U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

evilthecat:

That's not to say I side with the protesters, because they're kind of doing his work for him. Being protested by THE FEMINISM (or people who can be conveniently labelled as such) may as well be an endorsement for the manosphere-dwelling pond slime who comprise much of the target audience here. Really, who the fuck cares? In 50 years time, is anyone going to be going back and referencing The Myth of Male Power or Why Men Earn More? Will they even be historical curiosities or footnotes in human thought?

Nope.

Well, people still occasionally cite Solanis and Dworkin, so he might still be a fringe force. Never discount that.

GunsmithKitten:
Wow. Misandrists protesting a misogynist. Alien vs. Predator, baby, no matter who loses, we all win in some way.

I have a hard time swallowing either claim. On the one hand, it's a serious stretch of the imagination to call the likes of Warren Farrell a misogynist (a lecture about helping men has nothing to do with hating women). But to be fair, considering the protesters were also comprised of men, I also have a hard time swallowing the notion that they were all misandrists. When in reality; they simply hated "those" men, or those who seek out viewpoints which either directly or indirectly oppose political feminism.

Agema:
If you've already poisoned the well, then the water's already undrinkable. Anyone else may as well pour even more in for all the difference it makes.

As I pointed out to Dags, I am simply incapable of sharing the viewpoint from both sides when one side is ignoring it. I could share some blogs and links to articles of feminists discussing Warren Farrell's work and ideas, but that doesn't cover the specific situation I shared. And I already demonstrated how they've quote mined him in my reply to Revnak.

Agema:
On the other hand, it perhaps exemplifies why I give so little of a shit about the men's rights movement. God forbid they should actually discuss men's rights rather than lazily slag off feminists.

I'm wondering whether or not you realize Warren Farrell was there to discuss men's rights. That's kind of the point of sharing this. Someone was trying to help men and discuss it, and was treated... well the video is fairly self explanatory in that regard. This merely demonstrates that the very idea of the discussion is so ill perceived, it's treated as misogyny. And then you come and claim to care so little about it because no one's discussing it. Do you not realize how you contribute to the problem?

Dags90:
That's not how poisoning the well works. You set the tone of the thread when you make the first post. When you start a thread with clearly biased Youtube videos, you shouldn't be surprised if someone responds in kind with Daily Show clips. See what I'm getting at? I just don't see this thread as a serious avenue for discussion because of the way the OP frames the topic.

I'll suggest it again; please provide examples of the same issue being discussed from the opposing side. The only thing I can find are angry twitters rants about the talk being anti-woman, pro-rape, pro-incest, misogynist, and additional colorful language. Perhaps you could seriously discuss the utter lack of conversation regarding this event from the feminist perspective? I'm giving you every opportunity to drop the fallacious arguments and discuss the issue; please take advantage of that.

Schadrach:
Though it is interesting to see how and when that scrutiny gets applied. It's one of the reasons that gender related studies that don't agree with the standard male oppression conclusions and numbers tend to get excessive scrutiny (to a degree that many of the studies that set those conclusions and numbers would themselves fail if subjected).

I find it personally fascinating that one can examine the feminist movement from a sociological perspective (as some gender studies do), but fail to address the psychology 101 of arguments being made that perpetuate the perceptions that any realm of thought is above scrutiny and how criticism is dismissed fallaciously. But yah, funny how in the gender studies realm, peer review only seems to run one direction... or you hate women.

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:
If academia has a lot of power, where does it derive from? Academia has some raw economic power, but that isn't my focus here. Where does academia derive its authority?

I would personally say the authority is derived from the accuracy of the subject matter. From the hard sciences, it's easy to prove and disprove various theories (to varying degrees). When someone's theory can be tested and proven to be false, it is discarded, and the person either needs to adjust their viewpoints accordingly, or be ostracized by the community for believing in inaccurate data.

The social sciences are much trickier, especially when it comes to theories which cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The methodology of the research, the bias samples, the bias of the researchers themselves, adjusted data; all are possible when it comes to the likes of sociology. It's much easier to make data work for a particular viewpoint than one might expect in social science.

It also doesn't help when modern society and the various examples we can derive from it, conflict with basic premises that certain social sciences require to function. Take for one example, the claim that women are less superficial then men. It's a bold statement to make, but when one examines various studies done on the likes of the public or dating websites (who have no vested interest in the discussion either way); the statistics support the notion that women are as superficial as men are.

Another example would be the notion that Warren Farrell's quoted mined; "before rape, exciting!" is typically, as shown in the videos and other websites where Feminists discuss him, used to illustrate the idea is detrimental to women's well being, supportive of the Patriarchy, and other interesting colloquialisms... why is the likes of '50 Shades of Grey' one of the most popular books of the year? Which was a book written by a woman about the subjugation of a woman by a man. Not to mention the influential peace of additionally controversial material it was inspired by; 'Twilight'.

Politically speaking though, it's always about the money.

Schadrach:
Reverse the genders, and that sounds shockingly like a description of Hugo Schwyzer.

..your point being?

I couldn't disagree more, but I don't really see that I should have to explain why when it's completely irrelevant to the point in hand. I can only assume that you imagine that I hold everyone who has ever called themselves a feminist to be above reproach and must defend them with my life in order to preserve the good name of the "feminist movement" which you (amusingly) believe exists and to which I belong. Well, if indeed that is your intention, it's not working, but it's kind of cute to think that you imagined it would.

Schadrach:
Would it have been better, more reasonable, or even, well, possible to go through and request the specific flavor of feminist thought each and every person in that protest ascribes to who was describing Warren Farrell's talk as "Hate Speech" just to refer to it a "a crowd of X% X Feminists, Y% Y feminists, Z% Z feminists, and A% non feminists" as opposed to using a blanket term to describe a crowd of people the majority of whom ascribe to some branch of a philosophy that falls under the banner of "feminism"? That seems...unrealistic.

