tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36557734740309514652024-03-12T20:30:36.526-07:00Venaloid - BlogVenaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-5494105863777081952019-12-15T19:17:00.002-08:002019-12-15T19:17:57.372-08:00Gospel Problems - The Sketchy Story of Jesus, Part 4 - Full Source List<br />
<br />
<br />
Newton<br />
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html<br />
<br />
Ehrman-White Debate, Parts 1 and 2<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moHInA9fAsI<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Mp4v8VQwQ<br />
<br />
Woman Taken in Adultery<br />
https://www.wbur.org/npr/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries<br />
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/06/the-pericope-adulterae-and-some-early.html<br />
https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html<br />
https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/26/where-is-the-story-of-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-really-from/<br />
<br />
When Did Jesus Die?<br />
http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1501796-four-gospels-agree-jesus-christ-crucified.html<br />
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/passover.htm<br />
<br />
Johannine Comma<br />
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html<br />
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/47660/<br />
http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace/?docid=30221<br />
https://georgehguthrie.com/new-blog/johannine-comma<br />
https://books.google.com/books?id=W7b_PCCJ-FwC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=%22codex+221%22+john&source=bl&ots=xp1uud1iyy&sig=ACfU3U3AvfXDpB2VssNvig2OIbkwR1jjRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjytefNvrrlAhUB1qwKHZejB0UQ6AEwAnoECBIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22codex%20221%22%20john&f=false <br />
<br />
Maria/Martha<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfy6oiB_U-A<br />
https://today.duke.edu/2019/06/mary-or-martha-duke-scholars-research-finds-mary-magdalene-downplayed-new-testament-scribes<br />
<br />
Ending of Mark<br />
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/<br />
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/<br />
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2015/02/the-odd-empty-column-at-ending-of-mark.html<br />
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+16&version=NIV<br />
http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/longer-ending-mark/<br />
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123.<br />
"Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them."<br />
<br />
"The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913)."<br />
<br />
Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus.HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Empty Tomb, Appearances & Ascension" p. 449-495.<br />
<br />
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/gospel-of-thomas<br />
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-gospel-of-thomas-114-sayings-of-jesus/<br />
<br />
Ebionites<br />
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ebionites#Beliefs_and_practices<br />
<br />
Marcionites<br />
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marcionism<br />
<br />
Gnosticism<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_in_early_Christian_theology<br />
http://gnosis.org/library.html<br />
http://impiousdigest.com/the-nag-hammadi-library/<br />
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html<br />
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html<br />
<br />
Bart Ehrman on the Gospel of Thomas<br />
https://youtu.be/8nZFNBTt6q8?t=489<br />
<br />
List of New Testament Manuscripts<br />
http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html<br />
<br />
Gospels are anonymous. Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark.<br />
https://www.christianbiblereference.org/jintro.htm<br />
Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.<br />
<br />
None of the Gospels claim to be eyewitnesses.<br />
https://www.skepticink.com/humesapprentice/2012/09/15/gospels-anonymous-or-not/<br />
<br />
A timeline of the authorship of the Gospels.<br />
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html<br />
<br />
Josephus<br />
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX<br />
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_Testimonium_Flavianum<br />
<br />
Other Secular Authors<br />
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html<br />
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44<br />
https://tinyurl.com/wjhl8lw<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian)<br />
<br />
Pilate and Crucifixion<br />
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pontius-Pilate<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate<br />
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-jews-to-bury-crucified-victims-readers-mailbag-january-1-2018/<br />
<br />
William Lane Craig's videos<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKRRLpuGiQg<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE<br />
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exegete<br />
<br />
Gary Habermas<br />
https://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/southeastern_theological_review/minimal-facts-methodology_08-02-2012.htm<br />
https://ses.edu/minimal-facts-on-the-resurrection-that-even-skeptics-accept/<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSG5okmUr8<br />
<br />
Resurrection Attestation<br />
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/<br />
http://www.divinerevelations.info/pdf/the_case_for_christ.pdf<br />
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/<br />
John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.<br />
http://understandingworldreligions.com/books_pdf/Griffith-Thomas_Christianity_Christ.pdf<br />
<br />
Disciples' Martyrdom<br />
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1_Clement_(Hoole_translation)<br />
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/First%20Epistle%20of%20Clement%20to%20the%20Corinthians.pdf<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecGCVgyxs4o<br />
<br />
Jesus predicted his death<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_predicts_his_death#cite_note-12<br />
<br />
Music is "Pure Attitude" and "Indore", by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)<br />
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0<br />
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-77314392630289216742017-04-11T16:33:00.001-07:002017-04-11T16:33:19.730-07:00The Problems with Affirmative Consent Laws - Video Description<br />
The passage of the affirmative consent bill in California was hailed as a grand victory by many people, as it represents a fundamental shift in the way sexual crimes would be investigated.<br />
<br />
However, as I explain in this video, affirmative consent is a horrible provision to write into law, even though its underlying idea is noble.<br />
<br />
The status of affirmative consent laws in the United States:<br />
http://affirmativeconsent.com/affirmative-consent-laws-state-by-state/<br />
<br />
Full text of the California Bill (SB 967):<br />
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967<br />
<br />
Co-author Bonnie Lowenthal's statement:<br />
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/<br />
<br />
"The change shifts the burden of proof from the accuser, who had to show that she resisted, to the accused, who must now show that he sought and received her consent."<br />
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/campus-sexual-assaultaffirmativeconsent.html<br />
<br />
Another unbelievable quote by Susan Dwyer, in which she vainly struggles to recriminate anyone who would suggest that this law could create more false accusations:<br />
". . . only a morally repulsive assumption about women’s psychology would lead us to think that the policy [affirmative consent laws] increases the mendacity of those who report sexual assault" - Susan Dwyer<br />
<br />
Jessica Valenti on the burden of proof:<br />
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006996.html<br />
<br />
Another Feminist Blog on the burden of proof:<br />
https://anotherfeministblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/your-burden-of-proof-is-bullshit/<br />
<br />
My own blog post on why the burden of proof is the way it is, and why it should stay that way:<br />
http://venaloid.blogspot.com/2015/02/consent-has-no-double-standard.html<br />
<br />
Quote regarding the preponderance of evidence. This is also stated in SB 967, of course. I should note that this particular criticism is specific to the California bill, and is not necessarily a requirement for the basic idea of affirmative consent:<br />
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/<br />
<br />
Carol Tavris, "Who's Lying, Who's Self-Justifying?"<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SpVVsOUsLo<br />
<br />
24:42 - 25:36 -- People say “no” to mean many different things, even to indicate consent.<br />
<br />
29:10 - 30:18 -- People do a “dance of ambiguity” to spare each other’s feelings.<br />
<br />
30:18 - 31:20 -- A common signal of consent, AND of non-consent, is not doing anything.<br />
<br />
33:41 - 33:55 -- Some women drink alcohol to create plausible deniability about their consent in case someone accuses them of being a slut; they intentionally blur the line.<br />
<br />
34:35 - 37:05 -- Cognitive dissonance can create false memories about sexual encounters.<br />
<br />
38:37 - 40:17 -- Dr. Tavris specifically denounces affirmative consent laws for the above reasons.<br />
<br />
Article about one woman's personal blurred line:<br />
http://totalsororitymove.com/is-it-possible-that-there-is-something-in-between-consensual-sex-and-rape-and-that-it-happens-to-almost-every-girl-out-there/<br />
<br />
Other related articles worth reading:<br />
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/how-affirmative-consent-laws-criminalize-everyone/<br />
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/why-a-college-student-abandoned-affirmative-consent/381650/<br />
<br />
College student expelled for BEING ASSAULTED:<br />
https://youtu.be/-uVvVbczN_A?t=108<br />
<br />
Support this channel on Patreon. Patrons now get to see a blooper reel for each video I make.<br />
http://www.patreon.com/Venaloid<br />
<br />
Music is "Pure Attitude", by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)<br />
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0<br />
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-44896044890783134332016-10-31T14:59:00.004-07:002016-10-31T15:03:49.269-07:00"Pop Feminism, how do you plead?" - Video Description"Pop feminism", or mainstream feminism, does serious damage, not just to people who disagree with it ideologically, but also to people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ideas like listen and believe, triggers and censorship, and conspiracies of oppression all have demonstrably harmful effects. The stories I list, and the extended links in the description are only a fraction of what I've seen over the years, these are just the ones I was able to dig up.<br />
<br />
The1Janitor is a good, well-meaning person who I've been subscribed to for a while now, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who hangs out in this corner of YouTube hasn't heard at least some of the cases I mention in this video. Links below.<br /><br />
The1Janitor's video:<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyQNnVHyU_c<br />
<br />
Related video by Karen Straughan: "Why do MRAs attack feminism?"<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2k86AaMfAY<br />
<br />
> Eroding the rights of accused students at universities, .<br />
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/<br />
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/campus-sexual-assaultaffirmativeconsent.html<br />
<br />
Pop feminists (/“real feminists” who wanted this change:<br />
https://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/<br />
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27685/<br />
<br />
- Male student is found not guilty of sexual misconduct, punished anyway:<br />
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/school-found-accusers-claims-meritless-still-punishes-the-accused/article/2600436<br />
<br />
- Male student accused of rape is not allowed a lawyer, accuser is.<br />
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27697/ <br />
<br />
- Male student is raped when blacked out, and the school expels him<br />
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu<br />
<br />
- A federal judge had to reinstate a falsely-accused student<br />
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/03/judge-reinstates-brown-univ-student-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-blasts-students-who-bombarded-him-to-do-otherwise/<br />
<br />
- Emma Sulkowicz (mattress girl):<br />
--Her slander campaign against him was endorsed by their university because it promoted popular feminist ideas:<br />
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/accused-man-in-mattress-girl-scandal-files-new-allegations-against-columbia/<br />
-- She was honored by the National Organization for Women<br />
http://nownyc.org/susan-b-anthony-awards/<br />
<br />
- Rolling Stone rape accuser Jackie<br />
- Lauded by the National Organization for Women<br />
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/now-ignores-confirmed-rape-hoax-calls-student-sexual-assault-survivor-anyway<br />
<br />
- Falsely accused male student was not told the charges, was not allowed counsel, and only escaped because his mother happened to be an attorney and knew what to do.<br />
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/rape-culture-what-happens-when-a-feminists-son-is-accused-of-rape/<br />
<br />
- Emerging trends of mothers speaking up on behalf of their sons and other men because the main stream (that is, social-justice pop-feminists) value female voices over male voices:<br />
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/leslie-loftis-mothers-speak-sons-enrage-hardline-feminists/<br />
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/29/toxic-environment-for-sons-accused-of-campus-sex-offenses-turns-mothers-to-militants/<br />
<br />
Other stories:<br />
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/due-process-win-california-judge-rules-campus-kangaroo-court-unfair/article/2568180<br />
https://reason.com/blog/2016/04/06/this-university-cleared-a-male-student-o<br />
<br />
- University of Manchester censored a debate about censorship.<br />
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/manchester-su-bans-second-guest-milo-yiannopoulos-free-speech-event-following-julie-bindel-outcry-1522939<br />
<br />
- Springfield College canceled a “Men in Literature” class when four students complained, appealing to the idea that men face no inequality, even though that was never proposed in the coursework.<br />
https://www.nas.org/articles/springfield_purges_men_in_literature<br />
<br />
- Professor who tried to abide by sensitive students’ triggers, still managed to offend.<br />
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/28/i_wanted_to_be_a_supporter_of_survivors_on_campus_and_a_good_teacher_i_didnt_realize_just_how_impossible_this_would_be/<br />
<br />
- Harvard feminists wanted to abolish male-only clubs, but not female-only clubs, on the grounds of, you guessed it, systematic female oppression.<br />
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminists-want-harvards-all-male-clubs-punished-but-not-all-womens-clubs/<br />
<br />
> The only men’s shelter in Canada didn’t receive enough funds to stay open: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/privately-run-shelter-for-male-victims-of-domestic-abuse-forced-to-close-its-doors-due-to-lack-of-funding<br />
<br />
Other links:<br />
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2016/02/16/4655/<br />
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid<br />
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-37027182305899429192015-03-31T15:35:00.000-07:002015-04-22T13:51:12.219-07:00In Favor of Legal Paternal SurrenderLegal paternal surrender (LPS) is the idea that men who unintentionally become fathers should be allowed to walk away from their paternal duties to the (unborn) child (i.e. child support), which would mirror women's right to walk away from their maternal duties via abortions. LPS would provide men with a legal equivalent to an abortion, which would give them the same sovereignty over their futures as parents (or as non-parents) that women have. This, I believe, would be more equal than our current system. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.immediateentourage.com/ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Man-in-Trenchcoat.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.immediateentourage.com/ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Man-in-Trenchcoat.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Now, because this topic is touchy and easily misunderstood, I would like to briefly clarify what LPS is not. LPS is not "spousal consent", wherein the mother can only abort if the father approves. Nor is it "forced abortion", wherein the mother is required to abort if the father demands it. LPS has nothing to do with the mother's right to abort; it simply says that men should have the right to refuse parenthood and walk away, as women already can. This means no child support, no duties whatsoever.<br />
