|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted July 28, 2014 02:08 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:10, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Nothing a woman says or does gives men a right to harass them.
I think women should be allowed to wear whatever they want without having to consider if men are going to sexually harass them for it.
Harass - yes, there is no excuse for harassment, if you consider it an strong (or violent) intrusion against someone's personal space. Other than that - women dress in a provocative manner deliberately to... provoke, unsurprisingly. You will be underestimating the intelligence of a woman if you think that she dresses specifically to show - or underline - exactly the parts of her body which men are sexually attracted to the most just because... well, she felt like it, for no apparent reason. In public, women do hundreds, if not thousands of things just to be seen (and men are actually blind for 90% of them) so it would be very foolish to believe that something that screams "sex" in the most universal language - the one built in the genes - actually means something else. Or at least that this isn't the main ingredient. Of course, this hardly means that she wants to have sex exactly with you. 
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 02:30 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 14:40, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Just take a lot at your own posts, you admit there is a patriarchy to the core, you admit to the inequality disadvantaging women starting from basic education, you try to "balance" such issues with not being able to wear hats indoors or people getting a little disapproving if you don't give your seat on the bus and you think the problem is with feminists prioritizing on women. What kind of a joke is this!
Artu, I still cannot understand why you name the most unnotable examples and pose them as the most notable. Ignoring the rest of the statements like female domination in the family seems to be a good point, yeah. And you accuse me of a small town politician rhetorics after that. I never said that I "balance" the oppression of women with the small steps towards men's small lack of rights. I also never said that I don't know the scale of women's rights affection in the modern society. What I am against of is the word "equality" which is forced by people like you, intending the tweaking of women's rights only.
What I try to make you understand, that in Russia women's position in society is not ultimately moved to the field of oppression. There is a number of situations (not as big as related with men, of course) where women dominate in our society and have certain privileges once made with regards to their physical abilities and/or gentlemanly in the past. If these privileges would be also reconsidered with the new status of women proposed by feminism, I would not be against that, but it doesn't seem that feminists are going to reconsider that privileges. I don't accept the position like "women are much more oppressed, so shut your mouth". It does not sound like you are really for equality as I understand it. It just says that you consider women as victims in ~100% of cases, and the equality as you understand it is when the women's rights are no more oppressed, nothing more. Where is my logic has gone wrong? I don't see that.
If you can understand it more when I put numbers, there is, say, ~5% of situations when the men's rights are nerfed in favor of women (taking Russia as the example, I'm pretty sure that in other country it will be a bit different). Other ~95% still refer to women's oppression and everyone sane will admit that (except plain sexists of course). The difference between us is that you don't care about that 5% calling them not so hurting, but I do. Am I wrong?
You, as I can see, just take the most 'flawed' elements of my statements and try to eradicate my arguments as a whole criticizing them. I also don't understand why you do that. And yes, if you want to be not recognized as a demagog - accuse your opponent of demagogy. I know about this tactics too. Nice try.
I think I should stop arguing with you. I don't think we will ever understand each other, due to a different mentality or some life preferences. You may have probably conversed with some Russians (who don't live in Russia), but I live in Russia and see everything which happens with me, with my friends who have wives, with my friends who have girlfriends, and all that. Also, I guess, a 19th century flashback from belles-letres can't help you understand what happens in Russian society nowadays. Life is not an encyclopaedia.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 02:31 PM |
|
|
The gist of which is, that appreciating looks and good-humored, harmless remarks are ok, especially from cool guys, but not in a leering, groping, harassing way.
"You look so hot you make me want to screw your brains out" is probably not the compliment girls want to hear, while a "Wow, you certainly look like you're Wondergirl", is probably ok, especially when it comes from a Coke window cleaner ad kind of guy.
