This is what Feminism has done to our culture

this image is based on the american law case which took place late last year:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/

so basically, to sum up the story in a nifty little sentence: guy and girl have sex; guy and girl are both drunk; girl texts her friend "I'm about to have sex" and texts the guy "did you bring a condom?"; because she was drunk, the guy, whom was also drunk, gets charged with sexual assault regardless of the evidence of her consent.

feminism is usually (attemptedly) described as the concept of equality between men and women, but the movement that "feminism" has been pedalling recently (especially in my own university) is the 'if she's drunk she can't consent' nonsense, or rather, the "yes mean yes"/"no means no" and "never okay (referring to perceived sexual harassment" phrases (images below for more detail):it is clear that, in some ways, feminism and it's influence in the legal system (in the UK; perfect proof with the the new DPP directive: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html) has caused men to perpetually be blamed or punished for acts which are not even illegitimate (if it is perfectly clear that there was implied consent to a perfectly legal act, sex) in a matter which makes the claim of "patriarchy" nonsensical. it has basically led to a rather dominant belief that women are never to be held responsible for their own actions, or if they get drunk and regret what they have done, this calls for the man to be shamed for this. where is the equality here? why don't women have to prove that men "absolutely and unambiguously vocally affirmed~" to sex (consented) (california's new consent law is an example of this: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/09/29/352482932/california-enacts-yes-means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent) while men do for women's? why aren't women charged for having sex with drunk men? why are men demonised for doing the same acts as women? why are we supposed to believe that alcohol, a mind altering substance which a person voluntarily consumes, causes their actions to be non-voluntary for women when, if they were to commit a crime (e.g. offences against the person, a property offence, etc) they *would* be held responsible despite any influence of alcohol? the modern feminist movement is leading to obvious contradictions such as this and rules which discriminate unfairly and harshly against men for no reason at all other than the fact that feminists have created this movement which has put pressure on those in authority to be misandristic to men, unless "it's rape", or "that's sexist against women". it's caused radical feminism to be the face of "equality" to many governments in the west and this is obviously ridiculous when it comes to issues like this where there is an actively discriminating law against one gender and not the other

doesn't anybody else at least partly agree with what I'm saying? isn't this "rape culture" propaganda all just a movement to lump women's sexual or cultural responsibilities upon men, and to never frame women, regarding sex, as the ones with any individual responsibility? yes, I know rape culture isn't just about this and also about things like cat calling, before anybody mentions this fact - with the cat calling stuff you could say that a woman wearing a revealing top doesn't give her a reasonable right to act aggressively to men who "look" at her when we have a free society where sexuality exists

Which is why I'm moving to Saudi Arabia - hey, I may get my neck slit, but at least they have women who know their place.

woah woah woah! saudi arabia is terrible and absolutely abominable - a completely unfair and sexist dictatorship towards women via law. I am completely against that. I simply want a legally-equal position between men and women in society. I'd never be in favour of an islamic autocracy more than the western world

woah woah woah! saudi arabia is terrible and absolutely abominable - a completely unfair and sexist dictatorship towards women via law. I am completely against that. I simply want a legally-equal position between men and women in society. I'd never be in favour of an islamic autocracy more than the western world

It never fails to amaze me how many insecure little boys fear for their baby peens on here.

Then you are a feminist. xo

I was being satirical, but that's beside the point. Anyway, I agree with you to an extent on the first post, but you must also consider physical differences between men and women. How can a woman "rape" a man?

I also believe that neither party should be culpable through being drunk - it is the individual's choice to get plastered and be promiscuous and they should deal with the consequences.

Then you are a feminist. xo

This is just ridiculous T_T

"feminist" in 2015 = the new radical feminist paradigm of "patriarchy", "objectification" and "rape culture" and the theories of the new feminists e.g. greer, millet, firestone, atkinson, wolfe, etc
"feminist" in 1915 = the old feminist paradigm of legal equality, individualism and liberty of all sexes, and the theories of the old feminists, e.g. wollstonecraft, cady, JS mill, etc

nobody is a "feminist" in a modern day context by believing simply in equality. you are disastrously incorrect here. radical feminism isn't about equality, it's about advancing women's rights in a manner which is often detrimental to men's own rights, or to their neglect, for no reason. it is in favour of women's equality of outcome, not equality of legal status/meritocracy. it's like saying "if you believe in equality for everybody in society, you're a communist"

Even back then, it was never about equality. Feminists were cheering for men to go and get killed in world war 1, never about sending women to fight. Now they concede that position but look for superiority in toher ways.

classical feminists (or any kind of feminists) have never been able to get rid of the cultural aspect of male disposability somewhat to their discredit. although, standing back, I suppose women back in those days, and even still, couldn't fight in front line combat even if they wanted to

so then women and men aren't equal, don't have equal responsibilities and hence do not deserve equal privileges in return (which is what rights actually are).

Even back then, it was never about equality. Feminists were cheering for men to go and get killed in world war 1, never about sending women to fight. Now they concede that position but look for superiority in toher ways.

well that's not completely the case here. I don't think legal equality demands cultural equality as a pre-requisite - if that was the case, then there would probably never be cultural equality if legal superiority gave men the perpetual leg-up. if we *want* there to be cultural equality without having a dictatorship enforcing it, then legal equality is the best apparatus to ensuring its likelihood in the future. however, I agree with the message you are expressing that rights come with responsibilities - that's nothing to do with culture though, or at least doesn't require culture to back up. for example, I don't think anybody can *seriously* say that women can get drunk and then claim rape after drunkenly-consensual sex, because that would suggest restricting women the right to drink, and nobody suggests *that*. although, in some cases, it *is* just a herd of bleating feminist self-victimising morons trying to have it both ways/hve their cake and eat it

men, on the other hand, have total responsibility. they are reponsible for their wive's behaviour and if they fail to provide for them they are criminally liable. if the wife causes problems, it's the husband's responsibility. however, women can still divorce them (the rate is 40% iirc) but they can't take half their stuff.