Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

There is very little need for feminism in the UK Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    If I implied that it was not my intention, I just believe that we are not doing enough to combat the rape issue. Sexism is a bigger part of it, you could take the Steubenville Ohio rape case and the surrounding controversy as a prime example of how sexism and rape is tolerated in society even when there is video evidence of a horrific crime being committed. It is a US example I know, but rape is perfectly normalised in UK culture too.

    I'm not denying that there are many male victims of crime everywhere, and that is horrible too. But simply by trying to bring light to a problem where some men will be criticised (in this case the men committing rape) feminists get a lot of flack.
    Rape is normalized? How? You may be a rape victim but it's not normal, if rape is normal murder would be normal. Rapists and pedophiles are viewed as scum.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mess.)
    It is likely targeted that way because those are the easier ones to advise against.

    As for the rest, I wasn't having a go at the campaign, I never even mentioned it, so I really don't see what your point is :dontknow: I was pointing out the language used by the poster was hyperbolic. Campaigns etc are great, nobody has a problem there, the problem comes when the rhetoric used by the average person is hyperbolic.
    The "rhetoric" was a statement in it's most crude terms, followed by a clarification of specifically what it was intended to say... that a campaign reaching out to men in general has a strong effect on those relevant men who's behaviour is problematic, and so creating a significant improvement on the overall situation. What exactly is wrong with that?

    As for what's harder and easier... have you any idea of how hard it was to make drink driving an unacceptable behaviour in the UK? We don't do these things because they're easy - we do them because they're effective. Why should this issue be any different?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    The "rhetoric" was a statement in it's most crude terms, followed by a clarification of specifically what it was intended to say... that a campaign reaching out to men in general has a strong effect on those relevant men who's behaviour is problematic, and so creating a significant improvement on the overall situation. What exactly is wrong with that?

    As for what's harder and easier... have you any idea of how hard it was to make drink driving an unacceptable behaviour in the UK? We don't do these things because they're easy - we do them because they're effective. Why should this issue be any different?
    I am not saying the issue should be any different :facepalm2: I was pointing out as to why most advice probably starts at this point. Not that we should stop at that.

    Why do you keep jumping to odd conclusions regarding things I have not even mentioned?

    Why bother taking something to its crudest point rather than explaining how the campaign worked and why you think this would work in the UK? Taking things to such a crude level doesn't help your argument at all and just reinforces the negative stereotype of feminists :dontknow:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mess.)
    There needs to be more done to reduce all crimes but the money just isn't there. Rape is a particulary horrible crime due to the invasive and perverse nature of it and anything that can be done to reduce it should be.

    Unfortunately I don't know about that case so cannot make any comment on it but what do you mean by rape being normalised in the UK?

    I think a lot of peoples problems with feminists bringing up the rape subject is the way the debate is structured by feminists. It is usually hyperbolic, accusatory of all men, over dramatic and has a massive mis-use of statistics.
    It's a whole other argument that I don't really want to get into, but rape jokes are an example. Surely you've seen the amount of misogynistic abuse online? This article goes into the problem of sexist internet trolls http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-online-abuse

    Also, this explains more about "rape culture" - sorry I'm googling as I don't have the fastest internet connection, I'm sure if you were to research yourself you'd find lots of information
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-libby-brooks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mess.)
    I am not saying the issue should be any different :facepalm2: I was pointing out as to why most advice probably starts at this point. Not that we should stop at that.

    Why do you keep jumping to odd conclusions regarding things I have not even mentioned?

    Why bother taking something to its crudest point rather than explaining how the campaign worked and why you think this would work in the UK? Taking things to such a crude level doesn't help your argument at all and just reinforces the negative stereotype of feminists :dontknow:
    I suspect you're using a different sense of the word crude to me.. I'm using it in the sense of the easiest to say/most unrefined sense, whereby it was then followed by a finer explanation.

    I would also ask - is there any reason to think that this campaign wouldn't work in the UK compared to Vancouver? If so, is there any reason that we couldn't come up with a male-targeted campaign of our own?

    I would posit that the issue is less one of what I actually said, and more one of your initially reading something into it that wasn't intended... thinking that because a feminist was saying something, she must be 'one of those', so to speak. It is not uncommon to give something in it's simplest terms, and then elaborate upon the detail of what is meant in saying it... and what was meant was not objectionable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    You might have to elaborate some more, I don't really get your point.
    :confused:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    It's a whole other argument that I don't really want to get into, but rape jokes are an example. Surely you've seen the amount of misogynistic abuse online? This article goes into the problem of sexist internet trolls http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-online-abuse

    Also, this explains more about "rape culture" - sorry I'm googling as I don't have the fastest internet connection, I'm sure if you were to research yourself you'd find lots of information
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-libby-brooks
    Rape culture is also about a culture in which people are uneducated and thoughtless with regards to the issue of consent to the point where even women who are so often told that the reduction of rape is primarily their own responsibility by not putting themselves in danger, can turn around and tell a guy that if they struggle to talk to girls in clubs, go to a club where the women are more drunk.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    Rape culture is also about a culture in which people are uneducated and thoughtless with regards to the issue of consent to the point where even women who are so often told that the reduction of rape is primarily their own responsibility by not putting themselves in danger, can turn around and tell a guy that if they struggle to talk to girls in clubs, go to a club where the women are more drunk.
    :clap2: well said
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    But isn't chivalry just special treatment of women because they are women? Isn't that what you think feminism is all about?
    Feminism seems to be a combination of special treatment of women, just because they are women, and demonising/disadvantaging men.

    This is what I'm getting from your posts: Women shouldn't receive special treatment, but when feminists disapprove of receiving special treatment, it's an attack on men.
    You're getting this from my posts? Care to provide any other examples, of where I've implied this? And, seriously, as if feminists' reasons for dismissing chivalry, is because of them not wanting privilege; they make out that chivalry oppresses women. It's been said in this very thread.

    Men's issues should be looked out for, but when feminists do it, it's an evil ploy.

    And you guys wonder why nobody likes debating with you.
    Just because it's the right OUTCOME, or in certain ways is, doesn't mean it's for the right REASONS. Your logic would only follow, so long as feminists dismissed chivalry, because of its unfairness towards men. This is the area, where many men's rights activists and feminists agree, in terms of the outcome; only, for different reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Lol. Always the same line. "I'm not saying it's her fault, I'm just saying there are things she could have done to not get raped, and that she was stupid/irresponsible for not doing those things."
    Jesus, here we go again. How is ADVISING A WOMAN AS TO HOW SHE MAY REDUCE THE RISK OF GETTING RAPED, "victim-blaming"? You're putting words into people's mouths.

    Also the constant misconception that rape has anything to do with what a woman is wearing.

    so facts.

    so logic.
    So, your evidence that it DOESN'T have anything to do with what a woman's wearing? Plus, not being privy to facts, doesn't necessarily equal some sort of misogynistic agenda.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Tbh I do a lot of feminist activism in real life, and you don't know me at all. I'm not the most eloquent person so I may not put across the best arguments sometimes, but the fact is I do a lot of good for my community (as do many feminist groups locally and nationally) and I get a lot of positivity from the people who we help out (we often fundraise for Shelter, the non gender specific charity). I don't go out bra burning and trying to give men a hard time, I have friends of both genders and I do not discriminate between them on that basis. I do experience sexism every day though, and I get treated differently because I'm a woman. Thus, I will always be a feminist, and will never change my mind about that.

    If you can't acknowledge any of the issues in that article as issues, then obviously I'm going to get nowhere with you. It's quite a common theme of anti-feminism actually, undermining all arguments by insisting the problems we're talking about aren't relevant or don't exist. It's a bit inane though, don't you think?
    You didn't really cover anything with that first paragraph so here's me acknowledging it. How do you know you're being treated differently because you're a woman? Go through some of these with me. I highly doubt guys do stuff and then say "oh, I treat you different because you're a girl".

    I've addressed every point you've said about being a feminist, and you've ignored it. There is simply no argument here, just you repeating the same thing and ignoring everyone else.

    (Original post by Elusia)
    Rape culture is also about a culture in which people are uneducated and thoughtless with regards to the issue of consent to the point where even women who are so often told that the reduction of rape is primarily their own responsibility by not putting themselves in danger, can turn around and tell a guy that if they struggle to talk to girls in clubs, go to a club where the women are more drunk.
    Trying to bring up an argument where you claim "Men need to learn that consent is absolutely vital" is desperate. It is common knowledge across the world and not once have I heard from anyone whatsoever that they don't know consent is required. It is such a poor approach to preaching feminism and equal rights. Humour me and let me know that "studies have shown 1% of men don't know consent is required", I bet you won't even find that. It's just embarrassing really and I honestly have no idea that feminists would stoop to such a level where they have to make things up.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is a reminder to keep this thread civil, and on track. Emotions tend to be running a little too high at times, and posts are becoming too personal and/or insulting.
    Let's keep this as a civil debate, or the thread will have to be closed.

    Please report any behaviour that you feel is wrong, rather than responding to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Well what would you suggest we do to escape the rape epidemic? 1 in 3 women in their lives will be raped. Whether you are raped does not depend on what you are wearing, what you are doing or your relationship to the perpetrator. The incentive should be on the criminals and not the victims. Can you not even comprehend that idea?
    That's odd, it was 1-in-4, last time I heard, last week. Can feminists even make their own minds up? "I-in-3"? Puh-lease. If this were true, we would ALL know someone who had been raped, if not several people. And, again, where is your evidence, to prove that clothing has no bearing on chances of being attacked? Which studies have been done? And you do know that incentives on criminals, and potential victims, are not mutually exclusive things?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    So you're pre-empting the source, now?

    LMAO

    Do you realise what you're actually saying? You're saying that nomatter how solid or otherwise the source is, you're going to pick holes in it and try to rubbish it. That is the very definition of pre-judice.... or if you like, prejudice. You have an unchangeable view, and dammit, you're just going to go all out to tear to shreds anything that dare challenge it, nomatter what.
    I'd imagine it's more because it sounds so ridiculous to begin with. Are you open to the idea of believing someone who says that there are dragons circling your house? How far do you take that logic?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    It's a whole other argument that I don't really want to get into, but rape jokes are an example. Surely you've seen the amount of misogynistic abuse online? This article goes into the problem of sexist internet trolls http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-online-abuse
    ]
    I'm sorry, but you cannot act as if online abuse is a huge issue to women just because they are women. I've played several online games for instance and everyone gets insulted indiscriminately, you can go online and see abuse hurled at Justin bieber, one direction, lil Wayne and soulja boy for example, but I am sure that they are t going to claim its misandry being tactically thrown at them by internet trolls to make them quit their careers and take up a mining job, or join the military as the person is saying in the article.

    I've seen men be shamed for being a virgin,' shamed for looking ugly and fat, some being called pigs and neck bearded virgins, but the main point of trolling is simply to irritate and insult someone for the laughs, to see them rise to your bait, to play around with them like putty or Lego. Seldom do I see internet trolls troll people intently to do something like stay at home.

    Emphasising that women are bullied into silence makes it seem as if its an issue solely for women, despite the fact that every troll attacks people indiscriminately. Like in the metro there was even an article about a man who was trolling a boxer or mma fighter, but the fighter didn't just go to a newspaper to discuss how men are persecuted online.


    And about your rape culture post, I simply wish to direct you this this link

    Hell I'll even leave an excerpt for people to see here
    . First and foremost, there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to sexual gratification as a motive in many cases of rape. A variety of studies have shown that most rapists demonstrate a preference for consensual sex over rape, and evidence has shown that rates of rape have declined by over 80% since 1973. The case is only strengthened by evidence on the effect of internet pornography on incidence of rape, as it shows that easy access to other sexual outlets contributes to a decrease in rape incidence. This is also backed up by evidence that prostitution is also correlated with lower levels of rape, which makes sense when examined from an economic perspective. Additionally, models of rape based on power and control fail to explain why rapists show a marked preference (as demonstrated by victimization distribution) for women who are young adults and thus deemed to be in their prime years of attractiveness despite younger and older women being far easier targets.
    Secondly, the quote implies that the vast majority of rapists are men, and the vast majority of victims are women. Statistical evidence from the CDC’s NIPSVS puts the lie to the claim, and demonstrates that somewhere between 25-50% of rape victims are men, and up to 40% of rapists are women. This also ignores the over 200,000 people raped in prison every year, almost universally men. In fact, in U.S. prisons alone over 300,000 rapes are committed every year. For perspective, if 1 in 6 women are raped during their lifetime and each woman is raped only once, with the current U.S. population that adds up to….300,000 rapes a year. Even disregarding every single man who has never been incarcerated, that’s an equal number of attacks on men, so this is far from a crime overwhelmingly suffered by women no matter how you look at it. To recap: the CDC’s NIPSVS shows that outside of prison men make up between 25-50% of victims, and the male in-prison victims alone equal or exceed the number of female victims in the entire country. Rape is not a crime that primarily targ...

    11300 words which takes every direction of rape culture into account. Have fun yo
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBritishArmy)
    There are no formal barriers to the freedom of women in speech, religion and employment in this country.

    Any employer that unfairly discriminates against women in employment or the provision of services is breaking the law and would be subject to legal action.

    Given that the above statements are true, I don't understand what you are all moaning about.
    Same goes for black people, for instance... doesn't mean there's no need for opposition to racism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eloades11)
    I'm in no way targeting you, and most of these anti-feminist posters want the same thing, for everyone to be treated equally and for rape to stop, as do I. The thing is, you're fighting in the wrong corner for the wrong side. All we're seeing is you attacking and slamming men, that's not going to get you anywhere. If you were promoting everyone to be treated equally, instead of only promoting things for women and attacking us then you would probably get a lot more support.

    The offensive responses are against TSR rules, so just report them as I have done.
    The bold bit is entirely in your imagination, if edithwashere's last dozen posts are a guide. And I've read quite a few of her posts elsewhere - none have ever struck me as being devoted to "attacking and slamming men". Anyway, she has my support.

    (Original post by bottled)
    In America at least, men are only ten percent less likely to be raprd outside of prison than women, when people used the CDC definition of rape which includes envelopment.

    And men are more likely tone assaulted outside than women.
    The CDC definition of rape treats drunken blowjobs as "forced to envelope" sexual assaults, on the grounds that the male participant is unable to give informed consent due to alcohol consumption (the same test as is used for female victims of rape). But rightly or wrongly, neither UK law or UK public opinion is ready to accept the CDC definition yet. And while I have no stats to back this up, I doubt that most British recipients of a drunken blowjob (ie, the supposed male victims) would consider themselves to be victims either. Anecdotal evidence from a small sample of male friends suggests that most would rather welcome it. In a UK context, the CDC figures for male victims are meaningless, and it would need a massive shift of public and legal opinion to change that. Until that happens, the UK figures are clear that the ratio of female to male rape victims is around 7.5:1 (figures from ONS).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    And frankly I think that makes it all the more shocking, there may be slightly less rape as I first misread the statistic


    You seem desperate on ignoring my main point which is that women are vastly likely in their lifetimes to be targets for sexual violence and abuse. That is wrong. Feminists want to stop that happening. Comprende?
    Firstly, a 1-in-3 chance is not "vastly likely". Secondly, what does "abused" mean. Don't feminists tend to include "controlling behaviour", "having finances controlled" in the equation? Isn't this then very subjective? Doesn't this then leave many MEN, also victims? Most of my male friends and relatives have been "beaten" at some point in their lives. Frankly, there only being a 1-in-3 chance sounds good, not bad, when we consider such wide criteria.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Well what would you suggest we do to escape the rape epidemic? 1 in 3 women in their lives will be raped. Whether you are raped does not depend on what you are wearing, what you are doing or your relationship to the perpetrator. The incentive should be on the criminals and not the victims. Can you not even comprehend that idea?
    You say this, then post a link that states "one in three women will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused" in their lifetime". By agreeing with one, you have contradicted yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eloades11)
    Trying to bring up an argument where you claim "Men need to learn that consent is absolutely vital" is desperate. It is common knowledge across the world and not once have I heard from anyone whatsoever that they don't know consent is required. It is such a poor approach to preaching feminism and equal rights. Humour me and let me know that "studies have shown 1% of men don't know consent is required", I bet you won't even find that. It's just embarrassing really and I honestly have no idea that feminists would stoop to such a level where they have to make things up.
    Would you mind telling me, please, where you got the idea that my claim is "Men need to learn that consent is absolutely vital"? ... especially from where you quote me pointing out that there are issues of thoughtlessness and education regarding consent specifically among women? (and yes, it goes without saying that consent is a deeper and more serious issue than many men consider it to be too - it's not just women.)

    Shortly after your post, another section moderator has suggested that this thread is kept civil. I may be just a lowly member, but having identified openly as a feminist, to say in response to a post of mine which you have entirely mischarecterised, "It's just embarrassing really and I honestly have no idea that feminists would stoop to such a level where they have to make things up" is less than civil, and would like to remind you, should it be required, that Emaemmaemily's note following your post applies to you too.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

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

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