Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

My main issue is with the tone.  I agree with more of her points than I disagree with, but it is still hard for me not to read her overall intentions as demonization and anger.

Any person who seeks a high profile while writing on a subject needs to understand that they're going to represent their position to more than just their target audience, and if they write with the assumption that they only need to appeal to those who are already on-board, then unless their goal is alienation they are going to be counter-productive.  This is a simple fact of mass communications.

I understand there's the justification that the problem is so overwhelming that it's hard not to get emotional about them, and I can relate... but if she truly wants to be productive, she needs to grow out of that.  As someone who has viewed the world's problems from an anarchist's perspective for 13 years, I can totally relate, and it took me several to learn how alienating it is to respond by throwing emotion into rhetoric and how to respect people who are unwittingly "part of the problem" because it is another issue where everyone is, including myself.  If I start up an anarchist blog and write explanations about how everyone is supportive of slave culture and responsible for everything I see as wrong with the world without being extremely tactful, then I deserve the angry and contrarian responses my words would generate.

[Tellemurius]

Wtf my gift card didn't activate in the store so now I'm boned out of 50 bucks, and I doubt my manager is gonna fix it :/

[Bohandas]

I find it comical that so much feminist writing actually makes people respect women less.

(similar to how Jack Chick destroyed my faith in Christianity, the KKK removed my respect for white people, and thinking about PETA makes veal taste so much better)

[Euld]

So my mom has this certain job for three years.  This year, she decides to step up and take the now vacant manager position.  She lost the position to a newbie who was hired a couple months ago, even though her workplace's rules clearly states a worker can't get a promotion within six months of taking any position.

And the worst part?  My mom and I work in the same place, and this puts the newbie above ME.  And this newbie has made it a point to interfere with my job duties on several occasions, only making things more difficult.  I expect things to get worse.  A lot worse.

[Bohandas]

So my mom has this certain job for three years.  This year, she decides to step up and take the now vacant manager position.  She lost the position to a newbie who was hired a couple months ago, even though her workplace's rules clearly states a worker can't get a promotion within six months of taking any position.

She should file a lawsuit. (Although, the fact that such a lawuit would be justified might hurt her chances of winning)

[Darvi]

GOD FUCKING DAMMIT! If you want somebody to do stuff on your PC, you just don't go ahead and close the motherfucking antivirus scan when they're away!

[HailFire]

Wow, it's like Stage 2 of Castlevania: Dracula X is custom-tailored to piss me off.

I actually found enemies I hate more than medusa heads, and that's fucking saying something.

[Nadaka]

My main issue is with the tone.  I agree with more of her points than I disagree with, but it is still hard for me not to read her overall intentions as demonization and anger.

Any person who seeks a high profile while writing on a subject needs to understand that they're going to represent their position to more than just their target audience, and if they write with the assumption that they only need to appeal to those who are already on-board, then unless their goal is alienation they are going to be counter-productive.  This is a simple fact of mass communications.

I understand there's the justification that the problem is so overwhelming that it's hard not to get emotional about them, and I can relate... but if she truly wants to be productive, she needs to grow out of that.  As someone who has viewed the world's problems from an anarchist's perspective for 13 years, I can totally relate, and it took me several to learn how alienating it is to respond by throwing emotion into rhetoric and how to respect people who are unwittingly "part of the problem" because it is another issue where everyone is, including myself.  If I start up an anarchist blog and write explanations about how everyone is supportive of slave culture and responsible for everything I see as wrong with the world without being extremely tactful, then I deserve the angry and contrarian responses my words would generate.

I've read the list while there are a few legitimate issues, taken all together it boils down to: "are you a biological human with any sexual tenancies as opposed to a genderless anti-human?" I would be hard pressed to find ANYONE, male or female, that doesn't fit on that list somewhere. It is even blaming the victims of rape, and that is what I find abhorrently offensive.

[Benevolence]

Well then. My impression of the blog entry, at this point, is that it isn't saying "if someone does X they support rape" in a direct, "you are a terrible person for doing this" way, and is aimed primarily at an audience that would understand that. If not immediately, then with a bit of thought after reading. Rather, the point is more that the behaviors listed contribute to the objectification of women, and this in turn supports a culture that indirectly supports rape. Or directly, in some particular cases. The degree to which that is true of each individual action/belief listed is variable, as is the directness of the support, but I can see how most of them can be connected.

As I said above, I don't particularly get the impression of a "you are a terrible person for doing this" attitude so much as simply observing these are, in fact, happening and (to varying degrees) contributing to the "rape culture", as I believe she worded it in one of the comments. Rather, understanding that it is meant primarily for radical feminists (as she herself describes it and her main readers), it is meant as a compilation of already existing concepts for reference, further discussion, and thought, ideally leading to something constructive in other areas.

The main idea, therefore, is simply revealing problematic behavior. Not condemning, not accusing, but observing and highlighting. Not saying that anyone who does any of it is a rapist, supporter of rapists, or would-be rapist, but someone who is, intentionally or not, supporting a culture that leads to such. That is what I get out of it at the moment, anyway.

That said, I really don't see how it's blaming rape victims.

[Nadaka]

By listing a set of normal innocent behaviors common to pretty much all humans to some extent (in addition to a few bad or somewhat questionable behaviors), she is implicitly blaming all humans including the victims. Rubbing it in their face, saying "Guess what? It really is your fault." She is victimizing them again, and doing it intentionally.

[Leafsnail]

By listing a set of normal innocent behaviors common to pretty much all humans to some extent (in addition to a few bad or somewhat questionable behaviors), she is implicitly blaming all humans including the victims. Rubbing it in their face, saying "Guess what? It really is your fault." She is victimizing them again, and doing it intentionally.

This is a stretch and you know it.

[Nadaka]

The intentionally part? It is a stretch.

[Benevolence]

I am fairly certain there is a difference beyond noting that people, likely including many rape victims, behave in ways that indirectly support a cultural atmosphere that indirectly and implicitly supports rape and saying that it is the victims fault they were raped.

[Nadaka]

Several of the things on that list are in no way supportive of that culture.

[sonerohi]

That list infuriates me. They are, in fact, good points about how we can reinforce a permissive culture. The part I rage about is where the author says it is impossible to apply any of those standards to women. We men cannot hide and say 'nya', we have to get up and deal with the problems on our end. But according to the article, there are no problems on the female end. It is perfectly acceptable for feminists to talk about culling male babies, and that in no way promotes anything bad. It is not acceptable to say that those women are angry or irrational, because that is supporting the rape culture by providing a scapegoat. I don't want to play a game of "gotcha", I want feminists to see why that example pisses me off. It is terribly easy to put a guy in between a rock and a hard place when you make statements like that, because there is no defensible argument against it, even though it is so obviously incorrect.