Who said it? | Imamother

Fox

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 7:09 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Women who demand to be treated as equals, who don't think that any man has the right to stick his hand up her skirts and grope her, or kiss her, just because he's rich, those women are subservient. Because no strong woman would ever demand that men act and treat her with respect. No strong woman would ever demand that men not view women as their concubines, always available for their pleasure.

But you don't actually believe that women are equals. You believe that women are weak, and must rely on men to curb their baser instincts. A woman who is truly an equal won't rely on men's nobler natures to protect her; she'll take whatever steps she feels are appropriate to protect herself from bad people.

We can "demand" all we want; some men are going to behave violently or aggressively toward women. When that crosses a somewhat artificial boundary determined by law, then we act to prosecute them. But getting angry because some men are pigs doesn't solve the problem. You are correct. They shouldn't be pigs. Problem solved? Probably not.

Do you really want to go back to the days when women were prevented from all kinds of jobs and activities because of the excuse that they might be raped? Because that was precisely one of the excuses used against Second Wave Feminism. Women quite rightly said, "You know, why don't you give us access to the same education and jobs that men have, and we'll be responsible for our safety."

SixOfWands wrote:

And if a woman is raped, its her fault. Because if she really were a strong powerful woman, she'd look him in the eye and kick him in the balls.

Who said that? He might overpower you. Or you might have lousy aim. Bad things happen even when people do their best to avoid them. But when I was a kid in the early 70s, women and even pre-teen girls took self-defense courses, carried pepper spray, and heard frequent reminders and pep talks about keeping safe.

Why?

Because the goal of feminists then was to encourage women to take responsibility for their own choices and actions -- not wait for every single man in the world to do the right thing. The mentality of a girl who takes a self-defense course and regularly discusses how to avoid assault is empowering. Insisting that men -- even famous ones -- behave well is not only ineffective, it puts you in a perpetual state of being a reactor -- not an actor.

SixOfWands wrote:

Disgusting.

Well, yes, if anyone had said that women deserve to be raped, it would be disgusting. But since no one made that assertion, we're safe.

Fox

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 7:25 pm

sequoia wrote:

Nothing about the anti-Semitic attacks on Julia was "run of the mill."

Her family didn't emigrate from the USSR for their daughter to be stalked with Holocaust imagery and threatened with death for doing her job as a reporter.

I'm going to tread carefully, since this is your friend, and I don't want to minimize what she went through. I read a couple of accounts of some of her experiences. But this problem is not about Trump supporters. It's occurs just as much or more on the left.

Leaving out people whom I would consider professional conservative provocateurs, such as Ann Coulter, who should expect a bit of grief, Michelle Malkin has probably suffered the most. Creeps are no less imaginative when faced with an Asian woman than they are when faced with a Jew. In addition to the inventive suggestions of how she should kill herself, she's been doxxed a number of times.

Last week Christina Hoff Sommers had to have six personal security guards (in addition to a full complement within the venue) to speak at a university -- because of death threats. This is for a 65-year-old widowed, retired college professor and her new puppy. Her incindiery message: that the wage gap between the genders doesn't really exist.

So I think there's an excellent argument to be made that we need to find ways to restore voluntary civility to the world. But there's no evidence that Trump supporters are more inclined to such behavior than their political opposites.

SixOfWands

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 7:45 pm

You're absolutely right. I do rely on men to curb their baser instincts. I refuse to excuse a man who thinks he has the right to put his hand on my crotch, because hey, boys will be boys, and put the blame on myself because I should be able to stop him.

We need to stop telling women to wear more clothes, drink less, be less flirtatious. Instead, we need to tell men that they are adults, and are obligated to control themselves.

Sure, women can and should take control of their lives. By all means, take self defense. Empower yourself.

But stop excusing men for their crimes.

SixOfWands

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 7:48 pm

Fox wrote:

Whoops! I spoke too soon! Apparently there actually are people who automatically blame the victims of rape or s-xual abuse for the crime:

Joy Behar, of ABC's The View, stated, that “maybe” Hillary could have said, “I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.”

Do you understand the difference between rape and consensual s3xual conduct.

Rape, or s3xual abuse, is when Donald Trump sticks his hand up your skirt without permission, because he's Donald Trump.

Consensual acts are when Monica Lewinsky agrees to give Bill Clinton a BJ.

SixOfWands

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 7:49 pm

Fox wrote:

BUT THEY WERE TRUMP SUPPORTERS. AND WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT, TRUMP SAID THAT IT WAS HER OWN FAULT, AND REFUSED TO CONDEMN IT.

Fox

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 7:56 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Who said anything about excusing him. In fact, I suggested causing him bodily harm if feasible.

I don't disagree with you in the least that crotch-grabbing (or any other type of grabbing) should not be tolerated.

I only object to calling it "rape culture," a concept that minimizes the suffering of women who live in genuine "rape cultures" and encourages women to believe that they have no power or agency over their own lives and remain unmolested only through the kindness of men.

As for taking a self-defense course, if more young women would actually do this, they would realize that dressing less provocatively or being less flirtatious has little bearing on the motivations of men who would assault them, and we could put that canard to bed.

sequoia

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 8:04 pm

An analogous situation would have been IF AND ONLY IF:

1. A journalist wrote an unflattering article about Bill Clinton.

2. Hillary supporters stalked and threatened her in racist terms.

3. WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT, Hillary replied that "she provoked them."

Everything else, including discussions about left and right in general, is irrelevant in this particular situation.

The mark of a clear-thinking person is the ability to compare two phenomena adequately. One of the goals of a good educations is the ability to understand, "Are these phenomena similar? Are they different? In what way are they similar? In what way are they different?"

Unfortunately, most people are unable to do this.

Sadie

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 8:22 pm

How asanine to suggest that there is no rape culture in America just because there are other countries where women have it worse. Ridiculous. And sure, feminists in the 60's and 70's were just trying to get the opportunity to play in the big boy sandbox and as long as they could pepper spray Bossy McGrabbyhands or knee him in the testes all would be well. It's not like they would be the one who would be fired, called crazy, and blacklisted from their career or anything like that. They weren't looking for anything sissy like making changes in the culture the way weak feminists are doing now.

Here's some of the ways that feminists in the 60's and 70's actually were calling out and trying to change rape culture:

-Have the police and the courts no longer consider domestic violence to be a personal matter between a man and his family but rather a prosecutable offense.

-End the abusive questioning of rape victims about their zxual histories that made it impossible for anyone who wasn't a virgin attacked by a complete stranger in a dark alley to successfully prosecute a rape.

-Change rape laws so that rape committed by a husband against his wife would actually be illegal. The last law that permitted marital rape wasn't actually changed until 1993.

-End the legal "couverture" of wives by husbands, under which wives has no legal adult identities separate from their husbands. Meaning that wives needed husbands' permission to open bank accounts, get credit, or make large purchases (note how this enables domestic abuse and makes it hard for abused women to escape)

zohar

Mon, Oct 10 2016, 11:35 pm

imasinger wrote:

I kind of wonder any time one side assigns blame to the other for moving so far away that it triggered a rebound move towards polarization.

I, too, am troubled by the antisemitism of the progressive Left.

I'm also troubled by the extremist rhetoric of the Tea Party Right.

I don't think it works to point fingers.

But anyone who wants to find a middle path would be most welcome.

Please be accurate, there is no extremest rhetoric coming from the "tea party right" (they are probably much of the ppl called #nevertrump today) you are looking for the "alt-right" which is very different than traditional conservatism and is more in the style of the European nationalist right. (Which is why you see anti-Semitites and racists among their ranks)

marina

Tue, Oct 11 2016, 12:09 am

As for colleges, Trump is not the answer. The answer - as always - is legal action. Universities fear very few threats, but the Office for Civil Rights, the DoJ, and a Title VI action are among them.

I always always recommend that antisemitism victims at University contact their attorney and /or file with the Office for Civil Rights (which is free). For the latter, you have to phrase the complaint carefully focusing on ethnicity/national origin and away from religion, but that shouldn't be too difficult at all. And if a student is unqualified for student government because of her divided loyalties as a Jew, that is a colossal 1st amendment/ Title IV lawsuit which any plaintiffs' attorney should be thrilled to chance upon.

A Trump presidency, however, would not improve our individual civil rights at all. These agencies would lose a lot of enforcement power, leaving most of it up to the individual universities and lawsuits.

zohar

Tue, Oct 11 2016, 12:15 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Juanita Broderick amongst others. And Hillary smeared these women. Also, about Monica, do you really think there wasn't some kind of power difference between the two. I always ask ppl, if your daughter, who just graduated college, was offered an internship in Bill Clinton's office, would you encourage her to accept?

zohar

Tue, Oct 11 2016, 12:37 am

Just to clarify, I am in no way defending Donald trump. He is a narcissist pig. I knew it before the video and audio, so that didn't change anything for me. He is also a liberal on 95% of the issues and the other 5%, he held different views for years ago and I don't believe he actually believes strongly in them and will flip back if he wins and is looking for adoration from the media again.

Bill Clinton is an even bigger pig, and his wife is an enabler and intimidated and smeared his victims. She had no right to be self righteously indignant with her personal record on women's rights.

Hooray for America! Good job on picking the two worst candidates.

Fox

Tue, Oct 11 2016, 11:34 am

SixOfWands wrote:

The implications of what you're saying are so troubling that it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's start with Clinton and Lewinsky. This was no a star-crossed, May-December love affair. It wasn't even a quid pro quo sugar daddy arrangement. It was the case of a man who was arguably the most powerful individual in the world and an obviously emotionally fragile young woman who was younger than many people's washer and dryer.

The age difference, the authority difference, and most importantly, the power difference render "consent" more complex.

This is why we have laws and social taboos regarding who can legitimately give consent. This is why we treat a couple of 17-year-olds who are engaged in an intimate relationship differently than a teacher who is engaged in such a relationship with a 17-year-old. We might disapprove in both cases, but the legal and social ramifications are different because of the power dynamics.

We can all agree that having Donald Trump stick his hand up your dress would be distressing, to say the least. But it is not rape. Even defining it as s-xual abuse is iffy, because so much depends on the differentials of age, authority, and power. Are you his employee? A contractor who needs the work he'll send your way? An employee of a company doing business with him? If so, then you have an excellent case for s-xual harassment. On the other hand, if you're selling a property that he wants to buy, then maybe he's just a ham-fisted jerk.

Now, if people were reasonable, we could happily denounce any guy who sticks his hand up a woman's dress as a s-xual harasser or abuser. But people are not reasonable, and now we have a situation in which universities are creating rules that determine when a boy can kiss a girl and what he needs to say beforehand. We have situations, like the recent Australian case involving a man with autism who liked to high-five people, where s-xual harrassment is charged simply as a result of misunderstanding and prejudice.

By all means, hold Donald Trump and President Bill Clinton to the fire for s-xually harassing and/or abusing women. But hold them to the same standard, and don't extrapolate their behavior to an entire culture without evidence.

Most importantly, take back as much power as possible: characterize such men as infantile idiots whose crude and childish s-xual advances are just sad and laughable to the women who are morally and socially superior to them, however much money or power such men have managed to accumulate.