By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Can Feminists Get Any More Desperate?

DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
MikeRox said:

What does absolving someone if their crime have to do with anything? This is the key thing I notice whenever this topic is discussed.

It's not a situation where its either or. As I said in an earlier post, a crime is always a crime and the actions of the victim do not ever detract from that. However it is incredibly naive and idealistic to think that nothing bad will ever happen to you no matter what position you put yourself in.

It seems to be if anyone says someone should look out for their own safety more, it's instantly flipped as victim blaming.

It's not the victims failt, however we know what type of world we currently live in and I don't know about anyone else, but personally I would like to minimise the risk I put myself in.

See my recent post about safety.  It addresses much of this.

for (the problem with most mdoern movements). 

I agree with you... and on the message to Ganon I would say that men usually takes the side of woman more than anything... but when we get accused of being rapists all the time (some feminazis says that even flattering or looking to a woman is rapism) we start to be less sensitive to a woman we don't know ( but would still care a lot about the ones we do) even more when they say that it's worst to be a woman with the risk of being flattered than a men with the risk of death. 



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

I agree with you... and on the message to Ganon I would say that men usually takes the side of woman more than anything... but when we get accused of being rapists all the time (some feminazis says that even flattering or looking to a woman is rapism) we start to be less sensitive to a woman we don't know ( but would still care a lot about the ones we do) even more when they say that it's worst to be a woman with the risk of being flattered than a men with the risk of death. 

Certainly flirtatious glances should not be equated with rape.  Granted, full on learing and cat calling are over the top but even that shouldn't be equated with rape.  It's quite the leap to connect the two and I have heard rape culture advocates try to make the claim.  But it's a reach that even many feminists balk at.

I'm not sure I follow you with the last bit.  I don't know of any feminists who think a women's risk of being flirted with is worse than a man's risk of death.  I'd need context and circumstances to better understand what you mean.

Yup it's desirable that we men learn to behave in a respectfull manner towards women (but them again there are a lot that like flirting and eve cat call, but better know who you are doing at), but the comparison to rape is ridiculous and thankfully it's just a handfull that say it, but the "potential rapist" speech is very common on social media and propagated by several feminists I know.

The last part is just that some people seem to think that the small statistic of alledgely rape (because there are a lot of false reports, revenge reports and the like) make it unsafier to be a woman than a man (when the death statistic is higher than the rape, and they also say it's worst to be raped than killed) and that female issues are more important because of it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

yahyahyahiamlorde on 13 January 2016
Tbone said:
"dear daddy, boys trying to get their hands down my pants when i´m wasted"

Keyword here is wasted. You practically inviting them yourself.
                               

Yikes. How is being incapable of giving consent or resisting inviting? Her naivety hardly makes her guilty or responible.

I wonder how you might feel if, say, a man (assuming you're heterosexual) was taking advantage of you being when you were too inebriated to resist. Surely, it'd be your fault.

  





Aeolus451 on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
ganoncrotch said:

 

Do a ctrl+F on my post to see if I'm saying that.

And no obviously if a person gets the shit kicked out of them for walking into a bad area of town here waving money around over their head alone in the middle of the night, the assualters are still obviously the ones breaking the law and if found (often the kind of crimes such as taking advantage of a black out drunk person male or female, are impossible to catch who did it because the victim isn't going to be aware of what might have taken place until at least the next day when they regain some sort of conciousness and until they stop thinking that the pain they are suffering is just down to the massive hangover) are completely reprehensible by the law, there is no excusing if someone is breaking the law with phrases like "they deserved it" or "they had it coming" but at the end of the day who is the one who is harmed? The person who put themselves in the situation where such a thing could happen to them.

I really find this is one of the only sort of cases where suggesting taking the slightest bit of care to not end up getting caught up in this sort of situation leads to getting attacked,

 - Have you ever criticized your parents for telling you to look left and right before crossing the street? Sure the car that knocks you down will be at fault, but you'll be dead.