I think you have missed the point a little. I'm not arguing that you need to be more specific, or that you need to recognize that there is more than one type of feminism. It would be nice, and it would give you a better appreciation of what "feminist" political action means in the world today, as opposed to in the early 60s, but really I'd rather you just stopped assigning anything which a woman (or occasionally a man) says which you don't like to the category of "feminism".

I know it's hard to get over, but "feminism" won. Things which were radical ideas amongst academics 20 years ago are now commonly accepted amongst the general population. It's no longer necessary to identify as a feminist in order to express a belief in gender equality, or to recognize the influence of society in creating gendered norms and behaviours, or to acknowledge violence against women as a specific phenomena. These things are actually pretty common knowledge, huge numbers of people are aware of these things and are, to a greater or lesser extent, concerned and/or or supportive. Huge numbers of people who have no allegiance whatsoever to any kind of feminist movement will nonetheless have personal reason to support "feminist" causes. This has defined the nature of feminist protest and political action for some time now, it is no longer a "movement" as the MRAs would like to pretend. It hasn't actually been for decades. It is a series of issues which attract wide-ranging support from a huge range of people. Calling those people "feminists" or continuing to imagine that their beliefs constitute a specific category called "feminism" is simply a rhetorical tactic to discredit what is, in many cases, a relatively mainstream opinion, particularly amongst women.

I don't know if you've ever been to a university whose union has a significant protest culture, but no.. you really can't assume that anyone who shows up at an anti-sexism rally is a "feminist" any more, particularly if it's backed by a student union. Like it or not, ordinary people are concerned (rightly or wrongly) about sexism. Ordinary people, certainly ordinary women, would probably be quite upset by some of the things Farrell has said.

Feminism is kind of an empty word. It doesn't really mean anything specific outside of academia.

GunsmithKitten:
Well, people still occasionally cite Solanis and Dworkin, so he might still be a fringe force. Never discount that.

I was referring less to his "radicalism" (honestly, he's not that radical, Robert Bly at least managed to talk about punching women in the face) but rather the fact that he hasn't really said anything of value. You can't apply him to any current debates in gender studies, women's studies or masculinity studies because he doesn't engage with them. He's a self-help writer, and that by definition means offering simple explanations and easy solutions.

evilthecat:
I was referring less to his "radicalism" (honestly, he's not that radical, Robert Bly at least managed to talk about punching women in the face) but rather the fact that he hasn't really said anything of value. You can't apply him to any current debates in gender studies, women's studies or masculinity studies because he doesn't engage with them. He's a self-help writer, and that by definition means offering simple explanations and easy solutions.

Hmm... you've peaked my curiosities Cat. When it comes to Warren Farrell and the work I've read and witnessed, he enjoys the philosophy of walking a mile in another persons shoes. Where at times he's been known to do 'role reversal' techniques to illustrate certain points (points which I would argue are still relevant to this day) where audience participation gives people alternative gender perspectives on things they normally wouldn't experience.

What this means to me is that, unlike various "feminist academic's", he actually does offer solutions and ways for people to help them. To be honest, I often read conflicting messages and advice from self proclaimed feminist authors and scholars. That is of course considering that their message carries any weight to being with (and you know me, I'm critical to say the least). When it comes to the politics, it seems to be about funding women's movements and efforts which benefit women to a greater extent then men.

Given this recent attempt at a lecture not involving their sphere of influence, how do you feel he could legitimately engage with that portion of the community without something similar happen? In my limited reviews of these situations, the attempts always seem to fair poorly, whether it be because of the lack of accepted criticism, or the fallacious arguments, or the vitriolic responses to the nature of the discussion.

One thing I would like to discuss with the political feminists, is how they are spending the funding they receive on the likes of VAWA, or similar programs. Surely if I fund them, I have a right to know what they're doing with the funds yes? And if I disagree with how they are spending it, may I either reduce the amount or require them to alter their spending habits? And may I do any of this without being labelled a woman hater?

And honestly, what is the application of gender studies beyond self propagation? What practical value does it have to society outside the realm of affirmative action and legislation? Where does a women who's earned a gender studies degree apply in life? Perhaps a job that is funded by women's programs?

And I'm pointing out that these questions are not hostile, and the notion I have to clarify that is part of the problem. I believe there are many legitimate conversations we could be having, and I would very much enjoy engaging with the various feminist communities. How do you suggest anyone engages in this discussion while avoiding the personal attacks I no doubt believe they would be subject to?

I mean, Warren Farrell was there to talk about men's issues; and that was the response.

DevilWithaHalo:
Another example would be the notion that Warren Farrell's quoted mined; "before rape, exciting!" is typically, as shown in the videos and other websites where Feminists discuss him, used to illustrate the idea is detrimental to women's well being, supportive of the Patriarchy, and other interesting colloquialisms... why is the likes of '50 Shades of Grey' one of the most popular books of the year? Which was a book written by a woman about the subjugation of a woman by a man. Not to mention the influential peace of additionally controversial material it was inspired by; 'Twilight'.

..And, continuing directly on from the previous post. Here we have a case in point.

Why do men engage in behaviours which seem to damage their health and happiness? Well, it must be because they've been socialized to see this as something they should aspire to and feel a personal sense of obligation towards. Why else would men do something like that?

Why do women engage in behaviours which seem to damage their autonomy? Well, it must be because there is something rewarding for women about those behaviours, and thus women actively choose to do them. Why else would women do something like that?

Let me put this another way. If someone is going to claim to be critical of ingrained social roles, is it too much to ask that they are consistent in how they apply that criticism? Personally, I love how, when you put that quote in context a couple of posts ago you honestly expected that the additional context would change anything. It doesn't, it's still hypocritical for someone who apparently believes that gender roles need to be broken down is sitting there talking about fucking romance novels as if they offer some genuine insight into the deep, timeless mysteries of female sexuality which we must heed lest society itself descend into chaos, anarchy and boring sex.

I don't mean to kick off, but this is so easy. It's such a basic, foundational concept that even Farrell himself couldn't entirely miss it. In fact, this entire debate is not even relevant because (as far as I'm aware) noone is sitting there today and seriously writing about whether there is any genuine reward to following gender norms or whether people are just brainwashed into following them, because those two things aren't remotely mutually exclusive. I don't think anyone was ever pretending they were.

DevilWithaHalo:
Where at times he's been known to do 'role reversal' techniques to illustrate certain points (points which I would argue are still relevant to this day) where audience participation gives people alternative gender perspectives on things they normally wouldn't experience.

Except a given gender is not reducible to a single perspective, and this is where my earlier comment about "insulting men" comes in. Male socialization is not a production line with the singular outcome of a heterosexual male who has a particular relationship towards women. To imagine that you can just "pretend to be a man" is insulting because it implies that all there is to being a man is a single, clearly-defined "role", and that's not true. Furthermore, it defeats his own objective, because how can you change a role which apparently has nothing outside of it?

Feminists, back when the word was political, did not get anywhere by sitting there and saying "Well, we are women and we think like this and we like having babies and doing housework. Now if only men could learn to understand us and our incredibly simple, stereotypical minds maybe they would have more respect for us." Can you see why that wouldn't have worked?

DevilWithaHalo:
What this means to me is that, unlike various "feminist academic's", he actually does offer solutions and ways for people to help them.

The world around you is the product of countless women choosing to live their lives differently to the way their grandparents and great grandparents did in response to the ideas circulated in academic feminism and filtering down into everyday life. In rejecting traditional limitations, women often had to renounce the social acceptability of being "good women" or "desirable women" in favour of being new kinds of women.

The solution has not changed. If being a man under the terms and limitations of today harms or disadvantages you, then be a new kind of man, and if you can't because the law prohibits you then campaign for the right to be a new kind of man. This might not be what you want to hear. I guess it sounds difficult in comparison to imagining that everything would just be okay if maybe those nasty women could just understand how hard your life is and maybe accept that sometimes they need to make you a sandwich or put out when they don't really want to, but real solutions are sometimes difficult.

DevilWithaHalo:
Given this recent attempt at a lecture not involving their sphere of influence, how do you feel he could legitimately engage with that portion of the community without something similar happen?

Sorry, separatism does not fly with me, and unless Mary Daly is protesting this talk I can't imagine it will fly for any of the people there either. The "sphere of influence" of feminism does not end with men, gendered norms have enormous consequences for how people of opposite genders interact.

Generally speaking, if you want to "engage" with someone, the first step is to actually enter into dialogue with them. That would presumably mean reading and responding to some of the things they are saying. In this case, I don't know what that actually is, but if he wants to engage with "feminists" I'd suggest he go and read some "feminist" work of the last few decades and maybe stop making claims like "feminism says there is a patriarchy" or "feminism ignores men's problems" without having the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Of course, there's no reason why he should do this because being protested is doubtless going to reinforce his status amongst his target audience, hence why I think the protesters are being pretty counter-productive. But then, I don't really understand the overall point they're making so that's really just my opinion, they could have a point, they could not.

DevilWithaHalo:
One thing I would like to discuss with the political feminists, is how they are spending the funding they receive on the likes of VAWA, or similar programs.

Yes, because all feminists receive funding from VAWA. In fact, my cheque came in the mail just yesterday, and my country doesn't even have VAWA, they're just that desperate to give away money to random people! What a great society we live in!

Again, running women's services does not make you a feminist. It is not a "marginal concern" to care about violence against women, it does not require a special "biased" perspective to acknowledge the asymmetry of domestic violence and rape. There is no secretive cabal of women which has tricked the government into giving them lots of money to buy free jacuzzis for women who leave their husbands. You are trying to pretend that a mainstream position held by a wide variety of people is in fact a marginal position which could only be held by those with a personal investment in stealing your money.

Imagine you wanted to cut support for alcohol services because you think it's not important and that money should be spent on giving you a tax break instead, all the while having never set food inside an alcohol clinic and thus imagining that all the people there are just greedy bastards who could stop drinking any time they wanted but are just conspiring to waste your money. You certainly could express that opinion, but I would happily call you much worse than a "woman hater" for doing so. I don't see why your opinions should be exempted from criticism simply because you lack the perspective or experience to see why anyone would disagree with you.

DevilWithaHalo:
And honestly, what is the application of gender studies beyond self propagation? What practical value does it have to society outside the realm of affirmative action and legislation? Where does a women who's earned a gender studies degree apply in life? Perhaps a job that is funded by women's programs?

Incidentally, I have a gender studies degree. I'm about to start being paid to research men. Really, don't tell me what you think gender studies is, I'm not particularly interested under the circumstances.

On a wider level, it may be possible to believe this if you sincerely imagine..

a) That gender does not exist, sex roles are entirely natural, heterosexuality is universal, that people were happier in the 1950s because they were being true to their real selves and that there have never been any social norms or prohibitions whatsoever governing male or female behaviour.

..or..

b) That gender does not have any consequences for our society and the people living in it. That understanding these effects does not give us a better understanding or a different perspective on our society and that this has not in itself lead to social changes which most people would regard as positive.

Considering that this whole thread, which you started, is about someone who has made a career writing about gender (however inept I might feel it is), I'm going to assume that you care about the kind of issues he's talking about. I'm going to presume, in fact, that you were willing to pay to read Farrell's books, or at least that you were willing to spend time seeking it out and looking through his work which you could have spent doing something else.

If 'Gender Studies' has no value to society, then maybe you could explain why it seems to have value to you?

Damn, misread the title. I thought Will Farrell had finally done something entertaining for once. I am disappointed!

Dags90:
at one point he bemoans how pharmaceutical sales is becoming an increasingly young attractive woman job, because doctors are still more likely to be male with a straight face.

Why wouldn't one complain about such a matter with a straight face? I think it central to a lot of what he is complaining about. And he writes that people cannot hear what we (men) do not say. But he also warns that when men do complain, we are often derided for doing so, as it appears you just did.

Much of the feminist movement is now a political movement and so is no longer concerned with what's morally right and wrong but with gaining power and asserting it's agenda.

This is just another example of that.

evilthecat:
snip

You know what makes them seem really counter productive to me?

Trying to shut down the other side from either voicing it's opinion, whether that opinion is right or wrong, puts you in 'bad guy' territory at an individual event level, which effects your overall score, really.

The debate here seems to be whether or not the protestors were feminist? Don't care. They did a bad thing. They could be nuns for all I care and they still crossed the line.

It's one thing to protest outside a thing and urge people to not go in, it's another thing to actively prevent people from walking through the door.

Now if they claim to be feminist, whose right is it to say 'no you're not'? Who can say they are? If other people claim them to be feminist, who gave them that right?

Me? Don't care. Like I said, at an individual level they did bad, feminist or not. Now, is this indicative of a larger attitude in the feminist movement? No idea. Again, don't care. It's tangential to the problem here, which is a bunch of students who may or may not be feminist denying people the right to choose what they listen to.

ANYONE who does this should be held accountable, including mens rights advocates, feminist, christians, atheist, secularist, humanist, deist, or any other group. No one has the right to tell someone else they can't have an opinion, and there should be but one law for all people.

Schadrach:

2. In many discussions, there's a trick that gets used to defuse discussions on men's rights in spaces that aren't specifically for that. It's based on the argument from primal misogyny (the fallacious idea that all gender issues are actually based on misogyny and thus benefiting women will solve men's issues), and works something like this:

The men's rights movement and feminism are, frankly, highly antagonistic.

It is hardly the situation where well-meaning men earnestly fighting to solve injustices against the male gender are assailed and shut down by a bunch of screaming harpies, as you would portray it. The men's rights movement at many levels is positively dripping with bile directed (where justly or unjustly) at feminism, and frequently women generally. This thread, after all, is moaning about feminists rather than highlighting a men's right, and in doing so reflects a painfully common tone of male rights discourse. Well, the merest pale shadow of the tone of discourse one could find on the average men's rights website.

It's not that I condone shutting down debate as occurred here, particularly the more reasonable end like Farrell. But I do understand why feminists might misguidedly do so, and men's rights advocates could usefully think about that having something to do with stuff going on in their own movement.

DevilWithaHalo:

I'm wondering whether or not you realize Warren Farrell was there to discuss men's rights. That's kind of the point of sharing this. Someone was trying to help men and discuss it, and was treated... well the video is fairly self explanatory in that regard. This merely demonstrates that the very idea of the discussion is so ill perceived, it's treated as misogyny. And then you come and claim to care so little about it because no one's discussing it. Do you not realize how you contribute to the problem?

The man who chooses to start a thread moaning about feminists instead of spreading a message about men's issues isn't really in the best position to complain about lack of discussion of men's issues, is he? The solution lies at his fingertips.

Cat, I'm going to respond to your reply. But, I'm going to spoiler it because as I'm about to point out, it's not the discussion I really wanted to have. The only reason I'm keeping it here is because I tried to bring it back to Warren Farrell several times. I realize the near unavoidable tangents this can get in to, but let's try to reel it in shall we?

Agema:
The man who chooses to start a thread moaning about feminists instead of spreading a message about men's issues isn't really in the best position to complain about lack of discussion of men's issues, is he? The solution lies at his fingertips.

Go look at the OP, where in it did I discuss feminism? Where did I suggest that we moan about feminism? It wasn't until Dags mentioned feminism in his first response was it even brought up.

It's quite simple; I started a discussion to talk about why people were against Warren Farrell talking about helping boys. And look how it's evolved/devolved (depending on your perspective). One only need examine the entirety of your replies in this very thread to see how difficult it is to even talk about; rather ironic.

And just to make this painfully clear, this is what the discussion I wanted to have, and still want to have... Why protest Warren Farrell? Why didn't they want him talking about helping boys? Why do the protesters consider it hate speech? Why were they preventing other people from listening to him?

DevilWithaHalo:
Go look at the OP, where in it did I discuss feminism? Where did I suggest that we moan about feminism? It wasn't until Dags mentioned feminism in his first response was it even brought up

Did you ever actually watch the videos you posted? The first one immediately jumps into Farrell's quotes about "feminist perspective" and the patriarchy.

DevilWithaHalo:

evilthecat:
Except a given gender is not reducible to a single perspective, and this is where my earlier comment about "insulting men" comes in. Male socialization is not a production line with the singular outcome of a heterosexual male who has a particular relationship towards women. To imagine that you can just "pretend to be a man" is insulting because it implies that all there is to being a man is a single, clearly-defined "role", and that's not true.

If more people thought this, I doubt we would be having this discussion. I hope you share this perspective with others in your gender studies sphere of influence.

Try looking up Third Wave Feminism. Seriously, do it right now. Because what you are asking for here is exactly what brought about third wave feminism in the first place: The criticism that feminism mostly focused on the experiences and problems of western, white women and failed to recognize the experiences and problems facing other groups that didn't fit in with the masculine hegemonic ideal (such as minority women, GLBT-people and men who either didn't live up to the masculine ideals or rejected them).

The reason you are having this discussion with Evilthecat is, in part, due to the fact that Warren Farrell is basically saying "A woman who says no to sex is not really saying no if you think she isn't" and then goes on to create some false equivalence of "evil" by equating date rape with "date fraud" (which is something he makes up for the sake of his argument) and insinuates that women are withholding sweet sex from men for some nefarious purpose. If you can't see how this might be interpreted as hostile to women, then you obviously won't be able to see why these people protested.

I might not agree with some of the actions of the protesters, but I can certainly see why they think Warren Farrell is a despicable person when he makes statements like that.

Dags90:
Snip.

I've made my position on this clear. Please stop asserting that you know *my* motivations better than I do. Regardless of the substance of the videos; I did not create this thread to vilify feminism. Any suggestion to the contrary is at this point, utter bullshit.