Or, in other words, the rules of play between genders are changing with the style of clothing only for more fundamental members of certain religions.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 03:14 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:22, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Artu, I still cannot understand why you name the most unnotable examples and pose them as the most notable. Ignoring the rest of the statements like female domination in the family seems to be a good point, yeah. And you accuse me of a small town politician rhetorics after that. I never said that I "balance" the oppression of women with the small steps towards men's small lack of rights. I also never said that I don't know the scale of women's rights affection in the modern society. What I am against of is the word "equality" which is forced by people like you, intending the tweaking of women's rights only.
Do I have to tell you for the 50th time that if, AS YOU ADMITTED, you live in a very patriarchal society, focusing on women's rights does NOT contradict with the premise of equality. Are you too stubborn and biased to deliberately ignore such a simple notion or is that skull actually 10cm thick?
I am not the one assuming a symmetry between your "most unnotable examples" and actual oppression, YOU are the one presenting things like that. Female domination in the family, right... Because men constantly want to spend more time with the children and it's the women who won't let them!
- I don't want to watch the game, honey, I want to take the children to the park.
- No can do. That's my territory.
Quote:
What I try to make you understand, that in Russia women's position in society is not ultimately moved to the field of oppression. There is a number of situations (not as big as related with men, of course) where women dominate in our society and have certain privileges once made with regards to their physical abilities and/or gentlemanly in the past. If these privileges would be also reconsidered with the new status of women proposed by feminism, I would not be against that, but it doesn't seem that feminists are going to reconsider that privileges. I don't accept the position like "women are much more oppressed, so shut your mouth". It does not sound like you are really for equality as I understand it. It just says that you consider women as victims in ~100% of cases, and the equality as you understand it is when the women's rights are no more oppressed, nothing more. Where is my logic has gone wrong? I don't see that.
Once again, you are confusing etiquette and manners with legal rights and coercive social norms that actually trap you. A gentlemen is preferable, so men act that way by their own choice, just like a woman behaving ladylike is considered desirable. These would have only mattered, if behaving another way had serious consequences. Nothing's gonna happen to you if you refuse to carry a woman's luggage. Well, at most, if it's your lover, she can dump you for someone she sees as more considerate.
Quote:
If you can understand it more when I put numbers, there is, say, ~5% of situations when the men's rights are nerfed in favor of women (taking Russia as the example, I'm pretty sure that in other country it will be a bit different). Other ~95% still refer to women's oppression and everyone sane will admit that (except plain sexists of course). The difference between us is that you don't care about that 5% calling them not so hurting, but I do. Am I wrong
Yes.
Quote:
You, as I can see, just take the most 'flawed' elements of my statements and try to eradicate my arguments as a whole criticizing them. I also don't understand why you do that. And yes, if you want to be not recognized as a demagog - accuse your opponent of demagogy. I know about this tactics too. Nice try.
I accused you of demagogy because you tried to twist around a very direct and simple question by smoke screening, that wont fly. What you still don't realize is, except for the child custody part maybe, your arguments don't posses a strong side despite the flawed elements, like you believe they do. In the context of are feminists wrong/exaggerating things, none of your objections would lead a reasonable person to reply, yes. They are not sufficient, they are sometimes irrelevant and most importantly they are not comparable to a whole system built on favoring one gender.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 05:57 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
I've been reading all that feminist crap about ephemeral ”equality” explained as raising solely women’s rights without rebalancing the men’s rights and/or raising responsibilities for women (because they cannot go without rights), and decided to put my 2 cents to the arguments why it is not so easy. No, it’s not another trolling or twisting the facts, neither it is a close-minded sexist arguments. It is reality in Russia, the strongly patriarchal country. Again I note, that Russia is a patriarchal country to the core.
- Men who have long hair are prejudiced by the society, they cannot attend serious jobs like business companies. They have to cut the hair or seek for another job. Women are allowed to have either long or short hair, excluding the shaved head/bald head (but men’s shaved head is also inacceptable on serious jobs, and bald head mostly too). Yes, men are more tolerated to have bald head because they just suffer from alopecia (baldness), it is testosterone and nature itself. As well as women’s lower physical strength. The prejudice about women’s bald head exists, it is true, but not so many women need it since they don’t suffer from the alopecia. Women who shave the head for some reason don’t give a snow about prejudices anyway. Moreover, if it is related to cancer treatment, there is no prejudice.
In addition, the bullies often like oppressing long-haired men, as well as the big piece of society which is not educated enough. The prejudices against such men (I have long hair too btw) is really strong, and this comes from the Soviet times when long hair for men was considered as rebel sentiment against the existing rules or dress code. Or the rock music/hippie culture.
- Men are obliged to remove headgear indoors. Having headgear worn up indoors is considered vulgar for men. Women are allowed to wear it.
- Crying of pain or emotional shock is considered shame for men of all ages, while we experience the same pain.
- Boys who are not able to get a girl or attract her attention are considered as losers by another boys and girls nonetheless. Thus, the girls are the key factor for society’s opinion on young men. You cannot deny that the reverse situation is more rare.
- After the divorce, the chance for men to get the children are practically null. If the man gets the children, there should be a way serious reason for that, like the mother’s death or proven incompetence (alcohol, violence). Should I note that things like violence and alcohol are not so easy to prove in Russian society?
- Judging the husband of his mistakes and fails is normal for wives. While the reverse situation is not tolerated – if the wife will complain about it, she will be always believed more than the husband. This comes from an ancient rule “don’t hurt the girls” and “be gentle to the girls”, which is blindly put into boys’ heads since their very childhood. Thus we see that a new generation of feminine boys is grown, the boys who cannot argue with their girls because they must be gentle and “manly”, as the girls describe. Unfortunately, we in Russia have two common scenarios – “the henpecked husband” and “the uneducated piece of snow instead of a husband who beats his wife”. Scenarios of a normal family when a man has rights and a woman has rights and they esteem each other’s rights is kinda rare, that is why so many divorces and children not having fathers.
- If a man is beaten by a woman, he must keep his mouth shut and tolerate this. Otherwise he will be considered as a wimp and a low-character snowhead, who is complaining on women. But actually this case doesn’t always work.
I could write more arguments, but I’m currently at work. I won’t write women’s affected rights because you all already know them (and their list would be bigger of course), I just want to enlighten you on the true balance between man’s rights and women’s rights.
So to sum up, what I wanted to say: there is no situation when only women’s rights are affected. The true balance between rights is lying somewhere between. That is why all mantras about “we struggle for equality, but we care only about women’s rights because women are more oppressed than men” sound like a childish statement about “You are fool!” – “No, you are a bigger fool, and thus you’re the only fool here!”
Have a nice day HC.
very good post Orzie. I agree with almost all of them. The only phrase I have a concern with is women's rights affected being a longer list than men. Like seriously? I really don't get this. For every oppression or however you call it done to women, I can name two done to men. I might sound childish with that but feminists started it and I just can't say leave something out that is incorrect.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 06:30 PM |
|
|
Are you a blonde transgender or something? 
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 18:44, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Do I have to tell you for the 50th time that if, AS YOU ADMITTED, you live in a very patriarchal society, focusing on women's rights does NOT contradict with the premise of equality. Are you too stubborn and biased to deliberately ignore such a simple notion or is that skull actually 10cm thick?
I would not recommend you to insult me just because your opinion is not the same as mine.
Quote:
A gentlemen is preferable, so men act that way by their own choice, just like a woman behaving ladylike is considered desirable.
Artu, I thought I have already explained you that this is not like that in Russia. I give up. You can write everything you want, but you do not know anything about modern Russian society and the role of women in it. You still keep approximating things of your inner view of the world on a country which has lived by another way for a long time.
Quote:
The only phrase I have a concern with is women's rights affected being a longer list than men. Like seriously? I really don't get this. For every oppression or however you call it done to women, I can name two done to men. I might sound childish with that but feminists started it and I just can't say leave something out that is incorrect.
JeremiahEmo, it does not require any proofs that women's rights are affected more than men's. It was in the past and it is still like that now, but some steps towards women's rights have been made.
If you have doubts, just put yourself in a woman's body (especially, an ugly one) and count things which you are not allowed or capable to do in modern society, which you were previously able or allowed to do when you were in a man's body (even the not so good-looking one).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 06:46 PM |
|
|
It's just a metaphor for "why isnt it getting through", you seem like a decent person on average and my intention was not to insult. Sorry, if the sarcasm got a little sharp.
And you keep telling it's not like that in Russia but we're not exactly talking about the customs of the Zwahaiuli Tribe here, are we? Of course, there would be nuances with every country, that a foreigner wouldnt be able to grasp as deeply as a native but all the actual examples you bring are very similar to the rest of the (modern) world. And when they are refuted, you go "Russia is different." Maybe, it's how you percieve things that is very different, rather than Russia. Do you think women are blamed for manipulating men only in your country...
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 06:52 PM |
|
|
No, no. The thing is that the situation in the countries may vary, but feminism movement is the same everywhere (and is built on the western example, because as Kip said, we didn't have a feminism of our own).
By the way, it may be noticeable that Eastern part of the world is much less interested in even thinking about changing the current balance of rights. Russia is taking a bit from the both.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 07:15 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:59, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Well, the basics are the same, sure: No gender discrimination and an end to traditional oppression. But the details of feminist movements vary from country to country, they are not the same, watch the youtube video I linked, the American feminists focus on their countries legislation and norms, Turkish feminists focus on problems that are caused by Islam or feudal traditions of rural Anatolia, honor killings, Western European feminists focus much more on social class etc etc...
Also, since Russia is more patriarchal than Europe on average, if they copy-paste Western feminism exactly, that will work against women not for them, since a stronger patriarchy would normally require a stronger feminism that fights with it. (But it doesnt work that way, a stronger patriarchy usually oppresses even the movement itself.)
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 07:23 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
JeremiahEmo, it does not require any proofs that women's rights are affected more than men's. It was in the past and it is still like that now, but some steps towards women's rights have been made.
If you have doubts, just put yourself in a woman's body (especially, an ugly one) and count things which you are not allowed or capable to do in modern society, which you were previously able or allowed to do when you were in a man's body (even the not so good-looking one).
I think you're talking about the differences in biology? Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, I see no oppression here. Ugly females are still given equal rights. Yeah sure they'll be discriminated for their ugliness but so are men.
Yeah I have to admit, ugly women has it worst but only compared to good looking people. Beautiful women on the other hand are the most privileged group in the planet. And I mean that literally.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 07:36 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Well, the basics are the same, sure: No gender discrimination and an end to traditional oppression. But the details of feminist movements vary from country to country, they are not the same, watch the youtube video I link, the American feminists focus on their countries legislation and norms, Turkish feminists focus on problems that are caused by Islam or feudal traditions of rural Anatolia, honor killings, Western European feminists focus much more on social class etc etc...
Also, since Russia is more patriarchal than Europe on average, if they copy-paste Western feminism exactly, that will work against women not for them, since a stronger patriarchy would normally require a stronger feminism that fights with it. (But it doesnt work that way, a stronger patriarchy usually oppresses even the movement itself.)
I can understand feminists in the Middle East and I'd like to understand Europe as well. But hey, what do I know. I'm not that familiar with European society. Feminists in America however has nothing to fight about.
Name one right a ma has that a woman hasn't in America. I doubt you can name any.
And about these norms, I doubt that there's anything harmful that's caused by this patriarchy. Some of them are just over-sensitivity like ban bossy campaign and snow shaming. Seriously? you'd rather silence people calling you bossy than thickening your skin?
Speaking of which, I also want to know about your opinion on the ban bossy campaign artu.
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 07:54 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Name one right a man has that a woman hasn't in America.
Showing boobs publicly.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 08:00 PM |
|
|
Many examples had been given through out the thread, you either don't get them or deny them. It's quite a moot point to say feminists exaggerate, when you say patriarchy is lovely, anyway.
I don't believe in banning words, especially something as general as bossy. So, I wouldn't support anything related to that. Besides, you ban it, it will be replaced with something similar in 5 seconds anyway.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 08:05 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Many examples had been given through out the thread, you either don't get them or deny them. It's quite a moot point to say feminists exaggerate, when you say patriarchy is lovely, anyway.
I don't believe in banning words, especially something as general as bossy. So, I wouldn't support anything related to that. Besides, you ban it, it will be replaced with something similar in 5 seconds anyway.
Similar to how the word retarded was just an accurate description of a mental state of someone who is behind, who has a "retardation," say. Then it got replaced by the word "special" and now that can be used as an insult.
"What are you, special?"
EDIT: just supporting the argument.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 08:55 PM |
|
|
Sal said:
JeremiahEmo said:
Name one right a man has that a woman hasn't in America.
Showing boobs publicly.
that's biological. A chest of a man isn't comparable to the boobs of a woman since it isn't labeled as a private part. What's comparable to that is the penis of a man.
artu said:
Many examples had been given through out the thread, you either don't get them or deny them. It's quite a moot point to say feminists exaggerate, when you say patriarchy is lovely, anyway.
Sorry, time isn't on my side. I just breezed through it. From my interpretation, it's just mostly over-sensitivity.
If you explain them clearer, I'd make my case.
I don't see how me having a patriarchal fantasy has anything to do with feminist's over-exaggeration. Loving one thing doesn't prevent one from critical thinking, you know what I mean?
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What's comparable to that is the penis of a man.
You wanted to say "clitoris", didn't you? Don't mix up the primary and secondary sexual characteristics.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 09:31 PM |
|
|
Jemo, I don't think you are even from US, since someone who's native tongue is English, wouldn't say things like "did they lied" or "overexaggerate." Exaggerating is overdoing something anyway, you don't overoverdo it. And I am not talking about your fantasies, you can bet all the gold in the world that I haven't got the slightest interest in what your imagination (or lack of it) would fictionalize. Just in the post above, you said:
Quote:
And about these norms, I doubt that there's anything harmful that's caused by this patriarchy.
Keep on doubting, go back to your fantasies and leave the debate to people who dont "just breeze through" things and actually read what they are replying to. Here, put this record on if the fantasies get too dull:
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 10:53 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
There must be a desire not to harass, they likely see it as good fun. Corribus and his story about the Japanese student comes to mind here, when a person doesn't even consider his actions to be harassment, or even 'bad'.
Some people just don't think about it - they think that what they're doing is right because they've never considered the impact it has on other people, and when they're questioned about it, they deny that they're doing anything wrong because admitting it would make them feel bad. But that's not an excuse for giving them a pass. I've seen some stuff on the Internet about women taking pictures and videos of their harassers, and publicly confronting them. If that's what it takes, then that's what should be done.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 02:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But that's not an excuse for giving them a pass.
I've stated clearly that having oblique intent doesn't mitigate the crime/malicious act. I was merely pointing out that many humans (most imho) have difficulty exercising self restraint, or fail to see the need to because they don't sense the gravity of their acts. The worst form of this is when an individual completely lacks self restraint, I refer to these types of humans as animals.
Now, what I'm talking about is prevention, these types of people exist, and they're not going anywhere. A wise person would adapt. While effort can be made to reduce the number of such people we're not politicians here, or in positions of power or authority we have to make do with what we got, which is reality. And reality is, if a woman wants to reduce the chances of being sexually assaulted or harassed then she should to cover her body. That is fact.
And I see it as imprudent to encourage women to dress however provocatively they want, without first acknowledging the risk.
I'll repeat myself again, you're responsible for the feelings and emotions that you invoke in others, but you are not responsible for what they decide to do with it.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
