0
0

Victim Blaming Contradiction (self.AskFeminists)

TheAutumnEffect- が 投稿

Why is it that feminists hate when females are victim blamed, but often victm blame men when men are victims of something? It seems extreme to say that most of women's problems are caused by men and that any problems that men have (even being the same) are caused by themselves. I don't know if you realize this, but living against what you preach is only perpetuating the same problems you face. If you bash gender expectations and body shaming, why do I see feminists short shaming and calling guys pussies? I've never met an unbiased feminist. Like literally, every feminist I've ever met, does something they've preached against. Then you wonder why you're not taken seriously. There's no exception, because it's bullshit.

全 68 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]derodotusFeminist 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

Hey! You mention some feminists calling men "p*ssies," but that's hard to really fit into any kind of feminist worldview. Doing so certainly seems like an inherently anti-Feminist action, so I can't really give any explanation for it in that scope. This is an issue of interpersonal choices that do not actually align with mainstream feminist thought. The same goes for short-shaming, etc. The best, shortest answer I have for you is that feminists are people and like all people, they may act irrationally or in contradictory ways. I feel safe saying that literally every person you've met, feminist or not, has done something they've preached against. It is more important to look for overarching cohesion in the movement itself (or movements, really, since there are many different schools of feminist thought) than to harp on the actions of a few, especially people that don't hold any sort of influence in the movement.

[–]sweeenlee -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

First, I would like to commend you for your collected and calm response to a very aggressive post.

Second, I would like to expand on the OP's question for a little bit. So feminists are humans and like humans they are capable of making mistakes. With that being said, why do some feminists refuse to acknowledge male issues such as high incarceration, drug use, and education and say that it was males themselves that put them in that position? And by "refuse to acknowledge" I mean, why don't feminists fight for these issues like they do for woman's issues? I know that many feminists already realize these problems exist but they tend to brush it away or remain silent.

[–]derodotusFeminist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you!

And I think it comes down to a few different key elements. The first is fatigue. Gendered issues that negatively affect men are quite often brought up in response to the analogous women's issue. That is, when there are posts about a feminist issue, men's issues are brought up as a kind of "Ok, but why aren't you dealing with this Right. Now." when obviously they are very separate problems with very different solutions. Many feminists (myself included sometimes) are just very tired of having our victories and fights co-opted and minimized by wholly separate issues. This is perhaps not the most responsible way to handle this, but it is a very natural response.

The second point is about intersectionality. (From Wikipedia) Intersectionality is the study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination. This is a key element of third wave feminism, which is what most of us youngsters were raised in, so to speak. All the issues you mentioned (mass incarceration, drug use, and education) don't just come down to gender lines, but also race and class. Because of the various intersections of these issues, it's sometimes not our place to comment on them. A white, middle-class woman may feel that she is unqualified to speak about such issues as they don't affect her and would instead defer to someone with a more personal link to it. And movements to fix these issues do exist and many feminists are involved in them somehow, but they may not necessarily be leading the cause.

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]derodotusFeminist 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I don't disagree. But the bigger point is, these women you're referencing are absolutely not acting in a feminist manner. Calling men a word that references female genitalia to emasculate them? That implies being a woman is somehow bad. I mean, how does that fit in a larger feminist discourse at all? It doesn't matter that a few people are calling themselves feminists, yet acting in ways that totally contradict that. Or rather, it does matter, but it is an issue to be handled within the community itself and with proper education and discussion, will go away. It doesn't invalidate a whole, diverse philosophical/sociological movement though. The people who act like you're describing are not a majority within feminist circles and are certainly not influential in any way. You might feel like you know a lot of people like this, but remember that's a kind of confirmation bias. When a woman says rude things about men, the tendency is to assume she's a feminist and then look to confirm that.

    [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]derodotusFeminist 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Okay, again, that's one small group of people. They don't represent all feminists. I don't know how to make this any clearer. You should probably try meeting feminists that you don't have a negative personal history with.

      [–]Obio1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I completely understand when you say "They don't represent all feminists". But one must understand that moderate feminists very infrequently publicly distance themselves from radicals. This creates a problem for feminism in general as it's often misunderstood.

      A good (and useful) parallel to this problem is the Muslim world, where moderate muslims remain extremely quiet and non-critical of extremist actions, while similarly claiming that "not all muslims are like that".

      It's great to hear. But it's frankly not enough.

      There are hundreds of "feminist" groups (they call themselves that) who preach male sterilization, killing male babies and cutting back the male population. Their wacko materials are all over YouTube.

      There is a large and growing problem with hate-speech self-labeled as "feminism". I haven't seen any public demonstrations by non-hate feminists seeking to distance themselves from these radical ideas. But we need to see exactly those demonstrations, otherwise the radicals win.

      Too frequently the response by feminists is to pretend this problem does not exist.

      [–]FinickyPenancegoprapeadvisorychart.com 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

      /r/TellFeminists

      [–]Personage1Feminist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I love coming here and being told more about what kind of person I am and what my belief system is.

      [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist 2ポイント3ポイント  (57子コメント)

      Read the rules before posting:

      /r/AskFeminists is not a space to put guilt by association on all feminists due to the actions done by X persons or groups, especially when such actions are in contradiction with feminism or basic common sense.

      [–]Elkmont 5ポイント6ポイント  (51子コメント)

      Did you read the Amy Shumer rape post before /r/askfeminism decided to conviently delete it? There were a lot of posts made by regulars here with feminist tags saying it was the highly inebriated (to the point of falling asleep while amy continued) mans fault because he called and iniciated the encounter. We had prime examples of individuals here doing just what OP is asking about. Op is not referring to hypothetical women, but to you.

      [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist 4ポイント5ポイント  (46子コメント)

      I read it, and that is not what people were saying. They were saying that a sexual encounter where one person is inebriated does not automatically mean that that person was raped because someone who is drunk can also commit a rape. Nobody there was saying that having sex with a person who is blackout drunk is fine. The point is that when you are drunk you are still responsible for your actions (nobody claimed you are responsible for someone else's actions).

      [–]Elkmont 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

      Here's a post by u/Felicia_Svilling - Feminist

      To rape someone, you have, you know, actually do something. You have to take an active part. If some drunk tries to thrust into your hips, or tries to perform oral sex on you, and you don't do anything, you are not committing rape.

      So even though according to Amy he was 'wasted' and had passed out during the encounter several times there's still a question as to whether or not he was raped? What happened to not being able to consent while inebriated? Im truly curious as according to this user because he liked it he wasent raped.

      Edit: . you're doing it too. You're / they're turning what if the genders were reversed would be claimed is clearly rape around and claiming the drunk guy who couldnt stay awake was the real rapist... you're blaming the victim exaclty like OP says feminist do, so long as its a man that is.

      [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

      You are obviously trying really hard to twist what people are saying. The idea that to rape someone, you have to actually do something, is hardly shocking. If someone is passed out, they are obviously not capable of doing anything. Therefore, if they are involved in a sexual activity, it has to be someone else doing something, otherwise no sexual activity would be happening. If someone does something sexual to someone who is passed out, that is of course rape (unless someone agreed to this beforehand when capable of consenting). Nothing /u/Felicia_Svilling said contradicts this.

      you're doing it too. You're / they're turning what if the genders were reversed would be claimed is clearly rape around and claiming the drunk guy who couldnt stay awake was the real rapist... you're blaming the victim exaclty like OP says feminist do, so long as its a man that is.

      Yeah, right. Please quote where I said that "the drunk guy who couldnt stay awake was the real rapist". I said that someone who is drunk can commit a rape. That again is hardly a shocking statement. If a drunk person rapes someone and then passes out, do they suddenly become the victim? Of course not! Also, please note that I never once mentioned a gender in my post. You are making assumptions based on nothing whatsoever.

      [–]Elkmont 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

      You are obviously trying really hard to twist what people are saying.

      Uh huh

      The idea that to rape someone, you have to actually do something, is hardly shocking. If someone is passed out, they are obviously not capable of doing anything. Therefore, if they are involved in a sexual activity, it has to be someone else doing something, otherwise no sexual activity would be happening.

      ? So, even though Amy describes being on top while he comes in and out of consciousness barely able to keep it stiff enough for the sex to work at all he is still partly at fault because he was doing something? Lets flip the script shall we? --She was wet and if she didnt get wet during the rape it wouldnt have worked therefor she is partly to blame... yeah you're argument is victim blaming, the exact thing OP is claiming.

      If someone does something sexual to someone who is passed out, that is of course rape (unless someone agreed to this beforehand when capable of consenting). Nothing /u/Felicia_Svilling said contradicts this.

      No one said she did. What she did do, and you continue to is to victim blame, the exact thing OP claims you do to men.

      Yeah, right. Please quote where I said that "the drunk guy who couldnt stay awake was the real rapist".

      to rape someone, you have to actually do something... Therefore, if they are involved in a sexual activity, it has to be someone else doing something, otherwise no sexual activity would be happening.

      He literally, according to feminism, could not give consent. At no point during the interaction with him being in the state of mind described could he consent. Any intercourse between two, according to feminism, where one party is inebriated and one is sober the inebriated individual was raped. Any attempt to say its his fault, or that he is partly to blame while in the state of mind he was, accprding to feminism, is victim blaming.

      I said that someone who is drunk can commit a rape. That again is hardly a shocking statement. If a drunk person rapes someone and then passes out, do they suddenly become the victim?

      Again, you're trying to turn the situation around and claim he was the rapist... blamming the individual whom, accprding to feminism, should be the victim.

      Tldr: He could never give consent, she iniciating sex with an inebriated individual, by feminists definitions, is rape. Any attempts to blame the inebriated individual is victim blaming.

      [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

      So, even though Amy describes being on top while he comes in and out of consciousness barely able to keep it stiff enough for the sex to work at all he is still partly at fault because he was doing something

      she iniciating sex with an inebriated individual

      Stop lying! Did you even read what she said? Because nowhere does she have an active part in what is happening. She did not initiate sex. She never describes herself as being on top of him. She never describes herself actively engaging in anything other than kissing. He is doing things to and with her body, she is lying there doing nothing. Source. Please note that she is the one crying.

      I have better things to do with my time than waste them on someone who thinks blatantly lying is an acceptable debate tactic.

      [–]Elkmont 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Finally, the door opens. It's Matt, but not really. He's there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can't focus on me. He's actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. "Hey!" he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He's fucking wasted

      According to feminism he could not consent, therefor he could not iniciate. You're angry because such rules are irrational. This whole situation is irrational. No one was raped, but feminism wants to impose these rediculous rules about affermative consent and when examples of the reverse occur, (we're equals right?) you cannot accept it was rape... which is correct, he was not raped, she was not raped, no one was raped.

      The point is either accept she raped him, or accept the rules on consent feminism is trying to impose are illogical and no where near egalitarian.

      Im actually really glad you're angry at me, it shows there is still hope.

      [–]Felicia_SvillingFeminist 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

      The point is either accept she raped him, or accept the rules on consent feminism is trying to impose are illogical and no where near egalitarian.

      Or you have misunderstood what feminists are saying about consent and rape.

      [–]Elkmont 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

      Except I'm not... Remember, actions are what are to be judged, not words, words are easy. Here is an example where two individuals were of the same state of mind, but the university's feminist staff decided following their consent policy that although the young man was in the same state of mind he was at fault. Ironically the university is saying in a round about way that because he was a man he had more responsibility to make the proper decision than the young woman simply because he was a man.

      Now what would you say to me if I claimed it was her fault for putting herself into the situation?

      [–]Throbbing-Clitoris -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      There was no rape in this encounter, but Amy was clearly not the initiator nor the aggressor. Here are some actual quotes from her speech. Can you read these and still see her as a rapist who took advantage of this poor boy (who was five years older than she was, btw):

      As that sexy maneuver where the guy pushes you on the bed, you know, like, "I'm taking the wheel on this one. Now I'm going to blow your mind,"

      I felt like I was being tongued by someone who had just been given Novocain. I felt faceless, and nameless. I was just a warm body, and I was freezing cold. His fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there.

      So he was pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate.

      He started to go down on me. That's ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal? Chelsea? Is it? Yes? It is. I want to scream for myself, "Get out of here, Amy. You are beautiful, you are smart, and worth more than this. This is not where you stay."

      The only wetness between my legs is from his drool, because he's now sleeping and snoring into me.

      I look at his exposed butt crack, a dark, unkempt abyss that I was falling into. I felt paralyzed. His asshole is a canyon, and this was my 127 Hours. I might chew my arm off.

      He crawled back into bed, and tried to mash at this point his third ball into my vagina. On his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast. His head was heavy and his breath was so sour, I had to turn my head so my eyes didn't water.

      [–]Elkmont 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Thank you for another fine example of the hypocrisy shown by feminism today.

      The point, throbbing-clitoris, is while affirmative consent laws are being pushed by feminists which on paper would make Amy a rapist, feminists such as you laugh at the individual who would be the victim, which just so happens to exactly what OP was complaining about. I absolutely agree with you in that there was no rape in the entire scenario. The problem is if the genders were reversed the discussion would be on how the sober man took advantage of the inebriated woman, regardless of how much it seemed she wanted it, hence the hypocrisy. Oh well, the very fact we even talk about this as rape is a disgusting repercussion of the idiotic rape culture concept being pushed by feminism.

      edit: you missed the best quote

      Finally, the door opens. It's Matt, but not really. He's there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can't focus on me. He's actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. "Hey!" he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He's fucking wasted.

      At this point, according to the rules feminism is pushing he cannot be involved in a consensual sexual encounter.... and yet you mock the man... sad.

      [–]Spartacus321 0ポイント1ポイント  (27子コメント)

      They were saying that a sexual encounter where one person is inebriated does not automatically mean that that person was raped because someone who is drunk can also commit a rape.

      I think it's pretty cut-and-dry. If we define rape as sexual contact that occurs when someone is beyond the mental capacity of consenting, then that's what happened to that guy. He may have been the one initiating contact, but that doesn't change the fact that he can't consent.

      If I let some black-out-drunk woman go down on me when she isn't capable of consenting, isn't that sexual assault? If so, why is it different in Amy's case?

      [–]Personage1Feminist 3ポイント4ポイント  (19子コメント)

      If she forcefully does so and you panic and freeze like what happened in the story? No, you are not raping her.

      [–]Spartacus321 1ポイント2ポイント  (18子コメント)

      Honestly that's not what I got out of the story. Amy's wording made it seem like she didn't really "panic"; she just was emotional and let it happen. I mean, he certainly wasn't capable of being too forceful;

      Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal?

      She also called his attempts "sloppy, tentative lovemaking" and that the reason she was upset wasn't because she was scared or intimidated but because she felt unattractive.

      [–]Personage1Feminist 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

      She also described a disociation with herself. It was pointed out to me by a rape survivor that what she described matched his own experience as well as many other survivors.

      [–]Spartacus321 2ポイント3ポイント  (16子コメント)

      She never once described it as rape. She didn't even describe it as traumatic or coerced. The entire point of the story wasn't the tale of how a painful or frightening experienced changed her; it that she didn't feel pretty and she realized she didn't want to feel that way any more. That's it. She felt dissociated and crappy not because she was feeling violated and abused but because she felt unattractive and used as a last resort. While the feelings sound the same, I hardly consider them equatable.

      Besides, I think that's discounting what she did based on what she was feeling. If I let a drunk girl blow me (under no coercion) but feel bad about myself, I don't think that absolves me of the fact that I just took advantage of a girl that is completely beyond the capacity of consent.

      [–]Personage1Feminist 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

      Many people who experience rape don't see it that way. Hell, this is certainly a big part of the problem for male victims. Saying she didn't call it rape means almost nothing.

      Look, I appreciate that you are going by exactly what was said without trying to read between the lines, but maybe talk to rape survivors and people who study rape about the experiences in the moment before you apply your own interpretation of something you did not experience into someone else's experience.

      [–]Spartacus321 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

      I think I've been pretty sensitive. I took her at her word (EDIT: "I wanted to be held and touched and felt desired, despite everything. I wanted to be with him."). Perhaps in this instance it's your interpretation that's the one that's reading too much between the lines? Because personally I think what you just said is a conversation-terminating appeal to sensitivity. "Well, maybe you should just try to be more sensitive and not take this strong, successful woman at her word". I mean... how can I have a conversation like that?

      She was much more preoccupied with how unattractive she felt than anything else.

      [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

      If we define rape as sexual contact that occurs when someone is beyond the mental capacity of consenting, then that's what happened to that guy.

      But we don't define rape like that, because then anybody who rapes someone when drunk could claim to be the victim instead of the perpetrator.

      If I let some black-out-drunk woman go down on me when she isn't capable of consenting, isn't that sexual assault?

      Define "let". If you never consented to receiving oral sex, you are being raped by a drunk woman. If you push her off, she attempted to rape you. Consent doesn't exist until you deny it, it doesn't exist until you give it.

      [–]Spartacus321 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

      But we don't define rape like that, because then anybody who rapes someone when drunk could claim to be the victim instead of the perpetrator.

      Ok fair enough. However, I don't think that's relevant in this particular instance.

      Amy let a drunk man go down on her while he wasn't exactly a force to be reckoned with:

      Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal?

      The only wetness between my legs is from his drool, because he's now sleeping and snoring into me.

      He wakes up grumpily, falls to the floor, and crawls.

      On his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast

      So clearly he's not particularly threatening. He's not even capable of standing, much less forcing her to do something. Additionally, the story wasn't about assault or surviving an ordeal. The whole point of the story was that the reason she was upset during was because she didn't feel pretty enough to deserve attention:

      Now I feel strong and beautiful

      You got it. You figured me out. I'm not pretty. I'm not thin. I do not deserve to use my voice. I'll start wearing a burqa and start waiting tables at a pancake house. All my self-worth is based on what you can see

      I am not my weight

      So having established that he wasn't exactly capable of force and that she let him do it, is this not assault on her part?

      [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      she iniciating sex with an inebriated individual

      Again, what do you mean with "let"? Did she consent to this? Because it's not the case that consent is present until someone stops you, consent doesn't exist until someone gives it to you. He went down on her without her permission. Why does that mean she is raping him?

      So clearly he's not particularly threatening. He's not even capable of standing, much less forcing her to do something.

      So what? Physically force or physical threat are not necessary for something to be rape. Lack of consent is. His state does not mean that she consented! It doesn't matter how weak or nonthreatening he is. If he does something sexually to her without her consent, it is sexual assault.

      The whole point of the story was that the reason she was upset during was because she didn't feel pretty enough to deserve attention

      Yes, and such low levels of self-esteem can easily lead to people not stopping things they don't want to happen. Does it sound to you like she enjoyed herself? She was crying for God's sake!

      [–]Spartacus321 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I guess I'm coming at this from a different perspective. As someone that's been around drunk women that have been hitting heavily on the men around me, we all took it as a sign that she needed to be put to bed/watched after. That taking her up on her offer would absolutely be a breach of ethics. If a drunk woman approaches me and tries to have sex with me, I think it absolutely is on me to tell her no. To walk away. I'm all for the idea that "inaction is itself an action", so I have a hard time seeing this from any perspective where Amy didn't have the option to just walk away. There was a clear degree of escalation, and never once did she mention that she said anything to him about it. I mean... I've seen a lot worse behavior from drunk women, and that was a clear indicator to step in and speak up.

      She was crying for God's sake!

      For reasons that didn't really include him. Not directly at least. She was crying at the self-realization. Which is why she chose the story; it was a time when she realized something about herself.

      His head was heavy and his breath was so sour, I had to turn my head so my eyes didn't water. But they were watering anyway, because of this song. Who is this? This is so beautiful. I've never heard these songs before.

      I listened to the songs and I cried... I never heard from Matt again, but felt only grateful for being introduced to my new self, a girl who got her value from within her. I'm also grateful to Matt for introducing me to my love Sam Cooke, who I'm still with today.

      I mean... this doesn't exactly sound like she was too torn up about the sex, or that she was too upset with Matt. He, however, had sex and might not have even remembered it. Isn't that a violation?

      [–]Elkmont 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      On many college campuses this is exaclty how rape is defined, and there are hundreds of examples of men being punished for behaving exactly the way Amy did.

      [–]Define_It 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Let (verb-transitive): To give permission or opportunity to; allow: I let them borrow the car. The inheritance let us finally buy a house. See Usage Note at leave1.

      I am a bot. If there are any issues, please contact my [master].
      Want to learn how to use me? [Read this post].

      [–]traveler_Student of Diana 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Far and away the most frustrating thing about being a feminist is the constant, severe pattern of people arguing against their own misunderstandings of my (and our) views. I guess that's why this subreddit exists, so if you promise to keep asking questions I promise to keep trying to answer them.

