(Insert title here)
John99 said:
Someone makes millions of dollars off of drunk girls acting like idiots. The women, AFAIK are not even financially compensated. How f'ng stupid can they be? or they are highly intoxicated. This is not brain surgery
Perhaps most telling is your focus on the
women. After that would be the avoidance of the general proposition, facilitated by that misplaced focus. In this case, the proposition is to
not support sexist media. The question at hand is that while it is fairly easy to identify and make decisions regarding something so blatant as
Girls Gone Wild, what of something less apparent?
Seriously, imagine how much better the world would be if we never had to endure
90210 or
Saved by the Bell. To the other, does that seem a bit extreme? Okay, fine. I think in either case there were more issues than mere sexism to make the case against them. But still, what is the appropriate middle ground?
Of course the rapist is responsible. That is why i added the car accident scenario.
Right. That makes
so much sense:
"
Female passes out or cannot walk in a straight line is prime target for horny males. Only solution is to not put themselves in that situation. Same for a male getting drunk and falling off of a balcony or killing someone in a car accident."
Thus:
• Rape: Person A gets drunk, passes out. Person B chooses to hurt Person A. This is equivalent to
• Balcony: Person A gets drunk, falls off balcony, hurting self. This is equivalent to
• Car wreck: Person A gets drunk, kills Person B.
In the case of the rape, Person B does the hurting, while in the car wreck scenario, Person B is killed. These outcomes are hardly equivalent. In the rape scenario, Person A is hurt by another person, while in the balcony situation, Person A hurts himself. Again, these outcomes are hardly equivalent.
It is a curious conundrum; you say that "the rapist is responsible", yet reiterate examples in which the comparison doesn't hold.
But why put yourself into a situation that will put you at risk. It is no secret that this stuff happens.
Which is a separate issue. Let us never pretend that women are treated equally in our society.
• • •
Prince James said:
I would argue strongly that as gender roles are based in biology in large part throughout history and today, that the nature of sexual "discrimination" is engrained within us, and that men's natures (and women's) are permanent and unchangable. Moreover, that our civilization and culture degrades when attempts are made to act in contradiction to those natures, owing to the inevitable failure of those attempts to work.
This movement is no less then an attack on masculinity. "Teach young boys about not being aggressive and controlling"? Why do they not replace that with "Teach young boys not to be masculine"? because it amounts to the same thing, clearly. The masculine gender has no need to change its character, specifically as it is psychologically damaging on an emotional and cognitive level to deny one's self.
Are you asserting that sexual discrimination and violence are a birthright of males?
• • •
Randwolf said:
Haven't the first clue. How is this relevant?
I've been recalling this point at least since the catcalling thread. I don't think men who haven't been penetrated understand as easily what is at stake.
Tiassa, you seem to be the one who is always appointed to "call them out". I maintain this argument is a strawman, and believe it has something to do with your own inner insecurities and inadequacies
Would you agree with the following argument:
• A woman who gets drunk and is raped while drunk is just like a man who gets drunk and falls off a balcony or kills someone with his car.
Would you say that a woman who gets raped while drunk has done it to herself, or even hurt another person?
It
must be my own inner insecurities and inadequacies that compel me to reject that argument. Right?
I don't really care what the motivations are though, but just because someone believes that women have a responsibility to protect themselves and their children, same as a man does, does not imply that they are "advocating rape or dismissing the culpability of the rapist". Stop pretending that it does.
Ah, the children. The children! Won't somebody think about the children! Fallacious appeal, Randwolf. Regardless of the children, a woman ought to face the same dangers—and no more—in getting drunk to blackout that a man does. And yet, even in considering men's behavior, you want to continue to focus on the women. It's always about the women, isn't it, Randwolf?
I can't speak for John99, however, my point was that no one, including women, should get themselves so intoxicated in a potentially unfriendly environment that they increase their chances of being assaulted by a significant degree. Do you seriously disagree with this concept?
On the occasions that I have gotten drunk to blackout, nobody has tried to rape me. The only real questions are what I'm doing to my health and whether I'm hurting anyone else in my inebriated state. I would assert that a woman ought to be able to make the same choices and face the same questions. Do you seriously disagree with this concept?
Because now, here we are, considering
men's attitudes in sexual discrimination and violence, and yet—
"What about women? Should this topic be raised with them as they are growing up? In what context?"
—you apparently can't tolerate that.
Always gotta be about the women, right, Randwolf?
Talk about insecurity ....
