Feminists Outwanked By Oppressed White, Middle-Class Males?
So, yeah. On THE_Forum, a woman posted a little tale about her co-worker (giving lots of personal information about said co-worker, easily enabling any bored stalker online to find out precisely who she was talking about; when confronted, she claimed that "Jo" was reading over her shoulder and aware that her personal business had been broadcast worldwide...true? not?...which doesn't mitigate the fact that her personal data was still there for anyone to access).
So Jo The Cow-Orker [tm Dilbert] had an abusive ex-boyfriend who stalked and beat the tar out of her. This is a bad thing. No one condones that sort of shit. However, the Original Poster felt the need to qualify certain things. She noted that Jo was pretty, and nice, and blah and foo and bar. All of which is beside the point, but implies that if Jo were, say, ugly, or mean, or unblah, notfoo and antiblah, that being beaten to a pulp by an ex would somehow be okay.
about 3 months ago, a woman slightly older than me started working in my office. She's nice, and pretty and all. About a week into the job she disappears for a few days. We don't really think much of it, it often happens that way here with women.
There's more, but this is all I should repost, probably. Anyway, THE_Forum Feministas justifiably were annoyed, and politely pointed out that [a], posting personal data was less than safe behavior, and [b], WTF did prettiness or niceness or anything have to do with the situation? Would it somehow be okay if Jo weren't those things? Would she then "be asking for it"? Think that isn't what the OP meant?
I mentioned the fact that she's nice and pretty because often when people hear about this they comment on how she must have deserved it.
Note that this woman has also frequently commented on the "unreliability" of fellow female workers who regularly "up and quit" without notice, and several bad behaviors amongst the predominately male staff, such as infantilizing female coworkers, adjusting their penises in their pants in public, making sexist remarks, making personal remarks, taking it upon themselves to insert themselves into the women's personal issues (e.g., threatening to beat up the errant ex-boyfriend, because clearly the helpless, hapless female can't take care of her own personal business on her own or think to get help from professional aides or services or police officers or lawyers), talking about sexual matters openly and with profanity in front of women, treating adult females like "little sisters," rewarding quieter, prettier women with positive attention while being less pleasant to older, more outspoken, less conventionally attractive women, the lack of women in power positions within her company, and so on.
Interesting how I'm assuming that women in the workplace are unreliable when I'm a woman in a workplace. In this workplace (where I am right now) they are. In the year I've been here we've had about 5 women come in, work a day then leave without notice.
She does not see a connection, or wonder if the Boys Will Be Boys atmosphere might have a little something to do with why the company can't retain female employees. Because the penis-fondling, sex-talking, patronizing, macho guys she works with are all "wonderful"!
I personally think the guys I work with are wonderful. I've never had a problem with them.
So, this latest post, where the biggest question asked was not "how can I help my friend" or "what can we do to help stop violence against women perpetrated by former loved ones?" but "do you think 18 months in jail is adequate punishment for her ex?," caused some Feministas to snap.
You know, if you want me to stop going for the jugular and complaining about your sexist attitudes, you really need to stop this shit. Why does it matter to the story that she is pretty? What the FUCK is up with your assumption about women in the workplace being unreliable? Did you lift little finger one to help her when you suspected she was the victim of domestic violence?
and
...what's with these 'wonderful' guys wanting to go and beat the crap out of someone they don't even know? Why would they want to do that? Do they have some kind of ownership of her because she works there? Way to exacerbate the situation, yep, more violence is exactly the answer. Bet it would make your workmate feel wonderful to know there's even more violence going down and that the ex-boyfriend now has extra reasons to come and get her?
And the gloves were off. The OP complained that her statement about Jo's appearance was valid. Some posters labeled themselves as feminists. This prompted this grand non-revelation from the OP:
I'm a woman and am deeply not a feminist. I am amazed how quickly this turned into a train wreck, amazed and yet not surprised.
Note that the OP delights in derailing threads on a regular basis, turning thoughtful or interesting debate into an opportunity to exchange cyberhuggles and animated emoticons with her Best Friends 4Evah, which never, ever adds anything useful to any discussion. God forbid her post be derailed by a serious discussion, because she's the one getting poked for being assimilated by The Patriarchy. Note also how she resents the derailing, but will go off at the first opportunity to spread "unicorms and reinbeauxz and sparkleez and glompz" on someone else's thread, perhaps to bump up her post count. At any rate, other posters started chiming in ("I'm a guy and I still think Feminista 1 and Feminista 2 have a point." and "I am a guy and on this subject I agree with Feminista 1 and Feminista 2 wholeheartedly."), as they do on THE_Forum, where nicey-niceness is weakness, and not being able to defend your statements on a public forum means spankings (and not the "good kind," whatever those might be), and they find the discussion worthy of discussion (and wankery). OP predictably responds to the men with a Woeface Emotie (Oh no, the men do not agree with me!) and to the women with hostility and accusations of abuse, because gently pointing out that OP is perpetuating Stinkin' Thinkin' is OMFG meancakes. Feminista 3 pops in and very sensibly asks a few pointed questions:
I should know better than to get involved in something like this, but I can't help it. When people, particularly women, say that they are not feminists it just upsets me. Maybe I am just being an idealistic youth, but do you hate yourself? Because I think you'd need to have some deep-seeded emotional problem if you don't believe that you deserve fair and equal treatment under the law (as well as in society). Do you believe that you are less capable or intelligent than your male counterparts? Or maybe you think that you, and perhaps women in general, have done something wrong and deserve some kind of punishment? Please don't take this as offensive, my questions are actually serious. I do my best to listen to all perspectives as I think it gives me a richer understanding of humanity.
And the response from OP: "I'm not a feminist, but I'm all for equal rights [...] Feminism, sexism, very rarely is that an issue here". Um, that IS feminism, nutshelled, thanks. You knobhead! OP then says that she "disagrees with certain behaviors" of feminists, despite it being unclear if she even knows what a feminist actually is. Fun times! Feminista 4 shows up, and is likewise level-headed: "Feminism is an issue here. If it was some random guy he'd beaten up outside a pub, or a former mate, he'd have gotten longer than 18 months. But because it was his (ex) girlfriend he got a light sentence. You can see sexism at work in the legal system here." Feminista 7 adds, "Well then, explain what "certain feminist" behaviours it is that makes you want to not call yourself a feminist. Is it the fighting for equal rights, even for ingrates like you?"
Naturally, while a thread about some strange woman getting beat down wasn't interesting, let someone challenge patriarchal points of view, and the menfolk and some patriarchy-co-opting women start to get a wee bit antsy. "What is wrong with some people here? Calling you "sexist" because you describe a woman as pretty? Or appreciate the fact that your male co workers want to defend her?"
Oh no.
This calls for...a LOLcat!
Feminista 2 tries to use monosyllabic words and speak slowly: "I'll try to explain in small words. OP thinks people are surprised when they find out this woman is pretty, because pretty girls don't deserve to get beaten. Get it? What fucking right do these co-workers, who from all accounts barely know this new employee, have to interfere in her life and quite probably make the situation worse for her? Hello-o - anyone in there?"
Exactly. But, with a stunning lack of comprehension, the menfolk start addressing issues not yet raised: "...you can call me a sexist: when I see / hear a woman being assaulted, I go out of my way to help her!" Nowhere in the thread did anyone say or even hint that helping an assaulted person (male or female) was being sexist. Feminista 2 tries again: "Now where in your twisted logic have you decided that a woman in need should not be helped. Have you even read this thread? That was one of the first things we all asked, whether this woman had been helped."
Feminista 5 wades into the fray, against her better judgment.