      But please try to recognize the possibility that you've misunderstood what people were saying in that mess of a thread. Heck I think everyone in there did. We can't expect these conversations to be easy, but that includes the responsibility on all participants to put in the difficult work of actually trying to understand others' positions.

      [–]Elkmont 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      See, the problem is, words are cheap. I may ask a question and you may give an answer you truely believe to be acurate, but just because you give an answer you feel is correct does not mean it is true to the actions of individuals within the real world. There are cases where men are being punished because they slept with an inebriated woman. The Schumer thing we have here is a case where a woman, albiet under seemingly ugly circumstances sleeps with a highly inebriated man and yet the blame seems to be on the mans side. The point Im attempting to make is this is not a case of rape on either parties behave.

      My question is: why do individuals constantly seek out a way for a woman to be a victim as is shown by the defense of Schumer's actions?

      [–]major-major_majorIntrospective Feminist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Would you mind explaining what happened in this deleted thread? I seem to have missed some serious context in the forum; everyone is talking about Amy Schumer all the sudden.

      [–]Obio1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You're cherry picking the "good" parts of feminism, and pretending the radical/dangerous parts simply "aren't feminist". The thing is, they say exactly the same about you. They would say that they are the "real" feminists, and you're barely one.

      There is a simply terrifying amount of feminist hate-speech out there. There are also feminists who believe women can do no wrong.

      Until non-hate feminists openly and actively name and distance themselves from these individuals and groups, it's all going to be called "feminism" by the world.

      As far as I'm concerned, there are some great feminists and there are some truly scary, violent, dangerous feminists. That assortment ultimately colors feminism to a medium gray color. Feminism not in any way a cohesive movement that is uniformly positive or good. It's got some super smart, visionaries... and some hate-fueled, sexist lunatics.

      [–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

      If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

      [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]i_fake_itRadical Feminist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Excuse me, what? How? If you make such insulting, sweeping statements, I suggest you back them up.

        [–]_MDMAzing_ -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Not all feminists are like that but I understand his question. Media only shows extreme feminists who act like he describes.

        [–]cazort2Why This Way 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I don't believe in blaming anyone, shaming anyone, or applying negative labels or insults to people, under any circumstances, period. This may be a radical stance, but I don't even want to do this to people who commit crimes or do very harmful things. This isn't to say I want them to be able to get away with their behaviors, without consequences. Just that I don't like using the language of blame, and instead, I like to look at them as a whole person, and view them with compassion, even if / when they've done something I disapprove of, or find very harmful or even very horrible.

        I do fairly often see people who identify as feminist, blaming or shaming men. I think there are several explanations for this:

        • It could be people who are new to feminism, or are using the "feminist" label without really understanding it, or people (of any age) who are just in an emotionally immature state. Our culture is full of blaming and shaming and I think it's easy for people to pick up bad habits from those around them.

        • Some people move into feminism initially, as a response to heavily misogynistic cultures in which they're heavily blamed or shamed as a woman. Just like some people grow up in Fundamentalist Christianity, and become atheist only to retain the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude of these forms of Christianity ("Only an idiot would believe in God."), I think some people can get involved in feminism but still retain the blaming / shaming attitudes and patterns of behavior and communication that they were surrounded by. Hopefully this can be a stage people grow out of.

        • Sometimes people can just be angry and can fall into this sort of speech or behavior, temporarily. This is something I struggle with. For example, the other day I was fed up with landscapers using really loud leaf-blowers out my window and I fell into a blaming mindset when thinking about them and talking about them. So, in some cases, you may be just catching people on an off day.

        • Unfortunately there are some feminist subcultures and organizations in which blaming / insulting / attacking / shaming people is socially accepted, even encouraged. This is especially true when it comes to people who are doing harmful things, especially things seen as sexist or misogynist. I don't agree with these ideologies and I think they often do more harm than good, but I think it's important to know that they are out there and there are a significant portion of people who identify as feminist, who act this way and believe it is okay or even good. Personally though, I would like to root these elements out of feminism.

        So yeah...I don't like / agree with blaming or shaming, ever. Period. For anything, whether or not I disagree with the person's behavior. I don't want to blame people who are on the victim end of things, nor even people who do harmful things.