Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is feminism still relevant; what is modern-day feminism like? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    I don't think it's illegal, but it's definitely stigmatized.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There was a documentary on BBC about nudism and they conducted an experiment where a topless man and a topless woman walked around topless in a city centre. The police asked the woman (and not the man) to put her top on and if she refused they threatened to detain her.:eek:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    They aren't the same, though. I've never seen a male rape victim get shamed the same way as a female rape victim.
    And how many high profile male rape victims have there been? Cases such as Steubenville are not high profile for the shaming, they are high profile for the public response to the private shaming. Unless you have a similar high profile case, how exactly are you going to see the shaming?

    Being called a ***** or a pussy is different to being told you deserved it or called a slut. The man is shamed for his lack of masculinity, i.e. his femininity, while the woman is shamed for her sexuality and apparent promiscuity.
    Being sexually chaste and modest are considered to be feminine traits. In one you have shaming for a lack of a masculine trait, and the other shaming for the lack of a feminine trait. They are same, both being able to be insulted by both genders and questioning your masculinity/femininity and attractiveness to the opposite sex.

    My original point was that the concept of masculinity is never the subject of shaming while femininity is,
    The concept of masculinity is never shamed in men, its definitely shamed in women. The idea of being a career women rather than a mother, sexually promiscuous, butch, even being independent is or until very recently was something to be mocked. Women are never shamed for being too feminine. No one, or certainly until the rise of feminism, shamed women for not being sexually promiscuous, being caring, sensitive, or nurturing. You are shamed for stepping outside your gender role.

    and this leads to serious problems with how rape cases are viewed and how victims are treated, as we saw in Steubenville.
    But not in the sense of the perpetrators, who were basically glorified by their friends, aided by the police, and defended by many. Had the case not been blown up in the media, they wouldn't have been convicted and the standard boys will be boys, star footballer players, that wouldn't have reinforced their acts as positive with no consequences.

    Rape is unique in this regard, victims of other crimes are never treated with such stigma, and from the abuse I've seen thrown the way of victims the key factor in this seems to be the demonisation of female sexuality, which is hardly a new thing; it's been present in various forms for centuries.
    Probably because of the historic results of a women not being a virgin or exclusive, and the power dynamic. A women who has been raped historically is worthless, even today in parts of the world you would be killed. As a victim you are usually accusing someone in a position of power relative to your own. As I stated, I'm not saying female sexuality is not part of it, I'm saying its a part of the wider picture which is the context of masculinity or femininity. You can remove female sexuality from the female victims being blamed, but rape will continue and will the blaming along a different line until you remove the driver, which as I argued from my first post, is the not female sexuality its the concepts of masculinity and femininity of which female sexuality is one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Feminism is the battle for gender equality.

    We want equality for the genders. This is why we fight to get prison sentences for women increased to match those for men committing equivalent crimes, this is why we fight for domestic abuse against men to be taken as seriously as it is against women, this is why we fight for child custody rights to be equal between men and women, this is why we fight to make it mandatory for women to sign up for the draft, this is why we fight for male genital mutilation to be seen in the same way as female genital mutilation.

    Wait, what?
    Good job man. Destroyed feminism in one paragraph.

    No feminist will touch this one with a bargepole. You'll only receieve a small 'oh but we support men too' remark and not anything further will be said.

    I just wish men went on a strike for a week, leave the world to be run by feminists let's see how long they can keep ot running.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Oh I think any woman realises that by going out topless she would attract a lot of unwanted attention. Many women aren't bothered by it. I think they just want to have the freedom - the option - of being able to do so.

    Edit: Not sure why I referred to women as 'them' in stead of 'us'.. haha.
    it's illegal in some places. not in new york though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Feminism hasn't been relevant in a long time.