 - Have you ever lashed out at the IT guy who tells you not to click on the .rar files which come with emails, (for the last time dammit those things don't have Anna Kornikova naked pictures!!!) I mean, it will obviously be the hackers who rob your credit card details who are commiting a crime, not the guy telling you to be careful

 - Or just things so bloody basic as warning a person at any point in your own life about anything.... "don't eat that" , "don't talk to him, he's crazy" or "don't run with a knife"

If you're of the mindset where you think that if someone suggesting something such as "mind yourself" as someone they care for is going out to a party, is victim shaming then I may well have wasted keystrokes and you're time reading as much of it as you did, and I'm sorry for both those things, but I can't stand people who would hurt in anyway another person, regardless of gender of either the victim or the attacker but at the same time, when it comes to my own friends and family, I always tell people to take care or mind themselves as my general parting ways phrase.... and I mean it, regardless of who is to blame, if something happens to a person, it's the person who is harmed by it.

Also some humour to a shit post in a fairly shit thread! (sorry if you don't find it funny but it's kinda a TL:DR to my post heh)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/heinous/files/2014/09/1962685_10205094451148833_5319163003356010614_n.jpg

Ganon, I appreciate the post (and comic..I'm a fan of dark humor myself).  I think I agree with much of what you say.  My issue seems to stem from the notion that many people instantly want to accuse the assaulted for putting themselves in a position to be assaulted.  That's secondary to the actual act of assualt which is primary.  Certainly we need to apply common sense and basic logic to protect ourselves and it should be heeded as much as possible.  But when a persons first reaction is to denigrate the victim we have a problem.   Were they stupid for their disregard for safety?  Likely, but it shouldn't be our first concern. 

With women's issues, men often immdiately look for what the women did wrong rather than the attacker.   Could they both be in the wrong?  Of course.  But what she was wearing or where she was is secondary and too many men make it their primary concern.  And because of that, you get ads like these.  When we start making the raoe itself primary, these ads will stop.

The ad is completely misguided about how men act with eachother and doesn't give any advice for how a woman could avoid any of those scenarios or how a parent might explain to a teenager how to be more careful around strangers when drinking or in bad situations. Instead, the vid paints this skewed picture that men in general condone rape because guys joke about women and other guys allow it.  Guys do not condone rape or abuse or joke about either one with eachother.

Actual rapists or abusers never talk to any other guys or people about it because they would be ostracized and probably attacked by their co-workers, friends and family. If I know that a guy hits women or is likely to, I warn any women about him quietly but some women will still date the guy regardless.

If feminists or people in general seriously want to prevent things like rape then they should teach young women about avoiding dangerous situations and pushing for servere punishments for rape/molestation (cheap and expedited death penality).



A_C_E on 13 January 2016
DonFerrari said:
A_C_E said:
o_O.Q said:

you already stated that you understand the effect of testosterone meaning that you understand that it is responsible for the increased aggression in men men... how do you account for this if men and women are the same? do you not consider increased aggression to be a behavioral trait?

and besides that if men and women are pretty much the same why is this ad directed towards men specifically as if men are in fact different? as if it takes into account that men are more sexually predatory?

what i should probably ask you first of all though is if you even understand what the psychological aspects of a person are because i'm starting to believe that you can't, not with the contradictory things you are posting

Testosterone is linked to aggression but testosterone levels actually raise with aggression, not necessarily because of it. Just because one is an aggressor and one is more dormant does not imply that we know who is producing more testosterone. There's more than just one single compound linked to why we would be more aggressive. I can assume we agree on the fact it is most likely the aggressor who will have a higher testosterone level during the period of aggression. Just so we are clear.

Question: You say men and women are psychologically different than one another. To illustrate this claim you stated that men produce on average more testosterone than women and that in turn affects the aggression level. If men and women aren't the same because one sex produces different levels of testosterone on average than the other, then are men who produce less testerone than other men no longer biologically men?

It's not the amount that matters, it's the production, and in men and women the production exists in both, not the same amount like you say but the wheels turn in the same direction. You are not male because you produce a certain amount of testosterone, that's not how biology works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's a thought experiment for you i want you to go outside and light a fire and when you have done so toss a small scrap of paper on it, then take a large heap of paper and toss those on.... notice a difference?

Yep, the fire's bigger. What you fail to understand is that just because the fire is bigger does not change what you used to make it bigger, you simply used more of it. The exact same chemical reactions are taking place and the exact same ingredients are being used in the exact same manner, just more of them. A fire is a fire my friend, how the fire acts does not change that it is a fire. Thank you for that thought experiment.

