The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[it]

Originally Posted by Sundae

The point of this thread is to point out gender inequality.
It's not about celebrating the fact we're all human and share the same values.

I am not saying there isn't inequality between genders, I am saying there isn't that much of a difference between how traditionalism and feminism approach those differences:
They are both aged old traditions that exchange the value of women's agency for the value of women's wellbeing, rationalized by much of the same process, each a semantic framework that makes sense from a very narrow perspective and no other, and is reliant on compliance with that perspective.

The only reason feminism had to become more dogmatic was because traditionalism also exchanged men's well being for agency, which makes the deal "make sense" externally without having to focus your mind on the perspective of one gender only as long as you view it in terms of the shallow exchange but without understanding the connection between liberty and well being - because without agency the factors of your well being has to be presumed rather then chosen and without a value of your own well being your agency doesn't actually benefit you. Feminism broke loose of that part by separating agency and responsibility, which meant it had to rely on people been compliant with a much narrower perspective.

At the core, they are both reliant on our psychological tendency to anthropomorphise life itself as if it was a parental figure, on a much more subtle way then monotheist faith (Although in the case of traditionalism the two often come together).

Take for example your answer to the actress quote in your post: You aren't wrong, that it's not her fault, and you aren't necessarily right in thinking the question she is asking herself when she's giving those answers is a question of fault to began with.

Personally I am more like her, my reaction to trauma is to find ways to explain what have I done to get to that point and what I could have done differently, how can I change to avoid it. It is at the core wishful thinking seeking to regain a sense of control to not feel helpless. The question "Did I deserve this" doesn't come to my mind, it's not really part of my framework.
From this perspective, taking responsibility away doesn't free you away from "fault", it's taking away your sense of control - it doesn't help to heal but makes you into an eternal victim.
The framework of fault comes into play when you think in terms of "deserving" - as if life is a parental figure and when bad things happen to you it is a punishment for being a naughty child.

You are right that it's not her fault, but the reason there is value in taking away fault depends on this very specific framework, and it's not one that is universal for all humans.
And yet if you look at the comics from bigV - the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism - that sense of entitlement comes from the other side of the exact same coin: You have done something good, now Life should fulfill it's promises to you (But she can't because she's too busy going to therapy since your gandparents named her Life).

This is why - from a gender egalitarian perspective - while at it's best feminism might just be another word for gender egalitarianism, most of the time it's traditionalism's identical twin arguing over which side of the toast to spread the jam.

Originally Posted by BigV

traceur, are you suggesting the letter I linked to in post #245 is concentrated poison focused on one person?

I hope I misunderstand you, but either way, I'd be interested in hearing you expand on your remark.

Because that kind of crappy vilification of male sexuality can give medieval Catholicism a run for it's money, and she decided not only to instill it in her son, but to help convince a few others to do the same to their children - probably nothing close to as many viewers as fox news has, but potentially a lot more destructive to those it does impact.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by traceur

snip--

Because that kind of crappy vilification of male sexuality can give medieval Catholicism a run for it's money, and she decided not only to instill it in her son, but to help convince a few others to do the same to their children - probably nothing close to as many viewers as fox news has, but potentially a lot more destructive to those it does impact.

So it looks like I did not misunderstand you. But we do not agree on what constitutes "vilification of male sexuality". Let's take the talking points as a starter, hm?

Here’s how you can rule out sleeping with someone:

1. She’s hammered.

Are you ok with this "rule"? If the girl is very drunk should it be ok to have sex with her?

2. She seems unsure if she wants to (you should never have to talk anyone into it).

Like the one before, this one is on a continuum. There's coyness, shyness, reluctance, resistance, defensiveness, hostility, aggression, etc. I concede that it's a judgement call. But the answer is more communication for more clarification, not damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

3. She’s passed out.

I doubt you'd consider this "rule" a vilification of male sexuality. But I'd appreciate your honest answer; passed out girls are off limits, sexually, agreed?

4. It seems like there’s any other reason she might regret it in the morning. (Even if it’s not rape, do you really want to be someone’s morning-after regret, when instead they can remember you as a total gentleman?)

Even this one doesn't rise to the level of vilification of male sexuality. This is not poisoning her son. AT BEST, an encounter like this is a temporary pleasure, and the downside is a hole with no bottom. If "she" doesn't want to, then "I" don't want to.

Here’s how you can be sure it’s okay to proceed with sex:

1. She is in control of her faculties.

2. She is enthusiastically willing.

3. Check in with her! “Do you want to be doing this?” is a great thing to ask when things are going to another sexual level. The worst thing that will happen is she’ll rethink it and say, no, she’s actually not ready. It’s important at that point to pivot to doing something else together, and not make her feel guilty for changing her mind. While that may feel like a bummer to you in the moment, what you’ve just achieved there is fucking badass. You’ve just put someone else’s feelings ahead of your physiological desires. You’ve just treated somebody the way you hope another guy would treat your sister.

And I don't have any problem at all with any of the "go" signals from the letter, I doubt you do either.

I'd be happy to reinforce these points to my sons, and my daughter, when it comes to sex. Poison them? pfffft. Hardly. Teaching respect for one's intimate partner is not poisoning them. At the very least, it's planting the seeds of the Golden Rule.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by traceur

snip--
You are right that it's not her fault, but the reason there is value in taking away fault depends on this very specific framework, and it's not one that is universal for all humans.
And yet if you look at the comics from bigV - the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism - that sense of entitlement comes from the other side of the exact same coin: You have done something good, now Life should fulfill it's promises to you (But she can't because she's too busy going to therapy since your gandparents named her Life).

--snip

Dude.

You're seriously overthinking this one here, and missing the whole point as a result. The comics are making analogies about what consent and the absence of consent look like. Just because a familiar situation exists, that is *not* the same as consent. You might have gotten the point that "playing cards/getting a tattoo/cooking breakfast/etc" were all analogies for having sex, but I think you've missed entirely the gender neutral quality of these illustrations. This advice, this demonstration of what consent does *not* look like are valid for any and all genders on any side of any of these exchanges.

Now, you may well cry that since the link uses the word "rape" that the comics are about men not raping women. So what? Men should not rape women. Nor should women rape men. Nobody should be raping. Rape==bad, ok? But you'd have to be blind to not see that the vast majority of rape is by men. So, whatever. Call it an overreaction by the feminist fight against entitlement or whatever. No character in any of these comics should feel entitled to what they were expecting. Entitlement is the anti-consent. Sex without consent is trouble, even if you do get laid.

[it]

Originally Posted by BigV

Dude.

You're seriously overthinking this one here, and missing the whole point as a result. The comics are making analogies about what consent and the absence of consent look like. Just because a familiar situation exists, that is *not* the same as consent. You might have gotten the point that "playing cards/getting a tattoo/cooking breakfast/etc" were all analogies for having sex, but I think you've missed entirely the gender neutral quality of these illustrations. This advice, this demonstration of what consent does *not* look like are valid for any and all genders on any side of any of these exchanges.

Now, you may well cry that since the link uses the word "rape" that the comics are about men not raping women. So what? Men should not rape women. Nor should women rape men. Nobody should be raping. Rape==bad, ok? But you'd have to be blind to not see that the vast majority of rape is by men. So, whatever. Call it an overreaction by the feminist fight against entitlement or whatever. No character in any of these comics should feel entitled to what they were expecting. Entitlement is the anti-consent. Sex without consent is trouble, even if you do get laid.

You are not entitled to demand other people to stop thinking about things just when they've reached the exact same amount of thought you have invested into them

Seriously though - Overthinking is something that can happen when there is an urgent action to be done based on the thought... It doesn't really work when it comes to analysis unless you are trying to get someone to agree with a thought that you don't want them to think more of it because then they'd figure out why it's wrong. Don't underthink overthinking.

Yes though - that is the psychology I was talking about. I am not sure what to say other then that, it seems I was using the exact meaning you had in mind as my example.

Originally Posted by BigV

So it looks like I did not misunderstand you. But we do not agree on what constitutes "vilification of male sexuality". Let's take the talking points as a starter, hm?

It's not the rules - it's in the introduction, the frame in which they are presented in.

[BigV]

no, no, no. I want to convey that as the entire meaning of the *comics*.

each one introduces a situation where something (sex) might happen then illustrates how the situation itself is not consent. You described them as

Originally Posted by traceur

snip--

And yet if you look at the comics from bigV - the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism - that sense of entitlement comes from the other side of the exact same coin: You have done something good, now Life should fulfill it's promises to you (But she can't because she's too busy going to therapy since your gandparents named her Life).

--snip

Each of those comics illustrates a scenario taken straight out of "traditionalism" and points out why it's not consent.

We agree about sex without consent. I'm just not sure we agree on what constitutes consent and what does not constitute consent.

[it]

Originally Posted by BigV

no, no, no. I want to convey that as the entire meaning of the *comics*.

each one introduces a situation where something (sex) might happen then illustrates how the situation itself is not consent. You described them as
Each of those comics illustrates a scenario taken straight out of "traditionalism" and points out why it's not consent.

Again, you are just reiterating the very same meaning I was using as an example as part of a larger piece...

What is the problem exactly? You don't seem to express any disagreement with the context I was using them in (Other then considering it "overthinking"), just an insistence that you are not sure I understood what it meant and then reiterating the very meaning I used it as...

You highlighted in bold me describing it as "the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism", and now reiterating that you view you it as the core of traditionalism..

In what way do you feel it doesn't fit the context I was using it in? Do you disagree that the comics is an example of the feminist self-perceived fight against entitlement culture which it views as the core of traditionalism? Is it merely that you dislike the specification "which it views" or the quotation marks around "fight against entitlement" and thus acknowledging it as a matter of framing rather then pretending it to be a clean cut description of reality? We seem to be getting stuck in the conversation and I am not sure what is it exactly that we're stuck about...