Thread:Madkatmaximus/@comment-25625534-20150602104025/@comment-4845243-20150604185444


 * 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.

Thanks for the clarification. And I agree. There are always aspects of the world that don't completely reflect our interpretations, whatever those interpretations may be.


 * 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.

No, definitely not. I'm not really a fan of the whole tumblr scene, or the social justice warrior stuff, or any of that. Although to be fair to them, I don't even have a tumblr nor do I peruse tumblr much at all. I was not insinuating that we should reject perspectives because they are conservative in origin, or even if they are completely conservative.

What I actually said was entirely different. I said that, based on my experience with self-proclaimed feminists, I don't buy the conservative narrative about feminism — I'm not rejecting it because it is conservative, but because it is not empirical. I would never commit the genetic fallacy/bulverism of rejecting an idea based on its origins. That's a logical faux pas.


 * 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.

Well, the fact of the matter is that people are not inclined to change. You can sift through all of the mobile knowledge and find what you want to find, fitting the data to your paradigm, instead of letting the data inform your paradigm. I'm not saying you do that, but it is extremely easy. Experience, especially experience dialoguing with other individuals, helps break down the natural resistance to change and allows you to better understand and empathize with various viewpoints.

The problem is that, sans experience, our research is too often restricted to a monologue. What we need is dialogue. Can we find that on the internet or in books? Definitely. But none of this renders face-to-face dialogue with other individuals obsolete. I'm not saying that feminism necessarily needs to be experienced to be understood, but experiencing it sure does help.

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?'''

If those things were not in fact true anymore, then you could still be a feminist and not believe they are true. But the reason you wouldn't be accepted into mainstream feminism is that 1) you don't call yourself a feminist and 2) those things do exist, to some extent anyways, and the majority of feminists are probably not interested in questioning them. I'm always open to questioning pretty much everything, but many aren't. :P


 * As a matter of genuine curiosity, I wonder what statistic of those who consider themselves feminists agree with this conclusion....

I don't have any statistics, but I would think most libertarian and anarchist feminists would agree with me, whereas most liberals would disagree. Obviously, there are many more liberals. I would guess that conservative feminists (are there any? IDK :P) probably vary on their views of government intervention.


 * I was merely using it as evidence that support for women's rights abroad and the mainstream feminist movement are not mutually inclusive.

Alright, then we are agreed here.


 * 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'm not sure why that came off as passive-aggressive, as it was rather direct and not really aggressive...but my apologies if it came off that way. My friend was referencing a specific industry, not just in general for women in the United States. I am specifically interested in whether you know anything about the wage gap in computer science industries, which was my original question. Even if there is not a wage gap in the entire U.S., there could still be wage gaps in some industries, which is why I ask if you have any knowledge specific to that area.


 * 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...?

There are many phrases and idioms with misogynistic meanings that are used by people who are not always misogynists themselves. A lot of these are sexual in nature, however, and I won't repeat them here. But consider the phrase "I'd hid that"—disrespectful, objectifying, definitely misogynistic. But do most guys who talk like that actually hate women? Probably not — they just don't think deeply about their language choices. And there are many examples that I shouldn't get into considering our context. There is also some profanity we could talk about, often used by "liberals" who at least in theory don't hate women.

The deprecation of the feminine in language is seen in other ways, too. "Don't be a sissy." "That's so gay" (being gay being correlated to being feminine, despite the obvious problems with that correlation). "You throw like a girl." Then there is the fact that the English language treats the masculine as the gender neutral, using "he" and " man" as defaults. IMO, it's not misogynistic to use English in its traditional form and use words like "freshman" and "policemen," but the reasons for these being the default are most likely related the the elevation of males as superior to females.

As I said, I just find this an interesting area of analysis. I don't personally think getting offended over these things is worthwhile, although I do try to use more gender neutral language whenever possible. But the point is, yes, people can and do sometimes use misogynistic language without being misogynists.


 * 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.

Well, considering this is not a place you'd expect to find such content, it actually does make sense to include it. But I wasn't specifically referring to mine. I just like be extra careful. I was referring to trigger warnings in general. You may think that people who have experienced assault should be sheltered from the internet, and shouldn't be reading about these things, but that doesn't really make sense to me. Many survivors of assault find comfort and much needed support amongst internet communities, and it follows that they will be active on websites and can be reasonably expected to see what other people post. Trigger warnings are just ways of letting people know what is coming so they aren't caught by surprise when scrolling around...it's a courtesy. In an area as sensitive as this one, it never hurts to be extra careful, but it can hurt when you aren't careful.


 * Furthermore, I will not stand for the insinuation that I am incapable of expressing sympathy. 

That wasn't insinuated. I don't think you are a psychopath. :P


 * 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.