To summarize your point, man and woman are the same because both have niples, eyes and etc... it doesn't matter how different they are or perform because that quantified isn't important, just that they exist... are you for real??? The very definition of difference is that they differ, not that they have some similarity.

Sorry, I do type a lot. To sum it all up, I am saying our psychological makeup is the exact same since any occurrence that can happen in the brain of a woman can happen in the brain of a man. I am trying to note that psychology isn't bound by sex. I am obviously aware that women and men, for the most part, act differently than one another and are socially looked upon as completely different. But at what point do we choose our own perspective of one another over science? Because it is science that states our biological makeup is pretty much exact and that our psychology isn't bound by our sex. This is my arguement, nothing more, nothing less.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Aeolus451 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Ganon, I appreciate the post (and comic..I'm a fan of dark humor myself).  I think I agree with much of what you say.  My issue seems to stem from the notion that many people instantly want to accuse the assaulted for putting themselves in a position to be assaulted.  That's secondary to the actual act of assualt which is primary.  Certainly we need to apply common sense and basic logic to protect ourselves and it should be heeded as much as possible.  But when a persons first reaction is to denigrate the victim we have a problem.   Were they stupid for their disregard for safety?  Likely, but it shouldn't be our first concern. 

With women's issues, men often immdiately look for what the women did wrong rather than the attacker.   Could they both be in the wrong?  Of course.  But what she was wearing or where she was is secondary and too many men make it their primary concern.  And because of that, you get ads like these.  When we start making the raoe itself primary, these ads will stop.

The ad is completely misguided about how men act with eachother and doesn't give any advice for how a woman could avoid any of those scenarios or how a parent might explain to a teenager how to be more careful around strangers when drinking or in bad situations. Instead, the vid paints this skewed picture that men in general condone rape because guys joke about women and other guys allow it.  Guys do not condone rape or abuse or joke about either one with eachother.

Actual rapists or abusers never talk to any other guys or people about it because they would be ostracized and probably attacked by their co-workers, friends and family. If I know that a guy hits women or is likely to, I warn any women about him quietly but some women will still date the guy regardless.

If feminists or people in general seriously want to prevent things like rape then they should teach young women about avoiding dangerous situations and pushing for servere punishments for rape/molestation (cheap and expedited death penality).

Again, the ad could be better but it's only a product of the issue.  Akin to attacking the messenger (and message) rather than the underlying problem itself.

Should ads be produced that teach women how to prevent dangerous circumstances?  Damn good idea.  Should laws be enacted with stricter punishments for rape and false rape accusations?  Even better idea.

But if we don't understand why these kinds of ads (even these poor ones) are made in the first place, we are missing the bigger issue.  If we fight over the video, we ignore the real problem.  This is our problem.  We immediately wonder why they are attacking all of us men.  We wonder why they are accusing us of possibly being rapists just because we look, flirt or whistle.  We wonder why they see us as doing wrong just for being men.  When what we really should be wondering is why this kind of ad was needed in the first place. 

We look at ourselves individually and take umbrage for the accusation (granted every group does this regardless of association...race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc...).  But we fail to look at ourselves as a collective sex.  We fail to ask ourselves as men if we are really doing all we can to protect and prevent ourselves (as a group, not individually) from harming women.  It's a tough thing to reflect on because we'd rather put that repsonsibility elsewhere.

 

This type of video/ad was not needed in the first place because it's misguided or tells a flawed message on every level. In other words, no one should take it seriously because it's most likely created by a radicalized feminist that doesn't care about equality and is not trying to constructively change things for the better for everyone. It only hurts feminists as a whole and it frankly makes them fit their stereotypes. 



FloatingWaffles on 13 January 2016

Feminism, and equal opportunity for all, is a good thing obviously that I would hope everyone would support just out of human decency but I don't really think videos like this are gonna help more people support it, rather it might have the adverse effect of turning more people away who could have potentially been allies because it may feel like an attack before they have even done anything, and as we've seen that usually tends to make people stand further in their shoes rather than listen. It could end up leading to situations where people have different ideas of what feminism is based on what they see, if someone were to only see the extreme things like this they might think that's what it is overall and get the wrong idea of it, so it shouldn't really be grouped into "feminists" as a whole rather just some who call themselves that that may be going to more extreme measures like this.

Edit: I'm editing this comment later, as my original was poorly written, to better accurately represent what I was actually trying to get across at the time. 

Last edited by FloatingWaffles - on 13 August 2021

DonFerrari on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Aeolus451 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Ganon, I appreciate the post (and comic..I'm a fan of dark humor myself).  I think I agree with much of what you say.  My issue seems to stem from the notion that many people instantly want to accuse the assaulted for putting themselves in a position to be assaulted.  That's secondary to the actual act of assualt which is primary.  Certainly we need to apply common sense and basic logic to protect ourselves and it should be heeded as much as possible.  But when a persons first reaction is to denigrate the victim we have a problem.   Were they stupid for their disregard for safety?  Likely, but it shouldn't be our first concern. 

With women's issues, men often immdiately look for what the women did wrong rather than the attacker.   Could they both be in the wrong?  Of course.  But what she was wearing or where she was is secondary and too many men make it their primary concern.  And because of that, you get ads like these.  When we start making the raoe itself primary, these ads will stop.

The ad is completely misguided about how men act with eachother and doesn't give any advice for how a woman could avoid any of those scenarios or how a parent might explain to a teenager how to be more careful around strangers when drinking or in bad situations. Instead, the vid paints this skewed picture that men in general condone rape because guys joke about women and other guys allow it.  Guys do not condone rape or abuse or joke about either one with eachother.

Actual rapists or abusers never talk to any other guys or people about it because they would be ostracized and probably attacked by their co-workers, friends and family. If I know that a guy hits women or is likely to, I warn any women about him quietly but some women will still date the guy regardless.

If feminists or people in general seriously want to prevent things like rape then they should teach young women about avoiding dangerous situations and pushing for servere punishments for rape/molestation (cheap and expedited death penality).

Again, the ad could be better but it's only a product of the issue.  Akin to attacking the messenger (and message) rather than the underlying problem itself.

Should ads be produced that teach women how to prevent dangerous circumstances?  Damn good idea.  Should laws be enacted with stricter punishments for rape and false rape accusations?  Even better idea.

But if we don't understand why these kinds of ads (even these poor ones) are made in the first place, we are missing the bigger issue.  If we fight over the video, we ignore the real problem.  This is our problem.  We immediately wonder why they are attacking all of us men.  We wonder why they are accusing us of possibly being rapists just because we look, flirt or whistle.  We wonder why they see us as doing wrong just for being men.  When what we really should be wondering is why this kind of ad was needed in the first place. 

We look at ourselves individually and take umbrage for the accusation (granted every group does this regardless of association...race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc...).  But we fail to look at ourselves as a collective sex.  We fail to ask ourselves as men if we are really doing all we can to protect and prevent ourselves (as a group, not individually) from harming women.  It's a tough thing to reflect on because we'd rather put that repsonsibility elsewhere.

The reason for the ads are exageration of the issues since the ad itself doesn't base itself on reality at least not our reality.

A_C_E said:
DonFerrari said:

To summarize your point, man and woman are the same because both have niples, eyes and etc... it doesn't matter how different they are or perform because that quantified isn't important, just that they exist... are you for real??? The very definition of difference is that they differ, not that they have some similarity.

Sorry, I do type a lot. To sum it all up, I am saying our psychological makeup is the exact same since any occurrence that can happen in the brain of a woman can happen in the brain of a man. I am trying to note that psychology isn't bound by sex. I am obviously aware that women and men, for the most part, act differently than one another and are socially looked upon as completely different. But at what point do we choose our own perspective of one another over science? Because it is science that states our biological makeup is pretty much exact and that our psychology isn't bound by our sex. This is my arguement, nothing more, nothing less.

