tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.comments2021-08-13T08:09:49.713-07:00Venaloid - BlogVenaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-2015587191369112962021-08-13T08:09:49.713-07:002021-08-13T08:09:49.713-07:00I cannot speak for other GC feminists but the reas...I cannot speak for other GC feminists but the reason I target oppressive gender norms more than "benign" ones (benevolent sexism is still sexism, fyi) is because I consider total abolition of gender to be a pipe dream. It is utopian, a direction to aim towards rather than a goal that can actually be reached. So if we are stuck with gender to some extent, we should at least curb the most appalling parts of it.<br /><br />As to why feminists do not advocate for men, men are perfectly capable of advocating for themselves.Mostly Holyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10290576493004320248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-62023141075527562082020-10-21T13:54:34.576-07:002020-10-21T13:54:34.576-07:00Do you play computergames? What are your favorite ... Do you play computergames? What are your favorite games? Visit the web site - download free games for your pc. You will find plenty of new games on this page. Check out which games you can download for free. Look at <a href="https://gamespcdownload.com/" rel="nofollow">game for pc</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17955158514560621790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-34950635893104935782019-07-23T11:57:53.165-07:002019-07-23T11:57:53.165-07:00"It's one thing to have jerks (misandrist..."It's one thing to have jerks (misandrists) in your community and to dislike their presence, but it's quite another thing for those jerks' opinions to be compatible with (if not directly supported by) your underlying ideology and its founders. Maybe these misandrists are just paying closer attention?"<br /><br />Or maybe feminism=misandry?AntiSheephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11309879291245174997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-36416844442301084832019-03-01T03:34:36.351-08:002019-03-01T03:34:36.351-08:00You suckYou suckShakilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417983581713698020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-28969462303734508172019-03-01T03:32:28.643-08:002019-03-01T03:32:28.643-08:00Youvare a fucking idiot feminist are great comedia...Youvare a fucking idiot feminist are great comedians you stupid piece of shit!Shakilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417983581713698020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-61526889550357082662016-07-16T20:53:43.676-07:002016-07-16T20:53:43.676-07:00Can you say the same regarding Anita Sarkeesian?Can you say the same regarding Anita Sarkeesian?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-10142598882695136922016-03-20T20:51:58.264-07:002016-03-20T20:51:58.264-07:00http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/...http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/<br /><br />-- Here is a good circumstance where a police report does not need to be filed. <br /><br />The Statutory Rape is known to have occurred while the boy was under the age of consent, which regardless of his willingness to participate is a crime for an adult to commit.<br /><br />This 15 year old boy was taken advantage of (no matter how much he enjoyed it at the time) by a 20 year old woman who hid the resulting child for years before bringing it to his attention - through the legal system.<br /><br />This here is a prime example of what LPS should be used for. You cannot use the argument that if he didn't want to take the risk he shouldn't have had sex, as that is the entire concept behind statutory rape laws; those that society considers children are not cognitive enough to make such a profound decision and fully assess the consequences of their actions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02820023952012822236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-18149480957799279022016-03-20T01:33:01.002-07:002016-03-20T01:33:01.002-07:00Wow! LPS please!! Sounds great to me! Pop!! Shit! ...Wow! LPS please!! Sounds great to me! Pop!! Shit! Every feminist, corrupt family law judge, lawyer, politician, CPS, CS agency, and every selfish woman just popped the dream bubble (LPS) ... that I was having, all holding a giant needle at the same time!!<br /> Sorry for sarcasm! I agree with LPS. But the powers that be, just can't let the plan for the breakdown of the family, be impeded in any way! Not when it's been running like a well oiled slave generating, money making, "in the best interest of the child" guise, evil machine! <br />But!! You got my support!! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00857388927621321360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-91468548712930859162015-06-18T05:35:15.283-07:002015-06-18T05:35:15.283-07:00I noticed her distancing herself from the anti-mal...I noticed her distancing herself from the anti-male malevolence of her peers at first. I too, noticed her about face in her speech, and I find this all eye-opening. She should have endorsed a She FOR He campaign, to show that women are not battering men wholesale. Her way of welcoming us to her side? gimme!!!!!!!! like we do not gimme to gals in the first place. I doubt she wrote it anyways. Look at her. She is young and immature, a child. But, she is eye candy for guys, so it makes sense that the feminist social media controllers put her in the light, hoping to seduce everyone. Emma is clearly insincere, of delusional, for she contradicts herself immensely in this speech. Or, she was arm-twisted by the speech-writers to do it. All that is of little consequence. Why? Men's rights are being stripped away, and while she stated disdain, she DEMANDED more of men. Listen Emma to me, if you dare, if you have guts like you act like you do!!! My 75 year old adopted mom, who sodomized me and beat me up from a couple years old until my teens, still harasses me!!!! I started talking to my sisters at their pleading, and in pops scum manifesto mom to try to shatter some of my female relations. I have just had 3 years of trauma therapy to help deal with the severe PTSD and nightmares. I am fifty. There has only been 3 yrs of therapy, there was nothing before that! My ex-wife is unbelievably misandric!!! So much so she tried to take my daughter's baby from her! Sick as that is, 4 years ago, I tried to work at McDonald's. Only problem was, my 19 yr old female boss had perverted plans for me or else!!! Guess what I chose what else. I could tell 10 paragraphs of events where females have been absolutely vicious. I have wronged no female on this planet. I am TERRIFIED of women, which does not make me a manhater! I cannot put money in the bank because of a government body that is determined to prove to me that I can never pay the "debt" of divorce, by making it impossible for me to earn a living, based on the lies of my ex. Who really does not want me to make money at all, just stay poor to stay out of her welfare privilege. Tell me, Emma, where is there room left for me to support individuals who have it all going their way? what have I left to give? If I gave it all to you females already, why do you not give me back food, and leave me in the gutter to starve while you smirk? You take this side, Emma, all the while saying that that is not you. You lie to yourself, that is you! I have marks all over my body from my childhood. When I committed suicide at fifteen, she was mad I failed. I have a mark on my forehead, from the bathtub, at a few years old. She was holding me underwater. My forehead has a gouge from the faucet. How is this less than any man has done to me? It is not. And I cannot take her or my ex-wife to court or jail for their abuses of me. Want more? After alienating me from my adopted family by threatening me heavily, she shows up at my daughter's wedding, only to stick her finger in that old familiar place during family photos. She did it to ruin my psychology, and to fluff with my daughter's feelings. Just this past month, she hacked into my emails and facebook to do disgusting things to my brain again. I cannot stop this monster who love the scum manifesto, because she is female. And you encourage her with your actions, Emma. Pooey on femiinsim, Strangely, I have been Egalitarian since ten years old. Women supremacy is a hate crime and you know it!!! Your whole speech is either a knowing lie, or you are farrrrrrrr too immature to be in such a prestigious position. But then, those that wrote your speech, paid YOU because you are great eye candy for men. Or so they thought. You can correct me on that point, if you dare to stand up for your weird speech. I am tired of giving only....when are women gonna give? Or, is my adopted mom' sick scum manifest policy lurk in you?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14069423170451459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-58999396133378783982015-04-14T05:26:16.427-07:002015-04-14T05:26:16.427-07:00Nailed it as always mate. Nailed it as always mate. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085323293330329359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-46918759871141989912015-04-01T10:41:40.604-07:002015-04-01T10:41:40.604-07:00Broadly-speaking, I think your argument could be a...Broadly-speaking, I think your argument could be applied to other situations where you would not agree with the consequences. I think you’re arguing that the current laws are fair because it’s possible to for both men and women to not become parents, but I think you are missing the fact that it’s much easier for women to avoid becoming parents than men, which is unfair, and which could be made fair by a simple legal provision. <br /><br /><br />“What man wouldn't pay a few thousand dollars to get out of having to support a child for 18 years if they didn't want the responsibility?”