Thread:Madkatmaximus/@comment-25625534-20150602104025/@comment-3444778-20150604024242

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: I have not found paying attention to what happens in the real world to be conducive towards conservatism myself. I didn't say the world is particularly conducive towards conservatism - I only said that before I stepped out from underneath the feminist umbrella, I observed that the world doesn't completely reflect feminist interpretations. There is a difference. Being good friends with multiple feminists and having heard countless speeches on feminism, I'm less inclined to buy the conservative claims about "the feminist movement." So tell me, is the opinion of a teenage girl who became a feminist on Tumblr more trustworthy than a lifelong proponent of women's rights who happens to be a conservative? Discarding perspectives based on the fact that they're conservative in origin is not very objective at all. Although you have your sister, I sincerely doubt you've had the level of exposure to various feminists and feminist viewpoints first hand that I have, based on what you are telling me. You are correct. Knowledge is quite mobile these days, however, and if an ideology needs to be "experienced" to be understood, a red flag is immediately thrown. That tells me that it is feeling-based, not fact-based. I think you and I are in agreement on the core philosophical issue — that all persons are of equal value regardless of their gender. Correct. But the disagreement over "feminism" appears to be semantic, and not metaphysical (about the ultimate reality of the issue). No, it's not only semantic. I don't believe that rape culture is pervasive in our society. I don't believe that women are widely held down by patriarchal proclivities in and out of the workforce. If these were not tenets of feminism, why wouldn't I, as a believer in the firm correction of discriminatory gender disparity where it exists, be accepted into mainstream feminism? [I]f someone who is not a feminist comes along with their own definition and assumes that I am a feminist by their definition, we have a problem. [...] Thus, instead of arguing about the best definition, we should accept the definition offered by the majority of feminists, because we are all interested in discussing what people actually believe, and not what we think they believe based on our own definitions. That sounds great in theory, be we will never be able to agree on a universal definition of feminism. I refuse to accept the rosy picture that you and your peers are purported to hold because I understand the origins and development of the movement, which was founded with nefarious intent and perverted by ulterior motives. Sometimes the tenets of the movement were brazen, now referred to as "radical" (and shoved aside as "fringe"), and some were watered down. The fact that many well-meaning people today have bought into the progressive initiatives first issued by feminist leaders of the past does not make the purpose of the movement any less nefarious. Many who now consider themselves to be feminists have been lied to about oppression, about 1-in-5, about rape culture, and a great many other things. Hence why I have thus far attempted to define the movement by its base assumptions and the changes that it advocates based on these assumptions, not by the intentions of its adherents. Feminism as a movement has often varied from what actual feminists believe, especially now. But not everyone who claims the label believes everything the various feminist movements have believed. I am aware, per my sentence previous to this: you not "guilty" of being a radical feminist by association. I would never even consider such a notion. However, you nobly support a lot of ideas that have less than noble origins. "Equality for women" is not the whole story. Men, women, and non-binary people are all of equal value. Agreed. Equality of value translates into the political sphere by making the laws gender-blind. Also agreed. The government has proven itself ineffectual in solving problems, and I think it's time that we look elsewhere for solutions. As a matter of genuine curiosity, I wonder what statistic of those who consider themselves feminists agree with this conclusion.... But this problem with priorities doesn't really entail we should reject feminism, it just means that we should be better feminists (by which I simply mean we should focus on helping those women who need it the most). I never implied that poor prioritization of support recipients is a reason to reject feminism. I was merely using it as evidence that support for women's rights abroad and the mainstream feminist movement are not mutually inclusive. There are some humanitarian organizations that do not associate with feminism at all that have done amazing things for abused women abroad. Hence, while the absence of coherent feminist support abroad is not a reason to reject feminism (per your response), the support of women abroad is not a reason to accept it. I actually just asked you if you knew anything about the computer science industry, and you totally ignored my question and went on a rant about the economics that debunk the wage gap, none of which is germane to my question. So do you care to answer my original question? No need to be passive-aggressive; you referenced a friend of yours who spoke about women being paid less than men for the same work, which makes my "rant" quite germane to your comment. Your original question was whether I know anything about the computer science industry. That's something of a broad subject, but I'm sure I could scrape a basic understanding of the field together. What are you looking for specifically? I think you misunderstood my whole point about microaggression. I said it was an analysis of embedded misogynistic ideas in language. I never said it was about misogynistic ideas embedded in people. As such, most of what you say is not relevant to what I said... People say what they think. If there are misogynistic ideas present in language that aren't present in people's minds, what are you trying to get at, excepted that we channel the misogyny of the long-dead shapers of our language when we open our mouths...? Also, the trigger warning thing has nothing to do with microaggression. It's to make sure that people don't suddenly and unexpectedly read something that reminds them of past trauma and causes emotional/psychological harm. At the very least, show some sensitivity for survivors of assault, please. Don't lump trigger warnings in with microaggression and hypersensitivity. :/ In certain situations, I can understand how extra sensitivity can go a long way. However, on the message wall for a user on a wiki about a children's message board, I fail to see how uttering the words "trigger warning" in the middle of a several-thousand word discussion about feminism and rape culture is a reasonable expression of sensitivity.... Please don't make me out as a cruel, inconsiderate person for suggesting the dubiousness of trigger warnings. I think we both know this would be intellectually dishonest. People who survive traumatic experiences need a lot of emotional support, reassurance, and a great deal of extra sensitivity. Perhaps those who experienced these horrors in recent enough memory and who might be "triggered" by discussions of rape shouldn't be perusing through Tumblr posts, online forums, or wherever else one might find a trigger warning. Someone who is exceptionally vulnerable to emotional/psychological harm needs special, rehabilitative care, not exposure to the internet. For the record, I have never encountered an incident in which someone is actually "triggered" for a past event. The reason I associated it with the concept of microaggressions is because both assume over-compensation for past grievances, genuine or otherwise (and yes, I have seen "triggers" in which someone is sparked off just because they're so infuriated by the prevalence of rape culture, not because of prior experiences). Furthermore, I will not stand for the insinuation that I am incapable of expressing sympathy. I never said that our entire culture is necessarily permeated with rape culture, and thus everyone blames the survivors instead of their abusers. I said that rape culture is pervasive, meaning it exists in many places and many forms, but not that our entire culture is a rape culture. I stand corrected, and disagree all the same. Rape culture as I described it definitely exists. It is ironic that you talk about your own personal anecdotes after showing so much disdain for mine. I speak from anecdote because I have nothing else to speak from, nor has anyone on either side; I also did not use mine as evidence, only as personal background. You can perceive rape culture, which is anecdotal, and you can be ignorant of it, explaining away other people's anecdotes. I can speak no more on this unless scientific studies are produced. Since you offer no evidence of your own, I will just state that denial of rape culture has been thoroughly debunked. Many instances of victim-blaming exist, which can be found in the media, in the purity and modesty movement within conservative Christianity, in the policies of many schools which try to restrict clothing choices instead of teaching self-control, and in the total bewilderment of many rapists when they are convicted, as they sometimes (usually with young people) themselves think it was the girl's fault and not their own. I'd rather not argue with intangibles here. If you have a specific instance, I'm pretty sure that in most cases I can verify a reasonable explanation aside from rape culture. You mention the restriction of clothes in schools, which I've heard a few things about from time to time. Of course, there are a lot of variances per specific instance, but I'll provide an example for one prominent one I've seen come up on multiple occasions: girls at a high school are not allowed to have their bra straps visible. I can't verify the minutia from a single complaint, but the straps are technically part of underwear, and at some schools there are also rules about boys walking around with their pants hanging down. Before that last detail, a school situation like the above might seem like institutional sexism and evidence for rape culture. Afterwards, such a conclusion seems like utter nonsense. You are now claiming that sexual assault is increasing because of society's changing views on promiscuity, pornography, moral relativism, etc., am I correct? That's interesting. But you have failed to provide any evidence of even correlation, let alone causation. I'm highlighting a clear moral trend that was supposed to appeal to you as a fellow Christian. If you don't believe that the rejection of God in the public sphere has anything to do with the rise of sinfulness in the public sphere, where wrong becomes right, then I'm not going to try to convince you. But sexual abuse also occurs very frequently within deeply "religious" circles. Marital rape is often justified by those who claim to believe in monogamy and moral absolutes. But moral absolutism can be even more dangerous than moral relativism when you have warped ideas like women are property. Women were treated as property for hundreds of years, without any help from moral relativism, and sexual assault has been historically very frequent. I was alluding to the absolute moral structure of Judeo-Christian ethics, not just any old moral absolutism. I apologize for my ambiguity. Do you believe that these evils you have mentioned are justifiable within a sense of Judeo-Christian ethics? I do not. The amount of sexual and physical abuse justified by "moral absolutes" and "Christianity" is horrific and cannot be easily forgotten, especially as it continues to this day within certain fringe groups. I do not believe sexual or physical abuse can be justified within Christianity. Anyone who understands the meaning of Christianity knows that they are quite boldly condemned. The religious right is a bastion of misogyny, one of the few groups that perpetuates rigid gender roles, patriarchy, and ignorance/detest towards LGBT* people, for a few examples. Is it now? In my experience, it by principle rejects all of these things. I cannot speak for those who adhere to the religious right by tradition alone, however statistically few they may be.... It is only within the religious right that marital rape can be provided any sort of intellectual defense whatsoever. It is only within the religious right that calling LGBT* people "abominations" can be excused. There are many evils that only the irreligious left would be able to excuse as well. "The heart is desperately wicked...." We condemn these people, however few they also may be. You say:
 * Forget teaching boys to treat girls with the utmost respect from a young age; instead, educate them about sexuality as early as deemed necessary, and teach them to "not rape" girls.

How is your idea (respect) contrary to teaching about sexuality and teaching not to rape? Teaching not to rape is extremely important, don't you think? I don't think the concept of sexuality should be introduced at young ages at all. If a boy grows up believing that hitting girls is wrong, he is only to treat them with kindness and respect, he is to be polite, etc., when the time comes for him to learn about the nature and purpose of sexual activity, he will be less likely to depart from his teaching. If he is told at a young age, "This is sex, don't rape people," I suppose we could expect the same kind of success that we've seen in drug abuse education. Thanks to having information about the danger of doing drugs being hammered into them from elementary school health books forward, no one in high school does marijuana. I agree. Good. :P About the bottom line, I think I've already demonstrated that there are many feminists, such as myself, who do not support all the solutions you generalize to feminists. And I'm sure there are many who would wager that you're not a real feminist. So who's right? I don't reject the idea of a sinful nature, although I definitely have a more Eastern Orthodox understanding of it than you do, I'm sure. I know this is off-topic, but isn't Orthodox theology based on the concept of original sin? That no one is actually guilty for their own sins, but inherits the guilt from Adam? I don't think I have time to get into Pauline theology of gender roles, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it seem. Any old theologian can make it complicated. I somehow don't think that's what Jesus intended. I agree that there's nothing wrong in people expecting certain things as long as they don't criticize departures from it. However, people do criticize departures from it. This is becoming less of a problem in most social groups, I'll grant you. But in certain circles, especially conservative Christian ones, the criticism does escalate to the level of harmfulness. There are many who really do think we should present in certain ways, and don't merely expect it. I can't comment on the existing prevalence of such behaviors in Christian circles, as there no such statistics, and all I would be able to provide are weak anecdotes. Instead, I'll happily join you in criticizing this behavior where it exists. In response to your last paragraph, I agree that feminists shouldn't focus on blaming. Although men and the patriarchal societies we have created are largely responsible for many of the problems faced by women, our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the systems and more importantly, the ideas that create the system. And I think we would agree that these harmful ideas are a result of the human predicament, which includes sin and death. Men and patriarchal societies: stop right there. If they do injustice to women today, point them out specifically. If they do not, why blame them at all? How will blaming men give us real world solutions? What happened to being gender-blind? Are we to thank men for the virtues they have historically bestowed upon women, as well? Men as a sex are no more sinful than women as a sex. We are to blame perpetrators for their problems individually, not their sexes collectively. I think the core issue here is that you think the problems with feminist methods and some branches of the feminist movement are inherent to feminism, and thus feminism should be rejected, whereas myself and many others view feminism as an important philosophy that can be embraced despite the shortcomings of some of its adherents and their methods. I recognize the root of feminism. You and many others seem to cherry-pick from its modern form and run with it without rejecting the notions that brought you to where you are today. It's not a righteous tree with a few bad apples; it's a carnivorous vine with a few pretty flowers.