Rape culture is primarily an idea, or set of ideas, that are held by enough people to be considered a sort of system or culture. To demonstrate that that exists we only have to demonstrate that a significant number of people hold to those ideas. To demonstrate that it exists in many forms and many places just requires examples of those forms and places that you can verify for yourself.

Now, how do we go about demonstrating that people hold to ideas? Well, since we lack telepathy we rely on an old logical principle — assume self-reports are true unless there is compelling reason to reject them. This principle is how most sociological and psychological studies that need information about peoples' beliefs, ideas, personal experiences, operate. When people say "I believe this," we assume they are being truthful, not mendacious. Thus the accounts of individuals who 1) believe in the ideas that are part of rape culture (as evidenced either in their writings, actions, or explicit statements) or 2) have experienced the ideas of rape culture first hand are evidence when considered broadly. Your personal stories and my personal stories are just anecdotes that cannot prove anything. But when you consider the testimonies of thousands, if not millions, of people, it has gone far above and beyond arguments from anecdotes. Inferring the existence of rape culture from countless examples of eyewitness testimonies (considered some of the best evidence in a courtroom!) is not relying on anecdotes, it's using induction.

The argument can also take an abductive form. We have a set of data. This data includes the testimonies of many, many people who have experienced or expressed rape culture ideas and their consequences. What hypothesis best explains these data? What is the most plausible? Your hypothesis is that all these people are lying (or you simply are unaware of the number of testimonies?). For instance, there are many testimonies on social media that you seem to reject as deceitful. There are many stories and testimonies I could share with you about those who have experienced rape culture in its "purity and modesty movement" form. There are media accounts that clearly engage in victim-blaming. There are so many testimonies. But your hypothesis fails to explain them. Why would all these people make this up? What do they stand to gain? The suggestion that those who have experienced rape culture are all lying, or at least most of them are lying, is not a very good hypothesis.

The old fashioned logical principle of assuming self-reports to be true is a far better hypothesis that explains the data much better. This is not a mere argument from anecdote, it is an argument based on reasoning. If testimonies are not data or evidence of any kind, then we ought to rethink a lot of things — including most recorded history. You do realize history is based on testimonies, right? And it is often by assuming testimonies to be good evidence and verifying them against other testimonies that we can gather information about past events. The number of divergent testimonies from countless people that confirm rape culture's existence is pretty extensive.

So no, anecdotes are not all we have. We have inductive and abducitve reasoning that use examples and data and logical principles to arrive at conclusions. Testimonies are not always anecdotes, especially not when there are so many that agree and verify one another.

I'd also like to flesh out an argument that I've already implied, an a fortiori argument for the existence of rape culture. You doubtless accept many things whose only evidence is, in fact, testimonies. These examples include most of recorded history, as I stated, including the New Testament accounts that Christianity relies on. As Christians, I don't think either one of us should be undermining the power of testimonies and their validity as data. That undermines both of our deepest beliefs about reality, for as Paul said, if Jesus did not in fact resurrect from the dead, then our faith is in vain. And the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the silence of their enemies who would have opposed false testimonies, the testimonies of the martyrs who were so deeply convicted that they died for their faith — these are testimonies Christianity relies on. These are data that only the resurrection can explain. But if we undermine testimonies as evidence, we undermine even this.


 * 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.

Those weren't intangibles, they were broad categories with many specific instances. I could provide you with dozens, scores, or even hundreds of specific instances (and thousands more if you don't automatically reject social media testimonies). I somehow doubt we have the time to go through each one, but if you want me to, I'll pull some up.

But what I'm curious about is that you think that instances of rape culture can be explained without rape culture. If someone blames the survivor instead of the perpetrator, then that is rape culture at work, even if rape culture is very limited in extent. How can there be an explanation that isn't rape culture? Are you going to argue that hundreds of incidents are all isolated and have nothing to do with each other?


 * 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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Making a specific claim that sexual assault rates are high solely or mainly because of particular non-Christian ideas is not the same thing as saying that the rejection of God in the public sphere has lead to a rise in sinfulness. One is a specific claim that has to do with this discussion, and one is a broad generalization.

"The rejection of God from the public sphere" is in no way a new phenomenon. People have been rejecting the true God, as revealed in Jesus Christ on the cross, for most of history, even in ostensibly "Christian" nations. This is demonstrated by the rank hypocrisy of the wars fought amongst "Christian" nations, the subjugation and colonization of much of world by "Christian" Europeans, the eradication and enslavement of many native peoples by these same people, and the slave trades and practices that continued in Europe and European colonies for a few centuries. No, Sherman, God was rejected long ago from the public square, because Jesus' teachings about nonviolence, agape, and kenosis are contrary to the agendas of those with political power.

So yes, I agree that the rejection of God from the public square has been related to sinfulness. But I'm not really sure that God, at least not the God Jesus reveals, ever was in the public square.


 * 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.

Well, within a uniquely Christian (as in, Christ-like) ethic, no. But within generic "Judeo-Christian ethics"? Unfortunately, yes. Historically, women have been considered property in "Christian" nations. Do I think that this is consistent with the actual teachings of Christ? Definitely not. But many things that Jesus specifically taught against—a great example is violence—have been and/or are justified within Judeo-Christian ethics.


 * 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.

I agree. But abusers will use anything, including religion, to justify their actions and create an environment in which their victims feel like they cannot speak up. This has happened many times with abuse in Christian homeschooling groups, case in point being people like Philip Douglas. But that's why I put quotation marks around Christianity. True Christianity cannot justify those things, of course.


 * 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...

Um...not even close. The religious right rejecting rigid gender roles by principle? What principle? There is no such principle amongst the religious right. If you honestly think that then you have not read what many leaders on the Christian right actually say about gender roles. I would link some websites, but they aren't really appropriate. And are you unaware of the patriarchy movement within the religious right? They literally call themselves a patriarchy movement. See http://www.gotquestions.org/Quiverfull-Patriarchy.html. That's just a random website I found — please do more research yourself, or at least google "patriarchy movement."

As for ignorance/detest toward LGBT* people...again, the religious right definitely does not exclude this by principle. People on the religious right perpetuate the myth that people choose to be queer, and the myth that "conversion" therapy can work — two falsehoods that have been very harmful to LGBT* people. Consider leaders in the religious right like James Dobson, who argues that parents should reject their LGBT* children and thinks "bisexual" means you engage in orgies. Consider Michael Farris, a prominent homeschooling leader who thinks LGBT* people don't even exist at the college, Patrick Henry College, he was/is the president of because students have to sign a "sexual purity" agreement. Thus, he assumes that being queer automatically means you are sexually impure. Consider people like Ben Carson and Mick Huckabee and people who claim "homosexuals" are "abominations." These are all members of the religious right. I wish I could believe these people are fringe. I wish I could believe that most of the people on the religious right speak out against them. But they don't. These are mainstream leaders and mainstream beliefs within the religious right. I highly recommend doing more research.


 * 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.

Yes, there are. I'm not defending the irreligious left.


 * 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.

lol this is gold. +1 for sarcasm


 * And I'm sure there are many who would wager that you're not a real feminist. So who's right?

Depends on your definition. What I'm really saying is that I believe in gender equality and am willing to associate with feminism and advocate for feminist causes. I don't really care if purists consider me a feminist or not.


 * 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?

Nope, actually it's quite different. Original sin is mainly the brainchild of Augustinian thinkers. The Eastern Orthodox concept is called "ancestral sin" and it is the belief that we inherited a condition, namely, mortality, that leads us to be enslaved to the fear of death, which leads to sin (Jesus freeing us from this fear of death then makes a lot more sense! cf. Hebrews 2:14-15). We inherit a condition, but we don't inherit guilt. We are only guilty for our own actions. But yeah...way off-topic. :P


 * Any old theologian can make it complicated. I somehow don't think that's what Jesus intended.

Actually, the tradition of calling Paul's writings complicated goes as far back as the Apostle Peter himself...see 2 Peter 3:16.


 * 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.

No, we shouldn't stop right there and take my sentence out of context. I was saying that although men are responsible, we should focus on fighting against the ideas and systems, and not on blaming men. I'm allowed to say that men are responsible for a lot of suffering as a historical fact. Blaming men won't give us real world solutions, which was kind of the point of my paragraph there. Context! Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that all men are responsible for things that men did in the past...I'm not a fan of the "liberal guilt" idea.


 * 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 it to where it is today. It's not a righteous tree with a few bad apples; it's a carnivorous vine with a few pretty flowers.

Words evolve. Meanings change. Feminism originally was a word that denoted equality for women and a movement that fought for civil rights. It was changed and appropriated for use in "feminist movements" influenced by postmodernist and neo-Marxist thinkers. Now it's being re-appropriated as we strive to return it to more simple ideas. The word "feminism" is not inextricably linked to all movements or ideas that have called themselves "feminist" anymore than the word "Christian" or the word "communist" is. The wars fought in the name of "Christianity" all throughout history do not mean that all Christians have to support those wars. The fact that socialists in China and Russia and elsewhere decided to call themselves "communists" despite the fact that their political structures were definitely not communist in the original, Marxist sense of the word does not mean that contemporary communists are supported of U.S.S.R. and "Communist" China.

So, using the word "feminist" does not mean we are accepting everything called "feminism."