<br />
To reiterate: I am not arguing that the father should have the power to force a woman to abort her fetus or to keep it: I am arguing that the father should have the legally-protected right to completely sever ties to his future children, just as women can sever their future ties via abortion. It is still her body and her choice, but it's also his future, and I think he should have that choice, not her.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P3UYL5bU4Qg/VRnGA8zGIvI/AAAAAAAABPk/p5qfe-EiTOc/s1600/LPS%2BCartoon.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P3UYL5bU4Qg/VRnGA8zGIvI/AAAAAAAABPk/p5qfe-EiTOc/s1600/LPS%2BCartoon.png" height="150" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Her body and future, her choice. His future, his choice.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Legal paternal surrender is also a necessary freedom in cases where men are raped by women, just as abortion is a necessary freedom in cases where women are raped by men. Unfortunately, in our current system, male victims of female rapists are required to pay child support to their rapists, even when the male victims are under age, and this is unacceptable.<br />
<br />
<u>S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M.</u><br />
<a href="http://moodle.davidson.edu/moodle2/mod/resource/view.php?id=47405">http://moodle.davidson.edu/moodle2/mod/resource/view.php?id=47405</a><br />
> Woman has sex with an unconscious man, gets pregnant, and wins child support.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br />
<u>1996 Case of Underage Boy being Raped</u></div>
<div>
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf</a><br />
> 15-year-old boy is raped and is then require to support the resulting child. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>State of Louisiana v. Frisard</u></div>
<div>
<a href="http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19961122_0042048.AL.htm/qx">http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19961122_0042048.AL.htm/qx</a></div>
<div>
> Blowjob with a condom, woman inseminates herself, sues and wins child support. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Hermesmann v. Seyer</u></div>
<div>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer</a><br />
> 13-year-old boy pays child support after being raped by is 17-year-old babysitter.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/08/angry-judge.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/08/angry-judge.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Legal paternal surrender has been discussed in many different ways and by a wide variety of people, so I encourage you to supplement this essay with some of the discussions linked below. Instead of reiterating these arguments, I will spend the rest of this essay responding to some common objections to LPS, which most of these discussions never mention.<br />
<br />
An article which explores the history and arguments surrounding LPS<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/">http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/</a><br />
<br />
A detailed overview of some of the arguments on both sides of this isses<br />
<a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/opting-out-women-can-have-an-abortion-some-men-say-they-should-have-a-choice-over-parenthood-too/">http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/opting-out-women-can-have-an-abortion-some-men-say-they-should-have-a-choice-over-parenthood-too/</a><br />
<br />
An analysis by a professor of philosophy and gender studies<br />
<a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/?_r=0">http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/?_r=0</a><br />
<br />
A brief but well-written "ramble" on the issue<br />
<a href="http://keithwiley.com/mindRamblings/abortion.shtml#mensRights">http://keithwiley.com/mindRamblings/abortion.shtml#mensRights</a><br />
<br />
A dense, philosophical essay on parental rights and choosing parenthood<br />
<a href="http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/dadsrights.pdf">http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/dadsrights.pdf</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1. LPS would let men have sex all they want with no consequences, leaving pregnant women in their wake! How is that fair?</span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1a.</span> This is actually a very reasonable concern, and it is a good objection to LPS as it has been presented. I agree that this needs to be addressed before LPS becomes the law. Indeed, I have become increasingly disappointed in many of the arguments in favor of LPS because they never answer this objection, and by that token, they end up arguing for a system in which women have to do all the work involved in getting an abortion, while men would simply have to sign a form and that's it, which is totally unfair to women.<br />
<br />
So, in order to make LPS as fair as possible for men and women, I would like to propose some caveats to the process that men would have to go through, with the goal of mirroring the difficulties that the mother would have to go through for an abortion. The caveats I propose are as follows:<br />
<br />
> The father could only sign the paperwork at an abortion clinic (if one even exists near him).<br />
> The father would have to jump through the same hoops as the mother would have to (waiting periods, multiple visits, maybe an unnecessary probe of some kind, etc.)<br />
> The father would have to pay a fee equal to the theoretical cost of an abortion at that stage of pregnancy, just as the mother would have to.<br />
> The father would have to complete this process in the same timeframe as the mother would have to complete the abortion process: up to 24 weeks, and this timeframe would begin when the father learned about the pregnancy or, if the mother kept her pregnancy secret, when he learned about the child.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0ttLq56lcXg/VRm_DgpuL5I/AAAAAAAABPU/--imBqprc9s/s1600/Texas%2Babortion%2Bclinics.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0ttLq56lcXg/VRm_DgpuL5I/AAAAAAAABPU/--imBqprc9s/s1600/Texas%2Babortion%2Bclinics.png" height="372" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
These are some heavy caveats, but I think they make the process as fair as it can possibly be, and I'm confident that most men would accept these caveats if it afforded them the right to choose parenthood. I would even go so far as to guess that most men would even agree to a few good kicks in the balls to balance out whatever physical procedure a woman would have to endure, again, if it allowed them to choose not to be parents.<br />
<br />
I think this would be a fair situation (or at least, as fair as we can possibly make it), and I wonder if feminists might even support this because it gives men a "horse in the race", so to speak, regarding abortion laws and restrictions: it forces men to jump through the same hoops as women, so maybe, just maybe, they'd be a little more motivated to remove those hoops.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2. The child has the right to the financial resources it needs: the child's right to basic necessities outweighs any of the father's rights.</span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2a.</span> This assumes that all single mothers are struggling and that they need child support payments to provide their children with basic necessities, which is simply not true: mothers who don't need the money still receive child support from fathers, so in those situations, there is no conflict between the child's rights and the father's rights: the father's money is being taken for the <i>convenience</i> of the child and the mother. <br />
<br />
Besides, if financial support from a second party was always required, then it would be mandatory for <i>every</i> single parent to receive money from others to help raise their child.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2b.</span> In cases where a single mother <i>is</i> struggling to provide basic necessities for her child, I think the state should assist her as a form of welfare, The funny thing is, the state has already shown that it is willing to pay 100% of what a child needs (Google "safe haven laws"), so why not simply tell the state go halfway for single parents who need financial assistance? Why does the state take money from the father (who, unlike the mother, never had the option to detach himself from the child) when the state was willing to pay for everything? Does the state's desire to save money really allow it to take what they need from non-consenting men?<br />
<br />
And no, it's not a form of tax: it's targeting specific men for decisions they did not make.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/310479319_e23d8c334a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/310479319_e23d8c334a.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2c.</span> As long as we're taking men's money "for the good of the child", why don't we just take some of Bill Gates' money? That's a lot more practical, both for the man, and for the child, and Bill Gates is just as responsible for the mother's decision to keep the child as their fathers were, so why not take the child support from Bill Gates?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">3. It's about biology! That just sucks for men, but at the end of the day, it's her body and her choice. Abortions do not derive from a right to opt out of parenthood, but a right of sovereignty over one's body.</span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">3a. </span>Yes, her body, her choice, but it's also his future, <i>her </i>choice. If a woman decides to keep the baby, that's her choice, and it should be her responsibility.<br />
<br />
Consequently, I also think that if a mother gives birth and chooses to give the baby up for adoption, but the father wants to keep it, then that's <i>his </i>choice, and the mother should have no further obligation to the child or the father: not even child support payments. In our current system, a mother may choose to give away her new baby, but if the father keeps that baby, she may become liable for child support, not because of her choices, but because of the father's choice, and that's not fair either: let people take responsibility for their own choices, not for other's choices.<br />
<br />
As you can see, my argument for LPS is also an argument against legally-required child support in situations where there was no prior agreement to raise the child in question. I'm not arguing against child support in its entirety, just when the mother or father never agreed to become a parent. This stands in contrast with situations where both parents have already committed to raising a child: you can't just change your mind once you already have a child established in your care, but if you never agreed in the first place, then you shouldn't be held responsible for it.<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">3b.</span> Suppose I invented an artifical uterus that could carry a child to term. If you became pregnant but did not want to undergo pregnancy, you could instantly and painlessly transplant the embryo into the artificial uterus. Essentially, I'm asking you to imagine a world in which a person's body was no longer a necessary factor in human reproduction.<br />
<br />
If this technology existed, would these same opponents of LPS be okay with a complete ban on abortions because it's no longer "her body", so she no longer gets a choice? Would they really be okay with requiring women to become financially responsible for a child just because a condom broke? I doubt it.<br />
<br />
This objection to LPS also implies that the only valid reason to get an abortion is because you don't want to be pregnant and give birth. However, the most common reasons why women get abortions have nothing to do with their bodies. Usually, women get abortions because they don't want to be responsible for a child. E.g. "I can't afford a baby" or "I just don't want another child." If these reasons are valid for women who don't want to be parents, then why aren't they valid for men?<br />
<br />
Survey of reasons for getting an abortion: <a href="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html">http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">4. If you're not ready to be a father, then wear a condom or don't have sex!</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">4a. </span>This same argument was directed at women before Roe V. Wade: "if women don't want to get pregnant, they should just keep their legs closed". Feminists rightly called this "slut shaming", but those same feminists are oddly silent when it's men who are being slut shamed in the exact same way.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">CONCLUSION</span></h3>
<br />
In our current system, consent to sex does not equal consent to parenthood, but only for women. And while it's true that biology curtails men's choice to have or not have biological children, it should not curtail their right to refuse involvement with those biological children.<br /><br /><br />ADDITION: 4/22/2015<br /><br />
I recently found one more article which touches on a similar point, and I think it's worth repeating here: if you give people a financial incentive to become single mothers (even through lying about contraception, which is not punished as a crime), surprise, you're going to get more single mothers.<br /><br />"The Trust for the Study of Adolescence recently proved scores of teenage girls in Britain are deliberately becoming young mothers as a career move because, with the state and the father contributing, it offers more guaranteed security than a job.<br />
<br />
Even 13-year-old girls admitted this, which might explain why Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, at an annual government cost of nearly £63million.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the law-makers need to think about radical action to break the cycle. Maybe men could be allowed to have a financial abortion from a child to which they didn’t pre-consent. In a specified time — say, legal abortion guidelines — men could be allowed to formally relinquish all monetary obligations, rights and responsibilities if duped into fatherhood. The woman still wants to proceed? Fine, that’s her choice. But not on his salary.<br />
<br />
Controversial? Yes. But overnight we would see fewer acts of conception by deception. And that can only be a good thing — for men and for society."<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3046350/Why-men-refuse-marry-Women-complain-chaps-today-won-t-settle-Sorry-ladies-s-fault-argues-wickedly-provocative-new-book-Denigration-Men-PETER-LLOYD.html<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-5934238512279983232015-03-26T23:05:00.004-07:002015-03-30T13:47:15.212-07:00Emma Watson Doesn't Help FeminismI'd like to make a point about a quote from Emma Watson's "HeForShe" speech in which she said the following:<br />
<div>
<div>
<br />
<i>"The more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop."</i></div>
<div>
<br />
I think this demand of hers (that this view of feminism has to stop) is hollow and infantile, and I will explain why I think this using an analogous situation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c8009ee4b09faa58c994ef/t/542d9e90e4b0ab80a226e8d4/1412275858735/heforshe_emma_watson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c8009ee4b09faa58c994ef/t/542d9e90e4b0ab80a226e8d4/1412275858735/heforshe_emma_watson.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm an atheist, and I have been involved in atheist groups. Often times, one of the goals of atheist groups is to change peoples' negative opinion of atheists. Now, if I were concerned that the general public associated "atheism" with being mean and hateful, and I wanted that to change, I wouldn't get up on my soapbox and simply declare to the public, "You people need to stop viewing atheists as mean and hateful: that's not what atheism is about". The reason I wouldn't do this is because there are indeed atheists who are mean and hateful, so it's understandable that these atheists soil the name for the general public.<br />
<br />
To counteract this view of atheists, I would (and have) organized an atheist charity event, or I'd host a polite inter-faith discussion to demonstrate that these topics can be calmly explored, or I'd just do what Hemant Mehta does and <i>be </i>"The Friendly Atheist", but I wouldn't just declare that everyone else needs to adjust their views: I would prove them wrong. In other words, I would show, not tell.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2012/04/Friendly-Atheist-630x132.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2012/04/Friendly-Atheist-630x132.jpg" height="103" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
This is why I think Emma Watson's statement is hollow and infantile: it's a stand-alone demand that everyone else should stop thinking a certain way, rather than any kind of proof that their way of thinking is wrong. If Emma Watson wants to dissociate "feminism" from "man-hating", then she should do more than simply <a href="http://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/">pay lip service to men's issues</a>: she should actively advocate for battered men's shelters in the name of gender equality (I forget if Canada has one or zero men's shelters at this time), or she should join the fight for any number of legal provisions that would help men (legal paternal surrender, a gender-neutral "Violence Against Women Act", anti-circumcision laws, etc.), but she doesn't do these things, and she never has to my knowledge. <br /><br />As such, she doesn't give us any reason to dissociate "feminism" from "man-hating", nor does she convince me that feminism is for men too. All she does is reinforce the view that feminists' brand of "equality" doesn't include men, and that she personally "is not like that."<br />
<br />
Indeed, even "The HeForShe Commitment" which Watson promotes, reinforces the exclusion of men's issues from feminism: it claims that men's issues are also part of gender equality, but the commitment itself only addresses women and girls. Like Watson, the HeForShe commitment does not include men's issues when rubber meets the road.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i4oZD6fPktA/VRTwrNyKyfI/AAAAAAAABO4/-2SukT1HvXs/s1600/HeForShe.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i4oZD6fPktA/VRTwrNyKyfI/AAAAAAAABO4/-2SukT1HvXs/s1600/HeForShe.png" height="258" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
If Emma Watson were truly concerned for both men and women's issues, then her commitment to "a human rights issue" would say this instead:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Qnm8UeV-7s/VRTwrKeG0iI/AAAAAAAABO0/qvyrAjKVELQ/s1600/HeForShe%2B-%2BFIXED.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Qnm8UeV-7s/VRTwrKeG0iI/AAAAAAAABO0/qvyrAjKVELQ/s1600/HeForShe%2B-%2BFIXED.png" height="258" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-41474859283977809292015-03-18T10:51:00.001-07:002015-07-05T09:22:59.809-07:00Can you Hate Men and Still be a Feminist?Is misandry (hatred of men) at all related to modern feminism? Can a "feminist" also be a misandrist? Well, there certainly are self-identified "feminists" who do hate men, and who believe that it is a part of feminism. However, there are also self-identified feminists who <i>don't</i> hate men and who don't view those misandric feminists as "true feminists". They argue that feminism has no ties to misandry, and they dismiss the misandric "feminists" by saying:<br />
<br />
<i>"The problem isn't that many feminists are misandrists. The problem is how many misandrists think that they're feminists."</i><br />
<br />
My question for these non-misandric feminists who make this argument is: how do you know that those misandrists aren't also feminists? How can you categorically exclude misandrists from feminism?<br />
<br />
As feminists of all stripes constantly remind us, "feminism", by definition, is “<a href="http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too">The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes</a>", nothing more. However, this definition does not categorically separate feminism from misandry: it is entirely possible to believe that hating men is a step toward equality. After all, if women are being oppressed by men (via the Patriarchy), and because it's perfectly reasonable to hate your oppressors, then it is entirely possible (and I think true) that misandric feminists are rallying around their perceived common enemy (men) in order to fix the system those men support by simply being male. I think these misandrists think that they can achieve gender equality by this method, which, as we recall, would make them feminists by the given definition thereof.<br />
<br />
Now, I am being hypothetical in my language because I can't see into the minds of these misandrists, so I can't be sure of their motives. However, I <i>have encountered </i>misandric, self-proclaimed feminists who do appear to desire equality by rallying around a hatred of men.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCZtr5MrID0/VQj0wQGTO4I/AAAAAAAABOU/uWnqfQPGqno/s1600/hate%2Bmen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zCZtr5MrID0/VQj0wQGTO4I/AAAAAAAABOU/uWnqfQPGqno/s1600/hate%2Bmen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The problem for non-misandric feminists is that the dictionary definition of "feminism" which they so strongly insist upon only defines feminism by its goal (gender equality), not by the methods used to achieve that goal, which means that it is entirely possible for misandrists to be feminists by definition. In a sense, they've shot themselves in the foot by insisting on such a broad definition because it allows people they dislike to claim the title of "feminist", although <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men">some feminists freely admit that it is possible to hate men and still be a feminist</a> ("to each her own").<br />
<div>
<br />
There is one additional proof that misandrists can be feminists: multiple historical feminists, some of whom created modern feminist theories about patriarchy and rape culture, did indeed hate men, and yet, their feminism is hardly ever questioned.<br />
<br />
<i>“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” – Valerie Solanas</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” – Susan Brownmiller</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor</i><br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
And yes, I am aware that this post is very similar to my previous post. This is because these posts start with the same basic idea (the fact that some feminists DO hate men), but they apply this idea to different topics, which is why I've made two separate, though similar, posts.<br />
<br /></div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-68193456489461052382015-03-15T11:06:00.000-07:002015-03-16T11:34:08.480-07:00Feminists are Bad Comedians"Atheists eat babies" is a joke: it mocks the idea that atheists are such horrible people that they would do something as reprehensible as baby-eating. In the same way, many modern feminists claim that their support of "misandry" and the statement that they "bathe in male tears" is also a joke, in this case, mocking the idea the feminists hate men, or that misandry even exists. Both of these ideas (atheists eat babies, feminists hate men) are designed to use exaggeration to create an incongruous picture of reality from an established starting point, and that's a solid formula for a good, poignant joke.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://icecreaminpakistan.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/valenti-mocking-men.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://icecreaminpakistan.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/valenti-mocking-men.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://img1.etsystatic.com/029/1/5255371/il_340x270.617537049_jpo2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://img1.etsystatic.com/029/1/5255371/il_340x270.617537049_jpo2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
However, there is an important difference between these two jokes. Atheists have never been reported to eat babies, much less to have done such things as a direct result of their atheism, which is why "baby eating" is a joke: its stark incongruity with real-world atheism makes it funny.<br />
<br />
Misandry among feminists is different. Misandry does not have the same kind of stark incongruity with real-world feminism as baby-eating does with real-world atheism. There are, and always have been, feminists who openly admit to hating men, which, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men?CMP=share_btn_fb">as Jessica Valenti reminds us</a>, is perfectly compatible with feminism: "But so what if we did [hate men]?"<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” – Valerie Solanas</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” – Susan Brownmiller</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/the-language-of-misandry-in-academia-faculty-students-administrators/">More quotes available here</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KG6iFaC7SHg/VQXDfcJJFoI/AAAAAAAABOA/dtKLWJQzglM/s1600/hate%2Bmen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KG6iFaC7SHg/VQXDfcJJFoI/AAAAAAAABOA/dtKLWJQzglM/s1600/hate%2Bmen.jpg" height="276" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
Indeed, it seems that <i>when</i> feminists express misandry, it is a direct result of their feminist ideology: the idea that men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed, and it's okay to hate your oppressors. This eliminates any and all irony in the statement "feminists hate men" because it absolutely does happen, and it happens as a direct result of feminist theories. Imagine if even a small population of western, first-world atheists really did eat babies because, "there's no God to stop us!" Would the joke that "atheists eat babies" still be funny or poignant? I highly doubt it.<br />
<br />
The supposed joke of "misandric feminists" cannot be compared with the joke of "baby-eating atheists" because misandric feminists actually exist, and are motivated by their feminist ideology. It's not even a joke at all: it's a very real phenomenon. Feminists may ironically "bathe in male tears", but everyone else thinks they're serious, and with good reason.<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-79135433709450670462015-03-07T17:55:00.001-08:002015-03-07T18:00:24.720-08:00When MRAs act like Feminists<div>
I often disagree with modern feminists, but one of the reasons I don't throw my lot in with MRAs (even though I agree with them much more frequently) is because they sometimes register the same silly complaints as feminists, just for men instead of women. Or, if their complaints aren't silly, then they aren't very important in light of other, more serious and more solvable, legal problems that men face. I find myself asking them the same question I ask feminists: "Is this really the forefront of your war? If so, you've won the important battles: just go home."<br />
<br />
One example of this comes from the Facebook page "Discrimination Against Men", which recently expressed its outrage over an Instagram campaign to "Reverse the Male Gaze", which feminists praised because it 'gives men a tase of their own medicine', as it were: 'Let's see how YOU like being stared at and objectified in public!" The comments on this post expressed a similar dislike for the campaign.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dZ-srQNT0AA/VPtr42QydGI/AAAAAAAABNg/NUYA0B37SEg/s1600/Hot%2BDudes%2BReading.png" imageanchor="1" style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dZ-srQNT0AA/VPtr42QydGI/AAAAAAAABNg/NUYA0B37SEg/s1600/Hot%2BDudes%2BReading.png" height="400" width="347" /></a></div>
<br />
But hang on, if the purpose of this campaign is to show men how bad it feels to be gazed upon in public, then doesn't getting mad about it actually prove the feminists' point?<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #FF55FF;">"How do YOU like being 'male gazed' in public?"</span><br />
<span style="color: cyan;">"I don't like it at all!"</span><br />
<span style="color: #FF55FF;">"Exactly, and neither do women."</span><br />
<br />
You know what I say? Let 'em take pictures! Let 'em look at me! If I'm in public, then people are allowed to look at me and yes, take pictures of me. You think I care? You think I'm "oppressed" by this? I'm not, and neither are you.<br />
<br />
George Orwell's "Animal Farm" becomes relevant once again:<br />
<br />
<i>"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."</i>Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-13072430103536052282015-03-03T19:00:00.001-08:002015-03-18T17:10:44.229-07:00Sincerely Defying Gender RolesIn my conversations with self-proclaimed feminists, many of them have made it clear that one of their goals is to eliminate gender roles and gender stereotypes (henceforth noted as "GR/S"). They also occasionally claim that eliminating <i>some</i> GR/S (i.e. negative female ones) will eliminate ALL GR/S. A famous example of this was Emma Watson's "He for She" speech at the United Nations, in which she said,<br />
<br />
<i>"We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled."</i><br />
<br />
Interestingly, this presents a viable alternative strategy: if you think that speaking out against one subset of GR/S will eliminate ALL GR/S, then does it really matter which ones you speak out against? Couldn't you just as easily attack <i>positive</i> female GR/S and <i>negative</i> male GR/S and still accomplish your goal? Why do feminists only attack negative female GR/S if they believe that all GR/S are joined at the hip? This gives off the impression that they only want the good stuff for women, and that their movement is self-serving.<br />
<br />
Heck, if you really want people to know that your fight against all GR/S is sincere, then you should attack the <i>positive </i>stereotypes about women (women are better parents, women are better communicators, women are tidier) and the <i>negative </i>stereotypes about men (men are stupid, men are malicious, men are unemotional, men are sloppy). Not only would that accomplish your goal of eliminating GR/S, but it would also prove your sincerity beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet, most feminists seem to only attack negative female gender roles and positive male gender roles... which makes me wonder: are they really sincere in their fight against gender roles, or do they just want women to be rid of the bad ones while keeping the good ones?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ByrkCg9sGkY/VEB9nukGpVI/AAAAAAAAAF4/KERGwbE5zmA/s1600/Lisa%2BFlipping%2BOut%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ByrkCg9sGkY/VEB9nukGpVI/AAAAAAAAAF4/KERGwbE5zmA/s1600/Lisa%2BFlipping%2BOut%2B1.jpg" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Lisa Simpson: sincerely defying gender roles.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-41748602936956521392015-02-08T11:44:00.000-08:002015-03-18T17:10:50.011-07:00Consent Has No Double-StandardBack in 2011, a feminist blogger named Sasha made an interesting observation about our legal system: murder victims' consent is treated differently from rape victims' consent. In murder cases, our starting assumption is that the alleged victim did <i>not </i>consent to the act (until proven otherwise), whereas in cases of sexual encounters, our starting assumption is that the alleged victim <i>did </i>consent to the act (until proven otherwise). Why is that? Why are our starting assumptions (or null hypotheses) exact opposites in cases of rape and murder? This sounds like an absolutely disgusting double-standard. Sasha describes this state of affairs by saying that women are presumed to exist in a perpetual state of consent.<br />
<br />
“But what if women weren't presumed to exist in a state of perpetual consent?” – Sasha Said<br />
<a href="http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/">http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/</a><br />
<br />
Now, do <i>I</i> think there is a double-standard at play here? No, I think there is one, single, underlying standard which explains the apparent difference between how we treat consent in murder cases, and how we treat consent in rape cases.<br />
<br />
Before I explain what I think this underlying standard is, I’d like to see if I can get you, the reader, to figure it out. I’m going to offer you a hypothetical situation, and then I’m going to ask you to explain what is wrong with this state of affairs. If you come to a different conclusion than I do, let me know.<br />
<br />
