Nov 062014
 

Yesterday over on Malflic, Alice King — who does not identify as a feminist — posted A Females Perspective on Extreme Feminists. In it, she offers criticisms of feminism, and more specifically, “the feminist movement.” She addresses feminism as if it’s a singular, unified, coherent monolith with agreed upon goals, approaches, and beliefs, most of which are extreme, anti-male, and completely counter to what most feminists endorse. She also discusses the need for gender bias in certain professions and her concerns over men’s rights and false rape allegations.

I appreciate that Alice invites discussion, despite her allusion to past negative experiences discussing such matters: “It amazes me that those with differing views can not or will not debate it. It always just goes to name calling and how could I not stand up for women’s right.”

I accept the challenge. :) I disagree with Alice on almost all of her points, I can debate it, and I will…. all without name calling.

In an effort to respond thoughtfully and fully, I’m going to respond her statements and arguments by topic.

(To the 3.5 readers who haven’t already tuned out, who are interested in this stuff, what’s after the jump is better than what comes before it. I organized the topics roughly in order of importance (to me), but I also wanted to include a jump link to spare those readers who are annoyed when I post anything that isn’t fucking and failure.)

Topics:
The Goals of Feminism and Feminists
Work Equality and Gender Bias
Rape, Teaching Men Not To Rape, and Women’s Accountability
line-break-flourish-sm

On The Goals of Feminism and Feminists

I am in no way shape or form a feminist and I honestly find the feminist movement in its current form to be extreme and a detriment to what others have done in the past for women’s rights. Many will be wondering how I could think such a thing as others will automatically believe I have been brainwashed in some way by the men in my life. Sorry to tell you but just because I have a cunt does not mean I am feminist nor that I agree with any of the current goals of the feminist movement.

What is the “current form” of “the feminist movement” and what are its “current goals”? Your post opposes stances and goals that most feminists don’t actually endorse. It’s troubling when those opposed to feminism use the most extreme statements as a sort of all encompassing straw man stand-in for “feminism” in order to argue against it. While it’s probably easier to argue against a movement with a unified agenda, feminism is not that movement.

In reality, there is no singular, united feminist movement, nor one feminist agenda, nor one feminist goal. There are different strands and strains of feminism with different ideologies, beliefs, approaches, and goals. As with most broad, largely incohesive political/ideological umbrellas, some voices are louder than others. That’s a big part of the “feminist infighting” happening in media lately — we don’t all have the same views or goals, and unfortunately, the ones spouting more “extreme” views are those who shout the loudest (and of course, the loudest and most extreme views garner more attention than moderate ones).

I am not for this stance of women are the same as men. We are not and honestly if one wants to be a man then go for it. Stop trying to pigeon hole all women into every aspect of the world.

Most feminists do not believe, nor do they endorse, the idea that men and women are the same. They endorse equality, as in equal opportunity, equal treatment, and equal rights. Pigeon-holing implies the application of unfair or prescriptive roles, restrictions, and limitations, and that is something most feminisms oppose.

Seriously is this the ultimate end goal of feminists? To push society to the point that men are below them and fear for legal actions if they actually behave like men?

No, making men “less than” women isn’t the goal of feminism (certainly not the feminists I know or read), nor is making women “more than” men a goal of feminism. The goal is equality — a level playing field.

As for men fearing “legal actions if they actually behave like men,” what does that mean, exactly, to “behave like men”? Men are people and people behave in wildly different ways — some good ways, some bad ways, and some legally actionable ways. Good, bad, and criminal behaviors aren’t gendered.

Part of the trouble is the perceived naturalness and universality of gendered behaviors in general. Being enculturated to believe that men are (or should be) this way or that way hurts everyone — men, women, and those outside and between the gender binary.

This truly is a major turning point in our society as men are pushed to the corner and being made to feel inferior for even being a gentlemen. Sorry ladies you can’t have it both ways. One can not teach boys to be gentlemen and to have manners only to be later told they are rude and as women you do not need a door opened for you.

Even if there was one, singular, united feminist agenda, unwanted door opening would be pretty low on the list of things to fight against (if it was there at all). I can’t speak for all feminists, or any feminists but myself, but I don’t give a flying fuck about who does or does not open a door for me. I think opening and holding doors is polite — I’ve never stopped anyone from doing it, I’ve never been offended by it, and I do it for others all the time.

