PDA

View Full Version : Feminism? Discussion?! Of course! or Why there is no Discussion forum anymore


Odjn
02-15-2010, 04:38 AM
Until comparatively recently in human history, Bells, it was considered more okay--or at least less wrong--for a man to beat his wife than it was for him to, say, get in a fight with some other guy at a bar.

I know it kind of seems like "aw man, women're getting special laws and rights just for them, and that's not fair!" But the fact is that for much of human history women have already had a sort of "special law" apply to them, even when on paper it purports to apply to them equally--and that law amounts to "women will get the shit beat out of them and murdered regularly, because, well, maybe she shouldnt've burned the pot roast, I dunno, and whoever did it maybe gets the judge to wag his finger at him disapprovingly, at worst". All those "special laws" are just trying to make the law do what it's supposed to do already, because left by itself the law was (and in many places and many ways, still is) hopelessly broken.

This has been A Minute of Feminism.

This is utter horseshit and I will tell you why.

There are three parties involved in domestic abuse. The perpetrator, the victim, the system of justice. The perpetrator is pretty much always an asshole; there may be exceptions, but they are pretty much nonexistent. The victim is the person who gets abused, and the system of justice exists to protect the victim and punish the perpetrator.

With these laws, more perpetrators are being successfully prosecuted. The problem is that other victims are being punished based solely on their sex.

Let's take a look at what feminism means.

Merriam Webster says feminism means:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

The only way you could justify that law is on the second definition. The first, which speaks of both sex and gender equality would in fact designate, rightfully so, that law sexist. Because it discriminates by sex, and not in a way such as, let's face it, childbirth/abortion which are strictly female because a person born male is not in the forseeable future carry a fetus inside them.

So, in effect those laws are twisting the system of justice. The system of justice is pretty clear in its goal, which as previously stated is to punish perpetrators, protect victims. Why is twisting? Because in order to punish more perpetrators, you are explicitly casting the system in one direction which is more likely to punish minority victims.

Now, as you've claimed and I support, the system is hardly equal. So in this little triangle, the system of justice is not punishing the perpetrators who abused the victims. The laws you mentioned may punish the system and those who run it, I am not familiar with them since you did not state them. But they DO punish victims, and by employing those laws you in fact perpetrate inequality the same way the operators of the system did, and you are no better than them.

The way to punish said people legally and equally is to punish THEM through shame. Know someone at a newspaper? Bring evidence of a judge letting three abusers off because he considered it acceptable-most transcripts are available to the public, or to the involved of the case. Go to his house with resized photographs on signs of the abused with their injuries and other signs with the general statement "This judge/police officer let this continue." Go outside the police station with the names of officers who were involved and negligent. Write letters to every newspaper, television studio, senator and representative, city council and mayor's office. Deluge them. Shame them into taking action, because what they allow is shameful.

A feminist would not allow either sex, or gender, to be discriminated against no matter what the gains from it may be because the act of doing so is against the very belief of gender equality.



O-kaaay. Look, if someone here wants to have a semi-intelligent discussion about the law and its response to people who've traditionally been the victims of oppression, they can feel free to start a thread about that. I kind of thought last night that that was how this thread might pan out, despite the way it started. But seriously, what the shitting fuck? I don't know whether you guys meant it to be "ironic" or some shit but the several-page cavalcade of "cunt punt" jokes on display still comes off creepy and awful more than anything.

I think I'm gonna close this before it gets even worse. Then I may go drink. (Look, drinking! We've come full circle!)


Bringing this up:

Never heard a feminist argue that it's an example of discrimination that dick kick humor is totally wrong/acceptable as cunt punt humor.

Both are acceptable or unacceptable!

DFM
02-15-2010, 07:23 AM
For a similar example, making it cool for white people to get lynched by black people every now and then because white people had it coming is also not okay!