No you are trying to push a small overlap as being equal... if 99% of the cases man have a lot more testosterone than Woman and that causes very clear effects it's silly even on a cientific stand point to say the are inexistent because both produce some of it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

o_O.Q on 13 January 2016
A_C_E said:
o_O.Q said:

you already stated that you understand the effect of testosterone meaning that you understand that it is responsible for the increased aggression in men men... how do you account for this if men and women are the same? do you not consider increased aggression to be a behavioral trait?

and besides that if men and women are pretty much the same why is this ad directed towards men specifically as if men are in fact different? as if it takes into account that men are more sexually predatory?

what i should probably ask you first of all though is if you even understand what the psychological aspects of a person are because i'm starting to believe that you can't, not with the contradictory things you are posting

Testosterone is linked to aggression but testosterone levels actually raise with aggression, not necessarily because of it. Just because one is an aggressor and one is more dormant does not imply that we know who is producing more testosterone. There's more than just one single compound linked to why we would be more aggressive. I can assume we agree on the fact it is most likely the aggressor who will have a higher testosterone level during the period of aggression. Just so we are clear.

Question: You say men and women are psychologically different than one another. To illustrate this claim you stated that men produce on average more testosterone than women and that in turn affects the aggression level. If men and women aren't the same because one sex produces different levels of testosterone on average than the other, then are men who produce less testerone than other men no longer biologically men?

It's not the amount that matters, it's the production, and in men and women the production exists in both, not the same amount like you say but the wheels turn in the same direction. You are not male because you produce a certain amount of testosterone, that's not how biology works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's a thought experiment for you i want you to go outside and light a fire and when you have done so toss a small scrap of paper on it, then take a large heap of paper and toss those on.... notice a difference?

Yep, the fire's bigger. What you fail to understand is that just because the fire is bigger does not change what you used to make it bigger, you simply used more of it. The exact same chemical reactions are taking place and the exact same ingredients are being used in the exact same manner, just more of them. A fire is a fire my friend, how the fire acts does not change that it is a fire. Thank you for that thought experiment.

 

"Just because one is an aggressor and one is more dormant does not imply that we know who is producing more testosterone."

 

lol this was funny at first but now it really is getting sad... are you implying here that its not fact that men produce more testosterone?

 

" then are men who produce less testerone than other men no longer biologically men"

 

first of all me using testosterone is one example out of many many different criteria that make men and women different

secondly men with lesser testosterone still have much more testosterone in general than women 

 

"You are not male because you produce a certain amount of testosterone, that's not how biology works."

 

lol really? so you believe a man would develope into a man without the male sex hormone? 

do you understand the purpose of hormones and sex hormones in particular?

 

"What you fail to understand is that just because the fire is bigger does not change what you used to make it bigger"

 

lol but you are missing the point... which is that a larger concentration produces a significantly larger effect


"The exact same chemical reactions are taking place and the exact same ingredients are being used in the exact same manner, just more of them."

 

lol ok one of the responsiblities of the female sex hormone ( oestrogen ) is to regulate the menstrual cycle.. do you believe that the small quantities of oestrogen in men regulate a menstrual cycle in men?

 

if you have evidence of this please report this immediately to doctors

 

" A fire is a fire my friend, how the fire acts does not change that it is a fire. "

 

which wasn't the point as i elaborated on above

 

"and besides that if men and women are pretty much the same why is this ad directed towards men specifically as if men are in fact different? as if it takes into account that men are more sexually predatory?"

 

i'm still waiting for your answer on this point



o_O.Q on 13 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:

Again, the ad could be better but it's only a product of the issue.  Akin to attacking the messenger (and message) rather than the underlying problem itself.

Should ads be produced that teach women how to prevent dangerous circumstances?  Damn good idea.  Should laws be enacted with stricter punishments for rape and false rape accusations?  Even better idea.

But if we don't understand why these kinds of ads (even these poor ones) are made in the first place, we are missing the bigger issue.  If we fight over the video, we ignore the real problem.  This is our problem.  We immediately wonder why they are attacking all of us men.  We wonder why they are accusing us of possibly being rapists just because we look, flirt or whistle.  We wonder why they see us as doing wrong just for being men.  When what we really should be wondering is why this kind of ad was needed in the first place. 

We look at ourselves individually and take umbrage for the accusation (granted every group does this regardless of association...race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc...).  But we fail to look at ourselves as a collective sex.  We fail to ask ourselves as men if we are really doing all we can to protect and prevent ourselves (as a group, not individually) from harming women.  It's a tough thing to reflect on because we'd rather put that repsonsibility elsewhere.

 


"  We fail to ask ourselves as men if we are really doing all we can to protect and prevent ourselves (as a group, not individually) from harming women."

 

what would you suggest we do to make women safer?