As for the more serious issues on various feminist agendas, I can speak to issues I am (and most feminists are) interested in. I am interested in workplace equality, not being dismissed or generally treated as “less than” my male colleagues. I’m interested in being and feeling safe, in ending street harassment,  public catcalls, unwanted commentary about my appearance, and threatening behavior; and I’m also interested in not being insulted or called names when I respond politely or when I don’t respond at all. I’m interested in my safety and bodily autonomy, in not being touched without my consent, in not being physically or sexually assaulted, and not being raped.

None of that has anything to do with making men feel inferior. My want for comfort, safety, and equality isn’t about diminishing men nor does it actually diminish men.

On Work Equality and Gender Bias

No I do not believe women can or should be in any and all positions men are. We are not built the same and honestly this competition as if we are just like men makes feminists look as if they are ashamed to be women. To me if the requirements for a position need to be changed or altered in any way so women can be included then they were never meant to be in that position. Are we honestly that happy that the requirements to be a cop are lower than they were @30 years ago? I know I am not.

In some specific situations, I agree. If there is a justified requirement for a position — meaning that only individuals who meet that requirement can effectively perform their job duties — anyone who doesn’t meet that requirement shouldn’t be in that position.

Since you mentioned law enforcement positions, I’m going to use that in setting up a hypothetical, but reasonable, context. (The specifics are made up and over simplified, but the point is still valid.)

Let’s say scientific studies have determined the average criminal suspect is 150 pounds. Based on that information, law enforcement agencies have agreed that minimum requirements for officer positions should include the ability to lift a 150 lbs (the average weight of a criminal suspect) off the ground for ten seconds (because in my pretend hypothetical world, that’s what it takes to get a suspect under control).

If an individual can’t do that, if they can’t lift 150 lbs off the ground for ten seconds, then the individual doesn’t meet minimum requirements and they shouldn’t be in the position.

But such standards aren’t always determined by science, nor universally agreed upon, nor absolute and consistently enforced. Cursorily (and in reality), I skimmed some articles about gender-based standards in law enforcement, and a few acknowledged the same problem, a problem which suggests physical standards are not scientific, agreed upon, absolute, or consistently enforced, and that opens the door to unfair gender bias (or perhaps more accurately, unfair physical/performance bias).

Minimum physical requirements for admission to and completion of many police academies are assessed at the time of potential hiring, but never assessed or enforced after officers graduate from the academy. As the years go by, officers get “out of shape” — meaning they can no longer meet the requirements under which they were hired — but they are never reassessed and never made to meet those requirements again. Even though they can’t meet a requirement that was a condition of their hiring, a requirement to be a law enforcement officer, they are not removed from their positions. They can still be police officers even though they don’t meet requirements.

So, back to the hypothetical. So a young woman starting her career who cannot lift 150 lbs cannot be a law enforcement officer, but a 40 year old man who cannot lift the 150 pounds can be a law enforcement officer.

If law enforcement officers are required to lift 150 pounds because lifting 150 lbs is a vital component of being an effective officer, any person who cannot lift 150 pounds shouldn’t be a police officer. Right? But they are.

(Allow me to anticipate a response…)

Yes, but the 40 year old male officer who can’t lift 150 pounds has the experience and skills that make him a valuable member of his profession… even though he can’t lift 150 lbs. He should still be an officer because his other assets outweigh an unmet requirement.

Agreed. If a 40 year old male who can’t lift 150 lbs has skills that make him valuable and employable, might a young woman who also can’t lift 150 lbs also have skills or learn skills and also be valuable to law enforcement? Of course.

So what about that requirement? Since some officers who can’t lift 150 lbs can be officers, then obviously, it’s not an actual requirement to perform the duties of the job. If it’s not a requirement to have the job, why is it a requirement to get the job?

If it’s not important to perform the perform the duties of the job, but it’s still a requirement, and if it excludes people who can’t meet it, and if the people who are  excluded are disproportionately female, then the requirement unfairly discriminates against those who can’t reach it.

On Teaching Men Not To Rape and Women’s Accountability

I hear battle cries about teaching boys not to rape. Sorry but no one teaches anyone to rape!

You’re right, of course — no one is teaching classes on “how to rape girls” — but that’s a bit reductive.

We do live in a culture where we teach everyone that men’s violence against and harassment of women is natural, acceptable, and excusable because it’s just ‘men behaving like men.’ We live in a culture where wearing a short skirt is an invitation or justification for sexual harassment or sexual assault because ‘she’s asking for it’ or ‘she must really want it.’ We live in a culture where people believe that a woman who is sexually active with multiple partners, she is ‘a slut,’ and therefore she either must be accepting of everyone’s sexual advances/violence/harassment or she deserves it. The teaching isn’t explicit — it’s enculturation — and it happens every time people shrug off or excuse groping on the train, sexual comments on the street, or sexual assault at parties as ‘men behaving like men.’

