Feminism

[AkemiAzula 280]

Historical accuracy in games. Well for educational ones thats fine but the past wasnt much nicer than the present so an accurate portrayal would not offer much escapism.

We as men of bookreading know the true history these days but would you rather be a real soldier or a romantic one?

Thus having Spinellians in manly games isnt an issue unless the game is intended yo be educational. Reality doesnt tend to be particulsrly enjoyable.

In the future well probably be able to import our own characters into games by changing the model and texture and style of movement.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Put this one into this topic since it concerns rape culture.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11289979

 

Oh my, New Zealand will be going backwards if the Labour Party's plan of rape accused proving their consent ever gets implemented. Hopefully it won't. And hopefully the principle of the accused having to be proved guilty will still stand. The accused having to prove their innocence is something that belongs to the Dark Ages, and should stay there.

[Fatherted 129]

Unfortunately a large volume of "rape" cases are simply a case of regretting the night before, so why should we step into "guilty until proven innocent"? It is a LOT harder to prove innocence than guilt especially in a case like this. The "victim" should have to prove it was not consensual, and rape law used to be "if you struggled it was rape". Now it seems to be "if you regretted it afterwards it was rape". This strikes me as a plea towards RadFeminists to vote for them.

[T Wrecks 10,209]

Risky, risky. Inverting the burden of proof always clashes with the idea(l) of a state under the rule of law. Then again, legal proceedings the way they are currently conducted are the last thing that any victim of rape is willing and/or able to face, I suppose. However, this is precisely the point where I would start: minimizing pressure on the victim during that phase. There is probably no way to do this in a satisfactory manner, but measures like this proposal by the Labour Party are more than unsatisfactory. They are outright dangerous.

 

Ultimately, rape is one of those things that are terribly hard to cope with under prevailing law systems. Unless you're violently assaulted on your way home and dragged into the shrubs, which is something you probably wouldn't just feel like doing, the judge is faced with two persons, one saying "I was raped!" and the other saying "It was consensual!", and the only two persons who know - and who will ever know! - the truth are precisely these two.

 

I don't have a solution myself, and I have the impression that this feeling of powerlessness is precisely what tempts people to step into dangerous terrain...

[LexusInfernus 908]

Unfortunately a large volume of "rape" cases are simply a case of regretting the night before, so why should we step into "guilty until proven innocent"? It is a LOT harder to prove innocence than guilt especially in a case like this. The "victim" should have to prove it was not consensual, and rape law used to be "if you struggled it was rape". Now it seems to be "if you regretted it afterwards it was rape". This strikes me as a plea towards RadFeminists to vote for them.

Unless you have actual proof to support such an accusation I call nonsense on this claim. 

 

I agree with T Wrecks though. Rape to often is a 'he said - she said' situation and consent or the absence of it is difficult to prove. And short of signing an agreement before having sex consent is impossible to prove, while rape more often leaves evidence behind. I get that they want to make it easier for rape victims to come forward as this is often difficult because of the shame and guilt a lot of these victims have (thank you rape culture) but this is not the way to do it. 

[Motina 77]

I agree with T Wrecks though. Rape to often is a 'he said - she said' situation and consent or the absence of it is difficult to prove. And short of signing an agreement before having sex consent is impossible to prove, while rape more often leaves evidence behind. I get that they want to make it easier for rape victims to come forward as this is often difficult because of the shame and guilt a lot of these victims have (thank you rape culture) but this is not the way to do it. 

 

Shaming and guilting is not the result of rape culture (which originated from prison rape - which IS pervasive and normalized). Shame and guilt can be projected onto the victim from the offender. The most common form is that the victim can place the blame on their self. This is the result of them feeling helpless or or powerless. Psychologically speaking this is common in any trauma, even such as losing a loved one. Studies in trauma show that shame and guilt are common in all forms. This can, of course, be increased if it is reinforced by others, but this is not something that is special to rape victims. The most common forms of mental illness is the result of various forms of trauma, and as a whole there is a stigma towards mental illness.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Of course. But in our society rape victims not only have to deal with the shame and guilt they feel themselves, but often also from their environment. And I wonder whether that shame and guilt people feel 'naturally' after being raped is worsened by the way society treats rape (as in teaching that its the victims responsibility to not get raped) and the common myths about rape (dressing 'slutty', must have wanted it, etc). 

 

In any case, countries like Sweden or the Netherlands that have made an active effort in creating a safe space for women to speak up about being raped and report it to the police, we see that more women are reporting rapes than in other countries. So there is some truth about the idea that more women report being attacked once you reduced some of the pressure women feel after being a victim of sexual assault. 

[Motina 77]

Of course. But in our society rape victims not only have to deal with the shame and guilt they feel themselves, but often also from their environment. And I wonder whether that shame and guilt people feel 'naturally' after being raped is worsened by the way society treats rape (as in teaching that its the victims responsibility to not get raped) and the common myths about rape (dressing 'slutty', must have wanted it, etc).

Sounds like you missed half of what I said. There are a lot of people who are abused that is not sexual assault, that are worsened by society. There is risk aversion for many things, but you don't want it for rape? This is why I think Camille Paglia is one of the only palatable feminists, but, I guess she is a dissident.

 

In any case, countries like Sweden or the Netherlands that have made an active effort in creating a safe space for women to speak up about being raped and report it to the police, we see that more women are reporting rapes than in other countries. So there is some truth about the idea that more women report being attacked once you reduced some of the pressure women feel after being a victim of sexual assault.

 

But this is true for all violent crimes. A lot of people will not report a crime. Again, Statistics Canada says for all violent crimes the the amount of unreported crimes is 60-75%. Too bad this doesn't exist for other things.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Sounds like you missed half of what I said. There are a lot of people who are abused that is not sexual assault, that are worsened by society. There is risk aversion for many things, but you don't want it for rape? This is why I think Camille Paglia is one of the only palatable feminists, but, I guess she is a dissident.

There is a subtle difference between having some common sense safety rules in your head and victim blaming. And a lot of people do not understand there is a difference, Camille Paglia being one of those people (and that is not the only thing she gets wrong). Yes sure, be careful when you are at a party, yeah no, don't take drinks from strangers. That is indeed valuable safety advice. But when for whatever reason you didn't follow the safety advice, you are not somehow at fault for being raped or assaulted. The sole responsibility and blame of rape, assault or any other crime lies with the criminal, not the victim. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

thought this was funny

 

http://www.sandraandwoo.com/comics/2014-07-11-0597-social-construct.png

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Vive le difference!

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Wow, California has decided to take on rape culture with an interesting bill requiring Californian college and university students to ensure during sexual intercourse there is ongoing consent or whatever that means.

 

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/12/6550454/ben-boychuk-dont-take-away-rights.html

 

Is this legislative full retard?

 

Is the vast majority going to be inconvenienced by a few bad apples?

[Fatherted 129]

Well that's a stupid law. IMO it's not very romantic if I need to get her and myself to sign a written form, especially if I have to go out and get it myself. Why should anyone else know what me and my significant other get up to in our spare time, consentingly?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Wow, California has decided to take on rape culture with an interesting bill requiring Californian college and university students to ensure during sexual intercourse there is ongoing consent or whatever that means.

 

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/12/6550454/ben-boychuk-dont-take-away-rights.html

 

Is this legislative full retard?

 

Is the vast majority going to be inconvenienced by a few bad apples?

What an absolutely terribly written article. The rape rate in New Orleans is 0.0234%? I call nonsense on that claim. If anything it means the reported rape rate was 0.0234% and basically almost no one reports getting raped. 

 

And whats so bad about a law that clearly defines when sex is consensual? According to this article, apparently everything is wrong about doing such a thing. Because US colleges do not have a terrible history when it comes down to rape. And horrible, this law is taking away peoples rights! What right exactly? The right to have sex with people who can't say no anymore. The right to assume that the lack of objection means you can do whatever you like. The right to rape someone and then claim you thought she was fine with it because she didn't yell no. 

 

And really, are you going to be inconvenienced by a law like this? Whats so inconvenient about it? All you and your partner have to do is say yes and you are in the clear. Its only an inconvenience if you go for the drugged out people who simply can't resist or say no anymore. 

 

Well that's a stupid law. IMO it's not very romantic if I need to get her and myself to sign a written form, especially if I have to go out and get it myself. Why should anyone else know what me and my significant other get up to in our spare time, consentingly?

You don't need to sign a written form. That is just what that dumb article implies you should do because its written by an utter idiot in order to get a cheap shock out of you. All that law does is define consent and all it requires from you and your partner is that you both say yes before you start touching each other. 