    Feminists used to want to be equal to men; now they want to be special.
    With all due respect, I disagree with your comment. Feminism has, and still remains, the fact that women want to treated as equals to their male counterparts and want to feel respected, as humans, not as mere objects. It's got nothing to do with feeling "special". A woman, just like a man, should be able to walk down the street without getting harassed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    There was a documentary on BBC about nudism and they conducted an experiment where a topless man and a topless woman walked around topless in a city centre. The police asked the woman (and not the man) to put her top on and if she refused they threatened to detain her.:eek:
    I'm almost certain they weren't allowed to do that, shops can refuse to serve her, she can be refused to go into public facilities whilst topless like a bus, but as far as I'm aware in the uk like most of Europe, she's legally allowed to be outside in public topless.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History Geek!)
    With all due respect, I disagree with your comment. Feminism has, and still remains, the fact that women want to treated as equals to their male counterparts and want to feel respected, as humans, not as mere objects. It's got nothing to do with feeling "special". A woman, just like a man, should be able to walk down the street without getting harassed.
    Ok so equality is your concern? Explain this to me then:

    (Original post by bertstare)
    Feminism is the battle for gender equality.

    We want equality for the genders. This is why we fight to get prison sentences for women increased to match those for men committing equivalent crimes, this is why we fight for domestic abuse against men to be taken as seriously as it is against women, this is why we fight for child custody rights to be equal between men and women, this is why we fight to make it mandatory for women to sign up for the draft, this is why we fight for male genital mutilation to be seen in the same way as female genital mutilation.

    Wait, what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Slightly off topic but we need to recognise that whilst male genital mutilation is not the same as female genital mutilation. I 100% agree that infant male circumcision should be outlawed - it is horrible and inhumane - but it is not the same as FGM. You cannot compare the two things - well maybe you can with the first type of FGM which involves the removal of the clitoral hood but not the second, third and most definitely not fourth.
    I just do not believe that FGM should be brought into the argument when talking about male circumcision. They are done for different reasons, with different methods, at different ages, etc. I think they are just too different to compare.
    But like I said - MGM should definitely be outlawed. What sick ******* would want to do this to a child?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    And how many high profile male rape victims have there been? Cases such as Steubenville are not high profile for the shaming, they are high profile for the public response to the private shaming. Unless you have a similar high profile case, how exactly are you going to see the shaming?
    Well you're the one who brought up the male rape hypothetical to begin with. Furthermore it wasn't just private shaming, tons of people felt the need to pipe up on Twitter with slut shaming and victim blaming.

    Being sexually chaste and modest are considered to be feminine traits. In one you have shaming for a lack of a masculine trait, and the other shaming for the lack of a feminine trait. They are same, both being able to be insulted by both genders and questioning your masculinity/femininity and attractiveness to the opposite sex.
    But while the man is shamed for being too feminine (hence '*****' and 'pussy'), the woman is not perceived as masculine in the same way. She is not shamed in masculine terms. She is painted with misogynistic, female-gendered slurs. That, to me, is the difference. The shaming of rape victims is always expressed through feminine terms, because really it's an extension of slut shaming which almost exclusively targets women.

    The concept of masculinity is never shamed in men, its definitely shamed in women. The idea of being a career women rather than a mother, sexually promiscuous, butch, even being independent is or until very recently was something to be mocked. Women are never shamed for being too feminine. No one, or certainly until the rise of feminism, shamed women for not being sexually promiscuous, being caring, sensitive, or nurturing. You are shamed for stepping outside your gender role.
    The fact that in order to be successful or powerful a woman must step outside of gender roles is a big argument in favour of feminism. And it's true to this day that successful women tend to be viewed negatively by society.

    But not in the sense of the perpetrators, who were basically glorified by their friends, aided by the police, and defended by many. Had the case not been blown up in the media, they wouldn't have been convicted and the standard boys will be boys, star footballer players, that wouldn't have reinforced their acts as positive with no consequences.
    Exactly, victim blaming and sympathy for the victims are both demonstrations of rape culture.