Gethsemani:
Try looking up Third Wave Feminism. Seriously, do it right now.

I'm familiar with third wave feminism. I'm also familiar that it is currently split into many camps with opposing ideologies. It's something I agree with Cat on; feminism is not a single movement. This is why I began adopting clarifiers when I talk about it. Example; Political feminism as opposed to radical feminism, etc.

Gethsemani:
Because what you are asking for here is exactly what brought about third wave feminism in the first place: The criticism that feminism mostly focused on the experiences and problems of western, white women and failed to recognize the experiences and problems facing other groups that didn't fit in with the masculine hegemonic ideal (such as minority women, GLBT-people and men who either didn't live up to the masculine ideals or rejected them).

That's not the criticism levied against political feminism by the likes of Warren Farrell and myself. It's not even political feminisms failure in efforts into the problems facing groups in doesn't feel the need to support. It has more to do with the video, where efforts to help others are vilified because of people's ridiculously contrived assumptions about a man's ideas they haven't even tried to consider reading.

Gethsemani:
The reason you are having this discussion with Evilthecat is, in part, due to the fact that Warren Farrell is basically saying "A woman who says no to sex is not really saying no if you think she isn't" and then goes on to create some false equivalence of "evil" by equating date rape with "date fraud" (which is something he makes up for the sake of his argument) and insinuates that women are withholding sweet sex from men for some nefarious purpose. If you can't see how this might be interpreted as hostile to women, then you obviously won't be able to see why these people protested.

Er... no. Might I suggest you read the context I provide to Revnak; http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.395205.16045820 Which further illustrates the point he was making, along with his explanation. I'm willing to wager money that many of them protested because they didn't understand his point, or didn't bother to read the quotes in context.

Gethsemani:
I might not agree with some of the actions of the protesters, but I can certainly see why they think Warren Farrell is a despicable person when he makes statements like that.

It's one thing to misinterpret someone, it's quite another to accuse him of saying something he didn't actually say by quote mining and misrepresenting his opinion contrary to his clarification. An odd reason to call someone despicable. If I may illustrate...

Gethsemani:
The reason you are having this discussion with Evilthecat is... A woman who says no to sex is not really saying no... women are withholding sweet sex from men for some nefarious purpose.

...wow Geth, didn't realize you were a misogynist. Context and intent are rather important wouldn't you say? You'd rightfully call me a prick for deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting you, but I hope you understand why some people might call you a despicable person. Some people might call those people morons. Perhaps all people just have biases which color the lens they see the world with.

DevilWithaHalo:

Er... no. Might I suggest you read the context I provide to Revnak; http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.395205.16045820 Which further illustrates the point he was making, along with his explanation. I'm willing to wager money that many of them protested because they didn't understand his point, or didn't bother to read the quotes in context.

Oh, I read the clarification. It didn't really change the implications of what he said. Saying that "Women sometimes really wanted to say yes but said no instead" or that erotic novels portray certain scenarios and women like to read them doesn't change anything. Farrell is still suggesting that if a man disregards a woman's no when he makes a sexual advance, he shouldn't be held accountable for any acts of rape (or at least less accountable) that might result because "she was playing the game". In his own words:"And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."" Ie: Men shouldn't be held fully accountable for not listening to the victim of their sexual assault if they were dating or she went along initially. This isn't rocket science and I find it to be a despicable position to take.

DevilWithaHalo:

It's one thing to misinterpret someone, it's quite another to accuse him of saying something he didn't actually say by quote mining and misrepresenting his opinion contrary to his clarification. An odd reason to call someone despicable. If I may illustrate...

Only, he said it. Your contextualization only made it that much clear that the protesters probably understood his position and decided to disagree with it. But nice try.

DevilWithaHalo:
I've made my position on this clear. Please stop asserting that you know *my* motivations better than I do. Regardless of the substance of the videos; I did not create this thread to vilify feminism. Any suggestion to the contrary is at this point, utter bullshit.

I'm not ascribing motivations. Really, calm down and reread my post. It doesn't say anything about your motivations for posting the video. Intentional or not, you were the one who opened up the dialog on feminism, by posting a video that discussed it in the first post. I even hint at your potential ignorance of this, which would obviously suggest it wasn't necessarily your intention.

DevilWithaHalo:

""If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy's place "just to talk" but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they've recently said something like "That's far enough for now," even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

"We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women's romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said "No". They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this "marry the rapist" theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women's most enduring romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O'Hara to bed, who is a hero to females - not to males - in Gone With the Wind (the best selling romance novel of all time - to women). It is important that a woman's "noes" be respected and her "yeses" be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."

Wow. Just... Just wow. I can't decide if this is more misogynist or misandrist. This statement, man, this statement... It is just pure, undiluted shite. It is amazing, in a way. Awe-inspiring in it's awfulness. :\

DevilWithaHalo:

Go look at the OP, where in it did I discuss feminism? Where did I suggest that we moan about feminism? It wasn't until Dags mentioned feminism in his first response was it even brought up.

It's quite simple; I started a discussion to talk about why people were against Warren Farrell talking about helping boys...

Gosh.

So, when you said "people", you in no way actually meant feminists, the video title captions mentioning feminist was unfortunate happenstance, and feminism was a purely incidental characteristic of protestors that does not have any relevant context whatsoever?

How convincing! Not at all disingenuous.

Right then, so stripped of this context, you are objecting that sometimes protestors of whatever ideologies attempt to stop expression of free speech at conferences, seminars, and so on because of ideological differences with the speaker.

Okay, yes, that's awful. Anyone in favour? No? Great! Thread resolved, then.

Gethsemani:
Oh, I read the clarification. It didn't really change the implications of what he said.

Ah, I see; you're assigning implications to the commentary. Implications which are subject to interpretational bias which contradict the intent of the commentary.

Gethsemani:
Saying that "Women sometimes really wanted to say yes but said no instead" or that erotic novels portray certain scenarios and women like to read them doesn't change anything.

Actually it does. The narrative we are to believe "no means no" isn't nearly as cut and dry as some might think it is. If women economically support a narrative which is contrary to the political women's movement narrative, it confuses the severity of a crime men are accused of committing. It trivializes a real trauma to confuse it with a misunderstanding. Why do women enjoy reading about sexual assault when they oppose it?

Gethsemani:
Farrell is still suggesting that if a man disregards a woman's no when he makes a sexual advance...

Full stop! This is a serious misinterpretation of the quote. Warren Farrell did NOT say anything in regards to a man disregarding a woman's noes; you just quoted the guy (where he explicitly stated a woman's noes should be respected). It has everything to do with the conflicting cues from the woman. There are clear differences in these situations...

Man asks woman for sex, she says no. They don't have sex.
Man asks woman for sex, she says no. She has sex with him anyway.
Man asks woman for sex, she says no. He rapes her.

The mere suggestion that Warren Farrell is suggesting we not criminalize men for rape would be fucking laughable if it weren't so absurd. What Warren Farrell is suggesting is that we don't throw men in jail for having consensual sex with a woman after she verbalizes no, but then mounts him.

Gethsemani:
Only, he said it.

He said what I quoted. He did not say what you're asserting.

Gethsemani:
Your contextualization only made it that much clear that the protesters probably understood his position and decided to disagree with it.

If they share your opinion, then it's quite clear that the lot of you did not understand his position at all. Warren Farrell is NOT pro-rape. Criticizing the like of "rape culture", does not make one a rapist. Suggesting that we not jail men for consensual sex, is not rape-apology. Besides that the actions of the protesters were far and above a little "disagreement".

Gethsemani:
But nice try.

Apparently not, because you're still misrepresenting both his quote and his intentions and meaning behind it.

Needless to say, I feel you kind of set the tone of this discussion in the original post, and I don't really see how you are surprised that people are going beyond your original intent. I'm willing to drop it though, mainly because this is getting tiresome. I'll try and deal with this relatively quickly.

One more thing.

DevilWithaHalo:
Actually it does. The narrative we are to believe "no means no" isn't nearly as cut and dry as some might think it is.

Yes, it really is.

If you are unsure whether someone has consented you have a legal obligation to confirm that before you start fucking them. Moreover, the scenario you have presented here and the one Farrell presented are significantly different. If someone says "no" during what you thought was foreplay but then actively jumps on you and starts fucking you of their own free will later, then a court would certainly rule that your belief in consent was reasonable. If, however, someone told you to stop during what you thought was foreplay but you went and fucked them anyway because they were still kissing you, then a court has every right to rule that you committed rape. In that case, it would come down to the strength of your defence and the reasonability of your belief in consent.

Engaging in foreplay with someone, or kissing them, or doing any kind of sex act with them does not mean you have consented to any sex act your partner wants to do, it doesn't mean you have done so even if you subsequently don't offer non-verbal resistance. Moreover, the purpose of a rape trial is not to scrutinize the behaviour of the alleged victim to determine whether he or she "really" consented. The purpose is to determine whether the alleged attacker's belief in consent a) existed and b) was reasonable and justifiable.

So there are three issues here.

1) Misleading people about the nature of the law on rape is fucked up, particularly given that rape myths have proven such a serious obstacle to rape reporting and prevention.
2) Suggesting that the existence of submissive fantasies in some women should be factored into the definition of rape as it applies to all women is fucked up. Once again, "women" are not a homogeneous drones churned out by a factory, neither does having submissive fantasies remove someone's ability to deny consent (indeed, as anyone remotely familiar with BDSM etiquette should know, it makes it hugely important).
3) Suggesting that the definition of whether or not something qualifies as rape is dependent on the level of visible resistance rather than the process of obtaining belief in consent is also fucked up.

All in all, it's pretty fucked up.

DevilWithaHalo:

Full stop! This is a serious misinterpretation of the quote. Warren Farrell did NOT say anything in regards to a man disregarding a woman's noes; you just quoted the guy (where he explicitly stated a woman's noes should be respected). It has everything to do with the conflicting cues from the woman. There are clear differences in these situations...

Man asks woman for sex, she says no. They don't have sex.
Man asks woman for sex, she says no. She has sex with him anyway.
Man asks woman for sex, she says no. He rapes her.

The mere suggestion that Warren Farrell is suggesting we not criminalize men for rape would be fucking laughable if it weren't so absurd. What Warren Farrell is suggesting is that we don't throw men in jail for having consensual sex with a woman after she verbalizes no, but then mounts him.

Look, this is pretty simple and is my main point of contention:
Imagine you and I hook up, date and go home to your place, I say "No" to sex when you want to take it further but you decide that my non-verbal communication really means yes so you get it on with me anyway. The day after I go to the police and you end up in jail. The really obvious, but unwritten, detail here is that I obviously didn't want to have sex with you since I went on to report a rape.
If I said no, didn't mean it and we both shared a night of hot love, then I obviously wouldn't go ahead and report it as a rape (unless I suffered from some form of cognitive dysfunction).

Farrell's entire argument hinges on the idea that women will report men for rape even if they wanted to have sex, which is an utterly bullshit argument and fallacious in the extreme.

Gethsemani:

Farrell's entire argument hinges on the idea that women will report men for rape even if they wanted to have sex, which is an utterly bullshit argument and fallacious in the extreme.

Since in reality rape reports even happen if there was no sex involved i beg to differ. There could be many reasons why one would try that. Regrets, revenge (she expected more than just sex but he ditched her the morning before or something else), etc. False accusations happen all the time on all the fields. And false accusations of rape happen to be one of the most damaging ones because regardless of the outcome of the trial people will in many cases still see you as a rapist.

If you think all Rape accusations are justified you're misinformed.

evilthecat:

DevilWithaHalo:
Actually it does. The narrative we are to believe "no means no" isn't nearly as cut and dry as some might think it is.

Yes, it really is.

If you are unsure whether someone has consented you have a legal obligation to confirm that before you start fucking them.

I talked about this with my girlfriend this morning to get some perspective. The practicality of your statement is undeniable - it's smart, it's moral. How the statement works in practice is another matter entirely.

Me: Is "no means no" an absolute?
Her: Depends on the situation.
Me: So "no," then?
Her: You know I say "no" a lot.

Me: So lets say we were fooling around and I started something. You responded "no" verbally, but physically responded in a way that said "go for it." That's an example of "no" meaning "yes?"
Her: Yea.
Me: And if I stopped us and said "I can't continue unless you consent?"
Her: You would have probably killed the mood entirely.

Gethsemani:
Farrell's entire argument hinges on the idea that women will report men for rape even if they wanted to have sex, which is an utterly bullshit argument and fallacious in the extreme.

I heard a case of this on the radio this morning. It most certainly doesn't require cognitive dysfunction to enact. Anger, remorse, or smite would do in place of a mental disorder.

Balvale:
I talked about this with my girlfriend this morning to get some perspective. The practicality of your statement is undeniable - it's smart, it's moral. How the statement works in practice is another matter entirely.

Me: Is "no means no" an absolute?
Her: Depends on the situation.
Me: So "no," then?
Her: You know I say "no" a lot.

Me: So lets say we were fooling around and I started something. You responded "no" verbally, but physically responded in a way that said "go for it." That's an example of "no" meaning "yes?"
Her: Yea.
Me: And if I stopped us and said "I can't continue unless you consent?"
Her: You would have probably killed the mood entirely.

Might kill the mood and all, but that's not nearly as bad as rape. And, to avoid that, all she has to do is not say "no" when she doesn't mean it.

Sure, but you can't impose rules on what turns people on or off. They're going to feel the way they feel.

Doesn't detract from the point though. No meant yes, in that instance.

DevilWithaHalo:

Revnak:
Edit-I would however like some context on the date rape quote. It seems very odd that an educated individual would make such a statement without some context.

First the quote mine...

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying...

"We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." -- Warren Farrell, in Myth of Male Power

Warren Farrells response...

And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women.
Warren Farrell

A more contextual frame for the quote...

""If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy's place "just to talk" but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they've recently said something like "That's far enough for now," even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

"We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women's romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said "No". They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this "marry the rapist" theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women's most enduring romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O'Hara to bed, who is a hero to females - not to males - in Gone With the Wind (the best selling romance novel of all time - to women). It is important that a woman's "noes" be respected and her "yeses" be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."

Hope that sheds some light on the matter.

Wow that quote really makes me lose respect for him. It reads like a bunch of pathetic attempts to excuse rape. I mean seriously, some women who say no mean yes? Well until you learn to read minds that is no damn excuse for thinking no means anything other than no. Hell just because rape fantasies are fairly common among women doesn't mean they actually want to be forced in real life, seriously he needs to learn the difference between enjoying a fantasy and actually wanting something to happen in real life. Oh and we should allow men to chose non-verbal signals over what people say? so if I decide he's non-verbally telling me to takes his wallet it's ok for me to do so?

Blah! So much dumb in that stupid quote I could write a damn novel on how stupid it is.

generals3:

Since in reality rape reports even happen if there was no sex involved i beg to differ. There could be many reasons why one would try that. Regrets, revenge (she expected more than just sex but he ditched her the morning before or something else), etc. False accusations happen all the time on all the fields. And false accusations of rape happen to be one of the most damaging ones because regardless of the outcome of the trial people will in many cases still see you as a rapist.

If you think all Rape accusations are justified you're misinformed.

Balvale:

I heard a case of this on the radio this morning. It most certainly doesn't require cognitive dysfunction to enact. Anger, remorse, or smite would do in place of a mental disorder.

And we've covered this in earlier threads about rape: The overwhelming majority of studies suggests that false rape reporting happens no more or no less then any other crime. Which in turn also suggests that false rape reporting isn't a tool women use to get to men, but rather is an urban myth created by men to ventilate their fear of being labeled as rapists.

Either way, the solution to "some people might lie about having been victims of a crime" is not to make it harder to prove guilt. Especially not when the crime is under reported, stigmatizing and traumatizing to the victim and very hard to prove to begin with.

Gethsemani:

And we've covered this in earlier threads about rape: The overwhelming majority of studies suggests that false rape reporting happens no more or no less then any other crime. Which in turn also suggests that false rape reporting isn't a tool women use to get to men, but rather is an urban myth created by men to ventilate their fear of being labeled as rapists.

Either way, the solution to "some people might lie about having been victims of a crime" is not to make it harder to prove guilt. Especially not when the crime is under reported, stigmatizing and traumatizing to the victim and very hard to prove to begin with.

Whether it happens just as much as with other crimes is quite irrelevant. You made a vague claim which pointed towards it never happening. And like i mentioned the biggest issue with a false accusation of rape is that it will create a stigma that will follow you for a long time. Just look at DSK and how everything crumbled because he was accused of rape. That's why men shit their pants about this. On top of that many cases just end up being one man's word against one woman's word which just adds more ambiguity to the cases and increases the risks that despite not being convicted the accused ends up stigmatized as a rapist for life.

generals3:
Whether it happens just as much as with other crimes is quite irrelevant. You made a vague claim which pointed towards it never happening. And like i mentioned the biggest issue with a false accusation of rape is that it will create a stigma that will follow you for a long time. Just look at DSK and how everything crumbled because he was accused of rape. That's why men shit their pants about this. On top of that many cases just end up being one man's word against one woman's word which just adds more ambiguity to the cases and increases the risks that despite not being convicted the accused ends up stigmatized as a rapist for life.

What serious crime can you be accused of and it isn't going to follow you around? I'm assuming that you mean "accused of and it goes somewhere", BTW, most allegations aren't followed up on.

