Sex, honour, shame and blackmail in an online world
bbc.com
bbc.com
That paragraph got dark real fast.
It's not just a non-western phenomenon. The church in Ireland operated a system of forced labour detention for women considered "immoral" known as the Magdalene Laundries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland . The last one closed in 1996. There was eventually a state apology and compensation, but astonishingly as far as I can tell nobody has even been properly prosecuted for it.
"Patriarchy" is a word that often seems over-used, but only because violent words and attitudes have so often been the prelude for violent actions with state and social complicity. You can find plenty of cases in the west where women speak up and face death threats. Such as for suggesting that a woman's face appear on some bank notes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25641941
The line between people sending death threats on twitter and the person who strangled his sister for posting selfies is very thin.
i have an issue though with so called feminist women that don't care about gender equality, but they want just all the benefits for them, without other parts that naturally come with them (ie be always treated like a princess but as equal at the same time - come on, we're not schizophrenics, and so on - list could be endless).
most of them don't care much about what is happening in truly oppressive places around the globe (yeah, it's horrible! can you name few cases? what???), they just found another way to yell at others and express life frustrations, and at this time most don't have balls to actually argue to not be labeled sexist and whatnot.
you think I am talking about some imaginary caricatures - far from that, and those beings give feminism a very bad name and prohibit the whole movement to be taken seriously in some circles. too loud where it doesn't matter anymore, and too quiet where it should.
"rape culture", in its original meaning, is a society that allows or encourages rape; Perceived sexism or public allegations of "sexual assault" isn't the same thing.
> Rape victims are still terrified to come forward in America because of the culture stacked against them
What is this claim based on?
The term "rape culture" was first coined in the 1970s... terms have been known to evolve over time.
> What is this claim based on?
"From 2006 to 2010, the highest percentages of unreported crime were among household theft (67%) and rape or sexual assault (65%) victimizations, while the lowest percentage was among motor vehicle theft (17%) victimizations." [0]
And when did this one "evolve"?
>> What is this claim based on?
The claim was "Rape victims are still terrified to come forward".
Further, there are ambiguities in that report:
"Rape OR sexual assault"; "Fear of reprisal OR getting offender in trouble" (28%)
The difference between each of these two things is important, and certainly impacts the interpretation of results.
How so?
A victim of sexual assault that isn't rape cannot be counted towards this figure, so an aggregate number for both rape and sexual assault isn't helpful.
Your claim is the exact opposite of the post you're responding to, but you don't back it up at all when the comment you're replying to provides concrete examples of the need for feminism in the west.
I want to take your comment in good faith, but when you do that and then launch into the typical "haven't the feminists gone too far?" with the typical allusions to emasculation, it discredits any other point you may be trying to make.
I'm downvoting you, but not because I disagree with everything you've said, but because your post is low quality and ads nothing to the discussion but a strawman.
> too loud where it doesn't matter anymore, and too quiet where it should.
It's almost as if women walk a delicate line between being being completely not taken seriously and being perceived as "loud" or bitchy. Also, it's insulting to both feminists all over the world because you clearly don't pay enough attention? Have you heard of the global sensation that is Malala Yousafzai? No because that would contradict your worldview of feminism having gone too far in the west and not far enough in the east. Isn't it convenient how all the feminists are wrong and you're right in your worldview?
Not to make light of folks sending death threats, but I would imagine that can mostly be written off as shitty trolls. In my experience there is a large jump between someone saying "I'm gonna kick your ass" and actually attempting to kick my ass, and that's when it is being said to me personally. Threatening people online seems very trite, and toothless. Saying this as someone who has been swatted, I think the line between Twitter threats and a fake hostage call is pretty thin. The line between a Twitter threat and murder seems pretty damn wide to me.
Being an amorphous blob that barely had the fawkes mask as a symbol allowed people to feel like they had the backing of a group when spewing their vitriol.
There does seem to have been a rise since I first started on the internet, but I'm not sure when I'd date it to.
However, if memory serves, the whole "anonymous" crap really came into it's own somewhat in lockstep with the rise of social media which itself has given a voice to a lot of people that otherwise would have just been isolated to a forum or shitty GeoCities website. So now you've got a bunch of eggs and anime avatars screaming about corrupt Hillary and fascist Trump and spewing vitriol at anything that dare cross their path.
Of course everyone is getting so damned politically polar in this time-frame, we've got major news networks half-acting like gossip blogs, and now every jackass with a cellphone has a(n anonymous) voice. It's really just a confluence of shit.
Umm no, it's not very thin. There's a gargantuan difference between posting something on Twitter and murdering someone.
http://goldfemsoc.tumblr.com/post/134396957048/goldsmiths-fe...
A video of the critique of Islam they are supporting: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kl0sI47tVgY
And men have conscription in 2016.
The problem is that feminism is loudest where it's least needed. I.e. in the western world, where women are arguably even better off than men in many cases. I want to see feminism in islamo-fascist countries, where it's needed, not in the free west.
The only 2 western countries that still have conscription which are Norway (non compulsory conscription but still an active one nonetheless) and Israel treat men and women equally in this regard.
That said as far as conflict goes there are biological reasons to favor men on average they are considerably stronger and while it's not pleasant to hear they are not as important for the reproductive cycle as women. One man can impregnate virtually an unlimited amount of women especially with IVF while on the other hand women are effectively the reproductive bottleneck of our species, hence the side that loses a larger population of it's women would be at a great disadvantage. And while this might not be consciously being considered like many things unconsciously this is a pretty important factor - "save the women and children first" isn't some old fashioned patriarchal gender role, this is just an outcome of a biological constraint that affects us as a species.
EDIT: As the poster below me gracefully reminded I forgot about the Swiss.
Get your facts straight. Norway has compulsory conscription. So does Switzerland. So does Turkey (well, after what's happened there in the last few years, you truly cannot consider it 'western' anymore, but it's a country that wants into the EU). Germany only very recently suspended conscription. It is still a problem. Israel is one of the few countries where I can at least see why they have conscription, they permanently have to be on guard because they are surrounded by countries whose leaders are outspoken about wanting to eradicate them completely.
Out of the 60-70K eligible men and women less than 10,000 are conscripted each year out of their choice.
And yes you are right I forgot about the Swiss, but it seems that they are also going to be or have started conscripting women as of 2016.
It's also important to be mentioned that many countries that practice conscription also offer a "civil service" path including Switzerland which means you can be conscripted to the police, firefighters/EMT, and even into social work.
And TBH I'm actually a big supporter of "conscription" at least the Civil Service/Zivildienst type where young men and women are "forced" to give 1 or 2 years of their life to better society, it doesn't mean they are or should be sent to war, but I do find the idea of a compulsory paid community service somewhat appealing.
And no I don't count Turkey as a western country any more since it's political, judicial and educational systems have been gutted and there is virtually no more free press left in the country.
That is weird because a few years ago I had a friend from Norway and he was forced to serve. There were ways out - like the mental health route, but that left you with rather unpleasant entries in databases you'd rather not be in.
I forgot about the Swiss, but it seems that they are also going to be or have started conscripting women as of 2016.
No such thing is happening in Switzerland. At all. There might be some discussion about it, but if so, it's not serious.
I don't really care about the "civil service" option. It is still forced labour and violates human rights. Hire people or let them be, that also applies to the state. I have plans with my life, I can't just give a year here and a year there for some random governmental institution that forces me to mostly stand outside and wait or humiliate myself in front of sadistic military superiors.
I have family and friends in Norway there are tons of easy way outs, they don't even call the majority of people if you don't show up or refuse early they don't bother asking you twice.
I don't know what happened to your friend but it could be that he agreed, signed up and then regretted it.
"Norway employs a weak form of mandatory military service for men and women. While 63,841 men and women were called in for the examination of persons liable for military service in 2012 (mandatory for men), 9265 were conscripted.[6] In 2015 conscription was extended to women making Norway the first NATO member and first European country to make national service compulsory for both men and women.[7] There is a right of conscientious objection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces#cite_no...
>I don't really care about the "civil service" option. It is still forced labour and violates human rights. Hire people or let them be, that also applies to the state. I have plans with my life, I can't just give a year here and a year there for some random governmental institution that forces me to mostly stand outside and wait or humiliate myself in front of sadistic military superiors.
Well then we have a different set of values on one's role in society, I believe that civil service needs to be highly encouraged if not mandatory, I would even put something like a voluntary social year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_social_year) as a mandatory activity in a university or college and some institutions do have that where you need to vulenteer for a few semesters during your degree.
Hmm, that is interesting. What is the benefit of such a social year, as opposed to having the youngsters start either an apprenticeship, where they can learn a trade, or continue and finish their education, and then get into the workforce? If such social labour has to be done, it should be paid accordingly and people should not be forced to do it in my eyes.
Because I believe that each and every one of us is born with a debt to society and that promoting selflessness and community work is beneficial on moral and ethical grounds for the society as a whole. I don't see anything more wrong with doing a civil service which often you are paid for (not much but are paid for) than saying collecting taxes on your hard work, in fact I would go out and say that I would rather being "forced" to volunteer for a year or two in my youth than pay higher taxes.
I also believe that good order, structure and community outreach can help people find their place in society better and to learn more about themselves, society already forces you to do many things I don't see how the fact that you rushed out into the workforce or into a specific education path just to make money any less forced than volunteering at a school, hospital, fire department or anything like that.
In fact it can help society on many levels, there is nothing that prevents say a 3rd year CompSci student from teaching programming at a school 2-3 times a week, in fact having a 20 something role model who they can relate too is likely to have a very good positive effect on children and young adults.
Volunteering also tends to reshape your perception of society and in my opinion for the better, I was a volunteer EMT since I was 16 and I have done a military service, this is just my experience and my lesson learned.
Men are also way more represented in prison which I think has an undeniable rape culture.
That's not even touching on male underrepresentation in higher education...
Men and women both face unique challenges in the west. In many very real ways men are getting the short end of the stick. The problem a lot of people have with western feminism is that you can't even discuss such things or point out how the standard feminist narrative harms men.
Well we definitely don't agree on that. Growing up I had no choice whether I wanted to attend school or not. It was illegal for me not to go. If that's not power, I don't know what is.
Also, if you really want to help get your point across you should look at your own interactions (which are pretty typical of feminists tbh). You say questioning your opinions is "crazy", you tell a sibling comment to crawl back into their "men's rights hidey hole". That's not the level of discourse we should be having yet it's modus operandi for western feminism.
You don't have to "spend the paragraphs of effort", just provide something which shows their evidence, which they base their stance on, is incorrect.
I presented my evidence in the form of official FBI statistics.
Get cracking. There are literally decades of social discourse you are behind on.
Perhaps using more accurate names would make the education you're asking the parent poster to go get more accessible.
Do you have a source for that?
"22nd reported killing of a transgender/gender non-conforming person NCAVP has responded to in 2016"
Edit: Also, I would not consider avp.org as a neutral sources on this matter considering their agenda.
Feminism helps to gain fame by posting provocative selfies?
And people wonder why feminism is important.
It's not just a non-western phenomenon. (...) The last one closed in 1996.
While i am unsure if there is any real research done on those i suspect that said father has run into bad news of some kind, felt he can no longer perform his role as the man of the house, and decide to take everyone with him as he goes.
Not saying they are inherently worse than any other tragedy they are just well defined.
In North America, statistically speaking, the mother is more likely to kill the children than the father.
But then, I need to check my own privilege to be fair.
It's often more effective to focus on local issues where you actually have a vote. Plenty of those in the West.
Any change to a nation/culture/group/whatever has to come from within. And any pressure for change from outside may well just harden the status quo, as conservatives turn it into a fight against invaders.
Those who go against the norms of their culture in general can face similar problems, regardless of whether those norms are conservative, liberal, or something else.
Join a progressive, tree-hugging, vegan commune and then a few months later post a series of selfies to Facebook of you driving a Hummer through the McDonalds drive-thru and then eating several Big Macs, and you'll be in for some world-class shaming and shunning. :-)
The greatest time for the middle class in the United States, for example, was in the 50s, when society was much more conservative than it is now. (That's what the "Make America Great Again" is all about.) The 50s are the last decade that the conservative WASP aristocracy was in power. Every election since, groups like African Americans, women, and Jews have increased their power and brought about with them big government. How is that an improvement? Surely, you agree that big government is disastrous for the country?
There's a book "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin that actually argues (convincingly in my opinion) that a suppression of sexual energies (i.e. control of women) is a necessary (not sufficient) condition for a civilization to succeed. Check it out.
Wait, what were we talking about?
Even if I take your point that big government can be good, one has to concede that it succeeded with social conservatism. Ever since social liberalism took hold, things have gone steadily downhill.
If they don't suffer from such unpopularity somewhere, then they seem to have all the cards in their hands.