<br /><br />> Very few, but it’s the same story with women (who actually HAVE that option, mind you): what woman wouldn’t get an abortion if it gets them out of having to support a child for 18 years if they didn’t want the responsibility? Women have that freedom, while men, for lack of a simple legal provision, do not, and I think this simple legal provision should be created so that men and women have more equal rights to choose parenthood (understanding, of course, that they will never be identical because of biology, but the closer the better)<br /><br /><br />“…both a man and woman need to be aware of the consequences of having sex before engaging in sexual relations, including the possibility of a pregnancy resulting and the legal rights which a woman has if a pregnancy does occur.”<br /><br />> You are correct to recommend caution given that, in our current system, the mother can force the father to become financially responsible for the child. However, just because the mother has that right, that doesn’t mean this is how things should be. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change the system, it just means that fathers need to be careful in the meantime. Yes, men can protect themselves from this unwanted consequence of sex, but that doesn’t mean that the laws which create this consequence are fair. <br /><br />Here’s an analogy, and I think this is the kind of argument you are making: in the USA in 1960, if black people didn’t want to get arrested, then they shouldn’t drink from the white water fountains. “Simple, right? What’s the problem? Just don’t drink from the white water fountain. You need to understand that there are risks and consequences.” – “But the law is unfair!” – “Too bad, either deal with reality or don’t.” <br /><br />Another analogous situation would be women and abortion before abortion was a legal option. Again, I think this is the kind of argument you are making: “If you don’t want to risk becoming a mother, then don’t have sex: it’s just obvious: actions have risks and consequences.” Remember, this is before abortion was an option, but neither you nor I would take this to mean that abortion should have remained illegal. <br /><br /><br />“Actions have consequences. Having sex has inherent risks.”<br /><br />> Yes, actions to have consequences, and sex has risks, but in our current legal system, women can escape those consequences completely, and men cannot: not because of biology, but because the law simply doesn’t allow it for men. That is unfair, and that is why I think LPS, as I have outlined it, is a good idea. With LPS, sex would still have risks and consequences, but those consequences would be more equal for men and women. That is what I want. <br />Venaloidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-85284796195513613792015-04-01T07:08:06.094-07:002015-04-01T07:08:06.094-07:00I think you're focusing your arguments too nar...I think you're focusing your arguments too narrowly on "gender feminists" to address their positions. Of course, you know that I'm not a gender feminist at all, yet I still disagree with the idea that men should be able to unilaterally sever all responsibility for a child they fathered.<br /><br />I'm all for laws which allow for decisions and judgments to be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a man and woman agree for the father to abdicate his parental rights without being responsible for child support, or only if the mother becomes unable to support the child alone, then that's acceptable. If we want to establish income brackets which determine the amount of support a father should pay instead of taking a set percentage of his salary or a set dollar amount, that's fair. I think your proposals to have men sign forms at an abortion clinic or have to pay the equivalent of an abortion to rid himself of the responsibility of child support are good to underscore your point, but not practical in reality. What man wouldn't pay a few thousand dollars to get out of having to support a child for 18 years if they didn't want the responsibility? It's like an opt-out clause.<br /><br />In my opinion, both a man and woman need to be aware of the consequences of having sex before engaging in sexual relations, including the possibility of a pregnancy resulting and the legal rights which a woman has if a pregnancy does occur. A man needs to know that a woman has complete control over the pregnancy and if it will be terminated or brought to term. A woman should not be forced to be entirely responsible for the financial burden of raising the child should she choose to give birth. Yes, there are options for women, like adoption or dropping the baby at a safe haven location. However, that choice is again up to the woman. The government also does provide assistance to single mothers if they qualify (and many do). This should not absolve the father of responsibility. <br /><br />The bottom line is that if a man doesn't know a woman well enough to feel confident in how things might play out in this scenario, then he shouldn't have sex with her. Actions have consequences. Having sex has inherent risks. <br /><br />I also obviously find it absurd that a man who was raped would be required to provide support for a child that results. Of course, there's have to be a police report filed within a certain time frame after the rape to legitimize it, otherwise men could just claim to have been raped in order to get out of paying support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-8974320499903285612015-03-10T10:52:34.887-07:002015-03-10T10:52:34.887-07:00Re: The comments on this post expressed a similar ...Re: <i>The comments on this post expressed a similar dislike for the campaign.