A crash course in Feminism (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Eldargal: what you just said, while in quotes, made my brain cry back to its mummy, damn you. Why do you hate my brain so -giggles-


Grenadier: The worst part is is hate crime laws arent supposed to work like that. You have to prove that the reason they committed the crime was due to discrimination and hate and not just because they happen to be gay/black/etc. It was well meaning, because when they first started coming out, people who commited crimes against those minorities often got off because they weren't fully protected, and they would get minimal sentences. I am sorry, regardless of hate crime or not, if you assault someone, or have the intention to kill them, your life should be ruined by the consequences as you had fully intended to ruin the person's life you were committing the crime against.

Now in the case of anti-discrimination law, while it is technically discriminatory because it spells out specific things that are protected, it is very necessary (I know you didn't talk about this, just bringing it up). Because when it comes down to legality, especially in work at will states (most states) if you aren't specifically protected, then you get abused and have no hope of doing anything about it.

Really though, overall, I think the only way to get past these issues is not by litigation, but by going the long road. IE, changing societie's viewpoint on certain issues, on domestic abuse, on LGBT people, and this is slowly happening and I think will be the most successful. An example that I like a lot is the "men's strength isn't to hurt" campaign where men are saying "my strength is not to hurt people, or abuse people." While it is technically a bit patronizing, who cares, it gets the point across in a positive way that I think will have a greater impact.

[Grenadier]

I understand your views Emerald and agree that the solution is to "go the long road." Well intended but poorly applied laws won't change anything.

The one thing that irks me though is when people with campaigns don't live it. Like that Wanda Sykes PSA I mentioned in another thread. If she's going to preach about being sensitive towards a group then you should be sensitive towards all groups.

This is why I hate the cancerous politically correct crap. It's just that: a load of crap. People have prejudices and it's just one of humanity's ugly aspects. But I see a lot of hypocrisy in political correctness. Which I've alluded to here and in other topics. Some groups get far better treatment thanks to it than others do. So its a lot like the hate crime laws.

Remember the fellow I told you about in PM? I detest what happened to him. And we both know what the motivation was. Still, had the same thing happened to someone else I'd detest as well. I think the hate crime laws will eventually backfire. Because those groups not shielded by it will eventually grow resentful of them and feel persecuted.

One day maybe it'll all change. And we won't need hypocritical and discriminatory laws and rules of conduct. We won't need race hustlers on there eternal witch hunt to root out racists. And we won't need PSA's telling us to be nice to these people or those people. And those who preach the most about it often need to work on themselves as well.

[eldargal]

While I agree absolutely (particularly with the recent 'we need more women on British boards' thing, how I groaned), the fact is the scale is still tilted in mens favour when it comes to jobs and even crimes. The prosecution rate ror violence against women, whether domestic, sexual or whatever is still very low and that doesn't even take into account most such crimes aren't even reported. So while I don't support these things we are still a long way away from actually victimising men. Though I appreciate how it could feel that way sometimes. Actually when it comes to rape in particular young women are victimised by the system, even of you behave like a saint it is assumed you brought it on yourself somehow and god forbid you have had a drink the night it happened.

As to hate crime laws, I loathe them. The idea that a crime is more serious when committed against a specific group of people is abhorrent, whether it be aristocracy or migrant workers from Africa or homosexuals etc. The claim that such crimes terrorise that community may be valid, but that assumes that a crime against the majority doesn't terrorise them. Which is absurd i you look at peoples perceptions of crime, pretty much everyone feels under siege to some extent. Legal favouritism is unacceptable (and in the land that invented common law, for gods sake) whether it favours the powerful or the weak.

There is also the fact they are reactionary. As far as I'm concerned punishing the people who beat up a homosexual severely is all well and good, but it would be be better to eliminate the ignorance and hatred that fuels such crimes. But that is much more expensive and much more difficult, so governments won't bother. I don't accept that harsher penalties reduce crime against specific communities either, if two years in prison for beating up a migrant or a homosexual or whatever doesn't stop some idiot from doing it then I don't see why five years would. Eliminate all crime by making all crimes punishable by life in prison, huzzah!

Getting a bit off topic though.

[Psychosplodge]

I'd love to live in a world where when a woman says it's rape, it is rape. (In fact i'd rather live in a world where rape didn't exist) but unfortunately there are the vindictive types that 'cry' rape when it isn't and the heavy sentences these people are rightfully given, put off genuine victims with genuine cases which is wrong. To be honest I don't honestly know how to rectify this, because while ever you have defence lawyers arguing she was asking for it, she'd had a drink etc it will nevr get better...

Hate crime - look at the Sophie Lancaster case, a big fuss was made in the papers because it was (rightfully in my opinion) treated as a hate crime, but then the sentencing was very lenient so was it really given equal weight to a homophobic or racist attack?

Somedays I'd agree with your sentencing, but then why bother enforcing life? why not take them out back and put one behind the ear and save me the tax...