A man beating on a woman (or vice versa) is wrong. We're talking real world wrong, not Pesverse, where fighting is Awesome. I'm alswo not talking about warfare, as that's a different can of worms. In real life, domestic violence / violence against women is always wrong.
It is not more or less wrong if the woman is nice, sane, attractive, or smart, or dressed "appropriately," or sober, or with friends, or not out late at night.
It is not mitigated or excused in any way if the woman is a jerk, has mental problems, or is unattractive, stupid, dressed "inappropriately," drunk/impaired, or out alone late at night.
Your male co-workers wanting to be knights on white horses and rescue the poor, hapless female are a symptom of sexism. It may be an admirable impulse to want to punish someone who hurt your friend, but the way you phrase it makes it clear that they see it as their male duty to protect a helpless little lady.
What might help your friend is going to a place that counsels abused women, getting a mostly useless but legally vital restraining order, and getting someone who knows about security issues to inspect her home for insecure entry points. If she lives in a secure building wih a doorman, the ex's photo needs to be posted at the front door, with instructions to call the police if he shows up.
She needs to attend any legal hearing and speak up on her own behalf, as well.
No, eighteen months is not long enough. I am assuming that the ex is getting no counseling while in gaol, and his attitude that hitting women is a way to express himself is not going to change.
If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of a raised hand, will you tell yourself you deserved it because you "made him mad," or were in some way not smart or pretty or nice enough to avoid being smacked? Adults learn to control themselves and to resolve disagreements without pummeling the crap out of others, especially those who are typically smaller, less strong, less willing to hit others, and less skilled at fighting back.
Violence against women is a major issue for women, regardless of culture, race, class or age. Preventing male violence can not and should not be solved by women living in a state of terror, complying with unofficial curfews or restricting their own freedom. Personal safety charities struggle to give out advice about protection. I don’t suggest we become reckless with our safety to the point of ignoring our instincts. Innate fight-or-flight responses have served well for millions of years. It’s all very well to be vigilant, however, and watch for people following you, and turn off your I-pod, and carry a mobile discreetly, but it will not actually protect you when it comes down to it. While women remain physically weaker, or while men have access to knives or bottles or simply terror, their most potent weapon, no woman will be entirely safe.
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute..." --Rebecca West, The Clarion, 11/14/13
Argh. Isn't this stuff basic information by now? Feminista 5 also quotes Tomato Nation's Sarah Bunting and her Yes, You Are essay. In come the dumbasses who don't read the rest of the thread because they are in such a hurry to defend poor little OP from the mean feminists, but still feel entitled to complain about how everyone is supposedly being patronizing and meancakes to poor little OP. For poor little OP has run off to another forum to whine about how everyone is being so mean (logical) and asking such mean (pointed, on-topic) questions, and being so darn MEAN (quoting relevant feminist articles and quotations), and all the folks who delight in derailing other seriosu threads not with intellect or well-reasoned responses, or research, or relevant discourse, but with the aforementioned "unicorms and reinbeauxz and sparkleez and glompz", are all fired up. It's all very love me, love my dog, even though the dog just widdled all over your area of expertise and a relevant issue in your life. Clearly, correcting or asking for more information from OP is abusive and nasty and shitful, so the CuddleMummies and the KinkaidBrigade are on the way to thump their prayer books and wag their fingers menacingly in the faces of everyone who dared to comment on, well...the sexism inherent in the system. (see: Denis(e) the Peasant: "Halp, halp, I'm being repressed!") Feminista 5 restains herself to pointing out that the "patronizing" bit being referred to was labeled clearly with the actual author's name and a weblink where it could be found, and suggests that LoveMahDog read a little more carefully.
Feminista 2 is less patient with this person due to this person's constant thread-meddling, derailing, whinging and mommying, and says:
Way to miss the point Sherlock. Once again, charging into a thread, without comprehension, here comes LoveMahDog. Don'tGiveOutPersonalInfoOnline was trying to illustrate to the Ozzie drongo why she should NOT plaster shit like this on the net if there are security issues. She is trying to explain how easy it would be for someone to find this information. She did this by sharing part of what seems a grueling tale of being stalked on the Internet and by describing how easy it would be to get information by word of mouth. What part of that was so difficult to understand? [...] Hey, I know, why not take some of the very sensible advice given by Feminista 5, on how to make things safer. And talk to some people who encounter this stuff all the time, oh I dunno, maybe talk to the Oz equivalent of Womens' Refuge? Do some practical stuff to support this workmate. 'Cos yeah, this Jo definitely needs help, not mobs of drongos running around inciting violence.
Seriously. Of course, LoveMahDog does not deign to respond, but, lo, SexistEx-Soldier charges in, polishing his cyberpeen for battle.
OK, let's identify the real sexists in this thread. They are not the people who are appalled at the light sentence that an abusive person can get in most 'civilised' countries. They are not the people who advocate jumping in to help someone who is in trouble. They ARE the people who lay claim to being the sole arbiters of language and phrasing when it comes to referring to other people. I refer, of course to Feminista 1 and Feminista 2. You two, in particular, claim to be promoting equality between people, while insisting that you are inherently superior to everyone else. This strongly demonstrates both hypocrisy and bigotry, and it is time that someone called you on it. Now, I am sure, you will turn your obscenity-filled attacks on me, and castigate me for my narrow, sexist views. If these responses follow your usual pattern, they will lack content and meaning, and I will ignore them. I have fought for freedom on too many fronts, for too many years, to get upset by a meaningless challenge. If, by some miracle, your responses reflect intelligent thought, this may turn into a meaningful discussion.
This calls for another picture!
Oy. Let's count the different derailment / bingo / discrediting attempts in there. "Men aren't sexist, uppity women who insist that people who choose to debate them do so with logic, research and intellect are sexist!" (One!) "Feminism isn't about promoting equality, it is about being superior to others!" (Two!) "Ad Hominem homina homina homina, Ad hominem homina homina homina, you're both hypocritical bigoted BITCHES!" (Three!), "It's my job as a MAN to call you UPPITY WOMEN on your (so-called) BULLSHIT!" (Four!), "You have used profanity a total of three times, albeit not directed at anyone directly, ergo you should be ASHAMED into curbing your mode of expression!" (Five!), "You're not discussing and asking questions, you are ATTACKING!" (Six!), "If I label myself accurately, you will be cowed into claiming you weren't going to label me the same way, I beat you to it, neener neener, I am a narrow-minded sexist troll!" (Seven!), You ALWAYS do stuff I don't like," (Eight!), "Nothing you say has any real content or meaning or value anyway!" (Nine!), "Ignoring you will hurt you, because denying you my attention is a serious blow! You don't exist if I am not paying attention to you!" (Ten!), "I am a hero, I fight for FREEDOM! So you're not, and don't! Only I can define freedom properly!" (Eleven!), "Behold my years of experience, my wisdom cannot be denied!" (Twelve!), "Any argument you make will be a meaningless challenge!" (Thirteen!), "It would be a miracle if your responses reflected what I consider to be intellegent thought, but they won't!" (Fourteen!), and, for the capper, "Only if you play by my rules and conform to my preferences will this discussion ever be actually MEANINGFUL, so allow me to set the rules for you!" (Fifteen! NetDick of the Week Award hereby bestowed! And stay tuned, it gets better!) Feminista 6 enters the thread, waving her axe.
Couldn't have anything to do with how the 'great' guys you work with constantly use foul language (they repeatedly apologize to the wimmin folk but don't change the behavior), are constantly and disgustingly adjusting their genitalia in your presence, and treat you like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth because you 'look about 17'? Nah. That sounds like every woman's dream work environment. What a stroke of bad luck to get 5 women in the course of a year who were so unreliable.
Meanwhile, LoveMahDog flails and fusses, and bitches at Feminista 7, who responds: "I like how you bypass the actual argument I tried to make, and instead choose to latch on to the least important bit in my post. Way to go, LoveMahDog!" LoveMahDog, who derailed the thread with off-topic wankery and bullcrap, attempts to snark back, and attempts to shift blame, but lacks the chops: "Thanks. I'm trying to avoid entering/instigating yet another argument in a thread that should never have been derailed in the first place. I appreciate having your approval." Oy vey! InnocentBystander States The Obvious: "Christ, I think the wankometer just exploded." Feminista 6 tries again:
OP, here's the deal. In the U.S., what those guys do would be considered sexual harassment. It concerns me that you think it's ok. My ex-husband manages a manufacturing plant where one woman works, in the office. I can guarantee you that none of the guys who work there would dream of doing the stuff that the guys you work with do. Swearing and then apologizing isn't respectful, it's patronizing. Dick adjustments need to be done in the john, not in your face, etc. Getting all googly-eyed because a woman looks like a teenaged girl isn't fun, or nice, it's gross and it is sexual harassment, whether you believe it is or not. I know, I'm wasting my breath because I don't think you will ever really see the distinction.
And OP says, with a coy giggle:
Oh, Feminista 6! *tee hee emotie* The dick adjustments aren't on purpose. You know when you're talking to a guy and he does it out of habit? Yeah that. I believe that every one has a slightly different definition of sexual harassment. So no, I don't see swearing as sexual harassment, nor do I see normal male behavior as sexual harassment. As for the other thing, they don't get goggle-eyed at me at all. More like I'm a little sister. I don't get offended at things that don't offend me. Even if it what's 'right'. So I'll be happy in my workplace, happy in the first job I've loved this much. And you can be happy thinking I'm being sexually harassed without knowing it. End of discussion.
But, of course, it's not. Feminista 5 says to Feminista 6: "I see the same things you do. It's not in your face obvious sexism, but yep, it is sexism. It oogs me too." Feminista 6 responds:
When it's not a blatant bastard remark, I tend to believe that it's completely unintentional. Now, would someone adjusting themselves bug me? Sure. I'm often in an uncomfortable position as a woman (boobages, etc), but you don't see me grabbing in and moving them about. Not without a ticket, anyways. It's about being polite. Adjusting yourself in public is in the same category as spitting in public to me. It's a disgusting habit that many find offensive. If someone does it in front of me, I ask them not to. Simple. I've worked in a truck building company before that had maybe two other female employees. I was 18 at the time, relatively thin back then, and had my whole fresh-from-high-school-and-innocent thing going on. I was working inventory, crawling all around the warehouse floors and climbing up racks of extrusions in the rain. No one, I repeat no one ever said an off word to me, or did anything that smacked of sexuality in front of me. So don't give me that blue-collar different rules crap. Some things are universal.
More derailments ensure, and OP is ducking anything to do with defining why she isn't a feminist and what behavior she thinks is typically feminist that she disagrees with, nor is she explaining why Jo's appearance has shit-all to do with why it was somehow worse for her to be beaten to a pulp as opposed to, say, someone less nice / pretty / familiar to OP. Feminista 1 tires of the derailments and asks a loaded question: "So, can I ask a question? If you got drunk at a party, and maybe passed out, or were pretty out of it, and kind of came to, to find that I guy you knew was having sex with you, would you consider that rape? Or would you think, hey, my fault, and also, he's a guy I know, so maybe that's okay?" She is jumped on (my MALE posters) for the question, and adds, "I honestly want to know where OP draws the line, because from my perspective, she puts up with a whole heck of a lot of behaviour that I would characterise as harrassment. Actually, she doesn't put up with it, she condones and excuses it. So, presented this question, yes, as a really far out there choice, thinking, well, if she says "no, that's not okay," then we work inwards to where I can understand her definitions." After all, OP is always opining about how groovy it is that we have this swell community, and it is so keen that we can get to know each other better online and all, so Feminista 1 isn't being unduly personal, here. OP is not compelled to respond, but if she wants to live up to her billing, she "should". Will she? "I'm not stupid enough drunk at parties. End of story. Just because what I believe is harassment isn't the same as what you believe doesn't mean I'm wrong. God, there are many women who know how the guys at my work are and they don't see a problem. As you said in the post that I can't be arsed quoting, it's what you consider harassment, not the universal written law of harassment. Unless of course you are the supreme overlord. If that is the case, I do apologize, and will change my ways immediately. (What do feminists believe in and do that OP disagrees with?) Maybe I worded it wrong. I should have left it at I don't call myself a feminist. I don't see why someone needs a label to believe in something. I don't like the feminists who decide I'm a bad person because I don't call myself one, or because I don't get offended over things I don't find offensive." Feminista 1 gets annoyed at the evasiveness, and asks again, "Would you just answer the question? Because otherwise, it looks like your answer is "If I get drunk and someone rapes me, that's my fault."" OP finally admits: "If I was stupid enough to pass out at a party and some guy (even one I knew) raped me then, yes, I'm partially to blame. Naturally he's done the illegal thing to rape me, but it's my responsibility not to get into that situation." Because it requires that you be stupid and irresponsible before someone chooses to rape you, yanno? Amirite? Oh, wait. No, that's not right. Duh!
OoooOOOOoooh! You know that's going to stir up some shite. Feminista 1 heaves a gigantic sigh, and responds:
Okay. Well, look, here's what I propose: I recognise that you are completely incapable of understanding the kinds of things that many, many Feministas are saying to you because you have so internalised patriarchal oppression, and you are so determined that you couldn't possibly be participating or perpetuating ideas of sexism. I feel terribly sorry for you, and I hate to do this, because I think all women should have the ability to reach their full potential, and do what they can to strive for equality, but I am officially giving up on you. I'm not going to stop taking issue with your sexist (and racist) comments, but I am really going to see you from this point as a member of the patriarchy, rather than as a young woman who needs help in figuring out how to deal with sexism, gender roles and feminism.
Hold on, folks, SexistEx-Soldier is here to set us all straight!
Which is precisely where your incessant remarks become sexist. You cannot change the fact that OP is a woman, no matter what you think of her, it is a biological fact. You don't even try to understand her opinions or feelings, you attack based on your sexist view of the world. And when someone challenges you on it you denigrate them by calling them stupid, when your own attitude is reflecting a refusal to learn, which is the best definition of stupidity. You are not more educated than I, and you are neither old enough nor wise enough to judge me. When you have learned as much of the English language as I have used we might be able to enter into a discussion, until then, keep your bigoted, sexist comments to yourself.
Did we mention that Feminista 1 is a college professor? You may laugh now. But wait, it gets better! Wait for it! Another male enters the thread. Ace Of Derhay opines:
How is it that women can aspire to 'equality' by defining it in terms of masculine qualities being the only ones worth attaining. Feminine qualities are to be shunned and avoided, nay destroyed, because they have been perpetrated upon women by a patriarchal system? This view seems to derive directly from the inherently sexist opinion that the feminine qualities are weak and undesirable, and consequently inferior. This was supposed to be the male-chauvinist viewpoint, but now it is the feminist one as well? The potential to which a woman can achieve in the current social, political, and economic constructs of civilization as we know it are advancements in a patriarchal system. It has been a patriarchal system for many thousands of years. It was contrived by men, for men, to control not only women but other men as well. And, it also terribly broken and dysfunctional and prone to gross injustice, war, and oppression. Why any sane and rational woman would want an equal part in our sad, patriarchal system is truly a mystery. Men and women will never be 'equal', they are distinctively different in many ways, but they ought to be viewed as equivalent. Vive le difference!
Message one: I have not been reading this thread.
Message two: I am imagining things, as no one has mentioned anything about gender roles or masculine / feminine qualities, or labeled either as good or bad.
Message three: Y'all are sexists, too!
Message four: Obviously your idea of "equality" and the way you define it is exactly identical to my understanding and definition of it, and mine sucks, so yours does, too!
Message five: I used the buzzword patriarchy, so clearly I am an enlightened, liberal male! Yay for me! Now turn the thread back towards me, and talk about mememe, because topics that are not about me or my experience of the world confuse and annoy me. It must be all about mememe!!
Message six: O hai, laydeez, I am single. Look at how feminist and anti-sexist I am! Vive le boobies!
Sheesh. Someone went to Andrea Dworkin's website or something and got all flusterated and confuzzled! Maybe Wikipedia is not the best way to come to terms with a complicated subject like feminism. Feminista 3 pops in again: "...biological gender has nothing to do with a person's ability to buy in to sexists beliefs and practices. The patriarchal values are just as easily internalized by a woman as by a man; many times as a coping strategy - "If this is the world I live in, I might as well play by its rules". This is not always a conscious choice, and many women will fiercely defend the patriarchy because they think they have to; because they have internalized its values."
And here's the wang you have been patiently waiting for! SexistEx-Soldier sets us all straight, again! (Darn those uppity feminists, they just won't stay down there where he puts them!)
What patriarchy? When I left the US in 1982, I was a member of an oppressed minority there (white male). In most divorce cases, the woman gets the kids if she wants them, regardless of ability to support or suitability as parent. If the male does get the kids, the woman does not have to pay nearly as much in support. The battles that women fought before you were born (my mother among them) have resulted in a society where, outside of the workplace, equality of opportunity is a reality. And yet, the sexist feminists do not seem to want to rest until the male of the species is in the same position as women were 100 years ago.
....Buh?
...
...
...Oh no he didn't!
BWA HA HA!!!!
Oh my goodness, white, middle-class males are an Oppressed Minority! The Feministas laugh and get splitting migraines simultaneously. Links are spammed!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/01/liberias_child.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html
http://www.angryharry.com/esRapeBaloney.htm
The men refuse to bother to look at any of them, of course. Feminista 5 eventually recovers enough to post.
*laughing too hard to type*
Oh, please.
White men are neither "oppressed" nor a minority.
And feminism is about equality, not one gender getting privileges denied to another. Equality. This is not a big word, nor a difficult one to comprehend.
Feministas and UninvolvedCo-Conspirators and PatriarchalWomen and Menfolkses all start trying to out-share personal details, in a race to see whose personal life experience will earn them the biggest Victim Cyberween. Personal wangst for Great Victory! The terminally dim rush to post happy emoticons and happy peace signs and happy WTF? images. The terminally bored pop in, eyeroll a lot, type in an "action" or two, and exit, also without offering anything worthwhile to the discussion. Newbz get their dander up and attack Old Hatz and NetEnts. SockPuppets loom at the perimeter. ClosetedFeministas reveal themselves, so stunned that they have to resort to Macroese to express their astonishment! (E.g., "ZOMG, white men are now an oppressed minority!!!?") It is approaching Critical Wangst Mass!!
Quick, we need MOAR LOLcatz!!
FenceStraddlin'D00d neatly shifts the focus of the thread away from women's issues and feminism and abuse of women: "While white men aren't exactly an oppressed minority, they are one of the few groups without solid protection and backing for their interests. It's an old saw, but consider the outrage that is focused on white pride groups and male-only businesses, while women-only businesses or (any other ethnicity) pride organizations are cheered on. Not quite an organized campaign of oppression, but enough to make us feel unwelcome in circles that pride themselves on open-mindedness and tolerance."
ZOMG, the menzes are oppressed!! Unfair!! Feminista 6 tries to keep the thread from being all about feeding FenceStraddlin'D00d's ego, personal bitterness, sense of entitlement denied, and need to make every thread about men's issues:
The only reason I spoke up is this. OP is not offended by the behavior of her coworkers, who happen to be male. She asserts that 'boys will be boys' and this is just how guys act. (Are none of you men offended by that blanket assumption??) Fine. I'm not a person who is easily offended, either, so I can see where she's coming from. HOWEVER, she dismisses other women who worked there for one day and never came back as unreliable, never stopping to think that the work environment may have been offensive and unnacceptable to them. She blames the women who may not subscribe to her own boys-will-be-boys ideology. Secondly, she qualifies and gives reasons why 'Jo' did not deserve the abuse she received. My point is that no one, regardless of gender, ethnicity, looks, personality, etc, deserves to be violated. Ugly, adulterous, mean-spirited 'bitches' deserve abuse no more than nice, pretty, good girls do. Do I think OP is a bad person? No. Do I think the guys she works with are being maliciously sexist? Probably not. The point is that subtle sexism is still sexism, just as subtle racism is still racism. If no one ever speaks up, the behavior never changes and then where does that leave us, as people? The current rape comment I find simply mind-boggling. There is no situation or circumstance that justifies rape. There is no shared blame. The perpetrator is always to blame, 100%.
Which is a valid point. A man goes into a bar, gets drunk, acts like an ass, has his dick hanging out of his fly, starts an argument, objects to being hit (on), and is assaulted. Then the perp is taken to court, nothing is mentioned about how the man was dressed, nor is his bad behavior used as to excuse the perp from beating him. A woman goes into a bar, gets drunk, acts like an ass, has her cleavage hanging out of her top, starts an argument, objects to being hit on, and is assaulted. Then the perp is MAYBE taken to court, and the defense goes into great detail about what the woman drank, how she was dressed, whether she was behaving "properly," if she went into the bar alone or not, and so on and so forth. Can you spot the problem here?
Feminista 8 joins the fray.
Ok, you have to be joking. Really.
1. You said "I was a member of an oppressed minority there [US]". Giving us worldwide overarching stats on race does not apply to the specific locale of the US. In the US, whites are the majority.
2. 1% differentiation does not a minority make.
3. We still have the little "oppressed" aspect of your initial comment. Exactly how were you oppressed? Were you made to sit in the back of the bus (figuratively speaking)? Did you lose out on jobs or equal pay because you're such a misunderstood little white guy? Did you get called racial slurs while walking down the street?
And get off on the "don't call them Black" thing. Activists schmactivists. My workplace is, in the majority, Black. (Oh, my...I'm white! Now, I must be the oppressed minority! Must complain!). Two of my three best work friends are Black. Never heard them call themselves Africans/African Americans. They haven't ever seen Africa, just like I haven't ever seen Europe.
Then the thread gasped a last, dying breath, and expired noisily in a pool of wangst.
The thread devolved entirely into being all about men, men's issues, male experiences of oppression, personal grudges, women rushing to slap band-aids on the poor oppressed males' boo-boos, more about the men being ZOMG! Oppressed!!, more personal wangst, more in-fighting, and more crap. Cried BiSexualGypsyBoy: "So, gay/bisexual men can't understand oppression?!?" Hello, NOT ABOUT YOU.
Good grief.
There is no corner of the Internet that is free from wangst. Not one.
Are there some things that are unfair and which affect men? Of course. Would this be the best thread to discuss your whiny irritation that minorities seeking to get small business loans get a boost you don't, or Affirmative Action, or the fucking draft, or how women are favoured over men to get custody of kids in divorce cases? Hello, no.
Of course, feminism does encompass several of these issues. It isn't "empowering women at the expense of men," after all, it is a desire for equal rights, opportunities AND responsibilities. When did equality become a dirty word?
Did you know the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed?
So Jo The Cow-Orker [tm Dilbert] had an abusive ex-boyfriend who stalked and beat the tar out of her. This is a bad thing. No one condones that sort of shit. However, the Original Poster felt the need to qualify certain things. She noted that Jo was pretty, and nice, and blah and foo and bar. All of which is beside the point, but implies that if Jo were, say, ugly, or mean, or unblah, notfoo and antiblah, that being beaten to a pulp by an ex would somehow be okay.
about 3 months ago, a woman slightly older than me started working in my office. She's nice, and pretty and all. About a week into the job she disappears for a few days. We don't really think much of it, it often happens that way here with women.
There's more, but this is all I should repost, probably. Anyway, THE_Forum Feministas justifiably were annoyed, and politely pointed out that [a], posting personal data was less than safe behavior, and [b], WTF did prettiness or niceness or anything have to do with the situation? Would it somehow be okay if Jo weren't those things? Would she then "be asking for it"? Think that isn't what the OP meant?
I mentioned the fact that she's nice and pretty because often when people hear about this they comment on how she must have deserved it.
Note that this woman has also frequently commented on the "unreliability" of fellow female workers who regularly "up and quit" without notice, and several bad behaviors amongst the predominately male staff, such as infantilizing female coworkers, adjusting their penises in their pants in public, making sexist remarks, making personal remarks, taking it upon themselves to insert themselves into the women's personal issues (e.g., threatening to beat up the errant ex-boyfriend, because clearly the helpless, hapless female can't take care of her own personal business on her own or think to get help from professional aides or services or police officers or lawyers), talking about sexual matters openly and with profanity in front of women, treating adult females like "little sisters," rewarding quieter, prettier women with positive attention while being less pleasant to older, more outspoken, less conventionally attractive women, the lack of women in power positions within her company, and so on.
Interesting how I'm assuming that women in the workplace are unreliable when I'm a woman in a workplace. In this workplace (where I am right now) they are. In the year I've been here we've had about 5 women come in, work a day then leave without notice.
She does not see a connection, or wonder if the Boys Will Be Boys atmosphere might have a little something to do with why the company can't retain female employees. Because the penis-fondling, sex-talking, patronizing, macho guys she works with are all "wonderful"!
I personally think the guys I work with are wonderful. I've never had a problem with them.
So, this latest post, where the biggest question asked was not "how can I help my friend" or "what can we do to help stop violence against women perpetrated by former loved ones?" but "do you think 18 months in jail is adequate punishment for her ex?," caused some Feministas to snap.
You know, if you want me to stop going for the jugular and complaining about your sexist attitudes, you really need to stop this shit. Why does it matter to the story that she is pretty? What the FUCK is up with your assumption about women in the workplace being unreliable? Did you lift little finger one to help her when you suspected she was the victim of domestic violence?
and
...what's with these 'wonderful' guys wanting to go and beat the crap out of someone they don't even know? Why would they want to do that? Do they have some kind of ownership of her because she works there? Way to exacerbate the situation, yep, more violence is exactly the answer. Bet it would make your workmate feel wonderful to know there's even more violence going down and that the ex-boyfriend now has extra reasons to come and get her?
And the gloves were off. The OP complained that her statement about Jo's appearance was valid. Some posters labeled themselves as feminists. This prompted this grand non-revelation from the OP:
I'm a woman and am deeply not a feminist. I am amazed how quickly this turned into a train wreck, amazed and yet not surprised.
Note that the OP delights in derailing threads on a regular basis, turning thoughtful or interesting debate into an opportunity to exchange cyberhuggles and animated emoticons with her Best Friends 4Evah, which never, ever adds anything useful to any discussion. God forbid her post be derailed by a serious discussion, because she's the one getting poked for being assimilated by The Patriarchy. Note also how she resents the derailing, but will go off at the first opportunity to spread "unicorms and reinbeauxz and sparkleez and glompz" on someone else's thread, perhaps to bump up her post count. At any rate, other posters started chiming in ("I'm a guy and I still think Feminista 1 and Feminista 2 have a point." and "I am a guy and on this subject I agree with Feminista 1 and Feminista 2 wholeheartedly."), as they do on THE_Forum, where nicey-niceness is weakness, and not being able to defend your statements on a public forum means spankings (and not the "good kind," whatever those might be), and they find the discussion worthy of discussion (and wankery). OP predictably responds to the men with a Woeface Emotie (Oh no, the men do not agree with me!) and to the women with hostility and accusations of abuse, because gently pointing out that OP is perpetuating Stinkin' Thinkin' is OMFG meancakes. Feminista 3 pops in and very sensibly asks a few pointed questions:
I should know better than to get involved in something like this, but I can't help it. When people, particularly women, say that they are not feminists it just upsets me. Maybe I am just being an idealistic youth, but do you hate yourself? Because I think you'd need to have some deep-seeded emotional problem if you don't believe that you deserve fair and equal treatment under the law (as well as in society). Do you believe that you are less capable or intelligent than your male counterparts? Or maybe you think that you, and perhaps women in general, have done something wrong and deserve some kind of punishment? Please don't take this as offensive, my questions are actually serious. I do my best to listen to all perspectives as I think it gives me a richer understanding of humanity.
And the response from OP: "I'm not a feminist, but I'm all for equal rights [...] Feminism, sexism, very rarely is that an issue here". Um, that IS feminism, nutshelled, thanks. You knobhead! OP then says that she "disagrees with certain behaviors" of feminists, despite it being unclear if she even knows what a feminist actually is. Fun times! Feminista 4 shows up, and is likewise level-headed: "Feminism is an issue here. If it was some random guy he'd beaten up outside a pub, or a former mate, he'd have gotten longer than 18 months. But because it was his (ex) girlfriend he got a light sentence. You can see sexism at work in the legal system here." Feminista 7 adds, "Well then, explain what "certain feminist" behaviours it is that makes you want to not call yourself a feminist. Is it the fighting for equal rights, even for ingrates like you?"
Naturally, while a thread about some strange woman getting beat down wasn't interesting, let someone challenge patriarchal points of view, and the menfolk and some patriarchy-co-opting women start to get a wee bit antsy. "What is wrong with some people here? Calling you "sexist" because you describe a woman as pretty? Or appreciate the fact that your male co workers want to defend her?"
Oh no.
This calls for...a LOLcat!
Feminista 2 tries to use monosyllabic words and speak slowly: "I'll try to explain in small words. OP thinks people are surprised when they find out this woman is pretty, because pretty girls don't deserve to get beaten. Get it? What fucking right do these co-workers, who from all accounts barely know this new employee, have to interfere in her life and quite probably make the situation worse for her? Hello-o - anyone in there?"
Exactly. But, with a stunning lack of comprehension, the menfolk start addressing issues not yet raised: "...you can call me a sexist: when I see / hear a woman being assaulted, I go out of my way to help her!" Nowhere in the thread did anyone say or even hint that helping an assaulted person (male or female) was being sexist. Feminista 2 tries again: "Now where in your twisted logic have you decided that a woman in need should not be helped. Have you even read this thread? That was one of the first things we all asked, whether this woman had been helped."
Feminista 5 wades into the fray, against her better judgment.
A man beating on a woman (or vice versa) is wrong. We're talking real world wrong, not Pesverse, where fighting is Awesome. I'm alswo not talking about warfare, as that's a different can of worms. In real life, domestic violence / violence against women is always wrong.
It is not more or less wrong if the woman is nice, sane, attractive, or smart, or dressed "appropriately," or sober, or with friends, or not out late at night.
It is not mitigated or excused in any way if the woman is a jerk, has mental problems, or is unattractive, stupid, dressed "inappropriately," drunk/impaired, or out alone late at night.
Your male co-workers wanting to be knights on white horses and rescue the poor, hapless female are a symptom of sexism. It may be an admirable impulse to want to punish someone who hurt your friend, but the way you phrase it makes it clear that they see it as their male duty to protect a helpless little lady.
What might help your friend is going to a place that counsels abused women, getting a mostly useless but legally vital restraining order, and getting someone who knows about security issues to inspect her home for insecure entry points. If she lives in a secure building wih a doorman, the ex's photo needs to be posted at the front door, with instructions to call the police if he shows up.
She needs to attend any legal hearing and speak up on her own behalf, as well.
No, eighteen months is not long enough. I am assuming that the ex is getting no counseling while in gaol, and his attitude that hitting women is a way to express himself is not going to change.
If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of a raised hand, will you tell yourself you deserved it because you "made him mad," or were in some way not smart or pretty or nice enough to avoid being smacked? Adults learn to control themselves and to resolve disagreements without pummeling the crap out of others, especially those who are typically smaller, less strong, less willing to hit others, and less skilled at fighting back.
Violence against women is a major issue for women, regardless of culture, race, class or age. Preventing male violence can not and should not be solved by women living in a state of terror, complying with unofficial curfews or restricting their own freedom. Personal safety charities struggle to give out advice about protection. I don’t suggest we become reckless with our safety to the point of ignoring our instincts. Innate fight-or-flight responses have served well for millions of years. It’s all very well to be vigilant, however, and watch for people following you, and turn off your I-pod, and carry a mobile discreetly, but it will not actually protect you when it comes down to it. While women remain physically weaker, or while men have access to knives or bottles or simply terror, their most potent weapon, no woman will be entirely safe.
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute..." --Rebecca West, The Clarion, 11/14/13
Argh. Isn't this stuff basic information by now? Feminista 5 also quotes Tomato Nation's Sarah Bunting and her Yes, You Are essay. In come the dumbasses who don't read the rest of the thread because they are in such a hurry to defend poor little OP from the mean feminists, but still feel entitled to complain about how everyone is supposedly being patronizing and meancakes to poor little OP. For poor little OP has run off to another forum to whine about how everyone is being so mean (logical) and asking such mean (pointed, on-topic) questions, and being so darn MEAN (quoting relevant feminist articles and quotations), and all the folks who delight in derailing other seriosu threads not with intellect or well-reasoned responses, or research, or relevant discourse, but with the aforementioned "unicorms and reinbeauxz and sparkleez and glompz", are all fired up. It's all very love me, love my dog, even though the dog just widdled all over your area of expertise and a relevant issue in your life. Clearly, correcting or asking for more information from OP is abusive and nasty and shitful, so the CuddleMummies and the KinkaidBrigade are on the way to thump their prayer books and wag their fingers menacingly in the faces of everyone who dared to comment on, well...the sexism inherent in the system. (see: Denis(e) the Peasant: "Halp, halp, I'm being repressed!") Feminista 5 restains herself to pointing out that the "patronizing" bit being referred to was labeled clearly with the actual author's name and a weblink where it could be found, and suggests that LoveMahDog read a little more carefully.
Feminista 2 is less patient with this person due to this person's constant thread-meddling, derailing, whinging and mommying, and says:
Way to miss the point Sherlock. Once again, charging into a thread, without comprehension, here comes LoveMahDog. Don'tGiveOutPersonalInfoOnline was trying to illustrate to the Ozzie drongo why she should NOT plaster shit like this on the net if there are security issues. She is trying to explain how easy it would be for someone to find this information. She did this by sharing part of what seems a grueling tale of being stalked on the Internet and by describing how easy it would be to get information by word of mouth. What part of that was so difficult to understand? [...] Hey, I know, why not take some of the very sensible advice given by Feminista 5, on how to make things safer. And talk to some people who encounter this stuff all the time, oh I dunno, maybe talk to the Oz equivalent of Womens' Refuge? Do some practical stuff to support this workmate. 'Cos yeah, this Jo definitely needs help, not mobs of drongos running around inciting violence.
Seriously. Of course, LoveMahDog does not deign to respond, but, lo, SexistEx-Soldier charges in, polishing his cyberpeen for battle.
OK, let's identify the real sexists in this thread. They are not the people who are appalled at the light sentence that an abusive person can get in most 'civilised' countries. They are not the people who advocate jumping in to help someone who is in trouble. They ARE the people who lay claim to being the sole arbiters of language and phrasing when it comes to referring to other people. I refer, of course to Feminista 1 and Feminista 2. You two, in particular, claim to be promoting equality between people, while insisting that you are inherently superior to everyone else. This strongly demonstrates both hypocrisy and bigotry, and it is time that someone called you on it. Now, I am sure, you will turn your obscenity-filled attacks on me, and castigate me for my narrow, sexist views. If these responses follow your usual pattern, they will lack content and meaning, and I will ignore them. I have fought for freedom on too many fronts, for too many years, to get upset by a meaningless challenge. If, by some miracle, your responses reflect intelligent thought, this may turn into a meaningful discussion.
This calls for another picture!
Oy. Let's count the different derailment / bingo / discrediting attempts in there. "Men aren't sexist, uppity women who insist that people who choose to debate them do so with logic, research and intellect are sexist!" (One!) "Feminism isn't about promoting equality, it is about being superior to others!" (Two!) "Ad Hominem homina homina homina, Ad hominem homina homina homina, you're both hypocritical bigoted BITCHES!" (Three!), "It's my job as a MAN to call you UPPITY WOMEN on your (so-called) BULLSHIT!" (Four!), "You have used profanity a total of three times, albeit not directed at anyone directly, ergo you should be ASHAMED into curbing your mode of expression!" (Five!), "You're not discussing and asking questions, you are ATTACKING!" (Six!), "If I label myself accurately, you will be cowed into claiming you weren't going to label me the same way, I beat you to it, neener neener, I am a narrow-minded sexist troll!" (Seven!), You ALWAYS do stuff I don't like," (Eight!), "Nothing you say has any real content or meaning or value anyway!" (Nine!), "Ignoring you will hurt you, because denying you my attention is a serious blow! You don't exist if I am not paying attention to you!" (Ten!), "I am a hero, I fight for FREEDOM! So you're not, and don't! Only I can define freedom properly!" (Eleven!), "Behold my years of experience, my wisdom cannot be denied!" (Twelve!), "Any argument you make will be a meaningless challenge!" (Thirteen!), "It would be a miracle if your responses reflected what I consider to be intellegent thought, but they won't!" (Fourteen!), and, for the capper, "Only if you play by my rules and conform to my preferences will this discussion ever be actually MEANINGFUL, so allow me to set the rules for you!" (Fifteen! NetDick of the Week Award hereby bestowed! And stay tuned, it gets better!) Feminista 6 enters the thread, waving her axe.
Couldn't have anything to do with how the 'great' guys you work with constantly use foul language (they repeatedly apologize to the wimmin folk but don't change the behavior), are constantly and disgustingly adjusting their genitalia in your presence, and treat you like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth because you 'look about 17'? Nah. That sounds like every woman's dream work environment. What a stroke of bad luck to get 5 women in the course of a year who were so unreliable.
