The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[xoxoxoBruce]

FOX on women.

[BigV]

I have had a number of links collected for this thread. I want to just unload them here before I lose track of them.

How 7 things that have nothing to do with rape perfectly illustrate the concept of consent

[BigV]

Son, it's ok if you don't get laid tonight.

Hey kid. You’re at an age where I’m pretty sure you’re about to have sex soon, or actually, you might even already be having it and you’re just *that* good at keeping it from me. I don’t really fret over that because I trust you. And because I trust myself and the job I’ve done as your parent all these years.
...
We’ve also talked about rape and about rape culture. I’ve tried to show you how this pervasive attitude exists toward women as objects, or at best, supporting characters in a man’s adventure. And that even though that isn’t your fault and you didn’t make the world that way, allowing yourself to be a passive beneficiary of that dynamic is unacceptable.
...
And yet, the reality is that even with everything I’ve taught you, you are still capable of committing rape. Not because you’re some kind of testosterone-driven monster on the inside, but because you’re at the center of swirling variables and messages.
...

A teaser, really. I liked the whole article. I think you'd like it too.

[Sundae]

Article from the Hate Mail.
Turns out that in two of seven age ranges (only five of which are shown in their graphics) women earn a small percentage more than men. Rising to the heady heights of 1.1% more in the 22-29 age group.

Which wholly justifies the headline

Pay gap? Women earn MORE than men till their 40s: 20-something woman have been paid MORE than men in the same age group over the last decade

Article here (Daily Mail website).

[BigV]

I watched the whole FOX on women video. Urghk..

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't forget when that lad has a boner, he might encounter a lady... now this is one in a million or more, who fibs.
Not telling him the truth, or being so vague, he'll make the wrong decision.

[DanaC]

That letter was awesome. What I like about it is that it connects the dots. One thing that really strck me with a lot of the surveys and polls that have been done, show that a lot of men, often young men, when presented with the question 'Have you ever raped a girl/woman?' will answer no, but when presented with the question, 'have you ever had sex with a girl/woman who was too drunk to say no?', or 'have you ever continued to have sex after a girl/woman has changed her mind about wanting to?' and even 'have you ever got a girl/woman really drunk in order to have sex with her?' will say yes.

And the role of peer pressure really has to be recognised too. A lot of the cases we see in the news, of young women being raped while passed out or drugged involve groups of lads. I suspect that the individual boys are often not bad lads on their own.

[DanaC]

That Fox video is just so depressing.

[Sundae]

... not.

Chrissie made the comments to the Sunday Times Magazine in relation to an incident that happened to her when she was younger.
The star recalled how she crossed paths with members of one of Ohio's leather-clad gangs who promised to take her to a party - but instead took her to an empty house.

Despite that, she says she takes 'full responsibility' for what happened.
She continued: 'Technically speaking, however you want to look at it, this was all my doing and I take full responsibility.
'You can't f*** about with people, especially people who wear "I Heart Rape" and "On Your Knees" badges... those motorcycle gangs, that's what they do.

'You can't paint yourself into a corner and then say whose brush is this? You have to take responsibility. I mean, I was naive...'
When asked whether the gang took advantage of her vulnerability, she replied: 'If you play with fire you get burnt. It's not any secret, is it?'

Hynde went on to say that women who dress provocatively while walking down the street drunk are also to blame if they are attacked.
'If I'm walking around in my underwear and I'm drunk? Who else's fault can it be?'

She explained: 'If I'm walking around and I'm very modestly dressed and I'm keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I'd say that's his fault.
'But if I'm being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who's already unhinged - don't do that. Come on! That's just common sense. You know, if you don't want to entice a rapist, don't wear high heels so you can't run from him.
'If you're wearing something that says 'Come and f*** me', you'd better be good on your feet... I don't think I'm saying anything controversial am I?'

Now I'd like to think that even if I was walking around drunk in my underwear, men would feel protective and get me to safety. Okay, some might "accidentally" cop a feel, but in general they would know I was in some sort of trouble.

And to equate wearing high heels to "putting it about" and "being provocative"! I'd like to think she was misquoted, but it's not just a single sentence.

Leaving your valuables on display in a car is careless and does make robbery more likely. Leaving your ground floor windows open at night (depending on where you live) raises the potential for opportunistic theft. Walking through high crime areas without paying due care and attention/ displaying conspicuous wealth is likely to end badly.

But wearing high heels makes you responsible for being raped?

I wonder if Chrissie Hynde actually bothers to read the news. Knows about grandmothers being raped in their own homes, or women out walking dogs or with their children? Sluts, obviously.

Yes, there are things you can do to lessen your chances of being raped on a night out. Same as the crimes I cited above. But they are common sense (awareness of surroundings, area, company) not her version of it. She was very naive - to the point of stupidity - to choose to go to a party with men wearing I heart rape badges, yes. But being naive and even being stupid are not illegal as far as I know. She should not have had to pay for her actions by being sexually violated.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Now I'd like to think that even if I was walking around drunk in my underwear, men would feel protective and get me to safety. Okay, some might "accidentally" cop a feel, but in general they would know I was in some sort of trouble.

That defines the fundamental difference between an adult and an adult who is only a child. A child will take whatever he can especially if he thinks he can get away with it. An adult is required to have ethics. In fact, we should test every adult by having actors walk down the street looking drunk in their underwear - to find the scumbags BEFORE they actually harm America and the world.

If that not the premise of an ABC News show where actors create situations to see what strangers will do? How many are adult enough to 'do the right thing'.

[it]

From where a lot of you guys stand it seems you approach it like a one dimensional dichotomy between traditionalism and feminism, putting a lot of emphasize on small differences and ignoring the core shared principles values and world view they build upon. In the mean time I can't decide what's worst - the fox news sound bite collection or the letter - poison spread thin to a lot of people or poison focused on a few at high dosages.

[BigV]

traceur, are you suggesting the letter I linked to in post #245 is concentrated poison focused on one person?

I hope I misunderstand you, but either way, I'd be interested in hearing you expand on your remark.

[it]

Originally Posted by Sundae

The point of this thread is to point out gender inequality.
It's not about celebrating the fact we're all human and share the same values.

I am not saying there isn't inequality between genders, I am saying there isn't that much of a difference between how traditionalism and feminism approach those differences:
They are both aged old traditions that exchange the value of women's agency for the value of women's wellbeing, rationalized by much of the same process, each a semantic framework that makes sense from a very narrow perspective and no other, and is reliant on compliance with that perspective.

The only reason feminism had to become more dogmatic was because traditionalism also exchanged men's well being for agency, which makes the deal "make sense" externally without having to focus your mind on the perspective of one gender only as long as you view it in terms of the shallow exchange but without understanding the connection between liberty and well being - because without agency the factors of your well being has to be presumed rather then chosen and without a value of your own well being your agency doesn't actually benefit you. Feminism broke loose of that part by separating agency and responsibility, which meant it had to rely on people been compliant with a much narrower perspective.

At the core, they are both reliant on our psychological tendency to anthropomorphise life itself as if it was a parental figure, on a much more subtle way then monotheist faith (Although in the case of traditionalism the two often come together).

Take for example your answer to the actress quote in your post: You aren't wrong, that it's not her fault, and you aren't necessarily right in thinking the question she is asking herself when she's giving those answers is a question of fault to began with.

Personally I am more like her, my reaction to trauma is to find ways to explain what have I done to get to that point and what I could have done differently, how can I change to avoid it. It is at the core wishful thinking seeking to regain a sense of control to not feel helpless. The question "Did I deserve this" doesn't come to my mind, it's not really part of my framework.
From this perspective, taking responsibility away doesn't free you away from "fault", it's taking away your sense of control - it doesn't help to heal but makes you into an eternal victim.
The framework of fault comes into play when you think in terms of "deserving" - as if life is a parental figure and when bad things happen to you it is a punishment for being a naughty child.

You are right that it's not her fault, but the reason there is value in taking away fault depends on this very specific framework, and it's not one that is universal for all humans.
And yet if you look at the comics from bigV - the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism - that sense of entitlement comes from the other side of the exact same coin: You have done something good, now Life should fulfill it's promises to you (But she can't because she's too busy going to therapy since your gandparents named her Life).

This is why - from a gender egalitarian perspective - while at it's best feminism might just be another word for gender egalitarianism, most of the time it's traditionalism's identical twin arguing over which side of the toast to spread the jam.

Originally Posted by BigV

traceur, are you suggesting the letter I linked to in post #245 is concentrated poison focused on one person?

I hope I misunderstand you, but either way, I'd be interested in hearing you expand on your remark.

Because that kind of crappy vilification of male sexuality can give medieval Catholicism a run for it's money, and she decided not only to instill it in her son, but to help convince a few others to do the same to their children - probably nothing close to as many viewers as fox news has, but potentially a lot more destructive to those it does impact.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by traceur

snip--

Because that kind of crappy vilification of male sexuality can give medieval Catholicism a run for it's money, and she decided not only to instill it in her son, but to help convince a few others to do the same to their children - probably nothing close to as many viewers as fox news has, but potentially a lot more destructive to those it does impact.

So it looks like I did not misunderstand you. But we do not agree on what constitutes "vilification of male sexuality". Let's take the talking points as a starter, hm?

Here’s how you can rule out sleeping with someone:

1. She’s hammered.

Are you ok with this "rule"? If the girl is very drunk should it be ok to have sex with her?

2. She seems unsure if she wants to (you should never have to talk anyone into it).

Like the one before, this one is on a continuum. There's coyness, shyness, reluctance, resistance, defensiveness, hostility, aggression, etc. I concede that it's a judgement call. But the answer is more communication for more clarification, not damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

3. She’s passed out.

I doubt you'd consider this "rule" a vilification of male sexuality. But I'd appreciate your honest answer; passed out girls are off limits, sexually, agreed?

4. It seems like there’s any other reason she might regret it in the morning. (Even if it’s not rape, do you really want to be someone’s morning-after regret, when instead they can remember you as a total gentleman?)

Even this one doesn't rise to the level of vilification of male sexuality. This is not poisoning her son. AT BEST, an encounter like this is a temporary pleasure, and the downside is a hole with no bottom. If "she" doesn't want to, then "I" don't want to.

Here’s how you can be sure it’s okay to proceed with sex:

1. She is in control of her faculties.

2. She is enthusiastically willing.

3. Check in with her! “Do you want to be doing this?” is a great thing to ask when things are going to another sexual level. The worst thing that will happen is she’ll rethink it and say, no, she’s actually not ready. It’s important at that point to pivot to doing something else together, and not make her feel guilty for changing her mind. While that may feel like a bummer to you in the moment, what you’ve just achieved there is fucking badass. You’ve just put someone else’s feelings ahead of your physiological desires. You’ve just treated somebody the way you hope another guy would treat your sister.

And I don't have any problem at all with any of the "go" signals from the letter, I doubt you do either.

I'd be happy to reinforce these points to my sons, and my daughter, when it comes to sex. Poison them? pfffft. Hardly. Teaching respect for one's intimate partner is not poisoning them. At the very least, it's planting the seeds of the Golden Rule.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by traceur

snip--
You are right that it's not her fault, but the reason there is value in taking away fault depends on this very specific framework, and it's not one that is universal for all humans.
And yet if you look at the comics from bigV - the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism - that sense of entitlement comes from the other side of the exact same coin: You have done something good, now Life should fulfill it's promises to you (But she can't because she's too busy going to therapy since your gandparents named her Life).

--snip

Dude.

You're seriously overthinking this one here, and missing the whole point as a result. The comics are making analogies about what consent and the absence of consent look like. Just because a familiar situation exists, that is *not* the same as consent. You might have gotten the point that "playing cards/getting a tattoo/cooking breakfast/etc" were all analogies for having sex, but I think you've missed entirely the gender neutral quality of these illustrations. This advice, this demonstration of what consent does *not* look like are valid for any and all genders on any side of any of these exchanges.

Now, you may well cry that since the link uses the word "rape" that the comics are about men not raping women. So what? Men should not rape women. Nor should women rape men. Nobody should be raping. Rape==bad, ok? But you'd have to be blind to not see that the vast majority of rape is by men. So, whatever. Call it an overreaction by the feminist fight against entitlement or whatever. No character in any of these comics should feel entitled to what they were expecting. Entitlement is the anti-consent. Sex without consent is trouble, even if you do get laid.