/ft/ - Feminist Theory

Feminism general discussion

Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

Captcha
Options
Password

Used to delete files and postings

Misc

Am I still sexist? Anonymous 06/20/2020 (Sat) 22:31:00 No. 137
Sometimes I think a great portion of my fellow radfems throw around the word "rape" and "harassment" too loosely and say they are traumatized of something like a guy catcalled her on the streets. (Female objectification is one of our biggest problems but I don't think this is going to be affective on ending it). I think some them pass exaggerated feelings of vulnerability
effective*
So, I honestly agree. Rape is a strongly emotive word and shouldn't be used lightly. I think shitty guys who use coercion and manipulation to get girls to sleep with are shit and should be ostracised, don't get me wrong, but rape IMO should be reserved for cases where a man actually physically forces himself on his victim, because that does happen in this world and we should see it for what it is. If you can prove a man raped you, he will go to jail, usually for quite a long time. Like I say I do think 'grey area' cases are actually manipulation and abuse, but using strong words to get the point across that it's still wrong actually just cheapens the extreme trauma suffered by victims of full-blown rape. That is on another level and deserves its own word.
I think this is something that goes against our principles as radical feminists but still I see a lot of radfems reproducing this kind of thing When you say that something like this is rape https://www.reddit.com/r/PinkpillFeminism/comments/hcog5a/if_lying_to_a_girl_in_order_to_have_sex_with_her/ You are basically going against one of the basic things about radical feminism that is being against gender roles. You are acting as if women were babies and were incapable of acting as a grown ass human beings and saying no. I get that in cases like this there are other things involved like male manipulation but this is exactly what you gotta criticize and educate women on. When you seek an unecessary protection from the state, you're implying that women are more fragile then we actually are. Plus, I imagine that if cases like this get considered to be rape, it is going to be hard for action to be taken by the court on most cases cause lots of different interpretations/testimonies could stem from them. I don't know I'm wrong but my impression is that this kinda of blurs the definition of rape and drags it into a "relativation" ground which is dangerous
>>140 if I'm wrong in here*
If everything is a microaggression, nothing is. That being said, I don't think people are equipped to handle loaded language. >>140 I liked the late r/blackpilledfeminism's take because those ladies are out for themselves. The vast majority of women live under Stockholm Syndrome which can be juxtaposed with how many males acknowledge their own biologically-induced faults under that same system.
>>137 I think that defining rape/sexual assault too narrowly (it's only being grabbed in an alleyway) hurts women more than it helps them. Being blackmailed, being molested by family members, being manipulated by romantic partners - all of this is rape in my eyes. I think that any woman who goes through these sort of things deserves resources like rape relief centers (assuming the situation causes them to lose their place to stay)/trauma therapy/etc If we say rape is only being assaulted by a stranger in a dark place then we hurt people where that's not the situation. Obviously cat calling makes people uncomfortable but it's not assault. I think rape by deception is a case by case basis and is a coin toss on if it causes trauma or just discomfort. If you want to define rape as only being physically forced, you're pushing away very real, very traumatized women. "Sure, he threatened to kill her family/threatened to kick her out/threatened to post sexually explicit pictures and report it to her work but he didn't physically force himself on her so it's not rape."
>>144 I personally don't think you can make these comparisons. If a man threatens to kill your family if you don't have sex with him, then this is harrasment/blackmail and it can be rape as well, cause you're being directly forced to have sex, which is what rape means. Even if the sexual act doesn't happen, this is still illegal and he can be arrested for this. But if a guy led you to believe you two would have a relationship so he can have sex with you and he is arrested under anti-rape laws because of this, then this is a completely different case because this is definitely not rape. By saying it is, you're 1- only reinforcing the idea that women are over sensitive/emotional/etc and that we can not make decisions and take care of ourselves, that we need overprotection from other men, even when we are not being forced to do anything and have all the power to not do it. 2- and most importantly: You're totally relativizing rape, when it needs to be an objective concept. This can directly harm us Being molested is sexual assault, being manipulated by male romantic parts is another whole thing that we gotta critize without being ilogical and completely mixing up concepts.
>>144 We don't have to consider every traumatizing or uncomfortable sexual experience to be rape for it to be a valid form of assault or harassment. You can still clearly define rape without narrowing it down to the "stranger in a dark alley" trope, or watering it down to a completely meaningless term that encompasses any remotely uncomfortable sexual experience. That's why stuff like date rape is considered a thing or we recognize that the majority of women are raped by someone she knows. The issue here is that people get the impression that *forcing* sex on someone has to be violent. The clearest way to define rape is probably just the absence of enthusiastic consent so e.g. if a man goes to have sex with a woman and she freezes up out of fear, it's still considered rape because she didn't expressly give consent. The thing that all forms of uncomfortable sexual experiences have in common is that it crosses boundaries so they're sometimes going to look or feel similar to each other. They should still be separately defined because the distinctions are important. Rape shouldn't be an umbrella term.
>>145 By manipulation I generally meant blackmail and threats. I don't know where you got "lying about entering a relationship" from since I never mentioned lying in any context. Also >Being molested is sexual assault No, it's definitely the rape of a child and should be treated as such in both prosecution and resources available. >>146 I wasn't trying to imply that every situation was rape, just that it's not as narrow as people here are saying it is, which you seem to get.
Topics like these makes me realize how consent can be a "gray-scale" thing. Consent is really not as simple as a 'yes' or 'no' thing. Young girls that are manipulated/groomed could say yes, could say that she did agree to have sex, but given her situation, did she really say yes consciously? would it have been considered rape? I personally think it is. I feel like consent should be discussed more, I think we can make rape and objective concept if we establish objective concepts of consent as well.
>>148 *we can make rape AN objective concept
>>148 >Young girls that are manipulated/groomed could say yes, could say that she did agree to have sex, but given her situation, did she really say yes consciously? would it have been considered rape? I personally think it is. Plenty of people already know that though, that's why statutory rape laws exist.
>>148 This is what statutory rape laws are for. I would prefer an objective definition of rape - I don't necessarily think you should have to express explicit enthusiasm beforehand to have not been raped (or I would never get laid), but if there was no indication of consent, then I won't argue that it wasn't rape just because it wasn't eg violent. Having said that I want *much* harsher domestic abuse laws. I want to see criminal penalties for verbally and emotionally abusing a dependent partner. Like, I don't actually think it should be a law because either standards of evidence would need to be too high for it to work or it would be open to astronomical levels of abuse, but it makes me furious to think that people who've abused vulnerable partners for years, damaging them emotionally and having knock on effects across the victim's support network just get to walk away and look for another victim just because they were smart enough to never actually hit them (or at least not outside the bedroom). That sounded even crazier when I typed it out but yeah I do think sex related crimes should be punished more severely, but I don't like to see the word being watered down as in the reddit post anon linked.
I disagree, I think the words need to be used liberally so people understand that even non violent sex can be rape, and even innocuous seeming interactions can be harassing. The problem is that people seem to want words like 'rape' to be reserved for the worst of the worst, like violent, evil guys that deserve prison sentences. Men in particular are severely triggered by being called rapists, and will admit to their willingness to rape as long as the word isn't used and they just describe situations in which the woman doesn't consent. But if we're talking about the absence of meaningful, enthusiastic consent, it's so common and normal it's often not going to be hugely traumatic, just an unpleasant inconvenience (eg a husband cajoling and nagging his wife into sex she clearly doesn't want to have). These situations still need to be named for what they are, even if they aren't the most horrifying examples of it.
>>154 You are literally watering down the word rape by doing so
I was having a discussion with this woman in this radfem group a couple days ago and I posted this link from /Pinkpillfeminism and she literally said this is a case of "EMOTIONAL RAPE". Funny how we fight against gender roles but we literally reinforce the idea that we are this vulnerable and fragile to to point where we can get *emotionally raped*...Ohhh, we need so much protection...we can't make decisions and act like grown ass adults... from who is this protection coming from I wonder? All men suck and all relationships with them will destroy you emotionally, therefore all women are getting emotionally raped and finally in the near future the word "rape" will totally lose it's meaning and then rape it isn't a big deal anymore
>>157 >emotional rape That is definitely wacky. I think there's a difference between rad leaning women speaking among themselves about how rape can be more broadly applied to less commonly considered scenarios, and petitioning to change the legal definition of rape to very broad things, or using 'rape' broadly while speaking to people who aren't sympathetic to the female perspective, or even people who are sympathetic, but aren't prudent enough to know when to not use 'rape' like this in public. I wouldn't suggest that anyone be very public with loose application of the term, but I think it makes sense to reasonably explore just between us. 'Emotional rape' though... that's just silly to bring into the equation. I guess emotional violation would be better phrasing? That having been said though, I think it's perfectly understandable for any person, woman or man, to be beaten down by life and experiences to the point of persistent emotional fragility and violation/exploitation. It's not an "I'm an independent adult so I can't be exploited" thing. It has to do with constant battering and continued emotional abuse on all fronts, which is a thing for a lot of women. It's tough to experience emotional abuse within every circle of your life, from family, to friends, your workplace, and society in general. It's a lot.
I think some people just need to accept the fact that we can't make laws to punish people for everything that they do that is unkind to others. I don't want to live in such an authoritarian society. Liberty seems to be lost in a lot of feminist circles, it's a not a concept that a lot of feminists seem to understand. They seem to think that the more government the better things are for women when I don't agree. This is a disappointment to me, personally. The only communities I can seem to find are either alt right pick mes who are complete misogynists, woke centrists and liberal feminists who also don't seem to care about women and are very male centeric and authoritarian feminists who are very pro government. As someone who is passionate about women's issues and happens to identify as a minarchist libertarian, I feel I don't fit in anywhere. Call me an idealist but we just need more understanding, open minded and reasonable people in the world.
>>297 I don't see how you could possibly be a person at all aware of how oppressive and terrible male behavior is and also be a minarchist. Good luck with any of that, anon. Being understanding doesn't change the fact that there are evil assholes in the world who don't care if you, or others, suffer at all whatsoever. It doesn't need to be straight up slashing you in the face or rape to ruin your life or the lives of others, for basically forever.
>>302 Big government doesn't protect women. In fact it profits from the subjugation, oppression and obedience of working class women and women of color whilst pretending to be pro woman. It gives jobs to middle class women at the expense of women in the lower classes. I believe that we need some government and we need a very clearly defined set of laws to punish criminals and protect women from rape and violent men. I'm not 100% libertarian, few libertarians are. I even support basic social welfare programs, most people would be happy to fund them since without them the west would revert back to being a 3rd world nation. Charity also helps those in need and often does so much better than government organizations. All the best help I ever received when I was in need was from independent charity organizations. I think the government should have very little involvement in people's personal lives outside a very clear set of laws being broken and freedom of speech should be absolute.
>>137 In a world where millions of poor third world women and children are raped and get pregnant and are forced to have the kid cause abortion is illegal in their countries, it is sad to see middle and upper class women claiming they were raped because they have regretted having sex with a guy or because a guy touched their arm, catcalled them or something alike. They are watering down the word rape and contributing to several women being against feminism. I also don't agree with New York's abortion law where it allows women to abort 24 weeks old fetuses. If you want to abort do it earlier when the fetus can't feel pain yet
>>338 >I also don't agree with New York's abortion law where it allows women to abort 24 weeks old fetuses. If you want to abort do it earlier when the fetus can't feel pain yet Anon, very few women outside of those that MUST have abortions at this stage will elect to have extremely invasive procedures like this. Almost all of those cases are due to the fact that the woman's life is in danger. And those few that would choose this decision this late without the risk of death, despite how traumatic it must be on so many levels, absolutely should not be a parent anyways. It's honestly basically positives all around for late term abortions to be legalized. And afaik when women are put under, the fetus is affected, so. A child should not have to suffer with a parent that would choose a late term abortion for no reason. Seriously, by restricting abortion for women who either are at risk of death or sincerely cannot handle the responsibility and/or do not want to have these kids, you're essentially forcing children to be born to parents that do not want them and these kids are then at much higher risk of mistreatment, and it's straight up evil. And it's evil to ignore the fact that these are the children that are often abused and/or neglected, and suffer needlessly.
>>350 Yes, but then allow it only for women whose lives are at risk. I just don't get why it is legally, formally allowed for everyone who wants to it for whatever reason *at this stage*. Cause by then the fetus is almost a new born, some are in fact new borns at this stage, they have feelings and everything, incluing pain. You can surely figure it out whether or not you're having the baby way before 24 weeks of pregnancy, except if your life was at risk as you said and you found that out at this stage already.
>>351 ...When you legally allow something, even if it is something very controvertial, it becomes normalized eventually. In the long term desensitized people might not have that much trouble with opting to abort 6 months old babies for reasons other than that their lives are at risk
(70.45 KB 900x668 5ce4698e021b4c1d920b8997.jpg)
>>352 >>351 Fetuses can be anesthetized. And if either of you are willing to adopt these fetuses that will grow to be children, en masse, then sure, put your money where your mouth is and make sure you have thousands of other people willing and able to care for these kids. Until there's more than enough proof that these children have guaranteed safety and security, it's best that people who are so committed to not having a child at this stage, despite how invasive it is and without the risk of death, NOT HAVE THEM for the safety of the future child. Some of these people are extremely mentally and psychologically unfit, etc. There's no safety net for these children. Condemning these kids to a life with negligent and/or abusive parents or a life knowing they are unwanted and are at the mercy of others and that they don't have real, lifelong advocates, is reprehensible, and is nothing but an attempt to soothe your own emotions at the expense of these kids. And no, when you "legally allow something", specifically in the case of a procedure that is unnecessarily dangerous and invasive, that isn't true. 91% of abortions are still performed before 13 weeks despite women in most states being able to abort until 20 weeks, if not later when it comes to viability and no limitation states.
>>354 None of what you said justifies why aborting at 20 or 24 weeks of pregnancy should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is not at risk. I'm totally in favor of mothers aborting kids they don't want, but come on, you have enough time to make your decision before the fetus is capable of feeling pain and is about to born
>>356 How? I literally just said there are women and girls who get pregnant who are not mentally or psychologically capable and they don't realize it until much later on and until shit gets really real, etc. There are cases where girls and women think they can handle a child or that they are ready for them, but either through abandonment of the father, or domestic violence, or financial insecurity, etc, they realize it's actually a terrible and dangerous idea. People overestimate their abilities and they overestimate how prepared their environment is for a child. Again, the ability to have an abortion later is there for plenty of women and girls and yet we're still seeing upwards of 90% of them performed before 13 weeks. And there seriously are plenty of cases where men have convinced the women in their lives that they really want these children or they goad these women into believing that they can swing it, but realize much later on that they want nothing to do with these children. Shann'an Watts and Laci Peterson come to mind, and they were murdered due to the fact that these men realized they wanted no involvement despite initially thinking that they did. A lot of men actually first begin cheating when their wives become pregnant, become abusive, etc, because they also overestimate their interest in having a family, responsibilities, their abilities, and realize that they don't want children. It's not just women choosing, I'm sure in a number of cases it'd come down to their circumstances drastically changing for the worst out of nowhere, too. Again, fetuses can be anesthetized and pain wouldn't really be a factor. The very, very few women that might do it just as form of birth control, essentially, absolutely SHOULD NOT be parents, and you're more than likely dooming these children to a waking nightmare of a life if they do become parents. You've offered no real response to the fact that fetal anesthesia can be administered, nor have you acknowledged the stark truth that there would be no safety net for these children anyhow.
>>359 I don't know exactly how fetal anesthesia work in these cases but I just... I don't see why make it legal to abort almost new born fetuses when the mothers have no risk of dying at labor and they had enough time to make this decision. According to your arguments, should we also allow it that a mother kills a new born or a 1yo baby if she is not mentally or psychologically capable of dealing with them but hadn't realized it until much later on?


Delete
Report

no cookies?