Meanwhile, LoveMahDog flails and fusses, and bitches at Feminista 7, who responds: "I like how you bypass the actual argument I tried to make, and instead choose to latch on to the least important bit in my post. Way to go, LoveMahDog!" LoveMahDog, who derailed the thread with off-topic wankery and bullcrap, attempts to snark back, and attempts to shift blame, but lacks the chops: "Thanks. I'm trying to avoid entering/instigating yet another argument in a thread that should never have been derailed in the first place. I appreciate having your approval." Oy vey! InnocentBystander States The Obvious: "Christ, I think the wankometer just exploded." Feminista 6 tries again:
OP, here's the deal. In the U.S., what those guys do would be considered sexual harassment. It concerns me that you think it's ok. My ex-husband manages a manufacturing plant where one woman works, in the office. I can guarantee you that none of the guys who work there would dream of doing the stuff that the guys you work with do. Swearing and then apologizing isn't respectful, it's patronizing. Dick adjustments need to be done in the john, not in your face, etc. Getting all googly-eyed because a woman looks like a teenaged girl isn't fun, or nice, it's gross and it is sexual harassment, whether you believe it is or not. I know, I'm wasting my breath because I don't think you will ever really see the distinction.
And OP says, with a coy giggle:
Oh, Feminista 6! *tee hee emotie* The dick adjustments aren't on purpose. You know when you're talking to a guy and he does it out of habit? Yeah that. I believe that every one has a slightly different definition of sexual harassment. So no, I don't see swearing as sexual harassment, nor do I see normal male behavior as sexual harassment. As for the other thing, they don't get goggle-eyed at me at all. More like I'm a little sister. I don't get offended at things that don't offend me. Even if it what's 'right'. So I'll be happy in my workplace, happy in the first job I've loved this much. And you can be happy thinking I'm being sexually harassed without knowing it. End of discussion.
But, of course, it's not. Feminista 5 says to Feminista 6: "I see the same things you do. It's not in your face obvious sexism, but yep, it is sexism. It oogs me too." Feminista 6 responds:
When it's not a blatant bastard remark, I tend to believe that it's completely unintentional. Now, would someone adjusting themselves bug me? Sure. I'm often in an uncomfortable position as a woman (boobages, etc), but you don't see me grabbing in and moving them about. Not without a ticket, anyways. It's about being polite. Adjusting yourself in public is in the same category as spitting in public to me. It's a disgusting habit that many find offensive. If someone does it in front of me, I ask them not to. Simple. I've worked in a truck building company before that had maybe two other female employees. I was 18 at the time, relatively thin back then, and had my whole fresh-from-high-school-and-innocent thing going on. I was working inventory, crawling all around the warehouse floors and climbing up racks of extrusions in the rain. No one, I repeat no one ever said an off word to me, or did anything that smacked of sexuality in front of me. So don't give me that blue-collar different rules crap. Some things are universal.
More derailments ensure, and OP is ducking anything to do with defining why she isn't a feminist and what behavior she thinks is typically feminist that she disagrees with, nor is she explaining why Jo's appearance has shit-all to do with why it was somehow worse for her to be beaten to a pulp as opposed to, say, someone less nice / pretty / familiar to OP. Feminista 1 tires of the derailments and asks a loaded question: "So, can I ask a question? If you got drunk at a party, and maybe passed out, or were pretty out of it, and kind of came to, to find that I guy you knew was having sex with you, would you consider that rape? Or would you think, hey, my fault, and also, he's a guy I know, so maybe that's okay?" She is jumped on (my MALE posters) for the question, and adds, "I honestly want to know where OP draws the line, because from my perspective, she puts up with a whole heck of a lot of behaviour that I would characterise as harrassment. Actually, she doesn't put up with it, she condones and excuses it. So, presented this question, yes, as a really far out there choice, thinking, well, if she says "no, that's not okay," then we work inwards to where I can understand her definitions." After all, OP is always opining about how groovy it is that we have this swell community, and it is so keen that we can get to know each other better online and all, so Feminista 1 isn't being unduly personal, here. OP is not compelled to respond, but if she wants to live up to her billing, she "should". Will she? "I'm not stupid enough drunk at parties. End of story. Just because what I believe is harassment isn't the same as what you believe doesn't mean I'm wrong. God, there are many women who know how the guys at my work are and they don't see a problem. As you said in the post that I can't be arsed quoting, it's what you consider harassment, not the universal written law of harassment. Unless of course you are the supreme overlord. If that is the case, I do apologize, and will change my ways immediately. (What do feminists believe in and do that OP disagrees with?) Maybe I worded it wrong. I should have left it at I don't call myself a feminist. I don't see why someone needs a label to believe in something. I don't like the feminists who decide I'm a bad person because I don't call myself one, or because I don't get offended over things I don't find offensive." Feminista 1 gets annoyed at the evasiveness, and asks again, "Would you just answer the question? Because otherwise, it looks like your answer is "If I get drunk and someone rapes me, that's my fault."" OP finally admits: "If I was stupid enough to pass out at a party and some guy (even one I knew) raped me then, yes, I'm partially to blame. Naturally he's done the illegal thing to rape me, but it's my responsibility not to get into that situation." Because it requires that you be stupid and irresponsible before someone chooses to rape you, yanno? Amirite? Oh, wait. No, that's not right. Duh!
OoooOOOOoooh! You know that's going to stir up some shite. Feminista 1 heaves a gigantic sigh, and responds:
Okay. Well, look, here's what I propose: I recognise that you are completely incapable of understanding the kinds of things that many, many Feministas are saying to you because you have so internalised patriarchal oppression, and you are so determined that you couldn't possibly be participating or perpetuating ideas of sexism. I feel terribly sorry for you, and I hate to do this, because I think all women should have the ability to reach their full potential, and do what they can to strive for equality, but I am officially giving up on you. I'm not going to stop taking issue with your sexist (and racist) comments, but I am really going to see you from this point as a member of the patriarchy, rather than as a young woman who needs help in figuring out how to deal with sexism, gender roles and feminism.
Hold on, folks, SexistEx-Soldier is here to set us all straight!
Which is precisely where your incessant remarks become sexist. You cannot change the fact that OP is a woman, no matter what you think of her, it is a biological fact. You don't even try to understand her opinions or feelings, you attack based on your sexist view of the world. And when someone challenges you on it you denigrate them by calling them stupid, when your own attitude is reflecting a refusal to learn, which is the best definition of stupidity. You are not more educated than I, and you are neither old enough nor wise enough to judge me. When you have learned as much of the English language as I have used we might be able to enter into a discussion, until then, keep your bigoted, sexist comments to yourself.
Did we mention that Feminista 1 is a college professor? You may laugh now. But wait, it gets better! Wait for it! Another male enters the thread. Ace Of Derhay opines:
How is it that women can aspire to 'equality' by defining it in terms of masculine qualities being the only ones worth attaining. Feminine qualities are to be shunned and avoided, nay destroyed, because they have been perpetrated upon women by a patriarchal system? This view seems to derive directly from the inherently sexist opinion that the feminine qualities are weak and undesirable, and consequently inferior. This was supposed to be the male-chauvinist viewpoint, but now it is the feminist one as well? The potential to which a woman can achieve in the current social, political, and economic constructs of civilization as we know it are advancements in a patriarchal system. It has been a patriarchal system for many thousands of years. It was contrived by men, for men, to control not only women but other men as well. And, it also terribly broken and dysfunctional and prone to gross injustice, war, and oppression. Why any sane and rational woman would want an equal part in our sad, patriarchal system is truly a mystery. Men and women will never be 'equal', they are distinctively different in many ways, but they ought to be viewed as equivalent. Vive le difference!