We teach (or at least, we don’t correct) those ideas — that boys will be boys, that men can’t control themselves, that it’s women’s fault for causing men to have urges, etc. We endorse the idea that it’s not really rape if she was drunk/slutty/stupid/irresponsible because “she was asking for it.” That doesn’t explicitly teach men to rape per se, but it does teach men (and women) that rape is something people must protect themselves from rather than something that people shouldn’t do.

I also see women refusing to take accountable [sic] for their own actions. One can not say oh I was stupid and went out by myself dressed like a slut but even though I was drunk and might have said yes I was raped. Regretting ones actions and the consequences should not mean that others should be held accountable for your actions.

You paint a picture of a hypothetical woman who is alone, drunk, and dressed like a slut — that is clear. What is unclear is whether she gave consent, is unsure about giving consent, or lying about giving consent (which is it?) Despite the obscurity of her consent, you seem to suggest the hypothetical woman makes a false rape allegation because she regrets her actions. Did her actions include giving consent? Because consent is all that matters.

Her being alone, drunk, and dressed provocatively have NOTHING to do with whether or not she said yes, and NOTHING to do with whether or not she was raped. Those other details — either individually or together — do not equal consent. Being out alone is not consent for sexual intercourse. Being ‘dressed like a slut’ is not consent for sexual intercourse. Being drunk is not consent for sexual intercourse.

An affirmative, enthusiastic “yes” is consent for sexual intercourse.

If she said yes, and then claimed rape against the person with whom she had consensual intercourse, she should face criminal charges and be punished for her crime.

If she didn’t say “yes,” she was raped. If she was raped, the person who raped her is responsible. She is not responsible for being raped, even if she was alone, drunk, and dressed provocatively. Rape is not a consequence of her actions. Being raped is suffering the consequence of her rapist’s actions.

For the record, a woman being drunk doesn’t change the situation. If she is drunk, but not so drunk that she can’t give enthusiastic consent, if she says “yes,” it’s not rape.

(Allow me to anticipate a response…)

But how does anyone know when drunk is too drunk?

Can she give enthusiastic consent? If she can, she’s not too drunk.

If you (the universal you) aren’t sure whether a potential partner is too drunk to consent, don’t have sex with that person. If you’re concerned your potential partner is so drunk they might later regret their actions, or your actions, don’t have sex with that person. If you’re concerned your potential partner isn’t sure about wanting to have sex, don’t have sex with that person.

Excuse the language here, but no one is forcing you (anyone) to have sex with a drunk person. You aren’t obligated to have sex with that person, or any person, whether she is drunk, sober, or somewhere in between. So, if there’s any doubt, don’t have sex with that person. Then, the issue of impairment and consent isn’t a grey area any more — it’s black and white. If there’s a doubt, don’t have sex with that impaired, unsure, or unenthusiastic person.

While it’s an admittedly crude comparison, lots of other people make similar decisions in situations where the other person may be too drunk to consent to something, or in situations where the other person may later regret their decisions. Lots of tattoo and piercing artists seem to handle it just fine. To the best of my knowledge, in most states, it isn’t illegal to tattoo or pierce a person who is drunk — a drunk person can come in, request a tattoo or piercing, and the provider can do it. It’s legal.

But most don’t. They use good judgment — if they think the client is too drunk, or might regret the decision, they don’t do it. They don’t want clients to wake up with tattoos or piercings they regret, nor do they want to open themselves up to potential (or attempted) legal action. I’m sure they want to do the work and collect the money, but for the reasons above, they don’t. Lots of people and professions abide by similar guidelines.

I understand that in your hypothetical, your concern is false rape allegations. Certainly, false rape allegations is a serious issue and people who make false rape accusations should be brought on charges, found guilty, and punished accordingly. Neither rape nor false rape allegations should be acceptable, but  since rape is far more prevalent than false rape allegations, one is a much bigger cultural problem than the other.

  29 Responses to “response: a feminist’s perspective on anti-feminist inaccuracies”

  1. I’m glad I never saw the original post because just the excerpts you pulled made my blood boil. I agree with you on every point you made. Glad you can show people that the topic can be debated without the name calling, although I had no doubt it was possible.