    Probably because of the historic results of a women not being a virgin or exclusive, and the power dynamic. A women who has been raped historically is worthless, even today in parts of the world you would be killed. As a victim you are usually accusing someone in a position of power relative to your own. As I stated, I'm not saying female sexuality is not part of it, I'm saying its a part of the wider picture which is the context of masculinity or femininity. You can remove female sexuality from the female victims being blamed, but rape will continue and will the blaming along a different line until you remove the driver, which as I argued from my first post, is the not female sexuality its the concepts of masculinity and femininity of which female sexuality is one.
    I honestly think we share a lot of common ground here, just slightly different interpretations of a couple of things.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Slightly off topic but we need to recognise that whilst male genital mutilation is not the same as female genital mutilation. I 100% agree that infant male circumcision should be outlawed - it is horrible and inhumane - but it is not the same as FGM. You cannot compare the two things - well maybe you can with the first type of FGM which involves the removal of the clitoral hood but not the second, third and most definitely not fourth.
    I just do not believe that FGM should be brought into the argument when talking about male circumcision. They are done for different reasons, with different methods, at different ages, etc. I think they are just too different to compare.
    But like I said - MGM should definitely be outlawed. What sick ******* would want to do this to a child?
    Although I like feminism I have to object to this, there's more than one type of circumcision for men...

    http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/...tilation_(MGM)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Ok so equality is your concern? Explain this to me then:
    I can call myself a feminist and still care about these things. I can be a member of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society but that doesn't mean I don't care about the plight of the snow leopard. Besides that post is pretty reductive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    Although I like feminism I have to object to this, there's more than one type of circumcision for men...

    http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/...tilation_(MGM)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh I agree with that! I just often find anti-feminists trying to argue that circumcision is equally as bad as the removal of the clitoris or labia which in my opinion is absurd! The most extreme cases are definitely on par with FGM. It's revolting.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Oh I agree with that! I just often find anti-feminists trying to argue that circumcision is equally as bad as the removal of the clitoris or labia which in my opinion is absurd! The most extreme cases are definitely on par with FGM. It's revolting.
    When it comes to MGM I actually think it should be banned, it's definitely a violation of a basic human right. But that doesn't mean feminism is wrong at all whether female or male no one should have their sexual organs altered by someone.
    Although I'd say type 3 of MGM is certainly on par with Any of The FGM types. Castration of a baby!!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    Maybe my wording of my sentence was not the greatest, my point is you can't say they did it as a matter of fact without a conviction. The conviction rate for rape is 58%, the rate of conviction for crimes as an average is 57%.
    I don't think I can bear to actually watch the video in question, but from everything I've read about it, that's as clear a piece of evidence as you can ask for. If it is not recognised by law, I simply cannot trust the court ruling.
    My question to you would be how would you improve this in a way that is realistic if you see it as a problem?
    We need legal reform with regard to rape. But the issues are a lot bigger than that, so we do actually need a cultural shift in terms of how people understand rape and sexual harrassment. We need to create an environment in which people feel confident and safe enough to report instances of abuse. And we need to ensure that courts are trained not to make it harder for victims to be open about their experiences, through prejudice and accusations. Most rape victims already feel hugely humiliated about their experience, so having people insinuate that they brought it on themselves is the worst response possible. This just requires a lot of campaigning, and raising awareness. And education. And we have to be a lot stricter about the spreading of misinformation, such as language implying that victims are to blame for their rape (rather than rapists).

