'm not a bad guy, if the stuff I like enforces negative stereotypes, a term which essentially means: makes me think bad things, if I don't believe in those stereo types or bad things, than I'm left with the only thought that makes sense, that this stuff is problematic because of absence of equality. It is sexist because there is in imbalance of poorly written and poorly imagined female characters in relation to men, and a lack of better written ones. So in my mind, isn't the best course of action to create more of those things?
Certainly, yes.

However, I'd be wary of claiming not to believe in stereotypes. How do you know you don't? If you believed them, they'd seem perfectly valid beliefs to you.

Saying that you don't believe in those stereotypes is saying that you aren't affected by something which affects large parts of society, that you are, in this respect, perfect. Even people that are deeply concerned with these stereotypes, and are part of the group in question, often have absorbed harmful messages.

Of course, if there were more better written ones, the stereotypes would be less dominant.

Kameburger said:
But in reading your post it did lead me to an interesting though which is that I never really looked at Lord of the Rings that way. Is Lord of the Ring's problematic? Is it problematic because it stars white guys? How many of them are actually rich? Some of them seemed quite poor to me. Also is the context of any note?
Well, of the Fellowship, you have one wizard, one true king who is hooking up with a princess, one son of the ruler of a country, one elf prince, one dwarf lord, two well off hobbits, one really rich hobbit and his working class gardener who ends up really rich. All white.

Of course, in of itself, this isn't a problem, it's just one film trilogy, albeit a very successful one. But it's one in a very long line of films that say that the heroes, the ones to look up to, are straight white guys who are rich. There are relatively very few that don't go down that route. Saying the same thing over and over again about what kind of person is a hero...well, when the government does that, we call it propaganda.

...

As an aside, I'd recommend http://www.shakesville.com/ as a good source, I've learnt a lot from there. The required reading alone is extensive, and very informative, though I'm saying I agree with everything said there, there is a severe lack of information about guns which comes up in any discussion about firearms, and I don't support the right not to vote.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
manic_depressive13 said:
Grahav said:
Ri-iiight. Because what guys really need is to be liberated from "prescribed gender stereotypes." All the hot babes like Emma Watson are crazy for guys who don't fit "prescribed gender stereotypes," right? So you won't be surprised to learn that Emma Watson is dating a bald scrawny impoverished poet
Looool, so to prove she wants to be liberated from gender stereotypes Emma Watson should aim way below her league and date some ugly wart? What does attractiveness have to do with gender stereotypes anyway? Is that what equality is to you? Hot chicks having to date ugly guys to lest they get criticism? You're already way more likely to see attractive women with unattractive men. If anything gender equality would be more hot guys dating ugly chicks.
"What does attractiveness have to do with gender stereotypes anyway?"

Being rich, successfull, strong, confident are expected for men being considered a catch. These demands are not the same for the inverse. There is no equality in the rules of attraction for the sexes.

It is restrictive, but as you said, it is what it is.
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
Grahav said:
Being rich, successfull, strong, confident are expected for men being considered a catch. These demands are not the same for the inverse. There is no equality in the rules of attraction for the sexes.

It is restrictive, but as you said, it is what it is.
That's just absurd. Celebrities almost exclusively date other celebrities because those are the people who are in their social circle and sympathetic to their lifestyle. So by default her partners are going to be rich, successful and confident. It's the same for male celebrities. And strong? So he happens to be an athlete, big deal. Would it change anything if he were another actor?

You're just trying to sell the narrative that women are attracted to money and power. Well guess what, Watson already has that, so it's a bit hard to buy.