    I have 2 boys. No they won’t be taught “how to rape” but I will teach them that they have no right to anyone’s body, that consent is a requirement, and that they better damn well treat everyone with respect (regardless of gender). I think that girls need to understand how to protect themselves because bad people exist and do bad things but no one who is raped should be forced to bear the responsibility of their rape. Only their rapist should.

    With regards to false allegations, I saw a statistic (not sure how true it is) that only a very small percentage of reported rapes are false and the scarier statistic is that the vast majority of rapes are never reported – because victims believe they’re at fault or know they’ll never get justice.

    • I will teach them that they have no right to anyone’s body, that consent is a requirement, and that they better damn well treat everyone with respect (regardless of gender).

      Exactly! And I’m sure that if you were the mother of two girls instead of two boys, you’d do the exact same thing.

      girls need to understand how to protect themselves because bad people exist

      Absolutely, 100% agreed. That was the only point (I think) that I agreed with in one of the videos Alice posted (though Alice didn’t address women’s protection directly). We can do both — we can teach kids (and people) not to rape and we can also teach people how to protect themselves from rape.

  2. I’m not a feminist. I don’t care about debating it one way or the other, but I admit to being amused when some of those loud-shouting feminists you mentioned don’t understand why I prefer to forgo that label. Personally, I believe in equality, period. And because I believe in equality, I tend to disagree with Alice King. Though in the title of her article she did say that she was addressing extreme feminists, not those of the more logical variety.

    I do find one of your observations particularly interesting, though. By your description, feminism would seem to be a very loose, semi-nondescript ideal that may or may not have a common or even kind-of common goal. If that’s the case, then why even bother with the title of feminist? It’s a little like staking claim to a question mark. And this is a genuine question. How is it a way of identifying yourself if there are no true identifying marks?

    That said, for the most part I agree with what you’ve said, but the issue of this hypothetical drunk woman kind of rankles. It assumes that the other person, the accused, was stone cold sober which may or may not have been true. This being a hypothetical, and one addressing the hypothetical of someone else, I do understand why this wasn’t taken into account but it’s one of those arguments that always kind of irks me, partially because I know a guy who fell into the two-drunk-people-make-a-mistake category. If you have two drunk people, both adults, one is not responsible for the actions of the other and vice versa. That whole example is always a pet-peeve just because it usually assumes the girl is drunk and the guy is sober which isn’t very equal at all.

    Anyway, enjoyed the post. I’m sure the rest of the 3.5 will too.

    • I admit to being amused when some of those loud-shouting feminists you mentioned don’t understand why I prefer to forgo that label.

      I do. I’m a ‘moderate,’ but I do understand many of the reasons why people choose to abandon the label.

      By your description, feminism would seem to be a very loose, semi-nondescript ideal that may or may not have a common or even kind-of common goal. If that’s the case, then why even bother with the title of feminist? It’s a little like staking claim to a question mark. And this is a genuine question. How is it a way of identifying yourself if there are no true identifying marks?

      That’s a fair question, and a good one. In points, because that’s how I roll. :)

      First, like lots of other ideological/political/social umbrellas, feminism has its outliers. At the risk of diminishing any of the following identifiers, identities, or positions, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Animal Rights Activists, Environmentalists, Second Amendment Supporters (NRA, gun enthusiasts, hunters)… they all have outliers that mainstream, measured members don’t endorse. Those extremists don’t speak for the majority of people who identify as [whatever the label].

      Second, feminism (my feminism) is something I believe in, and it’s something I believe is worth fighting for. Rather than abandoning the label, I want to take it back from those who have co-opted it for agendas I don’t support.

      Third, I have a small sphere of feminists I work with, and rejecting the label because of the outliers would mean rejecting them too. Part of the reason I don’t reject the label is all the amazing men and women I know who do amazing things for people in the name of feminism (and equality, and human rights, and just being a good person).

    • I do identify as a feminist, specifically I identify as an intersectional feminist. Feminism has, throughout its history, gone through a number of ideological and tactical revolutions. Today, feminism is largely split between intersectional feminism and “rad” feminism, though each of those are vague groupings with numerous undefined variations. Then in between those groups are the moderates who for various reasons do not identify as either rad or intersectional. (Rejection of radical feminism’s extremism and lack of knowledge of intersectional feminism are both common, but far from the only reasons).

      I could, as many do, refuse the label feminist because of the vagueness of the term or because I reject radical feminism would rather focus on “equality” than reforming feminism from the inside. But I believe feminism has done a lot of good in the world, and because of the history and recognition it has the movement, has the “weight” in the world to do much more–both good and bad. I refuse to surrender that name, that history, that power to change the world to the (IMO) disgusting female superiority, gender essentialism, and professional victimization of the radical branch of feminism.

      • But I believe feminism has done a lot of good in the world, and because of the history and recognition it has the movement, has the “weight” in the world to do much more–both good and bad.

        Exactly. Well said, Jessica. :)

  3. Really well reasoned responses, kudos to you!

    Unfortunately, I doubt she will listen to them or be moved by them. Just from the snippets you have included, she sounds like someone highly biased. Huge confirmation biases. And the mere fact that she lumps all feminists into an extreme characterization, suggests she tends to be prejudiced.

    But your responses are great for us more reasonable people to ponder and remember for when the conversations come up, so thank you for posting.

    Regards,

    greg

    • Thanks, Greg. :)

      As for confirmation biases, we’ve all got them. I think the key is to be aware of them and to make them clear if we’re able… but of course, I’m biased. ;)

      • Of course. And I think you dl a good job of that, based on your writing. You seem to value introspection and critical thinking.

        But she does not seem well equipped to do that, based on what you shared here. too many people are highly biased, unfortunately. And they do not see that.

        Cheers!

        • Kinda sad Greg that even though the link to my blog was right at the start of this post you chose to skim by it and not read the article in its entirety prior to making such thought provoking statements in regards to me and my views on extreme feminism,

          • You are right. It is best to go back to the source material, my bad.

            So I did. And I have read all the comments here. As far as I can see, and especially in your original post, my comments and assessment is still accurate. Perhaps if I was having a face to face dialogue with you, I would see it differently. Text is a very poor medium for dialogue, of course.

            However, you original article and you further comments all seem to support my impression, unfortunately.

            Respectfully,

            greg

        • Greg, I appreciate you actually taking the time to read my original post. Sadly there is no reply button directly to your last comment so I will reply here with a question that I have been thinking about since your original comment. Just how exactly is a woman biased about or towards feminism or female equality? Personally my only thought is that some believe me to be a man and yes I have run across that before thus me asking your view on using the term biased.

          • Yes, I never know why sometimes the reply button is removed after a series of posts. Perhaps there is a limit on how long a string of replies can be? Shrug, surprised me too.

            Sorry for the confusion. When I say biased, I am speaking in terms of the logic and evidence you are using in your argument or the case you are making.

            It is very difficult for people (humans) to do a good job of being objective and logical. We are not wired for that. Instead, we are wired to see patterns (whether they exist or not), see correlation but believe it is cause and effect, and to cherry pick and use the stuff that supports our argument, rather than objectively considering and reporting both sides and acknowledging the flaws in out thinking.

            In your original piece and subsequent replies here, you seem to be biased in that you use what I think are pretty narrowly constructed examples and only evidence that supports your case. I realize that you may have wanted to limit the length of your essay and left those things out for that reason. But I have only your text to understand you.

            However, in addition, your replies to various posts here, you also seem to ignore that issue that is brought up, that is apparently contrary to your argument, and, instead reinforce the things you have already said. A good example is the issue of consent that was raised.

            Regards

  4. I like your analogy about the tattoo artist, but I’ve often thought a good analogy might be a man who gets drunk in a bar wearing a $10,000 watch. Yes, that may be a foolish decision that increases his chances of getting robbed, and if he is robbed, some people will say he was stupid and asking for it. But the police will still investigate the crime, no one will try to claim that because he made a foolish decisions he wasn’t actually robbed, he just gave the watch away. But if a women gets drunk in a bar and is raped, her ‘foolish’ decision to get drunk is all the justification people need to say “if she didn’t want to have sex she wanted have gotten drunk.” or “Just because she was passed out drunk doesn’t make it rape.”

    • I like the watch analogy.
      And I really like your points, Dumb Domme.

    • The watch analogy is a great one, particularly because of the comparison about police — police would still investigate a stolen watch, in large part because it’s valuable. Police might not investigate a women who was raped because women aren’t worth as much and because it happens all the time.

      Still, I like the tattoo artists analogy because it addresses what appears to be a question from people about how to deal with potential partners who might be “too drunk.”

  5. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your response to her article and as usual, all of your points are well presented. I find it interesting that while the author stated; “I am over the use of false stats that make it appear that women are victims of some poor system”, yet is not above resorting to half truths to argue her point. I will cite two of them.

    The first one is when the author, speaking about gender equality in the workplace, blithely asks “Are we honestly that happy that the requirements to be a cop are lower than they were @30 years ago? I know I am not.” and then goes on to make the assumption that such is the case. Now, I will agree that, in certain cases, the quality of recruits has lowered but not because of women applicants. Rather, it has to do with such things as character issues, and lack of education and/or interpersonal skills. I found an article on this very thing on the ‘Police Link’ website and never once is it mentioned that requirements for the job have needed to be lowered. If anything, the bar has been raised for potential recruits in order for them to work an increasingly high tech environment.

    The second one is when she stated: “One can not say oh I was stupid and went out by myself dressed like a slut but even though I was drunk and might have said yes I was raped”. She completely overlooks the fact that in approximately 75 percent of rapes cases, the perpetrator is someone that the victim already knows. A woman is far more likely to be raped by a friend, spouse, or funny uncle than she is by an unknown fiend, lurking in the dark. This is not about teaching boys to be afraid to be gentlemen, but rather about teaching them respect for the personal integrity, and proper boundaries for all people, including casual dates, girlfriends, female co-workers, strangers on the street, and wives.

    The reason why I have never been especially comfortable with the word “feminist” is because, like the words “communist” or “atheist” it can be used to lump an entire group of people, with very divergent points of view, into one easily assailable category. I believe that to be the case in this particular article.

  6. I now call myself a ‘Feminatarian” as in a portmanteau of sorts……feminist and humanitarian.
    I would elaborate….but need to drown my sorrows with the recent election results.
    Must go find Tacos. :)

  7. A cool, patient dissection of the good lady’s farrago of straw man arguments.

    Could it be that what’s going on here is this: feminism, while it has many voices and many different positions on specific issues, is at root a progressive movement that opposes the economic, social, and sexual oppression of women. Like all such movements it challenges conservatism and provokes reactionary counter-narratives.

    There are useful idiots a-plenty, some of them women alas, who espouse the reactionary agenda and push back against progress even while draping themselve in the colours of the progressive cause.

    The most egregiously duplicitous of these commentators are those arrivistes, who, having benefited from the gains that women have undoubtedly made in certain societies over the past fifty years, seek to put a brake on the ‘extremism’ of those who know that the struggle is far from over.

  8. I will first start with a huge thank you for a very well thought out and written response to my original post. I will admit I am a little disappointed that many here would make assumptions and statements here however did not take the time to read my original post or bother to comment on it.

    As one response pointed out my post is about extreme feminists. I am learning from many online interactions that feminists as a whole on both sides of the pond are very very different. In many ways I find the term feminist self limiting as I personally prefer to stand for equal rights for all period.

    As for my comments in regards to job requirements for cops I am speaking from personal experience. Once again what is required here in the states may vary widely than on the other side of the pond. My Father was a New York State Trooper. He is 81 years old so to say he is from the old school would be an understatement. Just the physical requirements alone have changed drastically being as when he applied one had to be 6 feet tall minimum. Do I believe the height requirement should be there. Not necessarily however I have watched the general public totally change their posturing with Troopers from instant respect from their shear presence to looking upon many as doughnut eating jokes. My brother is currently a cop and to say it bothered me that at times short females were his back up is an understatement. The physical minimal requirements should not have to be altered as far as strength and such in order to include women. It is putting not only the public in harms way but fellow officers as well.

    My views on physical requirements are the same with the military. I get that some women want to serve however once again work to meet the requirements don’t fight to get them lowered so more females can be in.

    As for my analogy in regards to rape I will say I stand by it. Am I being cold? Perhaps some if not many will view it as such. I however am tired of hearing about people should be able to put themselves in harms way and blame everyone else for what happens. Seriously look at what happens in a bar and answer one question for me. If you want to stand up and say the man (or whomever the rapist was) should have known better because the women was drunk would you also consider the fact the the rapist was also perhaps drunk and in their poor judgement took their actions as meaning yes? It goes both ways.

    Also, as for many comments in regards to parts of my blog I have one suggestion. Perhaps people need to actually read the blog in its entirety and watch the vids that I included previous to making statements in reference to comments taken out of context. There is a high chance their view may change when actually taking the time to address what video got me going on this topic in the first place.

    • Once again what is required here in the states may vary widely than on the other side of the pond.

      I’m not sure who you’re referring to “on the other side of the pond”? I’m in the US (native), and I’m 99% sure Kayla, Jess, Slapshot, Jess, Cammies, and Vanessa are too. I believe Ashley and Greg are in the US. To the best of my knowledge, GoS is the only person on this thread who isn’t.