EDIT: Satan's Onion I am kind of mad you called that first post a moment in Feminism because that's not Feminism at all! I usually only get that mad at Solid Snake!

Odjn
02-15-2010, 07:24 AM
Shush you just like lynching.

Funka Genocide
02-15-2010, 11:07 AM
You don't know enough about the legal systems of Western Society to make a valid point Odjn. Don't mean that as an insult, just finding the desultory tone of this post to be completely baseless and somewhat ignorant.

Find me some relevant laws and case studies, along with pertinent statistics that suggest men are routinely victimzed by either women or the system to such an extent as to overturn the general consensus that a historically victimized minority does need additional legal consideration.

Otherwise, I assume you are being back-handedly misogynistic.

Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men. Ergo, additional legal consideration is required in cases of physical assault. This doesn't even bring into account literally millenia of female oppression.

Ryanderman
02-15-2010, 11:57 AM
Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men. Ergo, additional legal consideration is required in cases of physical assault. This doesn't even bring into account literally millenia of female oppression.
Why is than an Ergo? Are you saying it's because women in general are smaller and weaker than men? Should Asians recieve additional consideration in situations with Africans? It can be argued that stastically they're smaller.

Or are you saying because in each case, the woman is smaller and weaker than the man. But that's just not going to be true in each case. Should the man receive special consideration in a case in which he is the smaller and weaker party?

I don't see how your point in case makes sense.

DFM
02-15-2010, 11:59 AM
Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men.

Because that doesn't sound sexist!

Edit: Back-handedly misogynistic are you serious?

Magus
02-15-2010, 12:09 PM
Extenuating circumstances is what is the problem. Judges are always trying to take people's life stories into account when setting a judgment, which is why some people who have clearly committed assault are not given as harsh a punishment as they should probably be given. If one person hits another person, prove it and put the hitter in jail for assault for whatever the average amount of time is for assault. Case closed.

The problem, of course, crops up when you start taking gender, race, etc. into account, which causes all the dissatisfaction and is pretty much the basis of the arguments here. A man who hits a woman will probably face a harsher penalty than a man who hits another man or two men who get in a fight or a woman who hits another woman or two women who get in a fight (I'd say the penalties go in that order of harshness). You also have the problem of proving domestic violence charges, since the spouse is usually unwilling to testify against the assailant.

So, in a perfect world, the system would 1. be impartial and 2. would not need to be partial due to the rest of history and 3. would have victims willing to testify against their attackers.

Since all three are impossible to get all together you guys might as well save your breath and agree to disagree because it's never going to be the perfect system for probably 90% of the assault victims.

Mirai Gen
02-15-2010, 12:11 PM
You don't know enough about the legal systems of Western Society to make a valid point Odjn. Don't mean that as an insult, just finding the desultory tone of this post to be completely baseless and somewhat ignorant.
It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize prejudice.

Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men.
Yeah! Cause women bodybuilders don't exist.

I mean, duh.

DFM
02-15-2010, 12:12 PM
I think every woman I know is bigger and stronger than me unless she is also twelve.

Magus
02-15-2010, 12:13 PM
While I'm sure there's been at least one woman bodybuilder who beat up on her wimpy husband in the history of the world, it's hardly the norm, now is it?

DFM
02-15-2010, 12:13 PM
You callin' me weird?

Mirai Gen
02-15-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm dating a woman who throws freight overnight for a retail store. She can lift more than I can.

I mean even if I could cite sources and consult graphs it's still bullshit to say "Women are physically inferior to men, because."

Premmy
02-15-2010, 12:32 PM
Yeah! Cause women bodybuilders don't exist.

I mean, duh.
Body builders, fighters, and people in severely physical professions don't represent average human bodies.
Conversely, people who don't even engage in regular physical activity don't either.

Women have better lower body strength, due to their hips, usually, men have better upper body strength, due to their shoulders.

People are DIFFERENT from each other, you guys! SHOCKER! And this DOES"NT mean one is better than the other! OMG!

pochercoaster
02-15-2010, 12:34 PM
Regardless of how it relates to legality, I'm actually surprised that you guys are arguing that woman aren't smaller and weaker than men. This is a -generalization-, of course- there are plenty of weak little men and plenty of strong women. But, on average, women have less muscle mass than men. It's just biology; women produce less testosterone and therefore don't build as much muscle. They ARE physically inferior. Even female athletes tend to perform a little under male athletes. Check world records for track, shot-put, etc. and the top performing women, while still amazing, tend to score a little below top performing men.

And referring to yourself as an example on a forum where nerds congregate isn't really helping. XD (I'd also like to point out I'm saying this as a woman who works out on a regular basis. While my muscles are pretty strong, that doesn't mean my brother, who barely lifts a finger, couldn't throw me across a room if he wanted to.)

Mirai Gen
02-15-2010, 12:39 PM
This is a -generalization-, of course-
EXACTLY!

EDIT:
They ARE physically inferior.
uuuugghhh

Look I know you can consult statistical averages all over the chart and argue till you're blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that this kind of mindset is the exact kind of prejudiced bullshit I thought we left behind when women got the right to vote.

Saying that women are generally physically inferior to men sounds all fine and dandy when you're talking about strict biology but in context with physical abuse between parties this means you're automatically going to go "Well the woman can't have done anything wrong! She's generally physically inferior!"

katiuska
02-15-2010, 12:39 PM
For the record, women generally have greater strength per amount of muscle mass, they just also have less of it. I'm just throwing that out there, I'm not touching the rest of the thread.

pochercoaster
02-15-2010, 12:40 PM
Well, when referring to large populations of people (that is, 50% of it), it's better to use a generalization than an anecdote.

Um, I mean, I shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's like saying, I dunno, if you had to make a decision that affected everyone based on hair colour, you would go with brown, not blonde.

Edit: Seriously, wtffff. I'm not touching the legal aspects. I'm just arguing that statistically, women are generally weaker than men. It's pretty much fact. The rest of this thread I'm not addressing.

Edit 2: And I am aware that there are female abusers out there and that frankly anyone with the know-how can break anyone's arm. But most people don't have this training.

Archbio
02-15-2010, 12:44 PM
Never heard a feminist argue that it's an example of discrimination that dick kick humor is totally wrong/acceptable as cunt punt humor.

See, this is bullshit. If you actually compare what instances of "testicular trauma" humor are generally like, and what "cunt punt humor" (I'd like to put a second set of quotes around humor there, but it'd just be ugly), you'd find that they're not just equivalent with hormone dosage switched. Just look at the creepshow of a thread in question.

No woman enjoys it.*
Kick 'em again, that usually works.Women are like my lawnmower.

The focus is kind of different than the basic slapstick of a man getting hit in the groin by a football. I mean basically you're complaining about men who created a (stupid) comedy trope based on their experience of how badly placed testicles are. It exists in a basically empathic way. Even the schadenfreude of it is basically empathy. The audience for men getting hit in the groin isn't women.

You could have slapstick comedy that includes a woman getting hit in the groin, but there are a few reasons why there'll always be less of it than the male version. None of them actually have anything to do with supposedly normal American white males being oppressed. Shocking!

*It being a violent act that may or may not be rape. Komedy!

DFM
02-15-2010, 12:44 PM
You could say black guys are generally stronger than white guys but it doesn't mean white guys should get special legal privileges to make up for their handicap.

Edit:

The focus is kind of different than the basic slapstick of a man getting hit in the groin by a football. I mean basically you're complaining about men who created a (stupid) comedy trope based on their experience of how badly placed testicles are. It exists in a basically empathic way. Even the schadenfreude of it is basically empathy. The audience for men getting hit in the groin isn't women.

You could have slapstick comedy that includes a woman getting hit in the groin, but there are a few reasons why there'll always be less of it than the male version. None of them actually have anything to do with supposedly normal American white male being oppressed.