    I don't really see why this matters. The reason this came up is because someone pointed out that the case is a good example of the ways in which women are still disadvantaged in modern, democratic societies. Whether or not we can 'officially' say that the rapists were convicted seems immaterial to me, when everybody knows that the girl was gang raped. And even if - hypothetically - she wasn't, there are still a gazillion such instances taking place on a regular basis. And we know that of the total number of people who are raped, few find the courage to report the crime, and of those who do report it, very few receive justice.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp are another obvious example. Nobody in SA wanted to believe that Pistorius was capable of murdering his girlfriend, because that's just not how they want to see their champion sportsmen. And when her death was reported, The Sun thought it was appropriate to print photos of her modelling swimwear while reporting her death!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp are another obvious example. Nobody in SA wanted to believe that Pistorius was capable of murdering his girlfriend, because that's just not how they want to see their champion sportsmen. And when her death was reported, The Sun thought it was appropriate to print photos of her modelling swimwear while reporting her death!
    These things definitely need to be changed, but how exactly? Culture changes are very difficult to change, because culture is the mould of society, look at Saudi Arabia for example, there's a heavily patriarchal society over there, to change the way that they view women will take decades of feminism, and that's just to get to the same standards as the UK, let alone full social equality. The first thing that needs changing is the hypersexual view men have of women, sexual relations between men and women is good, but how does society change its views of what's masculine and feminine? The most obvious thing that needs changing is the opinion of mum= child career dad= career.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp are another obvious example. Nobody in SA wanted to believe that Pistorius was capable of murdering his girlfriend, because that's just not how they want to see their champion sportsmen. And when her death was reported, The Sun thought it was appropriate to print photos of her modelling swimwear while reporting her death!
    What are they an example of, exactly?

    I imagine we'd be disbelieving if our star athlete Jessica Ennis was accused of killing someone, and although I don't read The Sun, modelling is what Reeva Steenkamp did for a living. Aside from his trial, any photo you saw of Pistorius would be him in his running gear.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What are they an example of, exactly?

    I imagine we'd be disbelieving if our star athlete Jessica Ennis was accused of killing someone, and although I don't read The Sun, modelling is what Reeva Steenkamp did for a living. Aside from his trial, any photo you saw of Pistorius would be him in his running gear.
    It's quite disrespectful to dead people to have a picture of her in A modelling shoot, even if it was her job.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    It's quite disrespectful to dead people to have a picture of her in A modelling shoot, even if it was her job.
    That's the more understandable part, I can see why some people would take issue with it, though I imagine they'd be pretty much the same people who oppose women modelling in general. Again though, I'll say that I didn't see the photos - I would take issue with sultry photos, for example, but not the type you see on TV/billboards advertising underwear. But Craghyrax also (well, as her main point) mentioned that SA didn't want to believe that Pistorius could kill, implying it was because of his gender, what is that supposed to mean?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    These things definitely need to be changed, but how exactly? Culture changes are very difficult to change, because culture is the mould of society, look at Saudi Arabia for example, there's a heavily patriarchal society over there, to change the way that they view women will take decades of feminism, and that's just to get to the same standards as the UK, let alone full social equality. The first thing that needs changing is the hypersexual view men have of women, sexual relations between men and women is good, but how does society change its views of what's masculine and feminine? The most obvious thing that needs changing is the opinion of mum= child career dad= career.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Of course its difficult. But public perception and attitudes do change over time. Look at the equal marriage movement in the US right now. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages...-sex-marriage/ Just read this earlier. Even conservative and religious people are beginning to shift their views and attitudes towards gay marriage. Social change is extremely hard to achieve. But you don't achieve it by giving up and never talking about it. That is why activism and campaigning are worthwhile. Most of the time you don't see any change, but every now and then you do. You never know when your efforts will coincide with the right combination of factors and events to result in a breakthrough. And that is also why feminists have to continue challenging people, and raising awareness about the things in society that still harm people as a result of outdated, prejudiced and misinformed attitudes about sexuality and gender.
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What are they an example of, exactly?
    Bias in how we view crime. In fairness, the Pistorius example is a much better example of racial bias, though. (I should be asleep, not posting :p:) There was a lot of fuss made over the possibility that builders (who would be black) had broken in, before people were willing to accept that a white national hero had committed murder.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.