Imagine that I propose a law, and this law dictates that in cases of murder, where it has already been established that the accused person did indeed kill the victim, the accused person is <i>still </i>innocent until it is proven that the victim did not consent to being killed (assuming, of course, that this would vindicate the accused person). In other words, unless the prosecution can prove that the dead person clearly stated that they didn’t want to die, the default assumption of the court is that the dead person agreed to being killed, and the murderer would go free. <br />
<br />
Now, obviously this is ridiculous, but <i>why </i>is it ridiculous? Why don’t we assume that murder victims agreed to be murdered until proven otherwise?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KWblteN2V7M/VNVWY91QhaI/AAAAAAAABK8/2bSgsUgab3o/s1600/Murder%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KWblteN2V7M/VNVWY91QhaI/AAAAAAAABK8/2bSgsUgab3o/s1600/Murder%2B1.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Here is my answer; I think this law would be ridiculous because the vast majority of murders are non-consensual, and understandably so: do you look forward to death? Therefore, it doesn't make sense to assume, as a starting point, that any one particular murder victim <i>did</i> consent, and to require the prosecution to prove otherwise. It would be ridiculous to think this way given what we know of murder and of peoples’ strong aversion to dying.<br />
<br />
However, what if people <i>didn't</i> have a strong aversion to dying? What if being murdered was an enjoyable experience? How would that affect this thought experiment? <br />
<br />
Let's return to our thought experiment, but now let's imagine that all humans are in constant pain, and murdering another person was seen as a great act of altruism. In this world, that the vast majority of murders are consensual, and understandably so. I think that in this world, the law I proposed would be reasonable, since the vast majority of murders are consensual, so it makes sense for our null hypothesis, our starting assumption, to be that any one instance of murder is consensual unless proven otherwise.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1a5CBdn-YeU/VNVWGnfs0JI/AAAAAAAABK0/z1ZAUYocOVo/s1600/Murder%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1a5CBdn-YeU/VNVWGnfs0JI/AAAAAAAABK0/z1ZAUYocOVo/s1600/Murder%2B2.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Similarly, in the real world, I think that because the vast majority of sexual encounters are consensual, it makes sense to assume that any one particular sexual encounter is consensual unless proven otherwise, thus placing the burden of proving otherwise on the accuser.<br />
<br />
In other words, and this is my key point: <span style="color: orange;">if you are claiming that this particular incident (of rape, murder, etc.) is different from other events like it, then it is your job to prove that this incident is, in fact, different.</span> This is how the burden of proof works in all crimes, and this, I think, is why people are assumed to be in a perpetual state of consent when it comes to sex, and a perpetual state of non-consent when it comes to being killed: people usually enjoy sex, and people usually don't enjoy dying. It would be disastrous to confuse these two very different acts, as illustrated by the first version of our thought experiment, as well as by the image below.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q3OWCHR28NU/VMmosf1UbHI/AAAAAAAABKk/SuR3tGeRelw/s1600/ACL%2Band%2BInnocence.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q3OWCHR28NU/VMmosf1UbHI/AAAAAAAABKk/SuR3tGeRelw/s1600/ACL%2Band%2BInnocence.png" height="365" width="560" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">This is a false analogy because "kidnapping" implies non-consent, whereas "having sex" does not.<br />A proper analogy would be between having sex and carpooling.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
To reiterate: the reason why people are assumed to be in a “perpetual state of consent” with regard to sex, but not with regard to murder, is because normally, having sex is consensual, and being murdered is not, so it's reasonable to assume that any one particular murder victim did not consent, and that any one particular sexual participant did consent. If, however, you are claiming that this particular incident was different (e.g. I did <i>not </i>consent to sex, or the man <i>did </i>consent to being killed), then it’s on you to prove it.<br />
<br />
People are also presumed to be in a state of “perpetual consent” when they carpool with someone they know (I mean, “kidnapped”), or when they are hugged by a family member (I mean, “assaulted”). This is because these things are normal, everyday events that people normally consent to. If you want to claim that your friend kidnapped you, or that your family member assaulted you, then it’s your job to prove that this incident was different from the other times you've carpooled with that friend or been hugged by that family member.<br />
<br />
This, I think, explains the apparent double-standard between court cases of rape and murder, and demonstrates that, in fact, the same standard is used in both.<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-1311955819411486782015-01-28T18:51:00.000-08:002015-04-09T19:08:03.890-07:00Anita Sarkesian vs. Real-Life WomenWhat follows is not meant to tie into a larger criticism of Anita Sarkesian's work (or at least, I hope it doesn't lead me down that rabbit hole): it is simply meant to demonstrate that there are valid things to criticize about her work and the arguments she makes, and to add to the pool of calm, reasonable critiques of her ideas.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
----------------------------------------</div>
<br />
One of the issues that Anita has with many video games is the fact that when game designers need to draw a female character, they simply take a male character and add "feminizing gender signifiers" to it, thus creating a "female" character. This, she says, reinforces the gender binary, stereotypes women, and reinforces the idea of "male" as the default.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-25R0CsAPoqo/VMmgw_ELNgI/AAAAAAAABKM/txp3eGzBrXA/s1600/pacman-and-ms-pac-man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-25R0CsAPoqo/VMmgw_ELNgI/AAAAAAAABKM/txp3eGzBrXA/s1600/pacman-and-ms-pac-man.jpg" height="166" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An example of a how a male character is transformed into <br />
a female character by adding feminizing gender signifiers.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
However, the reason video game creators do this in video games is because that's how women look in real life: if you look at an average-looking man and an average looking woman, you notice that while they both have the same basic face, the woman has usually added additional visual features that most men don't typically have, including:<br />
<br />
> Long, dark eyelashes (mascara)<br />
> Makeup (blush, eyeliner, lipstick)<br />
> Jewelry (earrings, pendants, rings)<br />
> Long hair, which sticks out from the skull, unlike male hair which usually hugs the skull (or is absent altogether).<br />
<br />
The reason why game designers create female characters by adding visual features to male characters is because that's how women create the "female appearance" in real life: women take the same basic face that men have, and then they add visual features to it. If most women didn't grow their hair out, or wear makeup, or wear jewelry, then video game females wouldn't have those feminizing gender signifiers: it would make no sense. It would be just as irrelevant and unclear as giving all male characters a tattoo of a fish on their faces "just to show that they're male."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P8cH0cYT66M/VMmdYDEfGJI/AAAAAAAABKA/y8BddUkZP5s/s1600/Ms%2BMale.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P8cH0cYT66M/VMmdYDEfGJI/AAAAAAAABKA/y8BddUkZP5s/s1600/Ms%2BMale.jpg" height="250" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A prime example of why video game designers use gender signifiers.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
If Anita really wants feminizing gender signifiers to go away, and if she doesn't want the "male appearance" to be the basic, default appearance, then she should be fighting against feminizing gender signifiers at their source: real-life women. If real-life women didn't use gender signifiers, then video game women wouldn't use them either.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iOO0QEfzwJY/VMmcYqnZiOI/AAAAAAAABJ4/RzUQFCL6I6I/s1600/o-EMILIA-CLARKE-NO-MAKEUP-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iOO0QEfzwJY/VMmcYqnZiOI/AAAAAAAABJ4/RzUQFCL6I6I/s1600/o-EMILIA-CLARKE-NO-MAKEUP-facebook.jpg" height="331" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If women didn't accessorize this appearance, then video game<br />
designers <span style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">wouldn't do it either. Pictured: Emilia Clarke</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
But, of course, even if Anita agreed with this line of reasoning, she would never tell real-life women what they can and can't wear, so she'd be stuck. All she could do is petition video game creators to have no genders in video games, which would never happen, and which is why I think this argument of hers is silly.<br />
<br />
<br />
UPDATE [3/21/2015] - I was wrong: Anita Sarkesion <i>would</i> tell real-life women what they can and can't do (or wear): <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHDbZ2hHtlg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHDbZ2hHtlg</a><br />
<br />
<i>"Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface, but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women with a very narrow individual notion of empowerment. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>It erases the reality that some choices women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives. So it’s not enough to feel personally empowered or personally successful within the oppressive framework of the current system. Even if an individual woman can make patriarchy work for her, it’s still a losing game for the rest of the women on the planet. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The fact of the matter is that some choices have ramifications beyond ourselves and reinforce harmful patriarchal ideas about women as a group and about women’s bodies in our wider shared culture."</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Well, at least she's consistent with her ideology, although you give that same "compliment" to Christians who go around killing gay people.<br />
<br />
<br />
UPDATE [4/3/2015] - It turns out that Anita, in fact, doesn't want gender to exist in video games, as I predicted. According to Anita, a proper, feminist-approved female character is one with no back story, a vague motivation, almost no personality, and no appearance of being female... oh, but the developers call it a "she". I feel comfortable saying that I called it.<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ</a><br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-90345993752792859572015-01-14T19:38:00.000-08:002015-01-30T20:55:50.711-08:00If Blacks had acted like FeministsHistory is full of examples of drastic social and political changes which were brought about by civil rights and social justice movements (Ghandi, gay rights, women's suffrage, etc.), but from what I've seen of popular modern feminism, it does not appear to resemble any of these successful social movements.<br />
<br />
To illustrate this point, I have photoshopped some images from the American civil rights movement of the 1960's to display phrases used by these modern feminists. I've done this in order to illustrate how first world these statements are, how insulting they are, and how irrelevant they are to a so-called social justice movement. Click on the images if you need to enlarge them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-diNdCWUgE-I/VLczAremGuI/AAAAAAAABJg/qsSSR8SAPkk/s1600/eb3ea9d07e5d66b06dc35b18109b5d82%2B(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-diNdCWUgE-I/VLczAremGuI/AAAAAAAABJg/qsSSR8SAPkk/s1600/eb3ea9d07e5d66b06dc35b18109b5d82%2B(2).jpg" height="250" width="400" /></a></div>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-diNdCWUgE-I/VLczAremGuI/AAAAAAAABJg/qsSSR8SAPkk/s1600/eb3ea9d07e5d66b06dc35b18109b5d82%2B(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpaELTlvTl4/VLcy_hKerzI/AAAAAAAABJI/o8V4c4wkrOM/s1600/005-CivilRights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpaELTlvTl4/VLcy_hKerzI/AAAAAAAABJI/o8V4c4wkrOM/s1600/005-CivilRights.jpg" height="320" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xCF-WQm7Mgw/VLcy_vUCB4I/AAAAAAAABJA/hAepbjIHpMU/s1600/VMFA_C39-2013-2_v1_TF201308_455full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xCF-WQm7Mgw/VLcy_vUCB4I/AAAAAAAABJA/hAepbjIHpMU/s1600/VMFA_C39-2013-2_v1_TF201308_455full.jpg" height="283" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hueYv7ZkHXo/VLcy_mNjUQI/AAAAAAAABJE/AH4ji7kYjhI/s1600/1115Q_CIVILhousing1_35p.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hueYv7ZkHXo/VLcy_mNjUQI/AAAAAAAABJE/AH4ji7kYjhI/s1600/1115Q_CIVILhousing1_35p.jpg" height="322" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-leYm9DAosCw/VLczAGgroPI/AAAAAAAABJQ/TyjgopJgtdk/s1600/civil-rights-training-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-leYm9DAosCw/VLczAGgroPI/AAAAAAAABJQ/TyjgopJgtdk/s1600/civil-rights-training-2.jpg" height="261" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In my experience, (as illustrated by these images) most issues raised by these feminists are either trivial and not requiring a social movement (such as manspreading or <a href="http://time.com/3653871/womens-bathroom-lines-sexist-potty-parity/">long lines at bathrooms</a>), or, when the issues are genuine, the approach many feminists would have us take to solve them is downright silly, such as <a href="http://venaloid.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-problems-with-affirmative-consent.html">affirmative consent laws</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-19210524155524959672014-12-02T13:21:00.002-08:002014-12-02T13:54:33.113-08:00Feminist Ideas vs FieldworkThe Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN) is the largest anti-abuse network in the United States, and this organization does real "field work" helping victims of rape, abuse, and incest. If there <i>is </i>an expert on these problems, RAINN is certainly on the list of candidates; these people are out in the field doing real work helping real victims.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
I mention this because earlier this year (2014), RAINN released <a href="https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf">a report to the White House</a> with specific recommendations for how to reduce the number of rapes on college campuses. This is important because it provides us with an opportunity to perform an experiment: if the mainstream feminist perspective on rape is correct, then we should expect RAINN's recommendations to emphasize things like combating rape culture and reworking masculinity, which many feminists have insisted are the major underlying causes of rape.<br />
<br />
However, not only does the RAINN report <i>not </i>recommend addressing rape culture and masculinity, it specifically <i>denounces</i> focusing on these topics as tactics to reduce the number of rapes on campus.<br />
<br />
<i>"In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” </i><i>for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out </i><i>the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple </i><i>fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small </i><i>percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>While that may seem an obvious point, it has tended to get lost in recent debates. This has </i><i>led to an inclination to focus on particular segments of the student population (e.g., </i><i>athletes), particular aspects of campus culture (e.g., the Greek system), or traits that are </i><i>common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., “masculinity”), rather than on the </i><i>subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape. This trend has the paradoxical </i><i>effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the </i><i>individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions."</i><br />
<br />
Source: <a href="https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf">https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf</a><br />
<br />
And just like creationists who are confronted with biologists who actually work in the field, many feminist bloggers dismissed these experts, claiming that RAINN just doesn't understand feminism, or isn't looking at the problem correctly.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m0ISwMgMge0/VDNUQcyhjYI/AAAAAAAAADw/IbYuKl71IDE/s1600/RAINN%2BCriticism%2B1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m0ISwMgMge0/VDNUQcyhjYI/AAAAAAAAADw/IbYuKl71IDE/s1600/RAINN%2BCriticism%2B1.png" height="125" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/18/rainn_attacks_the_phrase_<br />rape_culture_in_its_recommendations_to_the_white.html</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fAAAgi1rUYU/VDNU_G_yXxI/AAAAAAAAAEA/vmecr2gKrLk/s1600/RAINN%2BCriticism%2B3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fAAAgi1rUYU/VDNU_G_yXxI/AAAAAAAAAEA/vmecr2gKrLk/s1600/RAINN%2BCriticism%2B3.png" height="175" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nWlFWZWDgE0/VDNUopaDTEI/AAAAAAAAAD4/udEkdbLB8cI/s1600/RAINN%2BCriticism%2B2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nWlFWZWDgE0/VDNUopaDTEI/AAAAAAAAAD4/udEkdbLB8cI/s1600/RAINN%2BCriticism%2B2.png" height="146" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: medium;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">https://storify.com/EqualityEd/jessicavalenti-meltdown-over-rainn-denouncing-rape</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
A similar situation arose when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey">Erin Pizzey</a> opened the first battered women's shelter in the UK in 1971. She soon discovered that many of the women at her shelter were just as violent as their husbands, and that a lot of domestic violence was reciprocal, and some feminists at the time reacted violently and hatefully when she voiced those observations. Again, feminists were at odds with a field worker.<br />
<br />
This is what I mean when I say that I disagree with feminist ideas: while I support the goal of gender equality, I disagree with their models of reality (e.g. rape culture) and with the solutions these models present, as, it seems, RAINN also does.<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-51035408368391761342014-12-01T07:32:00.001-08:002014-12-01T10:49:01.208-08:00Subverting the Presumption of InnocenceThere is a very common political tactic that many different groups of people use to get around laws they don't like, and that tactic is to introduce a new law, which is related to the law they don't like and wish to subvert, which uses terms that, while they sound perfectly reasonable on their face, are so broad and vague that they can be (and are intended to be) interpreted in ways that undermine the law these people don't like. I will call this tactic "political subversion". And yes, I am aware that "subversion" is already a political term which means something different, but bear with me here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Examples of Political Subversion</span></h3>
<br />
As many astute American secularists and atheists may know, the intelligent design movement, having been denied the right to inject their pseudo-scientific ideas into science classrooms in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District">2005</a>, has since changed tactics to writing bills that simply wish to keep science "open" and to "encourage critical thinking". Taken at face value, this sounds very reasonable and downright obvious, but the problem is that it opens the door for teachers to, as the saying goes, "teach the controversy" and introduce non-science into science classrooms... all in the interest of doing good science, of course.<br />
<br />
For example, there was a bill in Tennessee back in 2012 that claimed to want to protect science and ensure that students develop critical thinking skills. However, if you read the bill's text, and if you follow the Intelligent Design movement, it's obvious that this is simply an attempt to wedge anti-science into science classrooms by using broad terms that, again, sound great, but will be interpreted beyond what most people think they mean. Back in 2012, I made a video criticizing this bill.<br />
<br />
Bill text: <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf">http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf</a><br />
<br />
For more examples of these kinds of subversive science-related legislation, visit the <a href="http://ncse.com/">National Center for Science Education's website</a>; they heavily report and document these kinds of bills that seek to broaden and subvert science education.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/master-image-main/brattin3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/master-image-main/brattin3.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">You must first get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
But this tactic doesn't only happen with regard to science education; it also shows up when talking about the right to an <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/16/2306881/anti-choice-weapons-trap-laws/">abortion</a>, <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres789/text">freedom of (and from) religion</a>, and increasingly commonly, when certain feminists talk about rape victims in a court setting. As with science subversion, they use vaguely-worded legislation to undermine laws they don't like.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Victims and Political Subversion</span></h3>
<br />
I bring this up because <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_Crime_Victims'_Bill_of_Rights_Amendment_(2014)">an amendment to the Illinois Constitution</a> (Article I, section 8.1) called "Crime Victims' Rights" recently passed, which appears to be an attempt at political subversion: it reaffirms things that people already agree with (the rights of the accuser), but it uses broad and undefined terms to do so, which leaves room to go above and beyond what most people think this bill is saying. I implicate feminism in this post because the bill's text is reminiscent of some current feminist talking points.<br />
<br />
This Illinois amendment includes, among other things, the following addition to the first stated right of victims. The addition is underlined below.<br />
<br />
<i>(1) The right to be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy <u>and to be free from harassment, intimidation, and abuse</u> throughout the criminal justice process. </i><br />
<br />
While this seems like a good idea that any reasonable person should support, the words, "harassment", "intimidation", and "abuse" are never actually defined in this amendment, which means that a wide variety of things may be banned from the criminal justice process as being "harassing" or "intimidating" to the victim, and that is where my concern begins. Specifically, my concern is that the necessary process of checking the victim's story will be labeled as "harassment" and "intimidating to the victim", and this process may be performed less rigorously or even eliminated altogether.<br />
<br />
This would leave the courts no choice but to always believe the alleged victim (because remember, checking their story is abusive and intimidating), and the courts would be de facto forced to operate by "guilty until proven innocent", stripping the defendant of their right to the presumption of innocence. And what do you know, it turns out that many influential feminists have written in favor of exactly this in cases of rape and sexual assault, as I noted in <a href="http://venaloid.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-problems-with-affirmative-consent.html">this past blog post</a>. On top of that, Sweden is actually considering adopting such a policy as law.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://strictlegalism.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/clementine-header.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://strictlegalism.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/clementine-header.png" height="160" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
This, I think, is a compelling reason to oppose this amendment to the Illinois constitution. especially when you consider that victims are <i>already </i>entitled to "fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy".<br />
<br />
That being said, if there is evidence that victims of crimes face serious problems that are require more than "fairness and respect", I might change my mind about this proposed amendment. Furthermore, if the words "harassment", "intimidation", and "abuse" were strictly defined such that they did not interfere with the necessary criminal justice process, again, I might change my mind about this amendment. <br />
<br />
However, as this amendment is written, it raises a red flag that strongly suggests an ulterior motive to undermine the rights of the accused, much like the red flags for subverting science education, abortion rights, and freedom of religion in other bills.<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-51556363158864263502014-11-24T11:23:00.001-08:002015-02-08T16:56:33.501-08:00Feminism vs. Responsibility<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I’ve
noticed a common, underlying theme of many feminist ideas and publications, and
it’s a theme that I wasn’t convinced existed, despite the assurance of a few anti-feminists here and there. However, after spending more time in the midst of feminists
(both online and in real life), this theme has become more and more pronounced, and I see it very clearly now.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This theme within many feminist ideas and publications is an appeal to pity in
order to reject women’s personal responsibility…. which means what, exactly? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">An appeal to pity is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer attempts to
convince you that her conclusion is correct by appealing to your sense of pity
(for her, for the people in question, etc.), and in the case of feminists’ use
of this fallacy, the conclusion they want you to accept is that women are
powerless to fix whatever is causing their suffering: women don’t need to do
anything, rather, men (or the society they control (patriarchy)) need to make the change, and we are supposed to just agree with the women who make this argument because they are suffering (appeal to pity). The story basically goes, “If women are suffering, then
it's not their fault at all, and thus, there’s nothing they can do to fix their
situation. Instead, other people (men) are the ones who need to do something
about it.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To illustrate how appeal to pity is used to reject personal responsibility in a general case, here is an analogous situation. Imagine I get into a car crash, and as
a result, I become paralyzed from the neck down. As I'm lying in the hospital, I tell you that the car crash
wasn’t my fault, and I beg you to believe me because I’ve been horribly maimed. Are you really going to look at me, as I lie in a hospital bed with tubes down
my throat, and tell me that this is my fault? Of course not! But does that mean it <i>wasn't</i> my fault? Of course not!<br /><br />While you may be extremely
sympathetic to my current situation, your feelings of pity are irrelevant as to
whether or not the car crash was my fault. However, it is very tempting to
succumb to your feelings of pity and to simply agree with me.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nocarnofun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Car-Crash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><img border="3" src="http://www.nocarnofun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Car-Crash.jpg" height="272" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"Broken collar bone? Awesome! Now it's not my fault!"</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">You can also see how this fallacy arises in a formal argument structure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1. I was involved in a car crash. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">2. The car crash left me permanently disabled. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">3. Therefore, the car crash was not my fault. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As you can see, P1 and P2 have nothing to do with the conclusion, except that
P2 makes you feel pity, which kind of does make you want to agree with the
arguer’s conclusion. Hence, the fallacy is called “appeal to pity”. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
Many feminists do the same thing in order to remove women’s personal responsibility when talking about the following topics, and they often place the responsibility on men instead. Their justification? Women are victims, therefore, there's nothing they can/should do about it. In fact, if you listen to these feminists, it seems like there is absolutely nothing that women can do to improve their situation, and yet they persist that their brand of feminism is empowering to women.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://datingasociopath.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/victim.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="3" src="http://datingasociopath.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/victim.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">BODY IMAGE</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This is one of the most popular talking points of many feminists right now: the
pressure girls feel to conform to the standard of beauty, the criticism girls
get for how they look, etc. Now, why does this happen? Well, anyone who’s been
through school, or better yet, <a href="http://www.bustle.com/articles/7721-study-says-women-evolved-to-be-gossipy-backstabbing-rivals">studied this occurrence</a>, will tell you that the primary
perpetrators of slut-shaming and of criticizing women based on how they look
and act are, in fact, other women. And, as the linked article explains, not because society hates women. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If a girl puts on different makeup, wears new shoes, and
gets her hair done, it’s other girls who notice and critique her, not men. In fact, boyfriends (stereo)typically get scolded for exactly that: not noticing that their girlfriends altered their appearance in some subtle way. But
guess who gets blamed for making girls feel bad about their appearances? Men;
men get blamed for what women do to each other. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R2Oy7FyRd_8/VHOBKJUXGdI/AAAAAAAAAvk/Q9FlSaLy5pY/s1600/Blame%2BOurselves.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R2Oy7FyRd_8/VHOBKJUXGdI/AAAAAAAAAvk/Q9FlSaLy5pY/s1600/Blame%2BOurselves.png" height="640" width="413" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And of course there are all those fashion magazines that tell women to lose weight and which make women feel bad by putting photoshopped women on the cover. But who writes these magazines? Not men, women. And who are these magazines written for? Not men, women. The people who have the power to make this change are women: women can stop buying them, and women can stop writing them. But once again, it's easier to blame men for being attracted to healthy-looking women with </span>phenotypes<span style="font-family: inherit;"> that indicate good genes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3vvyBE0cLms/VD_rR92hqNI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/m_8TFHeIOXY/s1600/FTB%2B-%2BMen%2BHate%2Bour%2BBodies.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="3" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3vvyBE0cLms/VD_rR92hqNI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/m_8TFHeIOXY/s1600/FTB%2B-%2BMen%2BHate%2Bour%2BBodies.png" height="367" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Men hate women's bodies, but is it men, or women?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Source: <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/05/30/men-hate-womans-body/">http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/05/30/men-hate-womans-body/</a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-idqTBjN9_fU/VDRr6vmFGdI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/sJ7g9aj4Cbs/s1600/Teach%2Byour%2Bdaughters%2Bto%2Brespect%2Bwomen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="3" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-idqTBjN9_fU/VDRr6vmFGdI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/sJ7g9aj4Cbs/s1600/Teach%2Byour%2Bdaughters%2Bto%2Brespect%2Bwomen.jpg" height="400" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Open this image in a new tab to see it more clearly.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“But you don’t understand: women are the victims! Are you really going to tell
me that women are victims because of other women?”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Yes, yes I am. Maybe these feminists could organize a workshop on “healthy femininity” to work out what’s wrong with <i>women</i>,
rather than telling men to rethink their masculinity, or shaming them for something they are not guilty of doing.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying that these issues of body image are not problems "because it's just in-fighting among women", I'm just saying that you cannot reasonably blame men for these issues. Unless, of course, you wish to blame men for being attracted to phenotypes that indicate good genes, good health, and high estrogen levels.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">DRUNKEN HOOKUPS</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I’ve heard enough feminists talk about this that I’ve decided to talk about it
here. This is the idea that if two people have sex, even when they are equally
drunk</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">,
then the woman is a rape victim, and the man is a rapist, and it usually goes
like this:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9kr8DU4Opk/VD_uvUsmzYI/AAAAAAAAAFc/872HVGX0cKI/s1600/watson_drunk_get_even.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="3" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n9kr8DU4Opk/VD_uvUsmzYI/AAAAAAAAAFc/872HVGX0cKI/s1600/watson_drunk_get_even.png" height="192" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Not, "too drunk to consent," just, "drunk".</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A8MqfwVbrns/VDSXQS8dlmI/AAAAAAAAAEg/bra2COa8U9w/s1600/Drunk%2Band%2Bsaid%2Byes.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="3" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A8MqfwVbrns/VDSXQS8dlmI/AAAAAAAAAEg/bra2COa8U9w/s1600/Drunk%2Band%2Bsaid%2Byes.png" height="208" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s funny how, when two equally drunk people have sex, these feminists declare the woman to be free from
responsibility for it, saying that the man should have known she was too drunk. However, if someone decided to <i>drive </i>drunk after her equally drunk friends told her to, everyone would say (as our courts do) that the driver is at fault, despite
the presence of her equally drunk friends "who should have known that she was too
drunk to <s>consent</s> drive." It is understood that when you are drunk, and you choose to do something, even at the pressure of your drunk peers, you are responsible for you.<br /><br />Once again, these feminists reject women’s personal
responsibility. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">RAPE PREVENTION</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Even the simplest and most brain-dead obvious ways of reducing your risk of
being sexually assaulted are decried by many feminists. There’s nothing more
offensive than telling a woman not to walk through the bad part of town alone at
night to reduce her risk of being raped… buuuut if you tell her not to wear a solid red t-shirt in the bad parts of LA, well,
that’s just obvious and you should already know that. Idiot. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, as I explained <a href="http://venaloid.blogspot.com/2014/11/victim-blaming.html">in a past blog post</a>, I understand that most rapes happen between people who know each other,
and the perpetrators are normally people who you should be able to trust. Furthermore, most of the time it is <i>not</i> the “dark alley”, “stranger in the
bushes” scenario, and thus, in most cases of rape, there really is nothing the
rape victim did that was as obviously dangerous; it is usually not comparable to wearing a solid red t-shirt in LA. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">However, even in those few cases where the victim <i>did </i>do something stupid (<a href="http://totalfratmove.com/beta-theta-pi-at-wesleyan-university-is-known-as-the-rape-factory-because-people-get-raped-there/">like go to a party at a well-known rape frat</a>), many feminists <i>still</i> insist that the victim had
absolutely no power to reduce her chances of being raped, and advising women (or rather, everyone) to avoid bad neighborhoods is offensive…. even though this advice <i>would actually </i>reduce
the number of rape victims. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">This creates an interesting paradox: these feminists claim they want to see fewer women raped, but it sounds like they’re actually willing to see MORE women raped, just so long as those women don’t get blamed
for it at all. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to <i>not</i> be raped. Please don’t force
women to become rape martyrs in exchange for freedom from any responsibility.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">STREET HARASSMENT </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This follows a similar vein as the previous topic, and although the sentiment
expressed below is less common in feminist circles than those presented above,
the level of blatant disregard for women’s agency in this instance was too astounding for me to
ignore.<br /><br />Now, the underlying idea is one that I can appreciate and agree with: you should be free to dress yourself how you want. However, these women then go on to pretend that we already live in this ideal world, and they act shocked that dressing provocatively... well, provokes people. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AP44DMkTBjg/VD_w85DSaJI/AAAAAAAAAFo/RrKfKUu71uA/s1600/Dressing%2BProvocatively.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="3" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AP44DMkTBjg/VD_w85DSaJI/AAAAAAAAAFo/RrKfKUu71uA/s1600/Dressing%2BProvocatively.png" height="264" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“I know the way I dress is
kind of provocative, </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">but it </span>doesn't<span style="font-family: inherit;"> mean I should have to deal with it.”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Source: </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVc1mDxMik#t=163">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVc1mDxMik#t=163</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In a perfect world, appearances wouldn't matter, but failing to acknowledge even a basic level of self-awareness in the <i>real</i> world is simply childish and it ignores your own agency. A comparable situation might be if a man went into a business interview wearing a polo shirt and slacks, and then complained about being seen as "unprofessional". <br /><br />In fact, my barber has told stories of men who have gotten their long hair cut and their beards trimmed, and then these men are amazed by how differently people treat them. Suddenly, people address them as "sir", hold the door for them, and take them seriously. It's quite amazing, and it illustrates the fact that this is something that everyone has to deal with.<br /><br />Ideally, it wouldn't matter what you wear (or how you keep your hair and beard), but quite frankly, you're an idiot if you ignore the reality that it </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">does</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> matter to at least a basic extent. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Once again, we have a case of, "I'm a victim, therefore, it's not my fault."</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">CONCLUSION</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>During the civil rights movement in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr. got people organized for change; he didn't sit around complaining about the "white culture", demonizing white people, and assuring his supporters that black people were helpless victims.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Women have agency and responsibility, but many feminists are
trying to take away women’s agency and turn them into victim objects with no
power at all. Women are stronger and smarter than these feminists think. Women <i>can </i>improve their situation, they <i>can </i>think for themselves, and they can do it without blaming the men around them or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6XTx2Rg04g">asking men to be strong and independent <i>for</i> women</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the old days, it was believed that women couldn't make rational choices without the guidance of men. Nowadays, it is believed that women can't make rational choices without the guidance of feminists. I maintain that women <i>are</i> rational, they <i>can</i> make their own choices, they <i>can </i>deal with real-world problems in a rational way, and they <i>can </i>empower themselves. </span></div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-72585420936815480682014-11-24T11:13:00.001-08:002015-06-16T15:49:43.052-07:00Victim Blaming<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
The term "victim blaming" is tossed around a lot, but it's rare that you hear more about it other than assertions that it's bad thing, without much of an explanation as to what exactly is meant by "victim blaming", or what is meant by the word "victim", or what in what contexts this phrase applies. As such, this post will be my analysis of the phrase's meaning, as well as where it can be applied.<br />
<br />
First, let's define the word "victim". I am well aware that often times, two people are harming each other reciprocally, and in those situations it is nearly impossible to say that one person is “THE victim” and the other person is “THE perpetrator”, so for the sake of simplicity, I will talk about “the victim” as a person who was wronged, but who was minding their own business and not messing with other people. This will keep the analysis relatively simple, and this appears to be what many people mean when they say that someone is a "victim" of another person, although the degree to which there might have been reciprocity should be always be questioned, as it does change things quite a bit.<br />
<br />
Now we can begin the analysis. I'd like to start by first clarifying what I'm NOT saying: I'm not saying that a criminal’s guilt is dependent on how easy it was to commit the crime. In other words, I'm not saying that a perpetrator's moral responsibility is at all mitigated by how easy their victim made their job. E.g. just because you left your car unlocked in a big city, that doesn't make a carjacker any less of a carjacker.<br />
<br />
However, in hard, practical terms, the fact remains that it is a good idea to lock your car in a big city; in general, it is a good idea to take simple precautions against what other people might do to you or your property. Once again, in the event that you don’t take these precautions, the perpetrator isn't any less of a scumbag. However, it is very reasonable to say that you, as a reasonable person, should have known that this could happen, and it will benefit you to behave differently in the future. As an extreme example: you should know better than to leave all your money in an open box in your front yard.<br />
<br />
And this gets into my central idea, which I will call, “reasonable prediction”. Reasonable prediction is the ability, which all adults can be expected to have, to make general predictions about your safety in future situations. That is, people can be expected to understand basic safety precautions like not cutting toward yourself, not driving drunk, locking up your bike, and not leaving all your money in an open box in your front yard. Should people be morally required to do these things? No, but is it a good idea that is in your best interest? Absolutely.<br />
<br />
In order to further iron out exactly what is a "reasonable prediction", here are some scenarios where each successive instance of victimization is more reasonable to predict and avoid.<br />
<br />
1. You are walking outside, you get struck by a small meteor, and you are either injured or killed.<br />
- Your victimization was not a reasonable thing to have predicted. Who could possibly have predicted that? How could you have possibly "known better"?<br />
<br />
2. You leave your bike locked with an uncuttable U-lock through its frame on a bike rack, but it gets stolen anyway somehow.<br />
- Your victimization was not a reasonable thing to have predicted: if you were told that your U-lock needed to be plasma cut to be broken (as many of these U-locks claim), then it is very reasonable to expect your bike to not get stolen.<br />
<br />
3. You are walking down the train tracks, and you get hit by a train.<br />
- Your victimization was, I would say, more unpredictable than predictable, but it comes very close to sitting on the fence. It is fairly reasonable to assume that you would hear or see the train coming, even if that's not how it turned out. Maybe you should know better than to walk down the train tracks, but surely you would hear the train if it were coming.<br />
<br />
4. You leave your bike unlocked on a city bike rack, and it gets stolen.<br />
- Your victimization was a fairly reasonable thing to predict: it happens all the time to unlocked bikes; you see it everywhere, and it's not much of a burden to lock it up.<br />
<br />
5. You are walking down the train tracks with earphones blasting, and you get hit by a train (this did actually happen to someone).<br />
- Your victimization was a very reasonable thing to predict: you should know that trains run on train tracks, you should know there is a 50% chance the train will be behind you, and you should know that loud earphones block the only sensory input that would alert you to the train if it were behind you. Granted, most people wouldn’t lay it out in such bare terms in their minds, but everyone can be expected to understand why it's a bad idea to walk down the train tracks with your music turned way up. That is a very reasonable prediction, and thus, I claim that it is very reasonable to expect someone to not do this; call this "victim blaming" if you want, but I think this type of "victim blaming" is reasonable.<br />
<br />
Now that we understand the model of "reasonable prediction", let's apply this idea to the case of rape. As it turns out, <a href="https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders">most rapes occur between people who know each other</a>, where the victim would say something like, “I thought I could trust them”, and thus, it was not reasonable to predict your rape. Hence, for most instances of rape, it appears that it is not a case where “you should have known better”, and thus, reprimanding rape victims appears to be only rarely warranted.<br />
<br />
However, this conclusion in the case of rape (i.e. that the victim is completely innocent) seems to have been greatly over-generalized to all kinds of victim-perpetrator situations, and it has generated a kind of knee-jerk reaction where people automatically declare that, “victims are completely innocent!”, which I think is misguided. A person can be morally innocent but still contribute to their victimization by failing to think about their future: these are two different dimensions to a victim-perpetrator situation. This is not a zero-sum game, but two dimensions of what each person should have done: a moral dimension, and a practical dimension.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if you leave all your money in an open box in your front yard, you're an idiot. While you may be the victim of theft, and while you are not morally responsible like the thief is, you are by no means "innocent": you should have known better, and I think it is very fair to, in some sense, "blame" you for losing all your money.<br />
<br />
One final note: I am fully aware that if someone tells you they have been victimized (by rape, theft, assault, etc.) it is completely counterproductive to say, “Well, did you do anything stupid?” That doesn't help very much, and it will probably make the person feel even worse. However, individuals should be self-aware and understand that their actions have consequences, and if someone leaves their money in an open box in front of their house, they should have the wherewithal to introspect and say, “Could I have prevented this with a reasonable precaution?” Maybe the answer is no, maybe the answer is yes. Either way, we should all be rational enough to ask ourselves this question, and not simply declare that because we are victims, we are therefore powerless.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-64994549715657279512014-11-17T21:16:00.007-08:002015-02-16T17:50:37.993-08:00Explaining the Year-Long Suit ExperimentAn Australian news anchor recently announced that he had been wearing the same dark-blue suit for a year during his broadcasts, and no one noticed or commented on it. This lack of a reaction to his unchanging suit, he concluded, is because of sexism: people comment on what female hosts wear, but not male hosts, even when male hosts wear the exact same thing for an entire YEAR (something that female hosts could not get away with). He, and many people who have heard of his experiment, have concluded that nobody noticed because we're all just that sexist.<br />
<div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r0d6BQ_bn9o/VGrOpMH0OoI/AAAAAAAAAls/-woBT6Ft90c/s1600/Suit%2BSexism%2B2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r0d6BQ_bn9o/VGrOpMH0OoI/AAAAAAAAAls/-woBT6Ft90c/s1600/Suit%2BSexism%2B2.png" height="330" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gender difference? People must be sexist.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
However, I believe this lack of comments was not because of sexism; I think it was caused by the following facts.<br />
<br />
1. Most suits look very similar, especially when you're ~10 feet away, and especially when you're seeing it through your TV screen, so would anyone really notice if he <i>had</i> changed suits? It would have looked very similar anyway.<br />
<br />
2. Adding to 1: people fully expect newsmen to wear some kind of dark suit every day, because that's basically the only formal wear for men. So why would anyone notice this man's lack of variety? If anything, the audience <i>expects</i> him to wear the same suit every day.<br />
<br />
3. He changed his tie regularly. This is important not only because the tie is usually the most unique part of a suit, but also because it distracts the audience from the rest of his outfit. These kinds of distractions can make a person miss some very obvious things. (see the first video link below). This experiment would have been more significant if he had worn the same bright tie every day.<br />
<br />
4. The human mind is surprisingly bad at distinguishing little details from one moment to the next (see the second video link below); usually our brains just remember the gist of what we saw, such as "a dark suit".<br />
<br />
Additionally, smaller details (like changing from one dark suit jacket to another dark suit jacket) are less likely to be noticed, and, following point 2, are less likely to be cared about even if noticed.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY </a><br />
<br />
2. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoMjORwA-4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoMjORwA-4 </a><br />
<br />
These videos were produced by Daniel Simons, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.<br />
<br />
These facts explain the results of the year-long suit experiment better than sexism, but the fact that so many people believe their knee-jerk reactions is concerning to me.<br />
<br /></div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-17705316147526343252014-11-16T21:24:00.001-08:002014-11-17T17:14:29.849-08:00An Open Letter to Privileged WomenA while ago, I was in a debate with some self-proclaimed feminists (you can be the judge of whether or not they were "true feminists"), and within the first few exchanges, I was told that I just need to shut up and agree with them because I'm not a woman and therefore I can't possibly understand my opponent's arguments. Not just their experiences, but anything they were arguing for at all. Specifically, I was linked to the following article, which basically explains why men are not allowed to disagree with feminists.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://feministing.com/2014/05/30/an-open-letter-to-privileged-people-who-play-devils-advocate/">http://feministing.com/2014/05/30/an-open-letter-to-privileged-people-who-play-devils-advocate/</a><br />
<br />
So based on this article, it seems there is a very straightforward method to gain support for <i>men's </i>issues as well, or really, for any issue regarding one group of people, but let's look at a hypothetical men's issue. This method has exactly two steps:<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. Take a men's issue, real or fake, it doesn't matter, and assert that men are suffering.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. If a woman disagrees with anything you've said that is related to that issue (your analysis, your proposed solution, etc), just say the following phrases to shut her up:</span><br />
<br />
<br />
-- "Women don't understand what it's like to be men in this situation, so you can't possibly have any insights into this subject."<br />
<br />
-- "I am so traumatized and defeated and weak that I cannot even bear to explain the problem to other people anymore. I can't even give you a link to someone else who's explained it."<br />
<br />
-- "Personal testimony from a handful of men is all the evidence you need that this is a serious issue, and not just a hyped victim complex bolstered by attention-seeking people on <strike>tumblr</strike> avoiceformen.com."<br />
<br />
-- "Any questions you raise about my analysis of the situation or my proposed solution are simply interesting little thought experiments to you, which trivializes the suffering we men experience, so you need to shut up and just agree with us because you're a woman. If we say we're victims, then we are. And if we propose a solution that you disagree with, you need to shut up."<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Fearful-man-picture-300x187.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Fearful-man-picture-300x187.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
And if a <i>man </i>disagrees with you, just remember that he's been brainwashed by all the women in his life who want to keep him as a disposable provider. We should both pity him and belittle him for disagreeing with us.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Do you see how silly all of this is?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-43391987189192170302014-11-14T17:32:00.000-08:002015-02-16T17:57:38.934-08:00Why I am not a feministI would like to explain why I do not call myself a feminist in two points, the first one being my primary reason, and the second being more supplementary.<br />
<br />
My primary reason for not being a feminist is that I don't agree with the ideas, models, and theories that many/most feminists espouse (that is, feminist theory). I don't think that models like "patriarchy" and "rape culture" accurately describe the world we live in, nor do they make good predictions or offer good solutions.<br />
<br />
Now, feminists will argue that the definition of feminism is nothing more than the desire for gender equality, so if I desire gender equality, that makes me a feminist. Right? Well, maybe in a technical sense, but in practice, does anyone seriously believe that I would be welcome in any feminist community given what I said in the previous paragraph? This, I think, is clear evidence that there is more to "feminism" than the simple desire for equality.<br />
<br />
It is for this reason that I don't call myself a feminist: I don't agree with the methods and ideologies by which many feminists try to achieve this goal, such as patriarchy theory, rape culture, ideas about male entitlement (although there are self-proclaimed "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism">individualist feminists</a>" who disagree with these methods, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdlVcjYYCbs">Wendy McElroy</a>). While I support gender equality, I don't find myself supporting the route that feminists would have use take to get there, and so I do not call myself a feminist.<br />
<br />
Allow me to elaborate on this distinction between a group's goals and its methods. What I mean is that there are multiple ways to solve a problem, and while two people may want to solve the same problem (such as inequalities of gender), they may have two different ways of modeling the problem, which, in turn, present different methods for solving it. That being said, while I support the goal of gender equality, I disagree with the theories and methods that many modern feminists espouse (some of my specific disagreements are listed later in this essay).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H7evRh4CjpY/VGacvykq8fI/AAAAAAAAAgs/mglD0qNXaEU/s1600/Multiple%2BRoutes.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H7evRh4CjpY/VGacvykq8fI/AAAAAAAAAgs/mglD0qNXaEU/s1600/Multiple%2BRoutes.png" height="397" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">There are multiple ways to get to a destination, with some trade-offs.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
As an analogy, imagine two people living in an ancient, primitive, agrarian society, and their society has a problem: the rains have become less frequent, and as a result, there aren't enough crops to feed everyone. Now, both of these people want to solve this problem, but they have two different strategies. One person wants to pray to the rain god to fix the problem, while the other wants to implement a water regulation and irrigation system to fix the problem. While they both have the same admirable goal, their methods are a different story, and I would side with the second person over the first, just like how I side with non-feminists over feminists: not because of the goals, but because of the methods.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I am amazed by how strongly people assert that feminism is the only method for solving gender inequalities (which I analyzed <a href="http://venaloid.blogspot.com/2014/11/feminism-is-not-only-perspective.html">here</a>), and by their accompanying claim that, if you are not a feminist, then <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2809809/This-NOT-feminist-looks-like-Cameron-refuses-wear-T-shirt-backing-women-s-equality-asked-FIVE-times.html">you must not care about gender equality</a>, so <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd_0hjHuDMo#t=1402">you're a sexist</a>. Or, if it is clear from the start that you do care about gender equality, then you're already a feminist, and it's contradictory to say you're not.<br />
<br />
In the same way that Christians will assert their exclusive claim to the word "moral", many feminists similarly assert their exclusive claim to the phrase "gender equality", and I find those two claims equally ridiculous. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1xFz3wTXVZE/VGadjMfzuuI/AAAAAAAAAg0/Oj1Hg6-wocA/s1600/IMG_2443839646900AA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1xFz3wTXVZE/VGadjMfzuuI/AAAAAAAAAg0/Oj1Hg6-wocA/s1600/IMG_2443839646900AA.jpg" height="400" width="500" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
My specific disagreements with feminist ideas are listed below. This is just a list, not a full justification of each point: that's what the rest of this blog is for, and I will link to my justifications as they come out.<br />
<br />
-- I don't think that gender is socially constructed.<br />
-- I disagree with the model of "rape culture" as being accurate for the western world.<br />
-- I disagree with the model of "patriarchy" as feminists associate it with traditional gender roles.<br />
-- I disagree with laws proposed by Feminists, such as <a href="http://venaloid.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-problems-with-affirmative-consent.html">affirmative consent</a>.<br />
-- I disagree with the solutions proposed by these models, such as "teach men not to rape".<br />
-- Legal paternal surrender<br />
<br />
Furthermore, feminists often ignore serious men's issues. Or, if they are confronted with these issues and asked why they aren't working for gender equality on those fronts, they say, "Yeah, those are problems too, and we're working on them too... somehow". Examples include:<br />
<br />
-- Unequal prison sentences<br />
-- Male circumcision<br />
-- The fact that most suicides are men, yet somehow we live a society that's set up for the benefit of men. I guess men are just really bad at being oppressors.<br />
-- Men being falsely accused of rape, child abuse, and domestic violence.<br />
<br />
Now, I should be clear: I don't support all the goals that many modern feminists do either, and that's also a big contributor to my non-feminism. Some of my future blogs posts will talk about those instances as well. However, I think my disagreement with feminist theories and methods required more explanation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
My second reason for not being a feminist is that I'm sick of being demonized for being male by feminists.<br />
<br />
-- "Men can stop rape" / "Teach men not to rape".<br />
-- Men/masculinity is predisposed toward rape.<br />
-- General assertions that men are why women have problems.<br />
-- Outright rationalizing of "man-hating".<br />
<br />
In general, I find it incredibly prejudiced and insulting when feminists demonize men as a group. But hey, two can play that game. Here are some ways in which women are bad and need to fix themselves as a collectively guilty group:<br />
<br />
>> Women are (100%?) of false rape accusers; all women need to address this problem, even if they've done nothing wrong; it's part of their toxic self-identities as women.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pko56IM0Cf4/VGaoqHMTJMI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/vAWAQswfJYY/s1600/accusation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pko56IM0Cf4/VGaoqHMTJMI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/vAWAQswfJYY/s1600/accusation.jpg" height="252" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">You know what the problem is? All women. Right?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
>> White women are more likely to commit violent offenses and simple assaults than women of other races. White women, y'all need to get your collective shit together! It's on you!<br />
<br />
Source: <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf">http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf</a><br />
<br />
>> Women are the primary perpetrators of slut shaming and socially attacking other women. Women, get your collective shit together! It's on you! Even if you don't do that shit, you probably encourage it somehow, so it's your problem even if you think you have no part in it. Your self-identity as female is toxic and it's your job to fix yourself.<br />
<br />
Source: <a href="http://www.bustle.com/articles/7721-study-says-women-evolved-to-be-gossipy-backstabbing-rivals">http://www.bustle.com/articles/7721-study-says-women-evolved-to-be-gossipy-backstabbing-rivals</a><br />
<br />
Maybe we should put signs on college campuses that say things like:<br />
<br />
ChickTip: Remember not to be a backstabbing bitch to that girl who’s prettier than you.<br />
ChickTip: Remember not to falsely accuse someone of rape.<br />
WhiteChickTip: Remember to stop being so violent.<br />
<br />
Oh, are these ChickTips offensive? Yes they are! So why is it okay to demonize men this way?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hz1dhSClkdc/VGapeBDvMxI/AAAAAAAAAhY/W1jev4nHGj8/s1600/Don't%2Bbe%2Bthat%2Bgirl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hz1dhSClkdc/VGapeBDvMxI/AAAAAAAAAhY/W1jev4nHGj8/s1600/Don't%2Bbe%2Bthat%2Bgirl.jpg" height="280" width="550" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small; text-align: start;">Sucks to have your entire gender demonized, doesn't it?</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">CONCLUSION</span><br />
<br />
As I stated in the beginning, my main disagreement with feminism is the first topic (feminist theories and tactics), and the remaining disagreement is supplementary, but I hope it's now more understandable why I don't call myself a feminist.<br />
<br />Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-538931907758714252014-11-14T14:10:00.004-08:002015-02-08T16:57:42.173-08:00The Problems with Affirmative Consent<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
California recently passed a bill (SB 967) that requires colleges to adopt an “affirmative consent” model for addressing and defining sexual assaults and rapes on campus in order to receive state funding, and quite frankly, this bill is disastrous. In this bill, "affirmative consent" is defined as:</div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /><i>“...affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Source: <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967</a><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blackpressusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tumblr_mes8e6BiIU1qheakio1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="http://www.blackpressusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tumblr_mes8e6BiIU1qheakio1_500.jpg" height="247" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now this <i>sounds </i>like a great idea, and as far as individual people goes, it <i>is</i> a good idea: it's a good idea to know what your partner wants or doesn't want in a sexual encounter. However, affirmative consent <i>laws</i> are <i>not</i> good ideas, for the reasons given below. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">1. ACLs remove the presumption of innocence</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><i>“When bill co-author Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) was asked how an innocent person is to prove he or she indeed received consent, Lowenthal said, “Your guess is as good as mine. I think it’s a legal issue. Like any legal issue, that goes to court.””</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Source: <a href="http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/">http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/</a></span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br />Translation:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><i>“How can an innocent person prove their innocence?” </i></span>(Which is a horrible question to have to ask in the first place)<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“<i>I have no idea; let’s experiment with peoples’ futures.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Under the affirmative consent model, falsely accused people will become falsely convicted people, unless they <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-cabbie-sues-passengers-over-false-assault-allegations-1.797780">happened to videotape the encounter</a>.<br /><br />However, I am not only concerned for the college students who will be wrongly punished; I am also concerned that this may become the stepping stone for our legal system to adopt this model as well, which would be a tremendous violation of human rights: the complete reversal of innocent until proven guilty.<br /><br />Indeed, several feminist writers have argued for this exact kind of shift: always believe the victim in a legal setting and reverse the burden of proof, including:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006996.html">Jessica Valenti</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i>"Swedish rape laws ... go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation. </i></span><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i>In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it."</i><br /><br />Linda Brookover - "Defining Rape", page 178</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 17px;">Brookover argues that the accused should have the burden of proving his innocence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 17px;">Susan Caringella - "Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice"</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i>"It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous over-protections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied."</i></span><br /><br /><a href="http://anotherfeministblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/your-burden-of-proof-is-bullshit/" style="font-size: 17px;">The writer of "Another Feminist Blog"</a><br /><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i>"The bottom line is that nobody bears the burden of convincing you their rape “really happened.” It is beyond noxious to think that as second or third parties we could sit back and judge the veracity of those claims, or that we should. When someone speaks about their experiences we listen. Period."</i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wWjxDZtkOAc/VGZ9JYaKQtI/AAAAAAAAAgc/DIjUWDV0MrY/s1600/PoI.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="3" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wWjxDZtkOAc/VGZ9JYaKQtI/AAAAAAAAAgc/DIjUWDV0MrY/s1600/PoI.png" height="125" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i><br /></i></span><br /><span style="font-size: 17px;">These are just some top-picks; if you go to Google and search for words like "feminism" "burden of proof" "innocent until proven guilty", you'll find a large population of feminists who want to reverse innocent until proven guilty. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /><o:p></o:p></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">2. ACLs demand an unreasonably low standard of evidence for colleges</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: bold;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">SB 967 requires that colleges adopt a low standard of evidence for determining if a sexual misconduct claim is true; it’s the same standard of evidence that the courts use in civil cases (which deal with things as heinous and life-changing as contract disputes).<br /><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><i>“In evaluating sexual misconduct claims, SB 967 calls for schools to apply a “preponderance of evidence” standard, similar to Title IX. It’s a lower standard of proof, used in civil cases, instead of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” bar used in criminal trials.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Source: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/">http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/</a></span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While colleges are not courts and cannot send “convicted” students to jail, expulsion as a sex offender can essentially bar them from higher education because other colleges won’t take them. This deserves a higher standard of evidence than what is used to settle contract disputes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">3. ACLs outlaw many consensual sexual encounters</span><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b>
Feminists and liberals in general (the latter of which I call myself) will point fingers at conservatives for their attempts to regulate what kind of sex people can and can't have, but when it comes to ACLs, those same feminists seem perfectly happy to outlaw certain ways of having sex. Why do I say this? Well, part of the law reads as follows, and it clearly outlaws sex in which both parties are not loud and active:<br />
<br />
<i>"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."</i><br />
<br />
Well what if two people simply enjoy quiet sex, where the man "does all the work" and the woman enjoys just lying there? In this situation, the man didn't ask the woman if she consented during that time; she was silent and compliant, which does not indicate consent. Is that rape? According to the affirmative consent model, it is. Or, if the woman is doing all the work, and the man is silent and compliant, is she a rapist? According to the affirmative consent model, she is. ACLs lead us to conclude that unless you happen to enjoy loud, active sex, you are a rapist or a rape victim. This effectively outlaws many sexual activities that regular, consenting adults enjoy.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">4. People give ambiguous signals, and what actually happened is often unclear (very important)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">At “The Amazing Meeting” or TAM in 2014, Doctor Carol Tavris gave a talk called, “Who’s Lying, Who’s Self-Justifying?” in which she talks about awkward sexual encounters in college, which are often claimed to be instances of rape. In her talk, she explains how these situations arise, and in doing so, she explains why the affirmative consent model is absolutely horrible, even going so far as to specifically call out the state of California for proposing it.<br /><br />Her talk is linked here, and the key time intervals are listed below.</span></span><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SpVVsOUsLo" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SpVVsOUsLo</span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i4oqNsu_qj8/VC-RYbEVJqI/AAAAAAAAADg/tUZNQfFhI6A/s1600/Carol%2Btavris.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i4oqNsu_qj8/VC-RYbEVJqI/AAAAAAAAADg/tUZNQfFhI6A/s1600/Carol%2Btavris.png" height="266" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">24:42 - 25:36 -- People say “no” to mean many different things, even to indicate consent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">29:10 - 30:18 -- People do a “dance of ambiguity” to spare each other’s feelings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">30:18 - 31:20 -- A common signal of consent, AND of non-consent, is not doing anything.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">33:41 - 33:55 -- Some women drink alcohol to create plausible deniability about their consent in case someone accuses them of being a slut; they intentionally blur the line.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">34:35 - 37:05 -- Cognitive dissonance can create false memories about sexual encounters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">38:37 - 40:17 -- Dr. Tavris specifically denounces affirmative consent laws for the above reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">On a related note: some people have claimed that the song “Blurred Lines” promotes rape culture by saying that it’s okay to assume a woman wants sex. However, if that song means anything, it is explaining Tavris’s exact thoughts on the subject of sex: it’s saying, “Look, it’s okay to want sex. Drop this ‘good girl’ routine, stop saying ‘no’ to mean ‘yes’, and stop creating all these gray areas (or blurred lines) for me to interpret (or misinterpret), and just do what you want to do instead of beating around the bush.” Just a side thought. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">More recently, a woman wrote an article explaining how she found herself in a kind of awkward, semi-consensual, sexual encounter, which fits perfectly with Tavris’s general description, and which is hardly comparable to rape; it's just what happens to young, sexually-active people who are unsure of what they want or of what they are getting into. It's about testing your limits and exploring your sexuality, but sure, let's make it a crime.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Source: <a href="http://totalsororitymove.com/is-it-possible-that-there-is-something-in-between-consensual-sex-and-rape-and-that-it-happens-to-almost-every-girl-out-there/">http://totalsororitymove.com/is-it-possible-that-there-is-something-in-between-consensual-sex-and-rape-and-that-it-happens-to-almost-every-girl-out-there/</a></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">Conclusion</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>Based on Tavris’s analysis, and the story linked above, it appears that the cause of the awkward college hookups that affirmative consent laws are meant to eliminate (which many feminists insist are rapes)</span><span style="font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">is peoples’ lack of awareness of how their minds work and what they desire in these situations, not a lack of legal structure or rules or "toxic masculinity".</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br />Just like any other human heuristic, the solution for dealing with these awkward, quasi-consensual hookups to become aware of the things Tavris noted that we naturally want to do (such as spare others' feelings or create plausible deniability for ourselves), not to legally require people to act differently. Just because an action is a good idea for individuals to perform, that doesn't mean it is a good action to require by law. The same could be said of cheating on your spouse, or seeing through the diffusion of responsibility: while there are good ways for individuals to deal with these situations, it is very clear that these situations would not benefit from having legal force, just as affirmative consent laws will not benefit sexually active people. </span></div>
Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3655773474030951465.post-79033026617011960712014-11-12T17:33:00.000-08:002014-11-14T16:09:06.401-08:00Feminism is not the only perspectiveToday I would like to draw attention to, and challenge, the idea that feminist theories, and a feminist perspective, are the only way to frame gender issues. Many of you have probably heard phrases like the one pictured below. Something along the lines of, "I need feminism because [insert problem here]."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v-InmTPosow/VGQFcuL2eEI/AAAAAAAAAe0/zZyAFSyF_EU/s1600/I%2Bneed%2Bfeminism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="3" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v-InmTPosow/VGQFcuL2eEI/AAAAAAAAAe0/zZyAFSyF_EU/s320/I%2Bneed%2Bfeminism.jpg" width="220" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
However, the argument being made in statements like these is a poor one, and it creates what you could call a “false mono-chotomy”: it only gives you one choice (feminism) when that is not actually the only choice.<br />
<br />
To see this fallacy more clearly, we can simply use this same argument structure in a different context. For example:<br />
<br />
“I need supply-side economics because the economy is doing poorly!”<br />
<br />
In this instance, the fallacy is much easier to see. In response to this argument, an observant person would probably say, “but what about demand-side economics? What about any other economic models?"<br />
<br />
Generally speaking, you cannot simply declare that there is only one way to solve a problem, or that your way is the best way: you need to <i>justify </i>that claim. When feminists say “I need feminism because (gender issue exists)”, they are doing the same thing as the hypothetical supply-side economist: they are just declaring that it’s my way or the highway.<br />
<br />
To see this fallacious argument explained in a more rigorous manner, continue reading.<br />
<br />
First, let’s look at a bad argument for supply-side economics as the solution to fixing the economy.<br />
<br />
Argument E1<br />
P1. The economy is doing poorly, and we need to improve it.<br />
P2. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of supply-side economics.<br />
<br />
This argument is not a valid argument: it does not explain how the conclusion follows from the premises. In order for this to be a valid argument, we would need to add a premise, creating Argument E2.<br />
<br />
Argument E2<br />
P1. The economy is doing poorly, and we need to improve it.<br />
P2. Adopting the theories of supply-side economics is the best way to improve the economy.<br />
P3. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of supply-side economics.<br />
<br />
This is now a valid argument: the conclusion follows from the premises. However, in order to make this argument sound, the arguer must now justify the premise (P2) which states that supply-side economics is the solution; or, in more specific terms, that the theories of supply-side economics are the only model of the world that will allow us to determine the best course of action to fix the problem. It is in this premise (P2) that the debates about economic theories take place among politicians and economists: which model is the most accurate to the real world and will give us the best solution? In this discussion, we acknowledge that there are multiple economic theories that purport to model the world correctly, and which, by that token, will provide the best solutions to economic problems.<br />
<br />
Now let’s talk about feminism instead of economics. An argument similar to E1 is often made for feminism, and this argument is written below as F1.<br />
<br />
Argument F1<br />
P1. There is an inequality between men and women which we need to fix.<br />
P2. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of feminism.<br />
<br />
Once again, there is a missing premise, whose absence makes the argument invalid. A valid form of this argument we will call F2. However, the argument usually given by feminists is F1, when it should at least be F2.<br />
<br />
Argument F2<br />
P1. There is an inequality between men and women which we need to fix.<br />
P2. Adopting the theories of feminism is the best way to fix that inequality.<br />
P3. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of feminism.<br />
<br />
And once again, we find ourselves requiring some justification for P2 in order to make the argument sound. However, when it comes to feminism, the discussion of P2 is slightly different from that of P2 in economics. When it comes to feminism, many people find it hard to believe that P2 could be false. Indeed, many feminists flatly deny that there are other ways to frame issues of gender, and they insist that if you don’t adopt feminist theories, then not only will you never solve the problem, but you probably don’t even care about the problem at all.<br />
<br />
“You’re not a feminist? Don't you care about women?!”<br />
“You’re not a supply-side economist? Don't you care about the economy?!”<br />
<br />
Using economic issues as an analogous situation, we can see how ridiculous it is to insist that feminist theories are the answer to gender issues. In the blog posts to come, I will explain some of the ways in which I view gender issues such that there is a solution for current inequalities, or I will simply present a more accurate analysis of these problems that differs from feminist theories.Venaloidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07669839046949885688noreply@blogger.com0