Page 6 of 12 [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

22 Apr 2012, 9:26 pm

Terlingua wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
By its nature, challenging the definitions of women's social roles and what they're allowed to be/not allowed to be it also challenges that for men - whether by the same people or different, just by contagion.


Change and benefit are entirely different things though. I am not asking how feminism changes things for men, but rather how it supposedly benefits men.


I think this is an impossible question to answer, because "benefit" is a subjective term.



Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 9:45 pm

TM wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
By its nature, challenging the definitions of women's social roles and what they're allowed to be/not allowed to be it also challenges that for men - whether by the same people or different, just by contagion.


Change and benefit are entirely different things though. I am not asking how feminism changes things for men, but rather how it supposedly benefits men.


I think this is an impossible question to answer, because "benefit" is a subjective term.


If I give you $1000, it is beneficial. You may need $2000,but $1000 is still of benefit. If I give you a receipt for where I withdrew $1000 and told you how I had helped you by spending that money which would help stimulate the economy, thereby making everyones lives better, I have insulted you, not benefited you. Beneficial is not always subjective.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Apr 2012, 9:51 pm

advancing human rights is a good thing. if we imagine for a moment that feminism does NOT benefit men (obviously not true, but for the sake of argument), why would it matter? just like the american civil rights movement helped black people, which was a good thing. it would not really matter if white people received any benefit would it? i think you might be missing the point. it's easily demonstrated that feminism has both directly and indirectly helped men, but why is that important?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
advancing human rights is a good thing. if we imagine for a moment that feminism does NOT benefit men (obviously not true, but for the sake of argument), why would it matter? just like the american civil rights movement helped black people, which was a good thing. it would not really matter if white people received any benefit would it? i think you might be missing the point. it's easily demonstrated that feminism has both directly and indirectly helped men, but why is that important?


That is a great question, hyperlexian, thanks.

I agree that advances in human rights is a good thing. Women's rights, for instance may or may not have been beneficial for men, but it was much needed and a good thing. But what is to prevent a drive from seeking benefit to their cause while repressing the rights of others? Is it still a good thing so long as it advances their cause?

Aside from that, I did ask what feminism had to offer me. I am by no means a perfect humanitarian. I am though enough of a humanitarian to not put my energy behind a cause that may be detrimental to another population.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Apr 2012, 10:03 pm

so far it hasn't been detrimental to men as far as i can tell, so that doesn't seem to be a problem.

are you planning to join a feminist cause if it can be shown that it promotes men's rights or offers a benefit to men as well?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 10:30 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
so far it hasn't been detrimental to men as far as i can tell, so that doesn't seem to be a problem.


One of my first jump off points after coming here and getting into the discussion was the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) website. One of their biggest current issues is the Violence Against Women Act (V.A.M.A.) which seems to have been put on a congressional back burner pending renewal. I had never heard of it until visiting their site, but the very first thing that struck me about it was that the name could help perpetuate the negative stereotype that only women are abused. What about children and men? Googling VAMA led me to other websites where other people had long ago came to the very same conclusion that I recently arrived at. Jumping back to N.O.W. and looking through their articles, I found that N.O.W. has been supporting V.A.M.A. from the beginning, At no point have N.O.W. suggested that the name be changed in order to prevent this negative stereotype. In researching that, I ran into several more groups that I would call anti-feminists whose arguments seemed based on religious dogma and outright nonsense. I found myself unable to agree with pretty much anything they said except for their take on V.A,M.A, setting the stage for stereotyping. The anti-feminists seem to me as narrow minded, self centered, and power grasping as do all of the feminist sites I visited. I found both camps to be equally loathesome, with the only positive thing I can say for the anti-feminist sites is that, unlike the feminist sites, they do not claim to be about equality while promoting a self serving agenda.

This is one example. I am looking into another one right now, but with it alone I became an instant disbeliever in N.O.W.

hyperlexian wrote:
are you planning to join a feminist cause if it can be shown that it promotes men's rights or offers a benefit to men as well?


If I find one that strives toward equality for everyone, yes, absolutely.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 10:50 pm

LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/


Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.

It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.

What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?

Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.



Last edited by Terlingua on 22 Apr 2012, 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Apr 2012, 10:52 pm

Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/


Interesting link, thanks. Do any feminist groups address that issue? It would be a noble cause if they worked to prevent it, and could undeniably be said to help men as well as women.

that link is from a feminist website.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 11:07 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/


Interesting link, thanks. Do any feminist groups address that issue? It would be a noble cause if they worked to prevent it, and could undeniably be said to help men as well as women.

that link is from a feminist website.


Please see my post above. I edited the original because I had opened another page while clicking on his link. I see that definition as very harmful to men and one sided in favor of women. An example of feminism hurting men rather than helping them. The page I mistook for his link was http://www.mens-rights.net/law/falseacc ... s/rape.htm

Ironic that the two links pertain to the same subject matter.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Apr 2012, 11:13 pm

Quote:
The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee voted unanimously to change the definition of rape, which had not been changed for 80 years (!) and rape will now be defined as, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

how is that only oral sex? it is also vaginal and anal sex on a man that would be included.

feminists caused this change. and i do not see the negative you are stating. i think you misread it.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 11:18 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee voted unanimously to change the definition of rape, which had not been changed for 80 years (!) and rape will now be defined as, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

how is that only oral sex? it is also vaginal and anal sex on a man that would be included.

feminists caused this change. and i do not see the negative you are stating. i think you misread it.


It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Apr 2012, 11:19 pm

Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee voted unanimously to change the definition of rape, which had not been changed for 80 years (!) and rape will now be defined as, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

how is that only oral sex? it is also vaginal and anal sex on a man that would be included.

feminists caused this change. and i do not see the negative you are stating. i think you misread it.


It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?

"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Apr 2012, 11:24 pm

Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/


Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.

It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.

What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?

Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.


Your reading comprehension sucks. The previous definition did not even admit that men could be raped *at all.*



Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 11:32 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?

"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.[/quote]

Actually, by taking it at the way it is defined, she could force him to penetrate her and then accuse him of rape. She could only rape him anally with a finger or object by the FBI definition. She could even force him to perform oral sex on her and still have him convicted of rape. Likewise, she could engage in forced oral sex on him and not be guilty of rape as it is clearly defined as "oral penetration by a sex object of another..." She is not penetrating the man with forced fellatio.

Harmful and poorly thought out, like I said. A step back, not forward.



Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Apr 2012, 11:35 pm

LKL wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/


Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.

It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.

What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?

Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.


Your reading comprehension sucks. The previous definition did not even admit that men could be raped *at all.*


Oh, golly! Now a woman can rape a man in the eyes of the FBI in two different ways, whereas the exchange is dozens of new ways to accuse a man of raping a woman. Ahhh yes, my reading skills are so poor that it took me seconds to spot what you apparently have failed to identify even now.