 

 

 

EDIT: Some people here should read this. They might find it educating.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

The state has a business in preventing rape or making it absolutely clear when something is rape and when it isnt. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

Wow, California has decided to take on rape culture with an interesting bill requiring Californian college and university students to ensure during sexual intercourse there is ongoing consent or whatever that means.

 

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/12/6550454/ben-boychuk-dont-take-away-rights.html

 

Is this legislative full retard?

 

Is the vast majority going to be inconvenienced by a few bad apples?

What an absolutely terribly written article. The rape rate in New Orleans is 0.0234%? I call nonsense on that claim. If anything it means the reported rape rate was 0.0234% and basically almost no one reports getting raped. 

 

And whats so bad about a law that clearly defines when sex is consensual? According to this article, apparently everything is wrong about doing such a thing. Because US colleges do not have a terrible history when it comes down to rape. And horrible, this law is taking away peoples rights! What right exactly? The right to have sex with people who can't say no anymore. The right to assume that the lack of objection means you can do whatever you like. The right to rape someone and then claim you thought she was fine with it because she didn't yell no. 

 

And really, are you going to be inconvenienced by a law like this? Whats so inconvenient about it? All you and your partner have to do is say yes and you are in the clear. Its only an inconvenience if you go for the drugged out people who simply can't resist or say no anymore. 

 

Well that's a stupid law. IMO it's not very romantic if I need to get her and myself to sign a written form, especially if I have to go out and get it myself. Why should anyone else know what me and my significant other get up to in our spare time, consentingly?

You don't need to sign a written form. That is just what that dumb article implies you should do because its written by an utter idiot in order to get a cheap shock out of you. All that law does is define consent and all it requires from you and your partner is that you both say yes before you start touching each other. 

 

 

 

EDIT: Some people here should read this. They might find it educating.

 

 

I don't believe those figures. They're distorting reality. In England (plus Wales) last year there were a total of 19000 rapes and 42000 other sexual offences. So all sexual offences come to 61000, so -- and for some reason I couldn't find the official percentages for gender -- but let's assume females bare the brunt of sexual offences and lets say its 75%. Half of the population are female, so last year the probability that a woman would be a victim of a officially recorded sexual offence would be (61000 * 0.75) / (54500000/2) = 0.001679 to 6 d.p. Given domestic abuse and repeat victimization, lets be conservative and say 1/3 of recorded sexual offences are domestic. So unique victimization would be 0.001119.

 

Thus the probability, last year, of NOT being a female victim of a officially recorded sexual offence is: 1 - 0.001119 = 0.998881. Given that the average age of a female in both England and Wales is about 82. Then the probability of NOT being a unique female victim of a officially recorded sexual offence is: (0.998881) ^ 82 = 0.912259.

 

Or conversely, and percentage wise, about 8.77% of females in England (and Wales) will be the victim of at least one officially recorded sexual offence in their lifetime. Giving that rape comprises about 1/3 of all total sexual offences last year in the England (and Wales), then 2.92% of females in the England (and Wales) will be the victim of at least one officially recorded rape offence in their lifetime.

 

It's a crude model but at least it provides a basis.

 

See page 13 of http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_360216.pdf (Statistical Bulletin Office for National Statistics | 1 Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending December 2013)

 

///

 

 

In fact more interestingly of the various crimes nearly all have decreased when compared with the 1990s, while the two biggest increases are rape and fraud. And last year has seen double digit increases in reported rape (20%) and other sexual offences (15%), most of which is related to the fallout from the Jimmy Savile scandal and how a lot more scumbags were exposed, or victims came forth (where the offence was committed many years ago) reporting rape/(sexual offence) thanks to the high public exposure of celebrity and political sexual offenders.

 

UK society is becoming safer and the police are getting better with handling sexual offence cases. But as for rape culture let's stick with government reported figures and not quasi-political groups, affiliated with government, who have a clear agenda. I mean the classic one of 1 in 5 (Western) women alleging to have experience rape in their lifetime would imply that 3 in 5 women have experienced other serious sexual offences, giving that -- in England and Wales -- rape accounts for 1 in 3 of all officially recorded sexual offences.

 

Rape culture of the feminist kind is hysteria, questionable surveys, gross distortion of official figures, trying to conflate sexual offences and misconstruing sexual offence conviction rates. If anything feminism is making the actual situation worse, how many real female victims of rape and sexual violence decided not to report their case because they heard feminist propaganda that conviction rates are low and that the police don't take female sexual crime seriously? It is stupid, stupid, stupid. Right now feminism is retarding the progress women have made in the last 100 years, where are the feminist messages about women empowering themselves with protective measures: pepper spray, tasers, blades of legal length and other small, harmful but legal objects to ward off attackers- IF rape culture is as bad as they claim?

 

But no it's namby mamby wish-washy thinking where women don't have to do jack all to take responsibility for themselves and expect the world to bend over to them, and somehow the probabilities of crime victimization to go to near zero. If one walks around with a gaping mouth they're going to get their teeth kicked in, that's life. And it's no secret between the high correlation between poverty and crime, crime and ethnicity.

 

///

 

If there is ever rape culture in the UK then it exists in the church, in large corporations, in the government and in various wards of the state. Child abuse, paedophile rings, prostitution, sodomy and other dark horses being kept under wraps by offenders being protected by their colleagues, offenders knowing the law, offenders exploiting loopholes, and sometimes offenders being above the law. There are some real scumbags who hold positions of power, and while publicly they appear respectable, in private they are depraved monsters.

 

There's rumours and speculation, occasional new reports about it and very few alleged victims coming forth. Other areas of concern is the sexual abuse happening to pensioners in care homes and to disabled people, giving the level of neglect and abuse, its even worse. But it's totally ignored because society doesn't really care for old people with terminal health problems, and the level of contempt and neglect shown to disabled people is even higher. Put it this way, in the UK, if you are severely physically or mentally impaired and you're living in a care home; it's highly likely one is going to be sexually assaulted and/or raped by a carer and it goes unreported. Now that is real rape culture.

 

I understand the attraction of hysteria and how it forms a perverse sense of unity amongst the group of people who this hysteria is related to. But if people really want to lose their s- ,how about worrying about real problems like: economic inequality, a housing bubble penalising young people, youth unemployment, falling real wages, crony capitalism, the rise of the police state in the US and the UK, the surveillance state, Fukushima, the rising cost of oil extraction, falling sperm rates due to the phthalates in plastics, the fascism inherent in corporate bailouts, the exploding costs of the welfare state, mounting debt, corruption in academic institutions and scientific fraud. Just to name a few and if one wants to go hysterical.

 

 

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

 

The state is simply reflecting the will of the people, or listening to the most vocal minorities and/or abusing the complacency of the majority. Feminism loves this nanny state. Nanny state ==> big government ==> centralization ==> corruption ==> tyranny.

 

C.S. Lewis sums it up best.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

 

That's present day feminism in a nutshell.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Rape culture of the feminist kind is hysteria, questionable surveys, gross distortion of official figures, trying to conflate sexual offences and misconstruing sexual offence conviction rates. If anything feminism is making the actual situation worse, how many real female victims of rape and sexual violence decided not to report their case because they heard feminist propaganda that conviction rates are low and that the police don't take female sexual crime seriously? It is stupid, stupid, stupid. Right now feminism is retarding the progress women have made in the last 100 years, where are the feminist messages about women empowering themselves with protective measures: pepper spray, tasers, blades of legal length and other small, harmful but legal objects to ward off attackers- IF rape culture is as bad as they claim?

 

But no it's namby mamby wish-washy thinking where women don't have to do jack all to take responsibility for themselves and expect the world to bend over to them, and somehow the probabilities of crime victimization to go to near zero. If one walks around with a gaping mouth they're going to get their teeth kicked in, that's life. And it's no secret between the high correlation between poverty and crime, crime and ethnicity.

How is it Feminist propaganda to say that the police often do a bad job dealing with rape? How is it propaganda when you hear it from other rape survivors? That Jimmy Savile dude is a perfect example of it. He got to rape anyone he liked, and the police did nothing and everyone who were supposed to help the victims were all like 'meh, its Jimmy Savile, we let him do what he likes'. Only now that he is dead do we discover his gigantic pile of skeletons in his closet. Or when you read that some places have a huge backlog of untested rape kits? How easy do you think it is to report that your boss or a family member raped you? Face it, a lot of the time the rapist has power over the victim because they are their boss, or a famous person or an older family member. Do you honestly think its easy for people to report things like that? 

 

And how in the world is having to arm yourself to the teeth 'empowering'? If anything it shows how bad it is when women have to arm themselves with pepper spray and knives while guys don't have to do anything like that at all. Again, that is simply saying that people should avoid getting raped rather than saying that people should not rape. Having women to arm themselves is not an acceptable solution to the problem. Its not even taken smart precautions to avoid obviously dangerous situations, its literally placing all the responsibility of staying safe with the potential victim and that is not something that we should strive to achieve or accept as even remotely acceptable. 

[Fatherted 129]

I agree with LexusInfernus in this instance mostly. But if you feel you can be overpowered and are in an area where you might be, bring something to even the odds regardless of gender. A knife should do, but use it sparingly.

Rape actually has about the same conviction statistics as any other crime (20-35%). It's not got anything special about it and Saville lived in a different era where the stigma was much stronger.

You can't tell people not to rape. If they can and they are sick enough, they will. What we need to do is encourage people to go out in groups (of both genders ideally), stick to safe areas, don't go home with a stranger, et cetera.

[Motina 77]

What an absolutely terribly written article. The rape rate in New Orleans is 0.0234%? I call nonsense on that claim. If anything it means the reported rape rate was 0.0234% and basically almost no one reports getting raped.

And how are you going to substantiate that! I have already stated a couple of times that Statistics Canada that 65-75% of violent crimes go unreported, and that is still an unsubstantiated number. Women are the higher end, but still, if men generally don't get raped, why is StatsCans number for men still up at 65%? For women that number is higher because it is usually by an intimate partner, but that is a difference of 10%

 

Rape actually has about the same conviction statistics as any other crime (20-35%). It's not got anything special about it and Saville lived in a different era where the stigma was much stronger.

Yes, I have posted stats from Canada. The stats from the UK are no different, except that they have a higher conviction all violent crimes.

 

You can't tell people not to rape. If they can and they are sick enough, they will. What we need to do is encourage people to go out in groups (of both genders ideally), stick to safe areas, don't go home with a stranger, et cetera.

The problem with rape is a problem of child abuse. Women who are abused as children are more like to be raped, girls who are sexually assaulted are at an even greater number. Most rapists are men who have been physically or sexually abused as boys. While I did bring up the issue of risk aversion, this will, unfortunately, not work on people who have been abused as children. They will actively seek out these people. Erin Pizzy, who open up the first women's shelter says that over 60 women of the first 100 were as violent or more violent then the men they were escaping. And when they would leave, they would go to another violent male.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I agree with LexusInfernus in this instance mostly. But if you feel you can be overpowered and are in an area where you might be, bring something to even the odds regardless of gender. A knife should do, but use it sparingly.

 

Well sure, bring a weapon if you go to a place that is seriously unsafe. But that should not be the solution. If a place is unsafe, its not the solution to simply allow everyone who goes there to arm themselves, the aim should be to make the place safer by tackling the source of the problem. Arming yourself should only be the short term temporary solution. 

 

You can't tell people not to rape. If they can and they are sick enough, they will. What we need to do is encourage people to go out in groups (of both genders ideally), stick to safe areas, don't go home with a stranger, et cetera.

 

Why not? We tell people not to steal from other people or not to murder other people. Sure, stealing still happens, murders still happen. But as a society we all place all of the blame on the thief or murderer for breaking the law, and not on the victim for not taking enough precautions. 

 

Look, if you teach people not to be a victim, you inherently imply that when you do become the victim, its their own fault because they didn't take their safety serious enough. And that is nonsense. 

[Meg 368]

 

Look, if you teach people not to be a victim, you inherently imply that when you do become the victim, its their own fault because they didn't take their safety serious enough. And that is nonsense. 

 

 

An excellent point!

I’m going to shift gears a bit and talk about Kacy Catanzaro who recently became the first woman to complete a city finals course on American Ninja Warrior.  Despite its ridiculous name, this TV show is not about fighting; it’s about completing an obstacle course.   (It started in Japan as Sasuke.)

Here is Kacy at the Dallas city finals:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZFuw7a13E (and, yes, the announcers are annoying.)

Obviously she did an excellent job.  This course takes a lot of upper body and grip strength and mental focus.   But there are several things about this video that I appreciate that (hopefully) a lot of you didn’t even notice.

One:  She was allowed to do this.   That might seem like an obvious “duh” today but, when I was in high school the girls were not even allowed to run cross-country track.  (I know; this one girl tried repeatedly and was repeatedly not allowed to join the team simply because she was female.)

Two:  She was the only woman to finish the city qualifying course and was the only woman in the city finals.  But, you’ll notice, the crowd was cheering her every step of the way and was eager for her to succeed.   This is a stark contrast to the “what the bleep do you think you’re doing” reaction that women of my generation were greeted with when one of us was the only woman doing something.

Three:  Her boyfriend was cheering her on too, expressing his admiration to people nearby even though he himself had failed the course during the qualifying rounds.   This part is amazing to me.  Generally speaking, when women of my generation wanted to accomplish something, we knew that overcoming the resistance and resentment of the men around us was part of the job.   The fact that she has a man who is so supportive and proud of her speaks very well for him and (hopefully) very well for their generation.  

It will be interesting to see what happens during the national finals in Las Vegas.  No American has ever completed the course there.  I’ll be surprised if anyone completes it.

So what does all of this have to do with feminism?    A lot.  The mere fact that she was there, and did what she did, and everyone reacted the way they did shows that we have come a long way since I was a kid.

 

[krbe 193]

But as a society we all place all of the blame on the thief or murderer for breaking the law, and not on the victim for not taking enough precautions.

The JUSTICE SYSTEM will convict the thief or the murderer if he's found, for the objective transgression committed. SOCIETY will still treat you as an idiot if you leave the door open while you are on holiday. Or in the case of violence, if you decide that going in drunk and harass a bunch of other drunk young testosterone-filled males (don't have many examples of idiots being murdered, sorry).

[LexusInfernus 908]

The JUSTICE SYSTEM will convict the thief or the murderer if he's found, for the objective transgression committed. SOCIETY will still treat you as an idiot if you leave the door open while you are on holiday. Or in the case of violence, if you decide that going in drunk and harass a bunch of other drunk young testosterone-filled males (don't have many examples of idiots being murdered, sorry).

Yes, but now you are citing examples of extreme stupidity and act like it is a valid equivalent in terms of stupidity as say dressing 'sexy' for a night out in a club. Your examples are extremely false equivalents. Dressing sexy, or going to a party or walking over street when its dark are in no way equal to leaving your door unlocked while you're on vacation or drunkenly picking fights with random people. 

 

Furthermore, most of the time that people get robbed its not because they did something dumb like leaving their door unlocked. People who leave their doors locked while going on vacation also get burglarized. Thieves just smash in a window or force the lock on the door. And there are numerous examples of people getting beat up who didn't provoke a fight themselves. Face it, most victims are not victims because they did something wrong or stupid. Most victims are victims because someone else did something wrong, stupid, illegal or all of that combined . 

[krbe 193]

Forgetting to lock your door is negligence, not extreme stupidity. Merely opens up a window of opportunity for someone.

But you are of course right - negligence is rarely the reason why you chose to walk through that unlit park. If it is a known dangerous area it is refusal to mitigate a known risk, and that is far worse.

[CapTon 592]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/barbara-kay-feminist-video-turns-to-child-abuse-to-send-distorted-message/

 

Should this be deemed child abuse? Either way, this is sickening.

[Duke87 1,070]

My girlfriend showed me this video earlier today. She thought it was hilarious. I couldn't get over the fact that these children were being made to use all sorts of profanity on camera and being exploited for politics.

 

Of course, this video was intentionally designed to be highly controversial so it would get attention and get talked about. Seems to have worked.

 

The sad part is, the issues being discussed are real issues, but the swearing children wrecks the credibility of the people who made the video. I mean, if it were a cartoon, I would even be fine with it. But those are real children being made to say those things on camera, preserved forever for the whole world to see. That is not okay.

[CapTon 592]

Agreed .

 

I haven't watched the video in its entirety, but I really don't even have to considering all the information I'm getting from people who have watched it themselves.

 

Now (being a guy and all), I obviously think that the topic of this video is idiotic (however, the director or producer [forget which one] is a man). Feminism, by definition, is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". However, many feminists appear to just blame men for everything that is wrong with this world. Global warming? Men constructed the cars and factories that contribute to it. Ebola? A man brought it to North America. 9/11? Men flew those planes into those towers. You get my drift.

 

I do believe that women deserve the same opportunities as men in the world, whether it be education or employment or anything of the like. However, I don't believe that men are the cause of all issues. We are the cause of a lot, but not all of them.

 

Just my two cents. If you disagree with me, feel free to counter.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Agreed .

 

I haven't watched the video in its entirety, but I really don't even have to considering all the information I'm getting from people who have watched it themselves.

 

Now (being a guy and all), I obviously think that the topic of this video is idiotic (however, the director or producer [forget which one] is a man). Feminism, by definition, is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". However, many feminists appear to just blame men for everything that is wrong with this world. Global warming? Men constructed the cars and factories that contribute to it. Ebola? A man brought it to North America. 9/11? Men flew those planes into those towers. You get my drift.

 

I do believe that women deserve the same opportunities as men in the world, whether it be education or employment or anything of the like. However, I don't believe that men are the cause of all issues. We are the cause of a lot, but not all of them.

 

Just my two cents. If you disagree with me, feel free to counter.

No, it makes a lot of sense. It reminds me of the controversy generated when Kick-Ass was released; Chloe Grace Moretz delivering lines full of swearing when she was only 11 at filming.

By the way, I'm going to merge this with the Feminism thread and bring it all under the one roof.

Merged.

[LexusInfernus 908]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/barbara-kay-feminist-video-turns-to-child-abuse-to-send-distorted-message/

 

Should this be deemed child abuse? Either way, this is sickening.

Won't someone think of the children!

 

No but really, that article is horrible. Not the video, the article. 

 

"There’s white women thinking it’s awesomely creative to have white girls (with a token Asian and a token black) puttin’ it out there like hip-hop “hos.”"

 

Look at that sentence. Even better yet, read the rest of the paragraph. The author implies those children act like 'sluts'. Really? Sluts? Because they drop the f bomb a few times? Ma'am how dare you suggest that someone is a slut or a whore for using 'crude' language. 

 

But the article gets worse. It goes on to say that every claim in the video is nonsense (its not 'nonsense') and even misandry. How the hell is this misandry? How is this demeaning, insulting or in any way negative to men? The worst this video does is say that men have it easier in our society than women, which is an observable, irrefutable fact. Why is stating that fact misandry? 

 

Its kinda funny and telling when the only response of the author of that article is to attack the form of the video, while quickly brush over the actual content. She spends two paragraphs saying that the content of the video is nonsense, while not providing any arguments or evidence to support that view, she states that it is just so, while she spends all the other paragraphs complaining about the horrible language they used. It is the epitome of pearl clutching conservatism. 

 

My girlfriend showed me this video earlier today. She thought it was hilarious. I couldn't get over the fact that these children were being made to use all sorts of profanity on camera and being exploited for politics.

 

Of course, this video was intentionally designed to be highly controversial so it would get attention and get talked about. Seems to have worked.

 

The sad part is, the issues being discussed are real issues, but the swearing children wrecks the credibility of the people who made the video. I mean, if it were a cartoon, I would even be fine with it. But those are real children being made to say those things on camera, preserved forever for the whole world to see. That is not okay.

I've always wondered why Americans are so sensitive to swear words, especially with children. I mean, I can assure you that those children drop f-bombs all the time when their parents aren't watching. And those same parents drop f-bombs all the time as well when their children aren't around. There are f-bombs dropped continuously on tv and in movies, some case to the point where every other word in a sentence is an f-bomb. But oh dear, if you dare to combine children saying the f word in front of parents and other grown ups, everyone starts with the pearl clutching and moralizing nonsense, deluding themselves that they can prevent their children from saying swear words. 

 

Really people, those kids are gonna say f words whether you like it or not. All this is doing is trying to maintain the cultural delusion that your children are sweet special snowflakes who are entirely innocent. Which by itself is only harmful for the children, because they are treated like dumb idiots. 

 

I do love the cultural contradiction we see here compared to what Americans do once their sweet special snowflake commits a crime, like say attempted murder. In that case they are demonized and people demand that they be put in jail for the rest of their lives. Which the justice system does not object to. 

 

Now (being a guy and all), I obviously think that the topic of this video is idiotic (however, the director or producer [forget which one] is a man). Feminism, by definition, is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". However, many feminists appear to just blame men for everything that is wrong with this world. Global warming? Men constructed the cars and factories that contribute to it. Ebola? A man brought it to North America. 9/11? Men flew those planes into those towers. You get my drift.

Ugh, please... Feminism DOES NOT blame men for everything, especially not Global warming, Ebola or 9/11. Its not a movement of men hating lesbians or anything like that. Feminists don't hate men. Anyone that claims otherwise either does not know what feminists stand for or they are part of the MRA scene, which has a particularly misguided hatred for feminists, often to the point of misogyny. 

 

People please go check out what actual feminists stand for, go look up their view point on wikipedia or go follow a feminist blog somewhere. Read from feminists themselves what they think about particular subjects, rather than from people who aren't feminists themselves yet claim to know what feminists think.