*It being a violent act that may or may not be rape. Komedy!

Wooooah, look at all this bullshit spilling out here!

Slapstick is funny because somebody's getting hurt, whether its a girl having a bucket fall on her head or a dude getting hit in the nuts by a plank. If more people actually realized a woman getting hit in the groin hurts you'd see a lot more of it. You usually see the opposite, the joke being that she doesn't get hurt at all because she's got no testicles. Hah!

The only real reason you don't see more women in slapstick is because it does bring up uncomfortable connotations of domestic abuse that people looking for a laugh would rather not deal with. Same reason most slapstick doesn't involve a bunch of white guys trying to beat up a black guy. No, it isn't any more wrong, but people make connections.

Edit 2: If it seems like I'm drawing racial analogies a lot it's because I am, it's the best non-sexism example I can think of.

Premmy
02-15-2010, 12:57 PM
Well, when referring to large populations of people (that is, 50% of it), it's better to use a generalization than an anecdote.

Um, I mean, I shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's like saying, I dunno, if you had to make a decision that affected everyone based on hair colour, you would go with brown, not blonde.

Edit: Seriously, wtffff. I'm not touching the legal aspects. I'm just arguing that statistically, women are generally weaker than men. It's pretty much fact. The rest of this thread I'm not addressing.

Edit 2: And I am aware that there are female abusers out there and that frankly anyone with the know-how can break anyone's arm. But most people don't have this training.

Different, not inferior, DIFFERENT.
You could say black guys are generally stronger than white guys but it doesn't mean white guys should get special legal privileges to make up for their handicap.
Which Black Guys? Bantus? BUshmen? angolans? Nubians? African Americans? African-Diasporics?
Which White guys? Scandinavians? anglo-Saxxons? Mediteraneans?

Race is a fictional construct that encompasses a wide variety of vastly different people for the sake of the people defining it's convienience.

Saying that women are generally physically inferior to men sounds all fine and dandy when you're talking about strict biology but in context with physical abuse between parties this means you're automatically going to go "Well the woman can't have done anything wrong! She's generally physically inferior!"
This is viewing physical abuse only from the physical aspect. What happens when you run up to someone and hit them is dictated as much by their physical abilities as it is by their social position, legal status, Religion, personality, etc.

My family and community constantly tells me that I, as the son, am not allowed to fight back if my mother decides to wail on me. Even though I'm a grown-ass man, and she's big as hell, and crazy as hell. If I was'nt an adult, and she was'nt bigger than me, these rules would still exist. Child abuse laws exist just as much for the physical descrepancies as they do for the cultural, social, and psycological standards of our culture and parenting.

The same can be said for laws concerning domestic abuse.

Wooooah, look at all this bullshit spilling out here!

Slapstick is funny because somebody's getting hurt, whether its a girl having a bucket fall on her head or a dude getting hit in the nuts by a plank. If more people actually realized a woman getting hit in the groin hurts you'd see a lot more of it. You usually see the opposite, the joke being that she doesn't get hurt at all because she's got no testicles. Hah!

I Don't know about you, but the general response I see by men when watching a nut-check scene is:
"OOOOOOH!!!"
*Clutches crotch in sympathy*
"That had to hurt"
*may or may not think about the time the viewer got hit in the nuts in some spectacular way*

Whereas in other slapstick it's just
"HA!"

and women usually respond the same way to nut-shots

Tsticular humor is a very specific kind, considering it specifically applies to testicles.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:03 PM
Different, not inferior, DIFFERENT.



This is an important point that needs to be established and I hope nobody tries to argue things like 'Well men can run faster and lift more how does that not make women physically inferior?' because if you do you're being dumb.



Which Black Guys? Bantus? BUshmen? angolans? Nubians? African Americans? African-Diasporics?



Well not the American ones, they're all wusses.



Which White guys? Scandinavians? anglo-Saxxons? Mediteraneans?



Mediterraneans are Ar-Ahbs you can't trick me. >:[


Edit: I don't know I've only ever seen people go Ha! at nut shots and groin kicks and the like so I guess personal mileage varies.

Edit 2: Sometimes they go Oooh! but they do that for any painful looking slapstick.

Mike McC
02-15-2010, 01:03 PM
All I have to say. (http://contexts.org/socimages/tag/gender/)

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:09 PM
The only real reason you don't see more women in slapstick is because it does bring up uncomfortable connotations of domestic abuse that people looking for a laugh would rather not deal with.

I'm pretty sure those slapstick tropes originated before sitcoms where domestic abuse was a laughing matter.

The thing is, though, unfortunate connotations is my problem with it. Intentional unfortunate connotations. Kind of like "lol, imma rape a woman with my shoe!" Komedy!

You usually see the opposite, the joke being that she doesn't get hurt at all because she's got no testicles. Hah!

That kind of totally goes in the direction of what I'm saying. The originator of the trope had testicles, his audience had testicles. And I'm not at all convinced about the amount of pain, however testicular trauma and getting hit in the vulva compare up. Testicles being hit is played as the most painful thing ever, compared to how unsafely placed testicles are.

Edit: Oh, you haven't seen men react empathically to ballbusting sequences? Hard to believe.

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:10 PM
This is an important point that needs to be established and hope nobody tries to argue things like 'Well men can run faster and lift more how does that not make women physically inferior?' because if you do you're being dumb.

See, the problem is the people discussing differences vocally and getting the most attentions HAVE been saying that, so now anytime someone says that all kinds of people are different, which is an awesome thing, the common reaction is "HOW DARE YOU SAY YOU'RE BETTER!" and then we get a shouting match.
That kind of totally goes in the direction of what I'm saying. The originator of the trope had testicles, his audience had testicles.

Another way to view it is very simple. Women don't get kicked in the balls. Men do. It's a male-centric form of comedy. slapstick is'nt just about getting hit, it's about getting hit in a way designed to be funny. A Scene of someone getting punched is'nt inherently slapstick. Nut-shots hinge on the presence of nuts, and the reaction of getting hit in them, for the humor.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:11 PM
All I have to say. (http://contexts.org/socimages/tag/gender/)

I've read the first page of that blog and I like it but I don't see the entry I think you want us to see, it's mostly Valentine's stuff.

Edit: Holy god this thread is moving fast


The thing is, though, unfortunate connotations is my problem with it. Intentional unfortunate connotations. Kind of like "lol, imma rape a woman with my shoe!" Komedy!



Tell me Archbio how do you feel about jokes involving dominatrixes or male prison rape?



That kind of totally goes in the direction of what I'm saying. The originator of the trope had testicles, his audience had testicles. And I'm not at all convinced about the amount of pain, however testicular trauma and getting hit in the vulva compare up. Testicles being hit is played as the most painful thing ever, compared to how unsafely placed testicles are.



I don't think I disagreed with this (And I'm going to feel silly if I did) but yeah slapstick was written by men for the general public (ie men) and men know getting hit in the balls is painful, and therefore funny. They don't know from first hand knowledge that it is also painful for girls, so they assumed it wasn't, I am totally with you there!


Edit: Oh, you haven't seen men react empathically to ballbusting sequences? Hard to believe.


I haven't ever seen anyone clutch their balls and go "Ow!". They make the same noises they make when any other really painful thing happens, maybe you watch movies with the Three Stooges I don't know!

Great Cartoonist
02-15-2010, 01:16 PM
To think that this thread started because a previous thread on racism got derailed into a thread about kicking women in the crotch.

What, are the majority of us here middle-aged immature men?

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:17 PM
To think that this thread started because a previous thread on racism got derailed into a thread about kicking women in the crotch.

Reason number 2 Prem'd rather not make a thread about Racism.
Also that was a drunk-post, don't think it counts.

CABAL49
02-15-2010, 01:23 PM
And this thread is getting derailed by talking about how another thread got derailed. Speaking of kicking women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo)

I still feel that contributes to our discussion. Is this terrible movie sexist?

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:25 PM
And this thread is getting derailed by talking about how another thread got derailed. Speaking of kicking women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo)

I still feel that contributes to our discussion. Is this terrible movie sexist?

Most movies are in some way.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:25 PM
If it is the bear running up to someone in the woods and slugging them makes up for it.

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:33 PM
Tell me Archbio how do you feel about jokes involving dominatrixes or male prison rape?

Oh, that's adorable.

I don't think I disagreed with this (And I'm going to feel silly if I did)

Well, you were saying that we don't see as many women getting hit in the vulva as men getting it in the testicles because people are so, so sensitive about violence against women, and that me saying "The audience for men getting hit in the groin isn't women" and explaining how the two types of violence weren't equivalent therefore they shouldn't be expected to be as common was overflowing bullshit; so I kind of assumed you disagreed with it.

But, whatever, who cares what you said, right? Maybe it was all ironic, anyway.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:35 PM
Archbio you did not answer my question!

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:37 PM
Archbio you did not answer my question!

It was so relevant, dignified and sincere that I couldn't bear to sully it with an answer. What intellectual flourish, that was! Prison rape and dominatrixes, conflated together! Just genius.

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:38 PM
ANNNNND here we go.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:39 PM
Somebody doesn't get it!

Edit: Or is afraid to answer????

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:40 PM
So, DFM.

Tell me, really: have you stopped beating your wife?

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:40 PM
Gays can't marry!

Edit: YET

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:41 PM
HEY! Hey! you guys! (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=1015818&postcount=11)

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:43 PM
Gays can't marry!

Edit: YET

And all was naught but silly, vaccuous humor and ambiguous irony.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:48 PM
Archbio I don't understand what you just said!

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:49 PM
That means your meds are kicking in.

Mike McC
02-15-2010, 01:49 PM
I've read the first page of that blog and I like it but I don't see the entry I think you want us to see, it's mostly Valentine's stuff.No specific entry. There's a hojillion interesting articles that show the weird gender dynamic in today's culture and really it's worth reading deeper into. I'd've found a more specific filter to use but honestly I don't want to spend too much of my snowday on this when I have a room to clean.

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:50 PM
There's a difference between not taking oneself too seriously and mocking, DFM.

DFM
02-15-2010, 01:52 PM
Yeah Archbio stop mocking me!

Edit: Oh, there's a comma

A Zarkin' Frood
02-15-2010, 01:53 PM
This thread is comedy gold. I don't know what else to say. Borderline Flamewar.
I tried giving a serious reply several times, but I just couldn't bring myself to click the send button in the face of this glorious thread. Some may say this is for the better. Hey, people! You were basically discussing whose morals are the superior absolute truth. Congrats. That or feminism. Or Domestic Abuse. Or under what circumstances it's okay to hit whatever group of people.

It's sad I can't contribute anything anymore because this thread is so full of bullshit already it's great. Not even I can add to that pile.

Archbio
02-15-2010, 01:55 PM
It's sad I can't contribute anything anymore because this thread is so full of bullshit already it's great. Not even I can add to that pile.

Don't kid yourself, you just did.

Premmy
02-15-2010, 01:55 PM
I believe the phrase
"This is why we can't have nice things" is in order.

Great Cartoonist
02-15-2010, 01:56 PM
Okay seriously, what the hell. This used to be a nice thread with intelligent discussion! The previous one used to be a nice thread with intelligent discussion! For gosh sakes people, if you wanted to be this irrelevant, you should have taken it to a new thread! I mean... it just... I...
*sigh* you know what? I quit.