If it's a matter of her word vs his, then it's going to be one of those.

Balvale:
Me: And if I stopped us and said "I can't continue unless you consent?"

There are many steps you can take to ascertain consent, not all are even verbal. I don't want to try and post a comprehensive list of them because I don't really want to write a sex manual. The important thing is that that if you're going to stick anything into a person's body it is kind of down to you to at least have some reason to believe that they want you to do that.

The law does not expect this reason to always be correct, what it expects is that it is based on more than an assumption. That you did whatever would be reasonable in that situation to ascertain whether your partner actually consented and did not simply assume it.

Naturally, this is tied to the situation. The fact that your girlfriend and yourself have already talked about this and how you would expect each other to react in this situation means you have pretty good reason to assume that sometimes you can't take her verbal indications at face value, or that stopping to specifically ask consent would be unreasonable. Neither of these things, however, is universally true of all sex acts ever, and it certainly doesn't remove your responsibility to check she's okay in other ways. You should be sure, and you should have reason to be sure. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, it matters if you don't take any steps to find out if you're wrong.

Having been in situations way, way, way more dodgy than the one you described, including situations where it would not be legally possible for one partner to consent under the law in my country, I have to say that the existence of "grey areas" around consent does not justify negligence or denial of responsibility, on the contrary it makes it more important that these things exist. Noone is saying you can't fuck your girlfriend unless you go through some weird ritual of obtaining consent. However, if you later have to justify your actions to a rape trial then it's your responsibility to be able to do so to the best of your ability.

thaluikhain:

What serious crime can you be accused of and it isn't going to follow you around? I'm assuming that you mean "accused of and it goes somewhere", BTW, most allegations aren't followed up on.

If it's a matter of her word vs his, then it's going to be one of those.

The problem with rape allegations is ambiguity. take murder for instance (one of the few crimes even more despised), to accuse someone you need a body (unlike rape where you could even accuse someone without him/her touching you) or someone who disappeared. And in many cases if the accusations was false it ends with justice finding an other culprit (removing the possibility you being the culprit in people's mind). Meanwhile with rape if the allegation ends nowhere it's usually because there wasn't enough evidence, which isn't enough to convince many people that the accused actually didn't do it.

generals3:

The problem with rape allegations is ambiguity. take murder for instance (one of the few crimes even more despised), to accuse someone you need a body (unlike rape where you could even accuse someone without him/her touching you) or someone who disappeared. And in many cases if the accusations was false it ends with justice finding an other culprit (removing the possibility you being the culprit in people's mind). Meanwhile with rape if the allegation ends nowhere it's usually because there wasn't enough evidence, which isn't enough to convince many people that the accused actually didn't do it.

Do you honestly think the justice system in any western country is this bad? If I were to walk into a police station tomorrow and claim a co-worker/friend/random stranger raped me, they'd ask for more than just "my word". That's why there are "rape kits" in ERs and one of the reasons that rape victims undergo a medical and forensic examination: To not only make sure the victim is unharmed but to gather evidence. If I have no evidence besides "I say so", then the charges will likely be dropped faster then a bad habit.

In fact, without any evidence the chances of any prosecutor taking the case to court is pretty much non-existent. That's how the legal system works in all criminal cases. Which, in turn, means that you are very unlikely to end up as the accused party of a rape trial simply because a woman was angry with you.

generals3:
The problem with rape allegations is ambiguity.

But you assuredly can be falsely accused of murder. There are many famous cases, and stigma has stuck even when they are cleared. In fact, despite around 100 times as many rapes occurring in my country as murders, I could name you far more of my fellow citizens whose lives have been damaged and destroyed by false murder accusations than I could rapes.

I read a lot of people asserting or implying there is some sort of epidemic of lives damaged and destroyed by false rape accusations, but see painfully little evidence. In reality, a huge proportion of rape accusations (real or false) are rapidly dismissed as impossible to pursue, in which case few will ever know and little damage done. A very small majority result in the accused being charged and sent to trial (never mind convicted) which is significantly more problematic, but how many actually is this, and how damaging was it?

This is not to underplay the distress, disruption and cost of being unjustly accused of any crime including rape. But in the absence of suitable evidence that rape is a particular problem for false accusations with respect to its prevalence and severity, what exactly does anyone expect us to conclude?

Gethsemani:

Do you honestly think the justice system in any western country is this bad? If I were to walk into a police station tomorrow and claim a co-worker/friend/random stranger raped me, they'd ask for more than just "my word". That's why there are "rape kits" in ERs and one of the reasons that rape victims undergo a medical and forensic examination: To not only make sure the victim is unharmed but to gather evidence. If I have no evidence besides "I say so", then the charges will likely be dropped faster then a bad habit.

In fact, without any evidence the chances of any prosecutor taking the case to court is pretty much non-existent. That's how the legal system works in all criminal cases. Which, in turn, means that you are very unlikely to end up as the accused party of a rape trial simply because a woman was angry with you.

True, but let's also not forget the power of informal accusations. Rape is being so mediatized nowadays it's almost as if every man is a rapist (really every time i read an article about rape the numbers of raped women is alarming and all that). I'm willing to bet you're going to have a much easier time convincing people someone who never touched you raped you than that someone murdered someone who doesn't exist or is alive. And on top of that there are many "grey" scenarios which nowadays are being presented as clear cut black (rape) scenarios by feminists, because hey, those rape numbers aren't high enough yet! This all just creates an environment where wild accusations (legal or not) of rape get more attention and are considered more credible, even if they are blatantly false. After all, how can you prove with 100% certainty you're innocent? Unlike cases like murder where you can prove the guy is still alive or it was someone else, with rape usually it remains in a grey unclear area (unless you happen to have a bulletproof alibi). And that's why it is very important to stop that damn silly trend where radical feminists try to transform more and more scenarios into rape. Soon men will need to run around with paperwork just in case "they get lucky" so they can let the women sign a legal document saying they consented to sex.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked