There are many brands of the 'feminist' movement, but what if I were to attack even the easy-going, non-angry, and even rational elements? I'll probably get ran out of the room. But I cannot help but notice a certain toxicity to feminist thinking, even its lighter variants.
- A person should be able to go anywhere and not have X happen to them (especially rape).
- Women shouldn't be objectified - looked at just sexually for their bodies, so looking sexually upon a woman is bad unless you know her first.
- Men don't care, its not their problem!
- You are either with us (a good feminist!), or you are against us (an evil chauvinist or horribly ignorant).
I. Is a victim to blame because they 'asked for it'?
There are two great answers to this question. The first is the technical answer that follows the concept of law and moral responsibility. This answer is a resounding 'No'. Then there is the street smarts answer, and that applies to ALL human beings (yes us guys too!). Why should this be applied unequally? I could have the martial arts skills of Bruce Lee and I could be packing a lethal firearm, and while this would enhance my personal security to a certain extent - maybe at the odd bar fight, but I would still be asking for trouble if I were to put myself in a dangerous situation. Ok, I round a corner and I get a lead pipe to the head and down I go - and while it is technically the perpetators fault, I am sort of asking for it to be at a dangerous site late at night in a neighborhood known for drug deals and high crime - especially at said site that is poorly lit and full of such dangerous corners to, you know, take a pipe to the head. I guess I'm wishing I took the longer route home? I shouldn't have HAD to, but it is a sensible idea considering the situation.
Men suffer all the time for poor decision making. Guess what? Women suffer for it too. Ok, its not the victim's fault - but why stand in line eager to become one? Not everything has to follow my lead pipe analogy -- going to a party with MANY people you don't know with drugs and alcohol present is about the same quality of decision making here. Bad things could happen! Granted, we would all love to live in a safer world where we could do as we pleased wherever and whenever we pleased. Aren't some feminist diatribes nothing more than outrage at the reality that we don't live in such a world? Are these women naive to think that other humans also don't suffer from crime in general?
This is usually about the time I get the stats argument, about how more women than men are brutalized about such and such a thing. Well, maybe that is an education awareness issue. Maybe criminals who aren't going to respect what you have to say anyway no more than they would respect your person, simply prefer to target women? Maybe our society teaches men better decision making regarding personal safety? I would rather see improved equality in that -- namely by better education. It does much more for people this way than arguments about the technicalities of fault which, unfortunately, will leave you dead right.
At the end of the day, this is a crime issue. It's only a discrimination issue if you seriously expect criminals to change their targeting behavior -- heck, why not just ask them to follow the law while you are at it?
II. What is and isn't evil about objectifying women
The only time it is really bad to objectify a woman is if through the course of that objectification that you have every intent to rape her and her being an object is just apart of rationalizing it or making it easier.
Just because one process can be used for a bad act, doesn't mean the process is inherently flawed, especially when it can lead in so many different directions and different avenues of thought. But a lot of guys get the idea that, well, if you just want to have sex with a woman then you are a bad man because you weren't really interested in getting to know her because you are doing the unforgiveable objectifying. Wait a minute? What if that is what they want? Either of them? Surprise surprise, while I personally don't advise casual sex, the deal is you are allowed to as long as they consent.
Enjoy the objectivity. I've been on GAG awhile. Yes, some have fantasies about it. Both genders. Who wouldn't want to feel sexy and irresistable? Ok, not even knowing your name is a little weird, but eh, as long as its consensual I'm not going there. And neither should those naughty feminists. Its not their damn business because this world is a big place with many tastes. The unisex movement is completely against this, it's about destroying diversity and removing choice, but I'll not do a red herring here: I'm only after the reasonable feminists today.
As long as men don't violate the first paragraph about rape of this section, they should be free to objectify whoever they damn well please. In doing so they may come off rude and suffer all manner of rejections, but that is their personal choice and they can wind up poor and lonely. And women, nothing prevents you either. Literally. It happens a lot, but most men just feel flattered.
III. Wait a minute? Men don't care?
Yet in an all men's jail the inmates will beat the crap out of, and kill, a known rapist. Google for it - there are tons of newspaper archives of events of this nature, like this one - https://www.dawn.com/news/1167771 . Guess why? We have girlfriends, wives, daughters, mothers, aunts, sisters, nieces, and so on. We know that predators and dangers to women (as well as children) are detriments to society and threaten our own interests. As long as these elements are running loose, it could be one of the women in our lives as the next victim. Out of our innate desire to defend the tribe, we will often act in ways, even sometimes at great personal risk, to alienate and remove threatening elements.
So yes, we do care. We don't want to see women raped. We don't want to see women get hurt. We are on the same side here. Any feminist doctrine that assumes rape is just some kind of male problem and that guys don't care what happens to women is untrue.
IV. You are either with us, or against us.
Well, then it sucks to be Switzerland. Seriously, why must a guy be villified for disagreeing with the feminist doctrine? This kind of thinking discourages rational debate and promotes the rise of extremist doctrines that this Take isn't going to mention for now. The name calling and the villification have got to go. Even if its detractors do exactly that, the burden of a movement's champion is always to answer on a higher ground.
V. There is a better way
Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism or equalism—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Egalitarianism, which now is unfortunately suffering from many extremist wings (like equal results being confused for equal opportunity), is generally in its lighter and moderate forms the superior conceptualization. It branches out to all ethnicities, races, genders, social and religious groups, etc. I think its ok to focus on a specific area of it, particularly gender, while still raising the egalitarian banner. In fact, I kind of quite like the word 'gender egalitarian' over 'feminist'. Many will tell you that they are the same thing, and in some people's heads that may very well be. The difference is in the very nomenclature you are forced to look at men as well as women and how they interact. This gives rise to a more detailed outlook, a more engaging discussion of all groups, and brings in more components of the problem discussed. I have much higher hopes for it since by its very nature it discourages boorishness and stepping on toes -- unless of course you do that equally.
Feminism did a lot of good for a lot of people. But the new century marches onward.
Most Helpful Opinions