Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[SuperLuigi]

So, go to college to avoid being raped?

Please stop making these absurd arguments. We both know no one sends their kids to college to avoid getting raped.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If you’re referring to Bill Cosby, I again think he’d have fewer right-wing apologists if he’d been a flaming liberal like Alec Baldwin.

Name one right-wing apologist for Bill Cosby.

 

[Xantippe]

Please stop making these absurd arguments. We both know no one sends their kids to college to avoid getting raped.

Let’s go over this again.

1. People say that girls will be safer not going to college if rape is such a big problem for college students.
2. I point out that (according to stats), although college age women are much more vulnerable than the general population, young women who go to college are in fact slightly less likely to be sexually assaulted than young women who don’t go to college.

newrepublic.com/article/120540/young-female-non-students-are-more-likely-be-sexually-assaulted

1. Hence, not sending daughters to college is not an effective method of preventing sexual assault.

There, was that clear?

What this means is that two different groups of people need to take a chill pill:

a. People (whether conservatives or feminists) who think that college is uniquely dangerous for women–as it seems to be the age category rather than the location that is dangerous

and

b. People who think that there is a statistically significant explosion of false rape accusations specifically at college–because if there were, surely it would be better represented in those stats?

 

[Xantippe]

Name one right-wing apologist for Bill Cosby.

I forget who it was, but we had at least one right wing guy in this thread who believed it was more likely that 50 women were liars than that Bill Cosby was a rapist.

That is rape culture, by the way–believing that no matter what the heap of evidence looks like or how many women make the same accusation, that it’s more likely that a woman is a liar than that a man is a rapist. As I was saying previously, it’s a sort of souped version of Islamic law, under which a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s.

If it makes you feel better, Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of a lot of that back in the 1990s.

 

[DarkLight]

I should also point out - when they have done studies on rapists, the general tendency seems to be not that there are a massive number of rapists among men, but that rapists tend to be repeat offenders. They’ve also shown that most of these guys don’t think of themselves as rapists. So for example, if you ask them “have you ever raped someone?” they’ll tell you no. But if you change the question to “have you ever used force or the threat of force to get someone to have sex with you?” they’ll say yes.

 

[Lea101]

I should also point out - when they have done studies on rapists, the general tendency seems to be not that there are a massive number of rapists among men, but that rapists tend to be repeat offenders. They’ve also shown that most of these guys don’t think of themselves as rapists. So for example, if you ask them “have you ever raped someone?” they’ll tell you no. But if you change the question to “have you ever used force or the threat of force to get someone to have sex with you?” they’ll say yes.

That’s an interesting point.

I was reading about justifications rapists used in my class. We had a lot of “girls like to act like they don’t want it when they really do”. A lot of rapists do not think they are rapists.

I don’t remember much of it but wasn’t there a controversial study that implied aroused man admitted that they might not stop having sex if the woman said no? I have read about it before but I can’t seem to find it on Google right now.

I don’t know if this is getting out of point

 

[Lea101]

If this is about American politics, the right-wing base is decent at calling out such behavior.

Meh. I would say that the right is guilty for defending nonsense, just like the left. Reminds me of those 12 year olds that defended Justin Bieber when he was a little crazy (“that wasn’t weed! He was holding a pencil!”)

Trump’s comments for instance, you had a lot of people claiming that it was normal (locker rooms, women like rich men like him blah blah). Or not letting it affect their opinion of him. If you meant people saying stuff like “yeah he should not have said that but…”, you have a point. But I would focus on what comes after that ‘but’.

Sometimes it’s not even justifying the actions. If there is someone, who represents their views, did something messed up, you just know there will be people who claim that it was probably false and that we need more proof. This in itself is fine, but this standard doesn’t seem to be used when the person is a raging liberal/supported by raging liberals.

There’s blind loyalty in both sides, which is very disappointing. We are likely to look the other way if there’s a common enemy.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s an interesting point.

I was reading about justifications rapists used in my class. We had a lot of “girls like to act like they don’t want it when they really do”. A lot of rapists do not think they are rapists.

I don’t remember much of it but wasn’t there a controversial study that implied aroused man admitted that they might not stop having sex if the woman said no? I have read about it before but I can’t seem to find it on Google right now.

I don’t know if this is getting out of point

Nah, I think that is very much on topic.

 

[Xantippe]

Meh. I would say that the right is guilty for defending nonsense, just like the left. Reminds me of those 12 year olds that defended Justin Bieber when he was a little crazy (“that wasn’t weed! He was holding a pencil!”)

Trump’s comments for instance, you had a lot of people claiming that it was normal (locker rooms, women like rich men like him blah blah). Or not letting it affect their opinion of him. If you meant people saying stuff like “yeah he should not have said that but…”, you have a point. But I would focus on what comes after that ‘but’.

Sometimes it’s not even justifying the actions. If there is someone, who represents their views, did something messed up, you just know there will be people who claim that it was probably false and that we need more proof. This in itself is fine, but this standard doesn’t seem to be used when the person is a raging liberal/supported by raging liberals.

There’s blind loyalty in both sides, which is very disappointing.** We are likely to look the other way if there’s a common enemy.**

…which is kind of counter-productive if the bad behavior itself **is **the enemy.

Another case in point–Trump’s reminiscences about how he liked being a beauty contest organizer because he could just walk into change rooms and gawk at the women while they were changing into costumes.

buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing?utm_term=.nlQn1rNkJ#.jiQXlKJ8Z

He’s on recording telling Howard Stern, ““I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed,” Trump told Howard Stern in recordings released Saturday by CNN. “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. … ‘Is everyone OK?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.””

Several women who were Teen USA contests say that he did the same thing when he was organizing that contest, which is open to girls as young as 14.

The funny thing about Trump is that he’s literally on record saying, “I did XYZ,” and then his defenders will pop up and deny that he did XYZ at all.

It really has not been an edifying spectacle.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Name one right-wing apologist for Bill Cosby.

Sure. How about Rush Limbaugh?

wonkette.com/566745/rush-limbaugh-stop-being-mean-to-bill-cosby-just-because-he-maybe-raped-all-those-ladies

All these people that don’t know diddly squat about it are up there now commenting and weighing in on it. And I asked myself, “What did Bill Cosby ever do to tick off some producer at CNN? Or some reporter or some assignment. What happened here? And then I had to stop and remember. Bill Cosby has, numerous times, in the recent past, given public lectures in which he has said to one degree or another that black families and communities had better step up and get hold of themselves and not fall prey to the forces of destruction that rip them apart. And basically he started demanding that people start accepting responsibility.

And the next thing you know, he’s the nation’s biggest rapist as far as CNN’s concerned.

And as Xantippe mentioned it is also easy to find such apologists on CAF. I was not referring to any quasi-famous right wingers, but to them, in my comments. Many of the apologists are women.

And here’s some of Andrea Peyser’s comments defending Cosby in her NY Post column:

nypost.com/2015/11/09/perverts-roman-polanski-and-bill-cosby-tangled-in-political-double-standard/

Is Bill Cosby a rapist? Or is he guilty of being politically incorrect?

As I’ve suggested, he’s certainly run afoul of the new feminist-written definition of what constitutes sexual assault.

Today, a person may self-identify as a victim if he or she willingly takes drugs or drinks alcohol to get in the mood for sex.

By keeping his mouth shut on matters of morality and politics, convicted pervert Roman Polanski has won the adulation of fans and peers.

Being conservative has cost Cosby dearly.

The funny thing about Trump is that he’s literally on record saying, “I did XYZ,” and then his defenders will pop up and deny that he did XYZ at all.

It really has not been an edifying spectacle.

Actually I have noticed Trump defenders tend to state either (1) he didn’t do it or (2) even if he did do it, but it’s no big deal, we elected a president, not a saint.

Some even go a step further into “Trump’s talk about grabbing women was just normal locker room talk, all men say things like that when women aren’t around.” Of course the last statement means that to be consistent, you have to now excuse ALL men who brag about assaulting women, and there goes your credibility in terms of being a judge of moral behavior.

ETA: I’d also note that whenever Christians use the “we are all sinners who deserve mercy” argument to defend the rich and powerful over the weaker people who they prey on, they tend to lose credibility too.

 

[Xantippe]

S
Actually I have noticed Trump defenders tend to state either (1) he didn’t do it or (2) even if he did do it, but it’s no big deal, we elected a president, not a saint.

Some even go a step further into “Trump’s talk about grabbing women was just normal locker room talk, all men say things like that when women aren’t around.” Of course the last statement means that to be consistent, you have to now excuse ALL men who brag about assaulting women, and there goes your credibility in terms of being a judge of moral behavior.

ETA: I’d also note that whenever Christians use the “we are all sinners who deserve mercy” argument to defend the rich and powerful over the weaker people who they prey on, they tend to lose credibility too.

Yeah, the “locker room talk” excuse basically throws all men under the bus to save Trump, which is a pretty lousy exchange. It’s also (dare I say?) misandric.

Regarding “we are all sinners who deserve mercy,” you might be interested in the term “sin-leveling.” I haven’t been able to find a good online definition of it, but it addresses the view that all sin is basically the same, we’re all sinners, so we don’t need to do anything in particular about predators.

Edited to add: Sin leveling is also very, very selectively applied. It’s only applied to people that the speaker likes and feels kinship with.