[Grenadier]

I like that you said they are reactionary. That's exactly what they are. At the risk of beating a dead horse this reactionary factor is rampant in America. Be it coming from the liberals or conservatives. Whenever a problem is identified, or an issue arises, either side tries to craft laws to combat the problem or issue. Which are always reactionary!

Example: smoking is bad for people. So they ban it wherever they can. There's now a town in California trying to ban you from smoking on your own property! Soda pops make kids fat: take them out of schools. Whether it is crime or social issues it seems almost every effort or law against them are reactionary. And in some cases they go to extremes with infringing on your liberties, or favoring cherry picked groups over others. And in some cases the results are just plain stupid and ridiculous. Like recently in America a school official caused a bit of controversy because they deemed a kid's lunch was not acceptable according to government's nutritional guidelines. So they imposed their will on the child and gave her chicken nuggets? They're so worried the kid's lunch is going to make them fat they give her chicken nuggets instead of the turkey sandwich she had?

So why is this reactionary effect there?

Is it because society as a whole lacks foresight? Incapable of seeing problems down the road?

Ever heard of the slippery slope? It represents some having foresight I think. An example: some think by allowing gay marriage you'll then have to allow polygamist marriage, or adult on child marriage. And many people despise any form of slippery slope argument. To be fair in some cases those who take the slippery slope argument tend to be alarmists. But in some cases the slippery slope argument is legitimate. But in general society seems to abhor this argument. And I wonder why? To me legalizing drugs is a slippery slope. Having seen the results of rampant drug abuse first hand I'm not inclined to support legalizing it.

Or maybe this reactionary effect is there because it is the only way to deal with crimes or social problems?

But if that is true that means we are not capable of educating ourselves. If the reactionary effect only exists for that reason it implies we are powerless to shape the future of society. I remember as a kid seeing all sorts of PSA's designed to educate and warn you about this or that. You don't see them nearly as much as you did back then. Are people giving up on prevention and education and choosing the reactionary effect?

[eldargal]

We blondes have to take every opportunity to sabotage other girls brains that we can.

Eldargal: what you just said, while in quotes, made my brain cry back to its mummy, damn you. Why do you hate my brain so -giggles-.

Reactionary is easier and cheaper, which isn't to say the problems aren't challenging. They are immensely so, but we hardly even try to take a pro-active approach at a governmental level anymore, it is left to community groups to do it. In some cases it works, I know street parties sponsored by local Muslim communities have really helped integration in some areas, for example. But I'm not sure how you could do something like that for, say, combatting rape or misogyny.

[DrLove42]

, combatting rape or misogyny.

A rape party doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? :P

[Psychosplodge]

We blondes have to take every opportunity to sabotage other girls brains that we can.



.

They don't appear very often for the average blonde....

[eldargal]

Right. Hosting a lavish street party for neighbours is one thing, people are likely to turn up at the prospect of free food and get to know people, no preaching required. Much harder to do that with an issue like rape or women's rights or what have you. For a start it isn't as simple as inviting the local community to a party.

A rape party doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? :P

Exactly.

They don't appear very often for the average blonde....

[MaltonNecromancer]

[url]http://xkcd.com/385/[/url]

My favourite "feminist test" comes from a book I was recently loaned by a friend. It goes like this:

"Put your hands in your pants, and then answer the following questions:

1.) Do you have a vagina?
2.) Do you like being in charge of it?

If you have answered "yes" to both of these questions, you are a feminist."

It's a little simplified, but it makes the point nicely.

Speaking as a man who has called himself a feminist for the last fifteen years, to me, it's all about nothing but equality, and people being free to do whatever the hell they please. It's when you consider that in the Uk, by the age of 30, women will be earning, on average, 40% less than men in equivelant jobs (UK government survey, 2010), I don't get why people wouldn't be angry about that - it's so obviously unfair! I mean, yeah, we can sit and look for reasons (which are many and complex) but the bottom line is: that statistic is obviously not right, and needs changing, and only a villain would argue otherwise.

The best resource I've found on feminism/ sexism in media is the TV Tropes page "Double Standard" - it's not about the real world, just the presentation of male and female roles in stories (which go on to define our expectations of the real world). It's absolutely fascinating, and may well point out some things you haven't noticed. Because there was loads of stuff I hadn't thought about, and this is something I spend quite a bit of time thinking about.

Seriously, have a read:
[url]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard[/url]

This one:[url]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender[/url] is one that'll really make you cross (assuming you're like me, and you assume that no gender is "disposable"). I've had plenty of squaddies explain the reason for single-gender armies to me in terms of keeping women safe, etc... but they all forget the implicit position opposite to that: it means that the men are worth less by comparison. Which isn't true. None of my army buddies, or pupils I've taught who joined the forces are disposable to me.

Sexism goes both ways, and often in ways we may not fully appreciate.

As for public activity that combats public attitudes to rape (which are really the issue in a lot of cases), Slutwalk has been nothing but concentrated awesome. It's all quite possible to do exciting, positive public stuff, it just takes a solid combination of courage and righteous fury. And being prepared to make evil people angry.