</i><br /><br />You should have documented the "dastardly" comments. That would have totally corroborated your observation <i>"Is this really the forefront of your war?"</i><br />and justified the invocation of George Orwell's Animal Farm LOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-28674892827119489902015-03-10T01:42:59.873-07:002015-03-10T01:42:59.873-07:00Nobody is mad about that. The entire point was to ...Nobody is mad about that. The entire point was to point out feminist nonsense it had nothing to do with being upset. Note that they said "Oppressive male gaze", they were being sarcastic you're just not smart enough to pick up on it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366603869251933961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-45058860690357432632015-02-04T21:35:58.397-08:002015-02-04T21:35:58.397-08:00Both, in different ways.
With respect to one'...Both, in different ways.<br /><br />With respect to one's gender identity, I think the best evidence that gender identity is (mostly) innate is the existence of transgender people. These are people who have been treated like one gender their entire lives (because of their sex organs and other features), and yet they still identify as the opposite gender, and they'll talk about how they knew something was wrong all their lives and how much better they feel now. As one commenter put it: "Gender identity is a social construct... that you're born with."<br /><br />With respect to gender roles/stereotypes (let's called them GR/S), it's obviously more nuanced, but I do think there are many ways in which men and women tend to behave differently that are the result of how humans evolved. Interestingly enough, denying our evolved behavioral dimorphism has been called "creationism of the mind" in the sense that you'd have to believe that despite all the changes evolution made to male and female bodies, it somehow kept our brains (and thus, our behaviors) exactly the same, despite the fact that men, for example, will never be tied to their children as women are with pregnancy and breastfeeding. <br /><br />However, the nuance in this behavioral dimorphism is the fact that as soon as we humans see men and women choosing to do different things in their lives or to act in different ways, we start to associate those things with men and women respectively, and then we ridicule other men and women who don't fit that pattern. That's just how humans are, but it serves to artificially inflate many behavioral differences between men and women, so it's hard to tell exactly how much of it is innate versus socially reinforced.Venaloidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-41005012586891755272015-02-01T08:14:01.391-08:002015-02-01T08:14:01.391-08:00Curious if you could elaborate on your position in...Curious if you could elaborate on your position in regards to gender not being a social construct. In regards to biological gender, or gender roles / norms?Zachary Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06062710695990607520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-89197707402763961992014-12-06T18:01:28.203-08:002014-12-06T18:01:28.203-08:00Yeah, that article was just one giant, pathetic ad...Yeah, that article was just one giant, pathetic ad hominem fallacyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232678396690930382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-28181072370532775452014-11-25T15:03:14.000-08:002014-11-25T15:03:14.000-08:00Well I'm not sure I can respond to everything ...Well I'm not sure I can respond to everything you said, but I appreciate the polite feedback. <br /><br />I do try to make it clear when I am talking about "some feminists" or "many feminists" or "those feminists" so that people don't think I am talking about all feminists. <br /><br />And to be fair, I also speak out against the more vocal religious people I encounter, and I recognize that most (Christians, feminists, etc) are not loud and crazy, but at the same time, the loud and crazy (religious people, feminists, etc) have a strong influence, and so I think it is good to speak against them when I disagree with them. <br /><br />However, in my experience, most of the feminists I've spoken to, both online and in real life, have used some form of "appeal to pity" to turn the blame onto men. Combine that with the article I discussed in my post called "An Open Letter to Privileged Women", and I think there is reasonably strong evidence that a sizable portion of "feminists" subscribe to this (fallacious) thinking. <br /><br />As to the rest of your comments, I can definitely agree with some of what you have said. The purpose of this post was to explain where I disagree with these feminists, so I did not clearly state that I do agree with them up until that point. Venaloidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-41114217897142372972014-11-25T13:49:47.523-08:002014-11-25T13:49:47.523-08:00I am sorry to make a fourth post, but I feel I sho...I am sorry to make a fourth post, but I feel I should justify this for the street harassment since it is something that is often bought up:<br /><br />I do not believe that a man who sees a woman wearing revealing clothing and asks her to have sex is harassment, I believe this is 'treating her differently', which as I said, is something I believe is fair when someone is dressed a certain way.<br /><br />However, when she says no, and they continue to try to talk her into it, that is then harassment.LunarDancingDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04254284522875943391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-42751155813328752592014-11-25T13:41:50.018-08:002014-11-25T13:41:50.018-08:00-STREET HARRASMENT-
You are right that how one dr...-STREET HARRASMENT-<br /><br />You are right that how one dresses affects how people treat them, but there is a large difference between how one gets treated and having illegal things done to them because of it.<br /><br />Your example is unfair, because the man who wears unbusiness-like clothing to a meeting does not have anything illegal happening to him. He is not being chosen simply by the fact that the employer believes he is unprofessional, and this is a perfectly legal thing for the employer to do.<br /><br />If a girl walked into a similar situation, that she went to get a job wearing provocative clothing, like the clothing in the video you give, the employer would be perfectly justified in not hiring her and they would almost 100% choose not to hire her.<br /><br />However, the opposite does not hold. If you put the man dressing unbussiness-like in the environment shown in the video, he would not likely be harassed, for wearing such clothing.<br /><br />Once again, the people are perfectly justified in treating her differently if they dislike how she dresses. By that, that means they can do things like try to avoid her, prefer not to talk to her, and even make jokes about it with their friends and other such things. However, how one dresses is not a justification for harassment or battery or any other type of crime against the person, no more then the fact that one person who happens to be richer than another is justification for stealing from them.LunarDancingDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04254284522875943391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-12995707614093228882014-11-25T13:41:16.637-08:002014-11-25T13:41:16.637-08:00(My apologies, I had to put the comment into multi...(My apologies, I had to put the comment into multiple posts)<br />-RAPE PREVENTION-<br /><br />Although I do not necessarily believe that women who are dressed in a certain way are more likely to be raped (which I will explain in a few paragraphs), I think you can tell a woman that some place is bad if she goes dressed like that is dangerous before the fact, but mentioning it afterwards is a bit bad, especially if you make it sound like any part of the fault is hers. Because for one thing, it is rather rude to a victim of assault, and for another, even if you were right, a woman should have a right to go anywhere dressed like how she wants, without fear of being raped. It is completely the rapist who is at fault, regardless of if she did or did not do something to 'lower the risk'. For example, if someone got into an argument with another person and ended up murdered because of it, you would not say 'well he was at some fault because he got into an argument'.<br /><br />Furthermore, I feel that the definition of what constitutes 'sexy clothes' is undefined. At what point does 'revealing clothes' become 'unrevealing clothes'? And this is further assuming that everyone has the exact same taste, which is not the case. Where as some men might find a revealing skirt sexy, some men might find it unsexy, and so would not want to have anything to do with her.<br /><br />This could also be turned around. A woman might find a man who wears a small-sleeved shirt that reveals his large biceps as being sexy and might rape him, but it would be silly to say "Well, you should not have been wearing such sexy clothes".<br /><br />And of course, this is all assuming that women who wear 'revealing clothes' are more at risk then woman who are not, which I am not convinced is true, as I have seen no evidence that this is true.<br /><br />And I have no reason to believe that is true, since, as you yourself have pointed out, a majority of rape happens with women who are dressed 'normally' and between two people who generally know each other, which seems to indicate that clothing might have little if anything to do with rape.<br /><br />Another point on this would be to imagine a very ugly girl wearing such 'revealing clothing'. It is unlikely that she would be raped because the men found her 'sexy wearing those revealing clothes'. The more probable reason she would be raped(if she was) is for the same reason why straight people might rape gay people (as a form of degradation, rather than because they want their sexual desire filled).<br /><br />And, obviously, if you look at rape in nature, since animals cannot 'wear sexy clothing', it is silly to say that, for example, a duck got raped because they wore 'sexy clothing', which would seem to indicate even more that clothing does not particularly have anything to do with it.<br /><br />I also feel like saying that women who wear more revealing clothing are at risk is self-fulfilling. If a rapist happens to know this is a common belief, they might choose to rape a woman who wears more revealing clothing, simply because if he gets caught, he knows he can get somewhat of sympathy by saying 'she was wearing revealing clothing'. In other words, they can become somewhat of the victim of the girl, which for them, is ideal.LunarDancingDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04254284522875943391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-46772114211437145142014-11-25T13:40:19.067-08:002014-11-25T13:40:19.067-08:00English is not my first language, so please excuse...English is not my first language, so please excuse me if I do not say something clearly or if I misunderstood something you said.<br /><br />To be honest, I think a lot of what you are looking at for feminism is a biased outlook, not necessarily because of you, but because of the fact that the people who act like that tend to be more outspoken and obvious and easier to recall.<br /><br />It is similar to how if you see a religion maniac, you would be more likely to attribute that to religion as opposed to if you saw just a normal person who also happened to be religious.<br /><br />I agree that a appeal to pity should not be used, and I also dislike when other feminist do this, because it gives people who dislike feminism a way to say "Look at how wrong feminism is, they have to use fallacy to defend their position". However, I think this is not as wide spread as it seems, and just happens to appear that way because of what I said earlier. You are more likely to remember a feminist who is using silly ideas or fallacies to defend their position then you are to remember one who just happens to be more 'proper'.<br /><br />As a note, I feel I should say, I am only saying this is a possibility that I happen to believe is the case, but I have no particular evidence to prove it is the case. However, I also believe the opposite is the same, that there is no particular evidence for the fact that a majority of feminist use appeal to pity. So I am only saying this to offer you an alternate possibility, which I hope you will at least consider.<br /><br /><br /><br />-BODY IMAGE-<br /><br />For body image, you are somewhat right. As far as make up and hair, or any other non-physical characteristics women are more likely to criticize others. But for actual body image, I think men are more likely to do this then women are, for exactly the reason you state, that a man does not particularly notice hair and make up, but instead they are more likely to notice if a woman is 'sexy' or not.<br /><br />My position on this is not particularly like how you presented it here though, as I believe the problem is that women are 'expected' to have a certain body image, not just 'criticized' for having that body image. So a girl who happens to have a bad body image is not just someone who a guy 'finds ugly', but rather, she is not seen as a girl at all because she is outside the expectation.<br /><br />And, while I believe it is more prominent for women, I believe this is also a problem for men as well.<br /><br /><br /><br />-DRUNKEN HOOKUPS-<br /><br />I agree with you that if two people are drunk and have sex, then both parties are equally responsible. I cannot particularly add much to this, except saying the same thing I said earlier, that people who complain about this are more outspoken and thus more easily noticed.<br /><br />This point (as far as feminism is concerned) has more to do with a man coercing a woman into drinking or forcing her too, and using her being drunk to have sex with her, that it is rape. I believe that is rape. And, even though I used pronouns there, I do not think it is one-sided, so in other words, a woman who coerces a man into drinking and then has sex with him, the woman is raping him.<br /><br />It is also important to note that when one is drunk I do not believe they can reasonably assess how drunk another person is. So they might think that someone did something that they did not actually do.<br /><br />And changing the blame when two people are equally responsible is something that happens in all different types of contexts, so I think it is a bit unfair to say it like it is an attribute to feminism.LunarDancingDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04254284522875943391noreply@blogger.com