 

[Crusaderbear]

When you are in a locker room full of nearly naked men, the LAST topic of conversation would be molesting women, it’s just not right and creepy. IMHO.

 

[Xantippe]

When you are in a locker room full of nearly naked men, the LAST topic of conversation would be molesting women, it’s just not right and creepy. IMHO.

Oh my gosh!

I heard some good lines around that time as to what men really talk about in locker rooms.

One of the good ones was: “Does anybody have a Motrin?”

 

[Crusaderbear]

Oh my gosh!

I heard some good lines around that time as to what men really talk about in locker rooms.

One of the good ones was: “Does anybody have a Motrin?”

Yep, or icy hot, or know a good chiropractor!

 

[Lea101]

Yeah, the “locker room talk” excuse basically throws all men under the bus to save Trump, which is a pretty lousy exchange. It’s also (dare I say?) misandric.

Regarding “we are all sinners who deserve mercy,” you might be interested in the term “sin-leveling.” I haven’t been able to find a good online definition of it, but it addresses the view that all sin is basically the same, we’re all sinners, so we don’t need to do anything in particular about predators.

Edited to add: Sin leveling is also very, very selectively applied. It’s only applied to people that the speaker likes and feels kinship with.

It’s funny because these men are usually the ones who hate feminists for acting like all men are evil. They’ll quickly point out that there are good men out there.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sure. How about Rush Limbaugh?

wonkette.com/566745/rush-limbaugh-stop-being-mean-to-bill-cosby-just-because-he-maybe-raped-all-those-ladies

And as Xantippe mentioned it is also easy to find such apologists on CAF. I was not referring to any quasi-famous right wingers, but to them, in my comments. Many of the apologists are women.

And here’s some of Andrea Peyser’s comments defending Cosby in her NY Post column:

nypost.com/2015/11/09/perverts-roman-polanski-and-bill-cosby-tangled-in-political-double-standard/

Actually I have noticed Trump defenders tend to state either (1) he didn’t do it or (2) even if he did do it, but it’s no big deal, we elected a president, not a saint.

Some even go a step further into “Trump’s talk about grabbing women was just normal locker room talk, all men say things like that when women aren’t around.” Of course the last statement means that to be consistent, you have to now excuse ALL men who brag about assaulting women, and there goes your credibility in terms of being a judge of moral behavior.

ETA: I’d also note that whenever Christians use the “we are all sinners who deserve mercy” argument to defend the rich and powerful over the weaker people who they prey on, they tend to lose credibility too.

Adding, what about referring to the women being groped as “groupies”? It’s ok to be promiscuous with “those kind of women”. Or one lady not being attractive enough for him to grope.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That is rape culture, by the way–believing that no matter what the heap of evidence looks like or how many women make the same accusation, that it’s more likely that a woman is a liar than that a man is a rapist. As I was saying previously, it’s a sort of souped version of Islamic law, under which a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s.

No it’s not. Culture refers to society at large; the Cosby case looks bad but it’s still 1 man and no systemtic discrimination as in some of those Islamic nation.

We have due process in this country. Pray we never lose it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Sure. How about Rush Limbaugh?

wonkette.com/566745/rush-limbaugh-stop-being-mean-to-bill-cosby-just-because-he-maybe-raped-all-those-ladies

 

[DarkLight]

Ah, yes! The “it’s so easy to find them on CAF, but I can’t cite specific posts or links to posts to prove my point”.

I wish I had an euro every time I heard that on here.

I haven’t seen Finding Nemo lately, but isn’t Finding Dory the one with the lesbian fish?

Because most young women are having just one glass of wine when they’re at the bar…

She claims to have no memories of the act, claims she didn’t ask to go to his room (her sister originally supported Brock’s counter-claim, but then changed her story), and two eye-witnesses (foreign exchange students) saw him with a girl and then tackled him, and then went along with the story that made them heroes instead of guilty of assault. Color me unconvinced.

A very rich man was accused and suddenly 50 women who have never said anything before this decided that a magazine cover, heroic treatment by the media, lots of money and fame, happened to remind them that they actually were raped. And I am instantly supposed to assume guilt because to do otherwise means I am a sexist, misogynist pig who hates women. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. It wasn’t enough to convince the (obviously sexist) jury, so I’ll reserve judgement on this one.

 

[Xantippe]

No it’s not. Culture refers to society at large; the Cosby case looks bad but it’s still 1 man and no systemtic discrimination as in some of those Islamic nation.

We have due process in this country. Pray we never lose it.

I don’t object to Cosby losing a particular legal case (guilty people going free is the price of justice and a lot of damaging information is excluded in a court of law), but I do object to anybody (like NonTimendum) who thinks that it is more probable that 50 women are lying than that one rich guy has a drugging-and-raping hobby.

That’s why I made the unfavorable comparison to Islamic law.