My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[skarlorn]

last line of ur last post is pretty nice mick although sometimes I think a man must say "rape is bad" in order to maintain social face among the hysteric feminine crowd

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

look another white male trying to tell me how I should feel about my own rape.

NEXT

I never did nor would I ever presume to do that. This is something I feel very passionately about (not about white males, but about anyone telling any trauma victim how to feel). Please re-read my post and I think you'll find I did not do that.

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

let me explain something:

When talking about rape culture, you are getting self gratification and are being selifsh.

You are not stopping future rapes by yelling about how wrong you think rape is.

Rapists do not care what you think at all.

Victims have to listen to you.

Keep your mouth shut about it and volunteer somewhere in private to help individuals that ask for your help.

Look I said I'd get off the topic, but if you're going to bring it up ... you are 100% right, you don't stop future rapes by yelling about how wrong you think rape is. You stop rapes by changing society so that men aren't defined by their society as the "strong/powerful gender" and women aren't defined as the "passive/submissive gender" (and of course those aren't binary distinctions, it's a matter of degrees).

Again, on a societal level, rape correlates with women in that society having little power. Although no one is taking surveys or anything, you can be pretty sure women are raped with much greater frequency in somewhere like Afghanistan than here, because women have more power and agency in our society.

So the way you stop rape (of both men and women) is to get people to realize, and reinforce to their peer group, that it's ok for men to be passive and for women to be assertive ... which is one part of the larger gestalt of feminism, ie. the thing I waste way too much of my time arguing for in elf sim forums.

It's not easy, it's not fun, and it's far from guaranteed to be successful ... but if you really want to fight an evil like rape you have to be willing to do what it takes to win, even if it's incredibly hard and difficult.

[mickmoranis]

TIL that animals have sex with eachother so that the male animal can feel strong and powerful.

Thank god all those cows want to feel strong and powerful or I wouldnt be able to eat hamburgers!

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TIL that animals have sex with eachother so that the male animal can feel strong and powerful.

Thank god all those cows want to feel strong and powerful or I wouldnt be able to eat hamburgers!

Really, you think all of the complexity of human behavior can be reduced to cows?

[mickmoranis]

It has been noted that behavior resembling rape in humans is observed in the animal kingdom, including ducks and geese, bottlenose dolphins,[1] and chimpanzees.[2] Indeed, in orangutans, close human relatives, copulations of this nature may account for up to half of all observed matings.

It is hypothesized that rape is homologous to similar behavior in other animals. "Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociob...eories_of_rape

rape is a natural part of evolution, im not saying its good but its a part of life.

rape is a result of the lack of sex, not to gain power over someone.

A college student doesnt rape some passed out person because they want power over them, they just want to nut.

Its not what you say it is. You cannot stop it by social championing stopping it.

Raise yo kids right. That's all ya can do.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is exactly it! Some conservatives seem to think "well disadvantaged group X just stopped being officially disadvantaged by law: they're perfectly equal now!"

Ummm ... for literally hundreds of years men were the providers, and our society/culture was built around that. For the past past 60-odd years feminists have made immense strides towards equality, but to expect something as deeply woven into our culture as "what people write about in men's/women's magazines" to change overnight is just unrealistic. And without that change, women aren't going to ask for raises as often.

Women won't truly get equal pay until they ask for it as often as men, or until the system changes so that asking for a raise isn't part of it. And given how slow social progress is vs. how quickly AI is progressing and taking over more and more parts of business, I think we'll see the latter before we see the former.

This is the one thing Hillary Clinton said that I remember thinking "I like that woman."

When the BLM crew came in to talk with her and they said "they want to change hearts and minds," Clinton calmly explained to them that was stupid. You don't change hearts in minds with marches and protests. That is for changing laws. Hearts and minds respond to kindness over a long period of time. You won't hate blacks if you live next to them, make some friends with blacks, and don't get robbed hopefully by black people before the first step (it happens).

Protesting is to change laws. Social Justice Movements are being treated like god damn social clubs. They are social clubs these days! But that's highly counter productive in some sense -- because SJM also create division. It's supposed to be temporary -- to change laws.

Modern Feminism practical impact is to divide people more then bring them together -- without any concrete legal goals that can possibly make any of this worth it. Keep in mind, pro-choice isn't a feminist-only stance....yet whenever I say something like this people bring up feminists protecting abortion rights.

Whatever. That can be completely separated from feminism. Evidenced by how many pro-life feminists there are. Most of this stuff can besides the pay gap.

We are over-using the lens. That's what conservatives do. They pick a lens to see the world through -- and have a hard time taking it off and putting new ones on. But man can they rationalize how that one lens is always right. Liberals have more lenses but know them less well.

Modern feminism is a sanctuary for conservatives. But that word is only used to connotation Republicans in this country...I mean conservative in the traditional since. They want to keep what is old more than progress what is new.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the one thing Hillary Clinton said that I remember thinking "I like that woman."

When the BLM crew came in to talk with her and they said "they want to change hearts and minds," Clinton calmly explained to them that was stupid. You don't change hearts in minds with marches and protests. That is for changing laws. Hearts and minds respond to kindness over a long period of time. You won't hate blacks if you live next to them, make some friends with blacks, and don't get robbed hopefully by black people before the first step (it happens).

Protesting is to change laws. Social Justice Movements are being treated like god damn social clubs. They are social clubs these days! But that's highly counter productive in some sense -- because SJM also create division. It's supposed to be temporary -- to change laws.

Modern Feminism practical impact is to divide people more then bring them together -- without any concrete legal goals that can possibly make any of this worth it. Keep in mind, pro-choice isn't a feminist-only stance....yet whenever I say something like this people bring up feminists protecting abortion rights.

Whatever. That can be completely separated from feminism. Evidenced by how many pro-life feminists there are. Most of this stuff can besides the pay gap.

We are over-using the lens. That's what conservatives do. They pick a lens to see the world through -- and have a hard time taking it off and putting new ones on. But man can they rationalize how that one lens is always right. Liberals have more lenses but know them less well.

Modern feminism is a sanctuary for conservatives. But that word is only used to connotation Republicans in this country...I mean conservative in the traditional since. They want to keep what is old more than progress what is new.

I strongly agree with most of your post, but when you (or anyone in this forum) starts talking about "modern feminism" the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Assuming you're not involved yourself with the modern feminist movement, how do you define "modern feminism"? To put it another way, is it possible your beliefs might be based on a few crazies who are good at getting TV airtime and choose to identify as "modern feminists"?

I had an Ancient Greek Literature class (I don't know why all these conversations take me back to college, but they do). In that class we watched a short piece from the History channel, which included a "feminist historical expert" who went off about how the myths were full of phallic symbolism and a bunch of other nonsense. Afterwards our teacher explained that while most of the stuff in the video was relevant, that one lady was just some crank the History channel had found somewhere. None of the stuff she was talking about was supported by anything, and no other serious Greek scholar believed any of the ideas she espoused.

This was fine for us watching the segment in class, but it made me think: what if you're just a random person watching the History channel? You see this supposed "expert", and you certainly aren't an expert on feminist ancient Greek literature, so the only natural thing for you to do is believe it, or at least believe that's what feminist historians as a group think ... because you don't have a knowledgeable professor in your living room who can tell you that the"expert" on TV (who supposedly represents a certain group) is actually just a lone crank (who doesn't).

I'm not saying that what you wrote is wrong (again, I agree with the bulk of it), but I just really wonder if a lot of what everyone here thinks is "modern feminism" is similarly distorted.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

when you (or anyone in this forum) starts talking about "modern feminism" the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Assuming you're not involved yourself with the modern feminist movement, how do you define "modern feminism"? To put it another way, is it possible your beliefs might be based on a few crazies who are good at getting TV airtime and choose to identify as "modern feminists"?

Well to be fair to Feminism as a label -- its all people identifying as feminist. You can add a qualifier so that real wack jobs and trolls don't count -- This is what Muslims argue about ISIS (but not every radical group).

But I think its helpful to seperate 2 things labeled feminism:

1) Academic Feminism as a form of scholarship -- usually OK unless from a werid institution.

2) Your run of the mill feminist that follows media trends.

Now 1 is the intellectual basis for 2...but a lot gets lost in translation. Like basically all of it but a slogan or two.

Academic Feminism as a college subject -- important stuff (but don't oversell the B.A. in it IMO).

Media feminism and popular feminism and what most feminists do most the time...not as much. It can be useful when mobilized for a legal goal IMO. But there isn't one really strictly feminist policy. And frankly -- they got a bad rap in the media. It doesn't help the cause usually to say "feminists believe x."

Why does 2020 need to be about sexual assault and Trump? We aren't going to win that. Even if we do -- yea us, we got ourselves a fucking Clinton or some centrist that makes rich feminists happy. The media is all about girls in their pussyhats -- but wouldn't cover Occupy Wallstreet worth a shit. Except for when it was time to make fun of the bums showing up.

[Pokesan]

'e cannae be scot'sh barne, 'e got jib'ers

[loramin]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well to be fair to Feminism as a label -- its all people identifying as feminist. You can add a qualifier so that real wack jobs and trolls don't count -- This is what Muslims argue about ISIS (but not every radical group).

But I think its helpful to seperate 2 things labeled feminism:

1) Academic Feminism as a form of scholarship -- usually OK unless from a werid institution.

2) Your run of the mill feminist that follows media trends.

Now 1 is the intellectual basis for 2...but a lot gets lost in translation. Like basically all of it but a slogan or two.

Academic Feminism as a college subject -- important stuff (but don't oversell the B.A. in it IMO).

Media feminism and popular feminism and what most feminists do most the time...not as much. It can be useful when mobilized for a legal goal IMO. But there isn't one really strictly feminist. And frankly -- they got a bad rap in the media. It doesn't help the cause usually to say "feminists believe x."

Why does 2020 need to be about sexual assault and Trump? We aren't going to win that. Even if we do -- yea us, we got ourselves a fucking Clinton or some centrist that makes rich feminists happy. The media is all about girls in their pussyhats -- but wouldn't cover Occupy Wallstreet worth a shit. Except for when it was time to make fun of the bums showing up.

Amen. Once again I agree with the almost all of your post, but just one thing: I don't see it as just academic feminism vs. media feminism, or that either is "popular" feminism.

To me at least, "real modern feminism" ("popular feminism") is in Facebook. I have one artist friend (not from college, surprisingly) who makes things like Elizabeth Warren "she persevered" t-shirts and pro-Planned Parenthood coffee mugs. I have have several friends from my college rape prevention peer education group; only a few are still active, but they all still hold ("modern") feminist values. I also have (way) more friends who would identify as feminist, but have never actually been "active in the movement".

To me the real "popular feminism" are both the boots on the ground protesting (literally or virtually) AND it's the ones who just (say) consider their senator's position on rape in the military when they're deciding who to vote for. Numerically there are far more of these people than there are either academic or media feminists, yet unless you happen to have them on your Facebook feed all you'd ever know about "modern feminism" is the media and maybe the academics.

When MLK or Malcolm X led their respective segments of their movement it was clear that they represented them. I just don't feel that the people on TV with the word "feminist" underneath their name represent the "real feminists" the same way, and so I don't think it's the best idea to lump them all into one "modern feminist" lump ... especially since many of those non-representative media feminists say some crazy ass shit (which is likely why the TV channel put them on in the first place).