      The physical minimal requirements should not have to be altered as far as strength and such in order to include women. It is putting not only the public in harms way but fellow officers as well. My views on physical requirements are the same with the military. I get that some women want to serve however once again work to meet the requirements don’t fight to get them lowered so more females can be in.

      While you’re absolutely entitled to your views (and certainly, having family in law enforcement might inform anyone’s perspective,) your comment doesn’t address my point about the arbitrary nature of such requirements and their questionable importance to fulfillment of the job.

      I however am tired of hearing about people should be able to put themselves in harms way and blame everyone else for what happens.

      I understand being tired. Some of us are tired of being told where we shouldn’t go, what we shouldn’t wear, and what we shouldn’t do in order to avoid being sexually harassed or assaulted. Theoretically, women have the right to go about their business unharmed — regardless of where they’re going, what they’re wearing, and what they’re doing (as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else). While I absolutely advocate (and practice) common sense safety, I choose to continue working toward a reality where going on a date, walking down the street, or going to a bar doesn’t mean I’m putting myself in danger. Because, seriously… that sucks. That isn’t freedom. Common sense safety shouldn’t include having to avoid other human beings because they might rape/harass me.

      Seriously look at what happens in a bar and answer one question for me. If you want to stand up and say the man (or whomever the rapist was) should have known better because the women was drunk would you also consider the fact the the rapist was also perhaps drunk and in their poor judgement took their actions as meaning yes? It goes both ways.

      First, you’ve already said he’s a rapist. Second, assuming you didn’t intend to call him a rapist, the only thing that matters is this: Did they both give consent? I care far more about whether consent was given than how drunk either or both parties were. Third, some men don’t even have to be drunk to “take [a woman’s] actions as meaning yes” in situations where a woman hasn’t given consent. The ubiquity of “she was asking for it,” “she really wanted it,” and “she’s a slut” suggest men take women’s manner of dress, behaviors, and sexual history as consent(? as permission? as a right?) when no consent was given. Again, the question shouldn’t be “How drunk was he/she?” The question should be “Did each partner give enthusiastic consent?”

      Frankly, suggesting “it goes both ways” is ridiculous, even in the context of your hypothetical. Even if we assume a man and woman are both drunk out of their minds, the worst case scenario is that one party is raped and the other party rapes. Rape isn’t a two way street — for a rape to occur, one person does the raping, the other person is raped.

      Also, as for many comments in regards to parts of my blog I have one suggestion. Perhaps people need to actually read the blog in its entirety and watch the vids that I included previous to making statements in reference to comments taken out of context. There is a high chance their view may change when actually taking the time to address what video got me going on this topic in the first place.

      I absolutely agree. Everyone should read your post in its entirety and view the videos so they can judge for themselves.

      But… honestly, what have I taken out of context?

      Very little of what you wrote was a direct response to specific material in the videos. For that reason, the videos don’t provide any additional context that might alter someone’s interpretation of your text. You said the first video (“Potty-Mouthed Princesses”; transcript) got you thinking, and the second video (“Potty-Mouthed Princesses Parody”; transcript) states your views well (you’re over “false stats” in regards to the wage gap).

      The third video (Karen Straughan speaking at CAFE event; transcript) is the only one you’re specific about, but frankly, I think your comments totally mischaracterize the words of the young woman in it (not Straughan, a young woman in the audience who comes forward to ask a question).

      After the video you ask, “Seriously is this the ultimate end goal of feminists? To push society to the point that men are below them and fear for legal actions if they actually behave like men? This has nothing what so ever to do with equal rights. I do not need big brother involved in my world any more than he is. In fact I want him out of my world totally!”

      The woman in the third video doesn’t mention any of those things.

      She does not say her goal, or feminists’ goal, is to “push society to the point that men are below them.”
      She does not say anything about legal repercussions for men who “behave like men.”
      She does not say anything about “big brother.” (The second video mentions “big brother” — perhaps you put your comment in the wrong place?)

      The young woman’s question seemed aimed at arguing men don’t need safe spaces on campuses in the same way that women, queer individuals, and trans* individuals need safe spaces on campuses (because, she argues, men are not the victims of systematic oppression and, therefore, all spaces are safe for men). Obviously, her “question” wasn’t really a question (clearly, her intent was to oppose the speaker’s views about men’s spaces), and I would agree the event wasn’t “for her.” But with that said, the young woman didn’t call anyone names, she was fair in her acknowledgement of issues that disproportionately affect men (work related suicide, workplace violence), and she said nothing that put men down or belittle them.