Message one: I have not been reading this thread.
Message two: I am imagining things, as no one has mentioned anything about gender roles or masculine / feminine qualities, or labeled either as good or bad.
Message three: Y'all are sexists, too!
Message four: Obviously your idea of "equality" and the way you define it is exactly identical to my understanding and definition of it, and mine sucks, so yours does, too!
Message five: I used the buzzword patriarchy, so clearly I am an enlightened, liberal male! Yay for me! Now turn the thread back towards me, and talk about mememe, because topics that are not about me or my experience of the world confuse and annoy me. It must be all about mememe!!
Message six: O hai, laydeez, I am single. Look at how feminist and anti-sexist I am! Vive le boobies!
Sheesh. Someone went to Andrea Dworkin's website or something and got all flusterated and confuzzled! Maybe Wikipedia is not the best way to come to terms with a complicated subject like feminism. Feminista 3 pops in again: "...biological gender has nothing to do with a person's ability to buy in to sexists beliefs and practices. The patriarchal values are just as easily internalized by a woman as by a man; many times as a coping strategy - "If this is the world I live in, I might as well play by its rules". This is not always a conscious choice, and many women will fiercely defend the patriarchy because they think they have to; because they have internalized its values."
And here's the wang you have been patiently waiting for! SexistEx-Soldier sets us all straight, again! (Darn those uppity feminists, they just won't stay down there where he puts them!)
What patriarchy? When I left the US in 1982, I was a member of an oppressed minority there (white male). In most divorce cases, the woman gets the kids if she wants them, regardless of ability to support or suitability as parent. If the male does get the kids, the woman does not have to pay nearly as much in support. The battles that women fought before you were born (my mother among them) have resulted in a society where, outside of the workplace, equality of opportunity is a reality. And yet, the sexist feminists do not seem to want to rest until the male of the species is in the same position as women were 100 years ago.
....Buh?
...
...
...Oh no he didn't!
BWA HA HA!!!!
Oh my goodness, white, middle-class males are an Oppressed Minority! The Feministas laugh and get splitting migraines simultaneously. Links are spammed!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/01/liberias_child.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html
http://www.angryharry.com/esRapeBaloney.htm
The men refuse to bother to look at any of them, of course. Feminista 5 eventually recovers enough to post.
*laughing too hard to type*
Oh, please.
White men are neither "oppressed" nor a minority.
And feminism is about equality, not one gender getting privileges denied to another. Equality. This is not a big word, nor a difficult one to comprehend.
Feministas and UninvolvedCo-Conspirators and PatriarchalWomen and Menfolkses all start trying to out-share personal details, in a race to see whose personal life experience will earn them the biggest Victim Cyberween. Personal wangst for Great Victory! The terminally dim rush to post happy emoticons and happy peace signs and happy WTF? images. The terminally bored pop in, eyeroll a lot, type in an "action" or two, and exit, also without offering anything worthwhile to the discussion. Newbz get their dander up and attack Old Hatz and NetEnts. SockPuppets loom at the perimeter. ClosetedFeministas reveal themselves, so stunned that they have to resort to Macroese to express their astonishment! (E.g., "ZOMG, white men are now an oppressed minority!!!?") It is approaching Critical Wangst Mass!!
Quick, we need MOAR LOLcatz!!
FenceStraddlin'D00d neatly shifts the focus of the thread away from women's issues and feminism and abuse of women: "While white men aren't exactly an oppressed minority, they are one of the few groups without solid protection and backing for their interests. It's an old saw, but consider the outrage that is focused on white pride groups and male-only businesses, while women-only businesses or (any other ethnicity) pride organizations are cheered on. Not quite an organized campaign of oppression, but enough to make us feel unwelcome in circles that pride themselves on open-mindedness and tolerance."
ZOMG, the menzes are oppressed!! Unfair!! Feminista 6 tries to keep the thread from being all about feeding FenceStraddlin'D00d's ego, personal bitterness, sense of entitlement denied, and need to make every thread about men's issues:
The only reason I spoke up is this. OP is not offended by the behavior of her coworkers, who happen to be male. She asserts that 'boys will be boys' and this is just how guys act. (Are none of you men offended by that blanket assumption??) Fine. I'm not a person who is easily offended, either, so I can see where she's coming from. HOWEVER, she dismisses other women who worked there for one day and never came back as unreliable, never stopping to think that the work environment may have been offensive and unnacceptable to them. She blames the women who may not subscribe to her own boys-will-be-boys ideology. Secondly, she qualifies and gives reasons why 'Jo' did not deserve the abuse she received. My point is that no one, regardless of gender, ethnicity, looks, personality, etc, deserves to be violated. Ugly, adulterous, mean-spirited 'bitches' deserve abuse no more than nice, pretty, good girls do. Do I think OP is a bad person? No. Do I think the guys she works with are being maliciously sexist? Probably not. The point is that subtle sexism is still sexism, just as subtle racism is still racism. If no one ever speaks up, the behavior never changes and then where does that leave us, as people? The current rape comment I find simply mind-boggling. There is no situation or circumstance that justifies rape. There is no shared blame. The perpetrator is always to blame, 100%.
Which is a valid point. A man goes into a bar, gets drunk, acts like an ass, has his dick hanging out of his fly, starts an argument, objects to being hit (on), and is assaulted. Then the perp is taken to court, nothing is mentioned about how the man was dressed, nor is his bad behavior used as to excuse the perp from beating him. A woman goes into a bar, gets drunk, acts like an ass, has her cleavage hanging out of her top, starts an argument, objects to being hit on, and is assaulted. Then the perp is MAYBE taken to court, and the defense goes into great detail about what the woman drank, how she was dressed, whether she was behaving "properly," if she went into the bar alone or not, and so on and so forth. Can you spot the problem here?
Feminista 8 joins the fray.
Ok, you have to be joking. Really.
1. You said "I was a member of an oppressed minority there [US]". Giving us worldwide overarching stats on race does not apply to the specific locale of the US. In the US, whites are the majority.
2. 1% differentiation does not a minority make.
3. We still have the little "oppressed" aspect of your initial comment. Exactly how were you oppressed? Were you made to sit in the back of the bus (figuratively speaking)? Did you lose out on jobs or equal pay because you're such a misunderstood little white guy? Did you get called racial slurs while walking down the street?
And get off on the "don't call them Black" thing. Activists schmactivists. My workplace is, in the majority, Black. (Oh, my...I'm white! Now, I must be the oppressed minority! Must complain!). Two of my three best work friends are Black. Never heard them call themselves Africans/African Americans. They haven't ever seen Africa, just like I haven't ever seen Europe.
Then the thread gasped a last, dying breath, and expired noisily in a pool of wangst.
The thread devolved entirely into being all about men, men's issues, male experiences of oppression, personal grudges, women rushing to slap band-aids on the poor oppressed males' boo-boos, more about the men being ZOMG! Oppressed!!, more personal wangst, more in-fighting, and more crap. Cried BiSexualGypsyBoy: "So, gay/bisexual men can't understand oppression?!?" Hello, NOT ABOUT YOU.
Good grief.
There is no corner of the Internet that is free from wangst. Not one.
Are there some things that are unfair and which affect men? Of course. Would this be the best thread to discuss your whiny irritation that minorities seeking to get small business loans get a boost you don't, or Affirmative Action, or the fucking draft, or how women are favoured over men to get custody of kids in divorce cases? Hello, no.
Of course, feminism does encompass several of these issues. It isn't "empowering women at the expense of men," after all, it is a desire for equal rights, opportunities AND responsibilities. When did equality become a dirty word?
Did you know the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed?