Feminimsm - when does it get out of hand?

[haas mark]

As for myself, I advocate having women get equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

Now that's just a silly statement. I advocate black people and gays getting equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

You have to understand, though, that even between men, if they don't do the work as well, they don't get the equal pay.

[InnerBrat]

But then, innerbrat, how often are our court systems sexist? We talk of equal rights, but in the courtrooms, men are the ones that are thrown down.

If you're talking about rape cases, then bias for the victim is not a sexism issue, just because rape victims are usually female.

As for an actaul example of sexism in the handling of rape cases:

(said, actually, but never mind) As the gentlemen on the jury will understand, when a woman says 'no', she doesn't always mean it. men can't turn their emotions on and off like a tap like some women can

[haas mark]

But then, innerbrat, how often are our court systems sexist? We talk of equal rights, but in the courtrooms, men are the ones that are thrown down.

If you're talking about rape cases, then bias for the victim is not a sexism issue, just because rape victims are usually female.

As for an actaul example of sexism in the handling of rape cases:

(said, actually, but never mind) As the gentlemen on the jury will understand, when a woman says 'no', she doesn't always mean it. men can't turn their emotions on and off like a tap like some women can

Although sometimes it can be rape cases, what about th bias to give woman the custody of a child ina divorce case over the man? (Just as an example)

Besides, how often will a judge ACTUALLY take that stance?

[InnerBrat]

As for myself, I advocate having women get equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

Now that's just a silly statement. I advocate black people and gays getting equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

You have to understand, though, that even between men, if they don't do the work as well, they don't get the equal pay.

If they can't do the work well, they shouldn't be doing the work...
Your original statement could be seen as a general 'women usually can't do the work as well' accusation. I was just poiting that out.

[NapoleonGH]

innerbrat, why do you say rape is becoming MORE ok in society today? in the past it was always said to be the woman's fault and no one ever got convicted for it.

Ok your example of a rape situation, how the hell can you know who is telling the truth? WEll see you can tell if the woman fought back, is their any bruising that would occur in such a fight? what about vaginal damage? etc. this isnt absolute by anymeans but it can be done. Also why is it that you give rape a lesser degree of proof than any other crime? Every other crime someone's guilt MUST be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in your hesaid/shesaid there is MOST CERTAINLY reasonable doubt as to whether it was rape. and if 1 man is being put in jall wrongfully when the only evidence against him is a single other BIASED person claiming he committed some crime then the justice system should be renamed the injustice system and i really dont care how many go free, you cannot have a double standard of evidence for a certain crime simply because it makes it easier to convict someone. That is a direct violation of the constitution which requires that everyone is tried according to DUE PROCESS.

Also another pet peeve, in child molestation cases, the child's testimony can be given via pre-recorded video, without cross examnation, violating an accused CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to face their accuser.

[InnerBrat]

Although sometimes it can be rape cases, what about th bias to give woman the custody of a child ina divorce case over the man? (Just as an example)

Yep. That's sexist, in that it assumes different genders are better at performing certain roles (see how I'm twisting your words there )
Seriously, that is a problem, and does have to be dealt with.

Besides, how often will a judge ACTUALLY take that stance?

Not often, I hope, at least nowdays, but it's a situation that's had to be worked for.

[haas mark]

Now that's just a silly statement. I advocate black people and gays getting equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

You have to understand, though, that even between men, if they don't do the work as well, they don't get the equal pay.

If they can't do the work well, they shouldn't be doing the work...
Your original statement could be seen as a general 'women usually can't do the work as well' accusation. I was just poiting that out.

In other words, women shouldn't even TRY to sdo work that they wouldn't normally be able to do, BECASUE they wouldn't be getting the same pay. So are you saying that women might go for that kind of work so they can simply bitch about not getting paid equally, even though they can't/aren't doing the work as well?

[haas mark]

Although sometimes it can be rape cases, what about th bias to give woman the custody of a child ina divorce case over the man? (Just as an example)

Yep. That's sexist, in that it assumes different genders are better at performing certain roles (see how I'm twisting your words there )
Seriously, that is a problem, and does have to be dealt with.

Right. This is part of the feminism issue that I was trying to bring up. Is this a case of feminazism in the courtroom?

Besides, how often will a judge ACTUALLY take that stance?

Not often, I hope, at least nowdays, but it's a situation that's had to be worked for.

Right. See, I know that women can no more turn of their emotions as a man. Not to mention that if you say "she doesn't always mean it" that may be true in SOME women's cases, but not very often AT ALL. Another misconstruation about raping men (by women) - the common saying of "you can't rape the willing" goes along the same lines, yes?

[InnerBrat]

innerbrat, why do you say rape is becoming MORE ok in society today? in the past it was always said to be the woman's fault and no one ever got convicted for it.

um, where did I say that? I take it back, didn't mean it at all.

Ok your example of a rape situation, how the hell can you know who is telling the truth? WEll see you can tell if the woman fought back, is their any bruising that would occur in such a fight? what about vaginal damage? etc. this isnt absolute by anymeans but it can be done.

And if it can't? What if the man claims that bruising was self inflicted/due to rough sex?

Also why is it that you give rape a lesser degree of proof than any other crime? Every other crime someone's guilt MUST be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in your hesaid/shesaid there is MOST CERTAINLY reasonable doubt as to whether it was rape. and if 1 man is being put in jall wrongfully when the only evidence against him is a single other BIASED person claiming he committed some crime then the justice system should be renamed the injustice system and i really dont care how many go free, you cannot have a double standard of evidence for a certain crime simply because it makes it easier to convict someone. That is a direct violation of the constitution which requires that everyone is tried according to DUE PROCESS.

OK, because if the kid in my case hadn't been stupid enough to say 'it was't me' as opposed to she wanted it' he might be still walking around raping random women in Camden.

Also another pet peeve, in child molestation cases, the child's testimony can be given via pre-recorded video, without cross examnation, violating an accused CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to face their accuser.

OK, I'm getting a bit heated up now, so I'm going to take a break and go to bed.
I'm not going to discuss the constitution, as I'm not American, and not only does it not affect me, but I disagree with it on principle.

Ver, I have NO IDEA what you said in that last post, so I'm going to read it again tomorrow.

[haas mark]

Ok your example of a rape situation, how the hell can you know who is telling the truth? WEll see you can tell if the woman fought back, is their any bruising that would occur in such a fight? what about vaginal damage? etc. this isnt absolute by anymeans but it can be done.

And if it can't? What if the man claims that bruising was self inflicted/due to rough sex?

Given shape and size of the bruises, it would actually not be too hard to determine.

Ver, I have NO IDEA what you said in that last post, so I'm going to read it again tomorrow.

It might help to read the judge's quote in order to understand what I'm trying to say..

[NapoleonGH]

Also another pet peeve, in child molestation cases, the child's testimony can be given via pre-recorded video, without cross examnation, violating an accused CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to face their accuser.

OK, I'm getting a bit heated up now, so I'm going to take a break and go to bed.
I'm not going to discuss the constitution, as I'm not American, and not only does it not affect me, but I disagree with it on principle.

Disagree with what? the right of the accused to face his accuser and to cross question their statements? In which case what stops anyone from lying to get their neighbor or the person in the job that they want sent to jail?

[Nova Andromeda]

--So where do you stand in the case where both parties are drunk to the same extent (for the sake of arguement). I figure if that is the case and they have sex it is the fault of both parties and either both parties should receive the same punishment or no punishment at all. To avoid this problem people should not get drunk if they cannot control themselves and should say whether they are willing to have sex before they get drunk. The default position is then clearly that they are not willing to have sex while drunk.

Hmmmm....
If both parties are equally drunk, and neither wants sex, then sex doesn't happen.
If both parties are equally drunk and both wants sex, then it's not rape.

If the man was as drunk as I was in the above example, then sex cannot physically happen...

If both parties are drunk to a lesser extent (i.e. being able to move), then:
If the woman thinks she wants sex because she's drunk, but would have said no if she's sober, then she shouldn't be drunk, yes, and it's both parties' responisbility.
If the woman says 'no' and the man is too drunk to relaise she means it, it's his fault, and it's rape.

So I think I agree with you...

--It would appear that we agree except perhaps on some subtle points. IMHO if a woman says no regardless of context that is the end of the story. It doesn't matter if she is being playful or whatever. Ambiguity cannot be allowed where such matters are concerned. As for only one party being drunk and the other not I would say it must be considered rape or not regardless of which party is drunk (assumming neither party says no). Currently, the law says it is rape and I agree.
-You also seem to believe that it is okay to convict someone of rape bases solely on the testamony of the victim and no objective evidence. This is clearly wrong. People simply have to learn to avoid such situations. The alternative is that any woman can have sex with a man and then claim rape regardless of whether she consented or not. There are possible solutions, but they are rather drastic. One could setup a database where people register. Those people that are registered agree that unless a neutral third party is informed otherwise in a neutral location they are not willing to have sex. This database would have to be accessable to everyone so a person could check to see who is on it. That would remove the problem, but I'm betting noone would go to such extremes to ensure their safety.

[kojikun]

What if their doing BDSM and the woman is tied up and says no because its part of the act then sues the guy? Would he then say to the court "We agreed before hand shed say BUNNY! She never said BUNNY! How was i supposed to know!?"

[Cthulhu-chan]

Hmm, well that would be the risk you take with that kind of nonsense, wouldn't it? Since BDSM is ultimately about trust anyhow, if you aren't sure you can trust some one (regardless of which end of the whip/rope/whatever you're on) then you shouldn't engage in such games with them.

[Tsyroc]

As for myself, I advocate having women get equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

Now that's just a silly statement. I advocate black people and gays getting equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

Actually what he's saying is that he thinks women should get paid the same amount as men when they slack off a bit on their job performance and stop making us guys look bad.

[Wicked Pilot]

Well, back to the topic on hand here. I would like to quote this article from http://www.badastronomy.com in which I believe almost perfectly expresses when feminimsm goes into the wrong:

Scientific Research and Prejudicial Beliefs
I am greatly disturbed by something I just saw on television, something I think is pertinent to the philosophy of the Bad Astronomy pages, even though it is not directly about astronomy.
John Stossel, a journalist for ABC news, was doing an hour long report on the differences between the sexes titled "Boys and Girls Are Different: Men Women and the Sex Difference". One of the major themes of the show was looking into whether the differences between men and women-- differences such as attitudes toward play, nurturing and the like-- were caused by societal pressure or were somehow biologically influenced; that is, something hardcoded into our very bodies. The report was very thoughtful about how society influences young children, and how it reinforces sex (i.e. men vs. women) roles. Then the report turned toward biologists and physiologists who actually study the brains of of men and women. One researcher found that seven out of eight brain structures she studied were actually different in men and women. An interesting result, if true.

Stossel talked to Gloria Steinem about these results. Steinem was a leader of the feminist movement in America in the 1970's, and remains an icon of feminism today. When he asked her whether she believed that biology, and not society, is the cause of any differences between the sexes, she replied, ``It's really the remnant of anti-American crazy thinking to do this kind of research. It's what's keeping us down, not what's helping us.''

I find this attitude profoundly disturbing. I may not be in a position to judge any sexism in my own attitudes, but my problem here is not about sexism. My problem with her reply is that she is saying outright that scientific research and conclusions drawn in a logical and systematic manner should not be regarded if they have the inconvenient property of disagreeing with our previously made conclusions. She feels that she has the answer (men's attitudes have kept women suppressed for millennia) and no amount of actual research into the problem will sway her.

This notion goes against every fiber of what I believe about the nature of truth. There are most definitely things in this world that can be investigated and understood using the techniques of the scientific method. Many of these conclusions are not subject to opinion, or prejudice, or popular vote. They simply are. I am not saying that biology is the major reason women and men have different roles in society; the conclusions drawn that I have seen are mostly preliminary. However, it is at best stupid to ignore the research being done, and at worst a danger to our way of life. How can we dare try to fix a problem, especially one so vast and vital as the role of sex, when we do not even understand how it comes about? We cannot ignore the scientific endeavors of researchers because they disagree with what we believe. On the contrary, we should investigate not only the research done, but our own beliefs to make sure that there are no shadows lurking in the corners of our own psyches.

We have many problems facing not just our society but our entire race: environmental issues, energy issues, political issues. I believe that many of these problems can and will be solved, but only if they are researched, discussed, and acted upon in a logical, coherent and scientific manner. If we continue to cling to our prejudices and superstitions, we not only open ourselves up to deception, but we may blind ourselves to the very solutions we so desperately need.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I think Simon Johannsen and I had this conversation in a thread about masculism not so long ago. I'll define a couple of terms and state my position, but don't want to take this to extremes:

Egalitarian Feminism: Strives for the equality of both sexes.
Ideological Feminism: IMO, gives the appearance of supporting the belief that, basically, women will not be on equal footing with men until women are on superior footing.
Feminazi: Feminist who views men with a similar attitude to that with which the Nazis viewed non-Aryans.

EDIT: Here's a scary thought for you: Just as it is true that not all feminists are women, not all feminazis are women, either.

As regards the "passing kidney stones is like giving birth" angle -- I think only someone with some familiarity with kidney stones and childbirth could really answer that for you. The most in-depth experience I have with child-birth is being in the same room with it, staring like an idiot and fearing I was either going to pass out or vomit -- or both.

Aside from getting sucker-punched in the kidneys once, knowing I have kidneys and that they could one day produce kidney-stones is all I've got on the other side of the equation.

I wish I could tell you I'd like to learn more about kidney stones and child-birth, but I really don't.

[Enforcer Talen]

Okay, I have a few feminist friends.. which is okay, except for one problem.. when does deminism turn into feminazism? For example, the women compare childbirth to passing kidney stones. It's proprtionally about the same, I'd think. But women do have a slight advantage on that. But the men's urethra (as far as I know) is a lot smaller than a womans, right? (I dunno, hence the questions). So passing kidney stones for a man is incredibly excrutiaing in the same sense that women passing a child is. But is this a viable arguement to feminists? And where does feminism cross the barrier?

when it becomes not equality of the sexes but raising of one gender over the other.

[Gandalf]

Okay, I have a few feminist friends.. which is okay, except for one problem.. when does deminism turn into feminazism? For example, the women compare childbirth to passing kidney stones. It's proprtionally about the same, I'd think. But women do have a slight advantage on that. But the men's urethra (as far as I know) is a lot smaller than a womans, right? (I dunno, hence the questions). So passing kidney stones for a man is incredibly excrutiaing in the same sense that women passing a child is. But is this a viable arguement to feminists? And where does feminism cross the barrier?

when it becomes not equality of the sexes but raising of one gender over the other.

That basically sums it up.

[haas mark]

Okay, I have a few feminist friends.. which is okay, except for one problem.. when does deminism turn into feminazism? For example, the women compare childbirth to passing kidney stones. It's proprtionally about the same, I'd think. But women do have a slight advantage on that. But the men's urethra (as far as I know) is a lot smaller than a womans, right? (I dunno, hence the questions). So passing kidney stones for a man is incredibly excrutiaing in the same sense that women passing a child is. But is this a viable arguement to feminists? And where does feminism cross the barrier?

when it becomes not equality of the sexes but raising of one gender over the other.

That basically sums it up.

Well, no shit.. but I want to know when there are examples of this..

[Peregrin Toker]

Feminazi: Feminist who views men with a similar attitude to that with which the Nazis viewed non-Aryans.

I thought that "feminazi" just was an insult used against all feminists.

[haas mark]

Feminazi: Feminist who views men with a similar attitude to that with which the Nazis viewed non-Aryans.

I thought that "feminazi" just was an insult used against all feminists.

Feminazi is more of when feminists are at the extreme. Now, I am a feminist, and I'm not afraid to admit it, but sometimes they cross the line and are to the point where they have a "women are better than men in all respects and should be treated as such" attitude.

[Peregrin Toker]

but sometimes they cross the line and are to the point where they have a "women are better than men in all respects and should be treated as such" attitude.

Do such people even exist?? To me, that description sounds much like a strawwoman. (pardon the pun)

[haas mark]

but sometimes they cross the line and are to the point where they have a "women are better than men in all respects and should be treated as such" attitude.

Do such people even exist?? To me, that description sounds much like a strawwoman. (pardon the pun)

You have men that think they're better than women, right? Well, YEAH, you're going to have women that think they're better than men. Period. As a subspecies, so to speak.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Feminazi: Feminist who views men with a similar attitude to that with which the Nazis viewed non-Aryans.

I thought that "feminazi" just was an insult used against all feminists.

As far as I can tell, that perception was created by ideological feminists as a strawman to stigmatize not only the word, "feminazi" but acceptance of the concept.