      I can understand why people might disagree with her on the subject of men’s spaces, but I can’t see anything shocking in her statements, and clearly, she didn’t mention any of the topics or issues you posed rhetorical questions about.

      More than that, one of the young woman’s final statements (what you found shocking?) made more sense than anyone elses in response to Karen Straughan’s “evidence” of men’s systematic oppression.

      Straughan argues: “I think that when a six-year-old girl can hit another child and get away with it, and never ever have to suffer retaliation because [the person she hit is] a boy, okay, I think that’s systematic. [. . .] if the system intervenes and punishes the boy for hitting back, right, it’s systematic.”

      What Straughan alludes to — the context she draws on — is the first question in the video. A father details a schoolyard event in which his 13 year old son (in 8th grade) was “slapped across the head” and verbally taunted by a 6 year old girl (in 1st grade). Straughan uses that context to argue it is unfair that the 13 year old boy can’t “retaliate” against the 6 year old girl who hit him; she argues that it would be unfair if the 13 year old is punished for hitting back against his six year old aggressor. This, Straughan argues, is evidence of men’s systematic oppression.

      A 13 year old should be able to retaliate — to hit back — against a six year old?! In Straughan’s view, that is fair. < -- That? That is shocking. The young woman is the only one who contributed a rational response: “Nobody should be hitting anybody in the first place.” Again, people should see/read for themselves before forming an opinion: Karen Straughan speaking at CAFE event; transcript.

      • All I will say is thank you for stating your views.If you are unable to differentiate between a desk jockey in any job and a cop on the street that is your issue. No different than military as far as job requirements.

        I love how you instantly go to no one should hit yet ignore the fact that girls are becoming the aggressors. You do pick and choose what you want to take out of a video or a persons blog. Again your issue not mine as you preferred to bring the discussion onto your blog and remain off of mine.

        Good day

        • I love how you instantly go to no one should hit yet ignore the fact that girls are becoming the aggressors.

          Those weren’t my words. I quoted the woman in the video — the one you found “shocking.”

          You do pick and choose what you want to take out of a video or a persons blog.

          In a good faith effort to be absolutely sure I understood your words in context, I transcribed (and linked to) all three of the videos you posted. I’m not sure what you think I’m picking and choosing?

          Since you’re accusing me (for the second time) of taking your words out of context, again, I invite you to point out how (or where) I’ve done that. If you’re not prepared to give examples or an explanation, then you shouldn’t make accusations.

          Again your issue not mine as you preferred to bring the discussion onto your blog and remain off of mine.

          Other than your repeated suggestions that I’m twisting your words, I have no issue.

          As for posting my response to my blog instead of yours, I thought it would be rude to post a nearly 3,000 word response in the comments.

  9. I am kind of shocked that an actual woman would call herself “a female.” I usually only see misogynists go around using “female” as a noun to refer to human beings.

    That aside, it’s always sad to see how many people are really misinformed and confused about feminism.

    • Yeah. I know. I was echoing the language of the post I responded to. I’m literary like that (sometimes).

      In any other circumstance, I’d call myself one of the ‘ladiez.’ (it sounds way cooler).

    • Let us see….male/female. men/women, and how many other forms of differentiating between he sexes. I am also in the medical field so if all you get is annoyed by my choice in verbage then the content is truly irrelevent

      • Alice — there’s a reason. Xanith was pointing out the irony/humor in the reference.

        I’m too tired at the moment, but I’ll explain tomorrow (If someone else doesn’t get to it first).

  10. False rape accusations are very rare.

    This site ( http://theenlivenproject.com/the-truth-about-false-accusation/ ) states that they represent as little as 2% of all rape allegations. (Their source says 2-8%.) They assume a 10% reporting rate, which would mean about 2 false accusations for every 1000 incidents. Even 8 false accusations out of 1000 is still very low.

    Now, if you compare successful prosecutions (10) with the highest estimate of false accusations (8) – and use some flawed logic – it gives the impression that almost half of “rapes” are false accusations. But that requires you to ignore 900 unreported rapes and the 90 reported rapes that didn’t result in conviction.

    (For what it’s worth, this page ( http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/30/sexual-assault-canada_n_6074994.html ) shows a reporting rate of only 3.3% of all sexual assaults in Canada. Comparing “rape” and “sexual assault” is difficult because not all sexual assaults are rapes, but they do both agree that reporting rates are very low.)

  11. WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching for feminism

 Leave a Reply