User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 189

  1. #131
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post


    This whole thing about a hierarchy of harm for the types of violence was started by Amargith when she claimed rape was the worst, period. If you're going to try to argue that one type of violence is worse than all others, then we need to start using objective measures, but I'm content with the blanket statement that all violence is bad and should be minimized. Different types of violence affect people differently and it would be incredibly difficult to quantify that objectively. And even if it was done, I'm not sure how applicable that information would be to any individual.
    Hold on there, cowboy. I said rape was detrimental to the psyche and FOR ME it was the worst thing possible to happen to me, even over murder. Don't go twisting my words. I was building up a picture to give you an idea of what something like that can do to a person and why it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, just because you seem to have trouble understanding it - which I get can be hard for men as it isnt something you are non-stop warned for or have to look out for as a woman. I *never* said anything explicitly about other types of crimes as those were not the topic of conversation, rape was. I know first hand what it is like to be robbed, and I wouldn't wish that kind terror on anyone either. But then robbing happens to both genders equally just about, and isn't as sensitive a topic as rape is, so the crime-part of it is more black and white. And yes, FOR ME, rape is the worst thing a person can do to me, as it violates just about every part of me and leaves scars for life.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  2. #132
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    You have odd definitions of direct and indirect.
    I was referring to innocent bystanders (people killed or injured by drunk drivers versus people being tangentially affected by the STDs and infidelity of loved ones). And we were not talking about rape, we were talking about drunk sex that is later regretted, the direct harm of which is a.) a consequence of freely chosen actions for all parties directly involved and b.) not nearly as dire as the consequences of drunk driving, in general.

    The laws you mention are odious (the second example is probably unconstitutional with respect to legal gun sales) for precisely that categorical reason (I'm referring to the indirect nature of the culpability, in this instance). There might be some things outside of market failures with sufficiently severe utilitarian consequences of an indirect nature that practicality has to take precedence over liberty, but if such exceptions do not cause moral or philosophical discomfort within people (and are therefore not enacted for relatively minor ends), the end result is a 'might makes right' system, with a chain of consequences distinct from that of a system that prioritizes liberty and free exchange.

  3. #133
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Yes.

    Both women and men should be a little more responsible in their drunken behavior, but if men were socially conditioned to only have sex with someone who was in a position to give clear consent, and to refuse it if she didn't, drunken "questionable" rape scenarios wouldn't happen. I think it may be true that in some women's minds it is acceptable to be promiscuous if they are drunk, because they are impressionable- meaning open to men's pressure, and in these cases they are putting responsibility for their sexuality onto men. This is irresponsible, but it is a product of the patriarchal culture which still exists. Yes women should be encouraged to take responsibility for their desires, but they shouldn't be blamed or criminalized for it.

    Also, as it's been pointed out, men are far less vulnerable to being victimized by women. It can happen, but only in extreme circumstances. Sexual assault just is a problem of men victimizing women, and there's nothing sexist about saying so. You can't really rape a man unless you do some serious bondage kind of scenario. If a woman takes advantage of a drunken man who regrets it then yeah, that is rape- but how often does that really happen?

    Men keep whining about how they are demonized by feminism, but that's not true. The patriarchal social institutions of oppression are not made up of a bunch of evil individual men- they are societal forces which combine to produce a collective state of being for women in a culture. Some men may have been wronged by things done in the name of feminism, which is unfortunate, but these are far outweighed by the women who suffer because of oppressive forces which are still in place. Until these are completely gone, some amount of collateral damage is just the reality. If we don't give women the benefit of the doubt, because the institutions of oppression are still partly in place, oppression will still exist. In a situation of imbalance of power, more power must be given to the more vulnerable entity in order to produce equality. That's just how it is.

    Women have been in a position of inequality in many parts of the world for centuries. The tide is starting to turn in some places, and in order to get to a place of equality there needs to be a backlash. It's not good to hate men, as in it's not going to be the end result, but it's a necessary step along the way. Eventually things will even out.

    The philosopher Hegel wrote about history in conjunction with his theory of logic, the dialectic method. In this there is a thesis or idea. Next comes the antithesis, the opposite of that idea. In the end people discover that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, ending in synthesis. The feminist movement is the same way. You have to allow for the antithesis of patriarchal oppression to take place in order to reach a synthesis.
    I think I should retract some of the bolded. Men can be raped, and it's a bigger problem than a lot of people think. It's still true that it affects women far more frequently, but we shouldn't trivialize men's experiences either. Men get raped and sexually assaulted by other men frequently, both as adults and as children, and child abuse is a huge problem.

  4. #134
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    A predator's a predator.
    Thats too simplistic.

  5. #135
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Thats too simplistic.
    How so? Most of them in my experience are about predatory behaviour, preferences play second fiddle

  6. #136
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    How so? Most of them in my experience are about predatory behaviour, preferences play second fiddle
    Ok what are we talking about here? Most of "them" who?

  7. #137
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Ok what are we talking about here? Most of "them" who?
    Predators.

  8. #138
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Predators.
    I feel that the distinction made between "rape" and "taking advantage of someone" is accurate. Not saying either are good. But one is obviously less bad than the other.

  9. #139
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Yeah, I get frustrated at language being changed too. It happens everywhere, not just in this context, and it adds needless bickering over terms to practically every argument. I'm not sure it's avoidable, though. For every person who thinks the dictionary definition should be followed, there's another person who thinks the most popular use should be followed (prescriptivism vs. some other word? struggling to remember my old language classes). I'm not sure if there really is a solution, beyond making sure that everyone is clear which definition is being used, as much as possible. (ex: feminist means a person who supports equal rights of men and women, according to the dictionary, but many people don't identify as feminist as they consider the word to have a different definition)

    Is there a word other than misogynist that means "sexist towards women"? Sexist is a good word too but it does get stale after a while, and it's useful to be able to specify the gender involved. I assume that's why "misogyny" has come to mean "sexist against women" rather than hatred of women. Language tends to evolve to fill a need.
    This isn't even about prescriptivism vs whatever. It's just a loud minority trying to water down those definitions. It's a tactic right-wing talk radio also uses.

    Yeah, I'm not cool with that. That kinda thing is horrific. I've never really understood why people joke about it - I've heard a lot of guys joking about that stuff too. I'm not convinced it's a specifically sexist/misandrist thing, but I agree that it's a pretty offensive thing to be joking about - on par with joking about rape, I'd say. Although I suppose relative frequency might also be relevant here - it seems like freak accidents are often joked about, whereas more common things aren't. She's pretty unlikely to offend any guys that have been mutilated like that since it hardly ever happens. Joking about rape or female genital mutilation, on the other hand, is likely to offend some of the millions of women (or their loved ones) who have been affected by them.
    There's a big difference between the "joking" going on between friends and it happening on national television. I know you're really searching for a non-sexist reason for why the joke is acceptable, but I just don't buy it. There's a simpler explanation. The victim is male and THAT is what makes it funny.

    I said "historically more powerful". I'm sure you wouldn't argue that men have historically held far more power than women, although things have evened out considerably in recent years (and with the exception of a few important situations, "average" men and women are fairly equally non-powerful these days). Kinda like how white people have historically been more powerful than minorities, even things are considerably more equal these days. That kind of history takes time to die, and it also takes a better level of equality (for both sexism and racism) before the history is truly not relevant to things like how jokes are received.
    The guy who had his penis cut off was not historically powerful. He's just a guy who had his penis cut off. I seriously doubt he's comforted by the fact that men held more positions of power than women in the past. But I could be wrong. Maybe we should ask him.

    I think encouraging people to step outside of traditional gender roles (both on an individual and societal level) will go a long way towards achieving this equality, although I do think that things like physical differences, subconscious sexism/racism, and history mean that true equality will take more than just scrupulously treating everyone absolutely identically in every case. (ex: should a black person and white person be treated equally for their use of the N-word?). The effort should be more on achieving equal results, rather than strictly equal treatment, because equal treatment ignores the fact that we don't all start on equal ground. This isn't limited to gender, either - an analogous situation could be providing free lunches to kids who are starving (but not the rich kids), or a teacher spending an extra 20 minutes with the kid who's having a hard time getting that math problem (and less time with the kids who already understand).
    Yeah, I'm just gonna say...no thanks. I'm not interested in living in Harrison Bergeron's world or anything even resembling it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #140
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    There's a big difference between the "joking" going on between friends and it happening on national television. I know you're really searching for a non-sexist reason for why the joke is acceptable, but I just don't buy it. There's a simpler explanation. The victim is male and THAT is what makes it funny.
    To be clear, I don't think it's acceptable at all, whether between friends or on national television (and even a "forced apology" the next day shows that it isn't universally acceptable either). I was just pointing out why a similar joke about a woman would be commonly recognized as even less acceptable, due to the history (and ongoing presence) of widespread female genital mutilation that is at the same level as a man's penis being cut off. So you're way less likely to hear jokes about that. I can't really comment on why some people find it funny, because I do not, but I really doubt that they're laughing simply because a man is being hurt - my guess is that the "humour" is more related to "people doing bizarre things" with maybe a side of "look how edgy I am talking about penises on TV". I guess I can't say for sure, but I don't see any rationale for his "maleness" being the reason.
    The guy who had his penis cut off was not historically powerful. He's just a guy who had his penis cut off. I seriously doubt he's comforted by the fact that men held more positions of power than women in the past. But I could be wrong. Maybe we should ask him.
    He's more powerful than a 10 year old girl in a country with common FGM, which would be the parallel here. He's also (probably) more physically powerful than a woman in his situation would be likely to be. That isn't the point, though - the point is not at all that it's acceptable to joke about someone being mutilated because he's more powerful than some other people in the world. The point is that it's even less acceptable to joke about someone being mutilated when they are of a group that has historically been powerless to stop similar mutilations. That's why you'd have more of an outrage if a similar joke was made about a mutilated woman. Again, though, I don't think either is acceptable.

    Yeah, I'm just gonna say...no thanks. I'm not interested in living in Harrison Bergeron's world or anything even resembling it.
    We can agree to disagree here. I do think equal treatment is best in most cases, but I also don't think it's right to ignore inherent (or culturally-derived) differences between groups that lead to unfair disadvantages. In general, these are better addressed by trying to fix the disadvantage at the source rather than using crude methods like affirmative action, but that's a whole other topic. In many areas the disadvantage isn't big enough to make a huge difference, but there can be a cumulative effect of either many small disadvantages exacerbating each other, or of a small initial difference snowballing (like maybe a small sexist bias in hiring frequency and/or starting salary for college grads, which have both been convincingly shown for STEM fields at the very least - I'll dig up the study if you like).
    -end of thread-

Similar Threads

  1. "Don't be that guy" / "don't be that girl"
    By asynartetic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 11:21 PM
  2. Don't be that guy, please...
    By Rail Tracer in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2013, 10:47 PM
  3. ISFJ girl....please don't be afraid!
    By Little Laura in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 11:55 AM
  4. BroRape Awareness: Don't be a Victim!
    By Nonsensical in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 10:14 PM
  5. To Be or Not to Be...That is the Question!!
    By Winds of Thor in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 05:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO