HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » redqueen » Journal
Page: 1

redqueen

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Oct 22, 2003, 11:58 AM
Number of posts: 109,237

About Me

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

Journal Archives

Silencing tactics

I'm sure we are all familiar with these. Some of the more popular ones are

There are more important issues
Women have it worse in (some other place)
Just an isolated incident
This is trivial/boring
You're the bully/You're the sexist
Choice
Tone
Just ignore it
You should be flattered
Harming the community/cause
Free speech/censorship

These illogical arguments are very common and I thought it might be helpful to discuss some of the more common ones so that we can more effectively deal with them when we see them used. I will admit that I'm to the point that I tend to see them as a reason not to engage, but they may be used in all sincerity so, maybe its good to discuss ways to quickly illustrate how illogical they are.

Please share any other ones or any variations on these. My goal is more meaningful discussion of feminist issues, and fewer distracting, derailing subthreads.

Why victim-blaming is ALWAYS wrong.

Whether you think women shouldn't get drunk at parties, or shouldn't take sexy pictures (unless they intend to make them public), or underage girls should share the blame for being raped by dint of their having "consented" to having sex (before they are even capable of giving informed consent, of course )..

What victim-blaming does is PROTECT the ABUSERS, RAPISTS, and any other person who is CLEARLY in the wrong.

Do you honestly believe that these victims haven't absorbed the message that THEY WILL BE BLAMED?

Do you really not see that this is a major contributing factor in their not ever reporting having been wronged?

Do we want more women and children to come forward so that we can do a better job of ensuring criminals are punished?

Then how about we stop the desperate effort to find some reason, ANY reason, to make if seem like she should be ashamed of being victimized.

One feminist's thoughts about equality, war, the draft, etc.

It is a good thing that those women who choose to serve will now be paid the same as their male comrades. This is undeniable.

It is also a good thing that this is sparking discussions about selective service. Many think, as I do, that there should not be a draft at all, and no one should have to sign up, not if we purport to have a 'volunteer' military. (If we are to compel people, compel everyone, and make the training standard procedure, and not dependent on an emergency.)

Whatever your thoughts on war and the idea of a standing army, it seems to me that one thing is being overshadowed in these discussions... and that thing is the questionable idea of women working for 'equality' within a patriarchy. As I said before, women serve now. They die now. There is no question that the ideals of honor and righteousness from battle are firmly entrenched in most cultures, and that won't disappear overnight.

But don't we want it to? Eventually? I do. If one has to fight, it should be viewed as a necessary evil, IMO, and not something to be celebrated. Not something to be glorified.

I can only speak for myself, though I know I'm not alone when I say that I most certainly do not want, as an end goal, equality with patriarchal men, not as beneficiaries and willing participants of oppression in this patriarchy. I do not want to take my place as an equal among those who ignore the fact that they are taking advantage of someone else's oppression... much less someone who does so knowingly. What I want is liberation from this ancient, outdated system. My end goal is to end it, for everyone's benefit.

Please keep in mind that 'the patriarchy' does not mean 'men'. It is a heirarchy, with men as its rulers, and its female enablers are rewarded, just as any man who works against it or who dares to transgress the rules set up to maintain this power structure is punished.

So yes, while I am glad that women who choose to serve will not be denied their full compensation, I hope that we can also keep in mind that the military is an entirely patriarchal institution, which enshrines heirarchy as a religion... and failing to question this idea - that heirarchy is intrinsically good and useful - is only setting ourselves up for failure. Failure to evolve as humans past this idea that dominating and taking advantage of each other is a positive thing. That its rewards are somehow worthy. That it is inevitable. I know I'm not the only one here who thinks that education, assistance, cooperation, communication, and better strategies of conflict resolution can almost completely eliminate the 'inevitability' of war.

Smedley Butler was not wrong. We can be glad for women's equality while still recognizing that ultimately, assisting in propping up these outdated ideas is doing more harm than good in the long run.

The "Nice Guys", of OK Cupid and elsewhere, who like to whine about being "friendzoned"

It amazes me that there are still people who don't get this.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "friendzone". There is friendship. Anyone who is only interested in a sexual relationship should just accept it if the object of their affections is simply not into them. Engaging in some kind of ego-massaging mental gymnastics, such as inventing an entire "zone" so you can rationalize your rejection, is just self-serving nonsense. Move on, get over it, etc.

The "Nice Guys", with which I'm sure the overwhelming majority of women are so sadly familiar, are alarmingly fond of complaining about being relegated to said "friendzone", happily deluding themselves that the reason they keep being rejected is because they're "too nice"... LOL.

Now, just in case anyone might find it tempting to muddy the waters: No, "Nice Guys" are not actual nice guys. Women like nice guys. We love them. Girls, too. See, the clue which informs the reader of which type of person is referred to is quite easy to see. It is indicated by capitalization, by the use of "TM" after the erroneously self-applied label, by using italics, via the context of the discussion, etc. When women (and guys who get it) complain about and criticize these endlessly self-absorbed, clueless, sex-starved whiners, we are most definitely NOT talking about actual nice guys.

"Nice Guys" labor under the delusion that women are sex vending machines, into which they simply have to drop enough act-of-kindness tokens until eventually they get rewarded with sex. Actual nice guys see how misogynist and idiotic that kind of mentality is.

The "Nice Guy" phenomenon was so entertainingly explained, for the amusement of those who get it (and the possible, hopeful enlightenment of those who don't), on a now defunct tumblr called The Nice Guys of OK Cupid. Some of you may have read it. It was awesome. It was also constantly under attack. Cause, you know, picking on poor sexless lonely -and much more importantly, as it indicates the FAR more likely basis for their constant rejection- SEXIST, MISOGYNIST, and HOMOPHOBIC dudes is SO MUCH WORSE than all the revenge porn sites, all the creepshots type sites, etc etc etc etc etc unto infinity. Anyway...

So, in case you missed it, here are a couple of articles for your perusal. Enjoy.

http://jezebel.com/5969737/meet-the-so+called-nice-guys-of-okcupid

Thus one is good cause the woman who wrote it is all: Coddle! Enable!
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/sympathy-for-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid/266929/

And then this guy Angel chimes in. Don't miss his comment!


I was going to include a few, but there are so many. Just Google 'nice guys of ok cupid' if you're interested in reading more.
Go to Page: 1