Riot Grilll

NOT an anti-sjw, anti-feminist, or anything of the sort

[aegontoast]

“How dare Virgin objectify women, refusing to treat them as people and instead use their bodies to market a product.”

“The objectification of men does not exist.”

[aboatmaleprivilege]

This might sound a bit dim, but I don’t get what the text on the man is implying.

[ace-enjolras-blog]

I don’t think writers realize that “strong female character” means “well written female character” and not just “female character who punches stuff and shoots stuff”

[araitsume]

#I don’t think half the people on tumblr know the difference either

[natdocx]

I also don’t think they realize “strong female character” doesn’t mean “female character who is a bitch 99% of the time and insults every male person even when there is no genuine reason for that”

[swarnpert]

“i dont care if you get offended lol”

“i post whatever i want”

“i probably hate you”

[illogical-bullshit]

[aboatmaleprivilege]

i want people to know these are all true and that the wage gap is at least partially due to factors like this rather than blatant discrimination. 

However I don’t appreciate the tone of blaming women for these factors. It’s because of sexism that women don’t negotiate their salary, not because women are too dumb to “ask for their worth”. It’s because they’re told they have no worth or that asking for their worth is stepping out of line. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-williams/women-dont-negotiate_b_2593106.html

“A 2006 study Babcock did with Hannah Riley Bowles and Lei Lai helped explain why women are less likely to negotiate their starting salaries (referred to as the Bowles study). When they do, both men and women are less likely to want to work with or hire them. The effect size is large. Women who negotiated faced a penalty 5.5 times that faced by men.”

http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/05/millennials-and-women-don't-negotiate-salary-here's-why-that's-important

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-the-dangers-for-women-who-negotiate

“ In four studies, Bowles and collaborators from Carnegie Mellon found that people penalized women who initiated negotiations for higher compensation more than they did men “

http://www.payscale.com/salary-negotiation-guide/why-women-are-uncomfortable-talking-about-salary Women don’t negotiate in order to not be seen as “pushy”, which men don’t have to worry about

Same thing with going into STEM, do you really think that’s just because women want an easy job? I mean of course there’s less pressure on women to take hard/dangerous jobs, but STEM in particular is something that women face a lot of obstacles to get into.

[capitalizing-equality]

[aboatmaleprivilege]

This was the reason for my url/avatar, but then someone showed me this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth

"We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.”

So yes, while on the Titanic in particular women had the privilege of surviving due to this gender dynamic, that’s pretty much the only example where women didn’t have half the survival rate of men. 

That’s why I say the Titanic is indicative of a sexist notion, not of sexism actually saving the lives of women over men. 

[huffpost]

The Perfect Response To Science’s Sexist Approach To Women’s Bodies

That’s how Olivia Gatwood began her hilarious and sharp spoken word poem “Hey, Science!” Gatwood, a writer for Bustle and HelloFlo, is part of an interactive, feminist spoken word show called “Speak Like A Girl.” Her performance of “Hey Science!” was posted to SlamFind poetry YouTube page last week. 

[son-of-a-shepherd7-deactivated2]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[dinguesapologist]

What the fuck is she even talking about? What’s the new feminist pet issue? I don’t understand this about science and something about a yeast infection spreading in her body? What did they do that she’s bitching about

[son-of-a-shepherd7-deactivated2]

Something is sexist, that’s all we’re told

[dinguesapologist]

OK so I think she’s mixing up health ed with institutional science because they’re similar in that she doesn’t know anything about either because she chose to go into women’s studies, except for that one employment quip to which I reply that she chose to go into women’s studies. See the thing about slam poetry is its a way to bitch about whatever you feel like and call it art. That’s why feminists and other activist dipheads are all over it. I wonder if there’s any slam poetry that isn’t like this. Also irks me when people gender genitalia but whatever

[son-of-a-shepherd7-deactivated2]

I’m inclined to agree. Although I can’t really talk shit about slam poetry. I’m a comedian. My art form is getting up on stage and bitching in front of a bunch of strangers.

[princessbubblegumandjustice]

“Hey Science!”

Which science? Natural sciences? Social sciences? Formal sciences? There are so many branches of science.

“You invented the microwave 60 years ago so you could cook your hungry man steak dinners and you’re just now getting around to my body. Thanks Science!”

No one sought to invent the microwave oven. It just happened. Percy Spencer, the inventor of the microwave oven, didn’t say “Hey, I want to heat a steak up!” What actually happened is that he had a candy bar in his pocket that melted when he was near an active radar set while he was working on building magnetrons. He decided to investigate it. Eventually him and some friends wanted to see if other food could be heated. They then enclosed the system so that no electromagnetic waves would escape and he observed what happened to different foods. Then the company he worked for patented it.

There are so many scientific discoveries and inventions that happen just on accident. It isn’t a fucking checklist. No one sits there organizing which scientific discoveries and inventions will be made when.

“Thanks Science for assuming that I like to fuck men!”

The only people related to science who care about who you’re having sex with directly in relation to their career are physicians and sexologists. 

But what do you expect science to do? Science can’t force people’s assumptions to change.

“Hey Science how about you start hiring women instead of quoting Freud and calling it science?”

Who the fuck other than people in psychology (the most popular Bachelor degree for women) quote Freud?

Do chemists widely quote Freud? Do physicists widely quote Freud? Do geologists widely quote Freud? Do economists widely quote Freud? Do mathematicians widely quote Freud? Do astronomers widely quote Freud? Do geographers widely quote Freud? Do archaeologists widely quote Freud? Do linguists widely quote Freud? Do statisticians widely quote Freud? Do computer scientists widely quote Freud? Do logicians widely quote Freud? Do marine biologists quote Freud? 

No, they do not. But why would you know, it’s clear you don’t know what science actually is or the purpose of it.

“Hey Science I need a health teacher that includes the clitoris in his  their lesson plan.”

How is this the problem of all of science? What would science do? Really, what’s the expectation? 

By the way, my fucking Catholic elementary school taught us about the clitoris. Not in detail, but where it was. Anything further would just enter the territory of masturbation. No one teaches you about how sex is better with foreskin, about the g-spot, about the clitoris, about the male prostate, or about nipples. Why? There’s no reason to.

You teach kids about birth control. You teach kids about periods. You teach kids about conception and birth. You teach kids about puberty. You teach kids about growth spurts, voice deepening, and breast development. You teach kids about sexually transmitted diseases. 

Most kids learn about masturbation fine on their own.

“Hey Science I need a boyfriend that doesn’t consider masturbation a performance for him.”

That’s not Science’s fucking problem. You’re a functioning fucking adult. Learn how to filter out shitty partners and people from your life. If you want a boyfriend with a certain trait or belief, go find them yourself.

You’re so fucking entitled that you think you don’t have to do what everyone else does. How dare you have to work to find someone who you like!

“How about you let go of the necessity of the penis, how about you stop colonizing the vagina and recognize that it discovered you.”

Give whatever drugs you’re on to me, because right now most people are more hyped about colonizing mars or the moon than whatever the fuck you think is going on in your vagina.

[aboatmaleprivilege]

As a feminist, I would just like to say that I have no idea wtf this woman is talking about.

“A boyfriend that doesn’t consider masturbation a performance for him?”

How a man in a sexually-active couple enjoy seeing his partner do sexual things?  

? How dare? he? doesn’t he know that MASTURBATION IS NOT A PERFORMANCE FOR HIS MALE EGO!?!?? Doesn’t he know that vaginas are delicate magical little flowers and the only people allowed to look at or even think about them are the magical  fairy-space beings known as “women”?

Hey, dipshit, did it ever occur to you that some women enjoy masturbating for their bfs? Did it ever occur to you that many women also enjoy when their boyfriend “performs masturbation” for them? That is why “mutual masturbation” is a thing?

There are many legitimate issues of sexism within science, but these incoherent ramblings manage to acknowledge only about 0.5 of 1.

[skyakafreckles]

I was on Reddit and found a couple comments on how our skin color makes it more difficult for us than others in the exact same situation.

The third and last comment really is definitely true as well

[aboatmaleprivilege]

I follow/am followed by a lot of people who think that white privilege is a reverse-racist concept because “being white doesn’t stop bad things from happening to you! White people can have hard lives too! We all experience hardship from time to time!”  You know, those kinds of people. Well I don’t follow much of them anymore, but it’s still something I see too much. I’m always trying to explain that white privilege doesn’t mean you can’t be in a bad situation if you’re white, it just means that you will have it easier than a person of colour in the exact same situation as you because you have racial privilege over them. I’m constantly seeing “anti-sj” posts that show rich black people and then a homeless white man and going “Who has the privilege now?” These people do not understand that a) that poor white person still has RACIAL PRIVILEGE over those rich black people, as in, even if he’s poorer, he will still never be treated badly FOR BEING WHITE, whereas the rich black people will and that b) a homeless person of colour will have a harder time than a homeless white person. THAT is white privilege.

So this is a nice explanation to whip out whenever someone is saying that kind of shit, especially because it’s written by a white person as the last comment points out no one can make that “black people blaming white people for their problems!” argument. 

[thatalbanianguy]

Its not racial privilege though but majority privilege. People, ALL PEOPLE, shun others who are not like them. Go to Japan and see how well “white privilege” serves you. Racial privilege is really dependent on where you live and only exists where one race is the majority. 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Person: What is the difference between poor white people in poor black people in America?

Someone else: *explains the difference between poor white people and poor black people in America*

You: “Ugh stupid SJWs, don’t you know that white privilege doesn’t exist in Japan? It only exists in places like America, where white people are the majority!”

This is the third time I’m asking you: Can you read?  Do you think you are presenting us with some kind of revelation? White privilege exists because white people are the majority in America; this is a fundamental idea white privilege is based around. Do you seriously think you are telling us something new? 

[thatalbanianguy]

Again, its not even white privilege, its technically majority privilege. Semantics to be sure, but I think its an important distinction. 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

It really isn’t. What is the importance of distinguishing between majority privilege in America which privileges white people and simply calling it “white privilege”? Plus, the post specified that this was true for America, so why argue that white privilege isn’t real in Japan? 

“White people have privilege in America”

“White people don’t have privilege, it’s the MAJORITY that has the privilege, even though the majority is white!”

So, in other words...white people have privilege in America. 

[skyakafreckles]

I was on Reddit and found a couple comments on how our skin color makes it more difficult for us than others in the exact same situation.

The third and last comment really is definitely true as well

[aboatmaleprivilege]

I follow/am followed by a lot of people who think that white privilege is a reverse-racist concept because “being white doesn’t stop bad things from happening to you! White people can have hard lives too! We all experience hardship from time to time!”  You know, those kinds of people. Well I don’t follow much of them anymore, but it’s still something I see too much. I’m always trying to explain that white privilege doesn’t mean you can’t be in a bad situation if you’re white, it just means that you will have it easier than a person of colour in the exact same situation as you because you have racial privilege over them. I’m constantly seeing “anti-sj” posts that show rich black people and then a homeless white man and going “Who has the privilege now?” These people do not understand that a) that poor white person still has RACIAL PRIVILEGE over those rich black people, as in, even if he’s poorer, he will still never be treated badly FOR BEING WHITE, whereas the rich black people will and that b) a homeless person of colour will have a harder time than a homeless white person. THAT is white privilege.

So this is a nice explanation to whip out whenever someone is saying that kind of shit, especially because it’s written by a white person as the last comment points out no one can make that “black people blaming white people for their problems!” argument. 

[thatalbanianguy]

Its not racial privilege though but majority privilege. People, ALL PEOPLE, shun others who are not like them. Go to Japan and see how well “white privilege” serves you. Racial privilege is really dependent on where you live and only exists where one race is the majority. 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Person: What is the difference between poor white people in poor black people in America?

Someone else: *explains the difference between poor white people and poor black people in America*

You: “Ugh stupid SJWs, don’t you know that white privilege doesn’t exist in Japan? It only exists in places like America, where white people are the majority!”

This is the third time I’m asking you: Can you read?  Do you think you are presenting us with some kind of revelation? White privilege exists because white people are the majority in America; this is a fundamental idea white privilege is based around. Do you seriously think you are telling us something new? 

[iamryanhenly]

Don’t let your hate for feminism allow you to ignore sexual assault and rape culture that IS out there. Anti-sjw are as toxic as the feminists they hate so much.

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Also this. It’s like what I said earlier about anti-sjws insisting “oppression” is “too heavy a word” to use for “prejudice”. I don’t know HOW people can seriously think there’s no rape culture when 90% of people’s go-to reaction to reading about a rape is “oh, she deserved it, they should have done x y z to protect themselves, if that were me I would have kicked him in the balls, I bet he enjoyed it”, etc. It’s not just with rape; we see it with thinks like mass murder too, unfortunately. People saying how the victims should have magically fought back or grabbed the gun from the killer or thought through an escape plan or some shit like that. People just don’t want to believe that awful shit like rape and murder can happen to ANYONE, even them, at any time, so they all want to make up some shit in their heads about how the victim probably deserved it/was too stupid to prevent it. That way, they rationalize away that fear that anything can happen–they’re sure nothing will happen to them because THEY’RE smart/careful/whatever. THIS IS RAPE CULTURE. This is fucking rape culture. I saw OP also arguing with someone who said “we don’t live in a rape culture because there are laws against rape!” God, I don’t understand why people need to be so fucking literal. It’s the same with the “oppression” thing, just people nitpicking about words. Sure, most people see rape as BAD. That’s not what rape culture is about. Rape culture is the attitude we have towards the victim and the crime. I kind of understand why the “teach men not rape” thing came to be. People want to ignore the social dynamics that cause rape to focus on how the victim deserved it instead. I still stand by what I said that it is NOT practical to try to somehow teach people to not rape instead of teaching people self-defense, but, it is troubling that people would rather have the latter conversation than the former. That’s what rape culture is. Just because we have laws against it, doesn’t make the attitude most people take towards it any less awful. 

Sorry OP don’t mean to direct all this and my last post at YOU, just saw this on your blog and I wanted to talk about it 

[thatalbanianguy]

So people being retarded and putting themselves in a scenario that they think they could have magically escaped from means that there’s a rape culture? I mean you’re ACTUALLY telling me that we have a culture that NORMALIZES, CONDONES, and even sometimes PROMOTES rape? Are you fucking serious right now? 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

“ putting themselves in a scenario “

Right there. This. This is exactly what I was talking about in my post. How did you even read my post and then reply with the very same attitude I explained as being wrong?

How do you actually think rape and murder happen? A scenario they think they could magically escape? What the fuck are you implying? That victims decide to just go up to a person they know is a rapist/murderer and messing with them, just for jokes, to see if they can “magically escape”? You’re in a building and then someone barges in with a gun and opens fire. You realistically can’t Bruce Lee your way out of the room and save the day, there’s no safe escape route, and you are panicked and deeply afraid. You inevitably get shot. Some dipshit on the internet then calls you a “retarded” for “putting yourself in [that] scenario”. This kind of thinking, which is whatever the opposite of critical thinking is, is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Of course, YOU, thatalbanianguy, will never get raped or murdered because you’re smart and only retards get raped/murdered because they “put themselves in that situation”! Thatalbanianguy, YOU are that dipshit on the internet.  

Most victims know their rapists personally. The only way to not put yourself in a situation where you can’t be raped is to not know anyone. The only way to not put yourself in a situation where you can’t be murdered is to already be dead. 

Finally, I already explained that rape culture is not literally “ a culture that NORMALIZES, CONDONES, and even sometimes PROMOTES rape” but rather refers to a culture that treats rape as something that only happens to people who are dumb enough to let it happen, and by extension, only to people who “deserve” it. I’ll stop here because, now that I’m reading your third response, If ind myself repeating myself way too much. It’s becoming increasingly obviously you don’t read my posts before you answer them.You just see certain key words (”abortion”, “rape culture”) and fly off about how WRONG! and RETARDED! I am for saying something I never fucking said. So my question is, are YOU fucking serious right now? Are you accusing me of not being serious when you’re coming onto someone else’s posts and adding your ridiculous gibberish “opinions” like they’re the hottest shit ever but you’re not even prepared to read that person’s post before doing so? What kind of serious person does this? How can I be expected to take your responses seriously, if you yourself are not serious enough about having a discourse to fucking READ the thing you’re fucking responding too? Fuck off of my posts until you’re actually ready to discuss things I’ve actually fucking said.  

[thenuanceddebater]

People like this exist becasue you are heavily misreading what they are trying to say. I don’t think @thatalbanianguy is saying that victims deserve to be raped. I might be wrong, but that’s not what I’m seeing. What I am seeing is two separate notions: 1. That there are ways of minimizing the risk of being raped and 2. That rape is something that is not necessarily escapable. Both of these are true by the way. So, let’s break down these two notions, your response, and the idea of rape culture shall we? 

Let’s start with the highly controversial notion that there are ways to reduce one’s risk of being raped. This really shouldn’t be highly controversial, but for some reason when someone says that there might be something to learn from a rape other than the fact that we live in a rape culture, and that there are patterns of victim or offender-behavior that make an individual more likely to be raped, people see that as “victim blaming”. It certainly can be, but it is not inherently. Pointing out for example that being alone at a party or a dark alley makes someone more likely to be a rape victim is no more victim blaming than pointing out than an individual that leaves their house unlocked is more likely to be robbed. At no point is the person making the observation implying that the victim “deserved” what happened to them- as is required in order for the victim to be blamed- but rather that the victim did have certain aspects of their eventual rape/ robbery under their control and that individuals that wish to minimize the risk of being raped/ robbed are best served by avoiding this type of behavior. It’s not victim-blaming to point out that you could do something better. It is victim blaming to point out that something bad happened to you becasue you could have done something better. A subtle difference for sure, but a marked one nonetheless. 

Now, let’s talk about your idea of rape culture and how the above notion refutes that. You state that a rape culture promotes the idea that only those who are foolish, stupid, do not pay attention, or are bereft of common sense get raped. I would also add the statement that a rape culture must also blame the victim for the rape itself. Nothing I have said up to this point is victim-blaming and thus constitutes as perpetuating a rape culture. Again, I am talking about individuals making positive statements about a victims scenario and rape, or an individual making normative statements solely about the victim’s behavior leading up to the rape and not the rape itself. For example a statement to the tune of, “It was stupid for this person to go to the bar alone when they were that intoxicated. They shouldn’t have done that. It increased the change that they would get raped. And they unfortunately ended up getting raped” does not promote rape culture as it makes no judgement on the rape itself but rather a judgement on behavior before the rape. Now if we amend this statement to “It was stupid for this person to go to the bar alone when they were intoxicated. Don’t they know that it’s just asking to get raped? It’s no surprise that they were raped’ makes it slightly less acceptable and really depends on the context around the statement. This could be a more cynical observation about a certain type of behavior (i.e. the viewpoint that going alone to a bar while intoxicated generally leads to rape) which is not victim blaming as no blame is assigned to the victim for the rape itself (again, merely the actions they could control before the rape) or it could be an example of victim-blaming an individual for being raped becasue of their poor decisions. It’s unclear in this case- which is similar to the case that you are responding to @aboatmaleprivilege. Now, if we amend this statement again to, “It was stupid for this person to go the bar alone when they were intoxicated. Don’t they know that it’s just asking to get raped? No wonder they got raped after doing something so idiotic.” makes it entirely unacceptbale. Now we have reached the point of full-on victim blaming. The victim is now resposnbile for their rape becasue of their previous behavior, and thus responsible for something that they could not control becasue of something that they could control. This in my opinion would represent the perpetuation of a rape culture according to your definition and my addendum to said definition. But do yih see the difference between this third quote and the first two? This third quote blatantly assigns the blame to the victim for the rape itself. The second quote is ambiguous and may assign the blame to the victim for the rape itself. The first quote does not assign blame to the victim for the rape itself. So, hopefully that demonstrates that the mentality that there are things that an individual can do to mitigate the chances of being raped doesn’t perpetuate rape culture. 

Now, let’s discuss the notion of the inevitability of rape and how that does or does not further rape culture. Again, there is some nuance here. It is entirely possible for an individual to point out that rape is inevitable without promoting rape culture, and it is also entirely possible for an individual to point out that rape is inevitable whil perpetuating rape culture. In this case, I think it depends on what is said after the notion that rape is inevitable. For example, if the quote is “rape is inevitable. It has always been in existence, and we don’t have a way to completely eliminate it. But no one should be raped. We should focus on reducing rape as much as possible even if we can’t eliminate it” then I don’t see how that perpetuates rape culture. Whereas if the quote is, “Rape is inevitable. It has always been in existence and we don’t have a way to completely eliminate it. So why even try? People will just have to deal with the fact that they are raped until we can find a way to completely get rid of it– if we ever do” then I can definitely see how that perpetuates rape culture. But, the two statements are again once again different. The first statement points out that a certain degree of rape is inevitable but that we should attempt to reduce it as much as possible– this would actually be a statement againt rape culture. The second statement points out that a certain degree of rape is inevitable and thus it is fooligh to focus on rape as an issue– this would certainly be a statement perpetuating rape culture as it is minimizing both the accountability of rapists and the suffering of victims. 

Now, let’s move on to some of your arguments about rape culture as a whole. We do not live in a rape culture. Not even by your extremely loose and liberal interpretation of the term even without my addition. Rapists are generally blamed for the crime of rape to the degree that individuals who are accused of rape without evidence are found inevitably guilty in the court of public opinion. There’s a rousing debate about which is worse rape or murder which points out that the crime is not in fact accepted or socially ignored as it likely would be in a rape culture. Some individuals accused of rape are even attacked and killed by mobs of protesters becasue of the perceived horrific nature of their possible crime. Child-rapists are often attacked and killed by cellmates or other unrelated inmate in prison. Absolutely none of this illustrates the idea that victims are blamed for their rape, held to be responsible for their rape, or that their rape is condoned. In fact, one of the major feminist rape campaigns is the “teach men not to rape” campaign which assigns blame solely on the perpetrator as opposed to the victim (and the objection to this campaign is not that the blame is unduly assigned to the rapist, but rather that most people know how not to rape. Rapists just don’t care and thus campaigns like this will not actually reduce rape). So, I fail to see how the West is a rape culture. Now, if you want to make an argument that rape cultures exist in the Middle East (or among Middle Eastern groups) you might have a better argument becasue many Middle Eastern countries excuse rape (particularly rape of foreigners) under certain tenets of Sharia Law. And if you don’t believe me and my assertions, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network also thinks that we don’t live in a rape culture and has said as much to a White House taskforce. 

Also, while your annoyance is understandable all that insulting does is denigrate your own arguments. Arguments based around ad hominem are inherently fallacious and tearing into another individual is never the best approach for rational conversation. And if you don’t want to have a rational conversation, well then don’t expect rational responses. 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

I’d like to start by acknowledging your last point first, because it’s something that irritated me and I want to get it out of the way so we can have a purely logic-based argument here. 

I do not appreciate you explaining to me like I’m a five year old what ad hominem fallacy is. I, like most human beings, understand that insults are not an argument, and I do not need you to come in and explain this basic concept to me as if you are some supremely rational being that needs to teach me how to be a sensible person. I know that you’re just trying to keep things rational and I can appreciate that as I’ve given people similar lectures, but I only do so when their ad hominem is directed to me, or to someone that clearly did not do anything to merit that ad hominem. It’s just that I am a person who prides themselves on making sure that all arguments on their blog stay logical and avoid the petty domineering tactics that too many on this website love to use, and I felt it was condescending for you to assume that I do not know how to argue rationally because you don’t have the context as to why I insulted this person.

I think we both agree the ad hominem fallacy is conflating insults for an argument. Insulting someone itself is not ad hominem fallacy, it’s when you do so in place of an argument that it becomes fallacious. As you can see form my post, I clearly state my argument first, and only insult thatalbanianguy in the end. You say that me insulting thatalbanianguy shows that I don’t want to have a rational conversation, and therefore I shouldn’t expect a rational response from him. Again, I think this is pretty presumptuous. I rationally stated my point first, he responded in a way I would say is pretty destructive to rational discourse (misrepresenting my argument in a way clearly shows I he did not read it) and leaving “Are you serious?” as the only thing he says on the matter. I responded by again clarifying my point, only with an insult at the end. If thatalbanianguy wanted to refute my argument rationally, he could have done so to my first response, AND he could even do so to second response. The fact that I insulted him at the end does not make it magically impossible to refute all that logical discrouse that came before the insult. The insult was not used in place of an argument--I was just insulting him, straight up. It was an argument, and then me insulting him. Therefore, it is not fallacious or inhibiting discourse. In fact, the “all that insulting” was just a more “fuck”-ridden/angry way of telling him the same thing you have just told me. For context, that was the third response to me that day in which thatalbanianguy  had basically reblogged what I said and added nothing but either ad hominem, “lol y u so mad” or, a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument that most of the time included things I had specifically refuted in my points which PROVES he doesn’t even read things before mindlessly disagreeing with them just because he thinks the person making the point is an SJW. I know this because I follow him. That’s the kind of person he is. You say the problem with ad hominem is that it shows you’re not willing to have a rational dsicussion and you won’t get one back either. But thatalbanianguy has shown me over and over that he is not capable of responding in a way that isn’t a ridiculous ad-hominem, which by both your logic and mine, shows me he is not interested in having a rational conversation. If you read what I said to him at the end, “All that insulting” that you accused me of doing is just me (angrily) accusing him of not seriously wanting a rational conversation because of what he has shown me. I know I’m not going to get a rational response from him, so I don’t bother pretending to not be annoyed with this attitude--wouldn’t you agree that it is very annoying when someone shows such a blatant disregard for rational discourse? Isn’t this why you are cautioning me against doing the same thing? I’m sorry to be spending so long on such a minor point of yours but this is just how many words it’s taking me to explain that you are accusing me of not wanting rational discourse because I accused someone else of not wanting rational discourse (and then insulted them for it because I knew there was no chance of getting a rational response from then anyway). I hope you see why this annoyed me and again I apologized that it took so many words to say.

Now, to get into your response. Because it is a long one, I’ll use numbers to denote which paragraph I’m responding to:

1. I think it is very optimistic of you to think the only reason I think “people like this exist” is because I’m misinterpreting what they’re saying. I used to think so too, every time I saw arguments about rape culture. And it’s true that people go overboard in saying that things like telling people to be careful when they’re out is “victim-blaming”. I think I made it clear in my first response that I referring to people who seem to think that the fact that someone got raped is somehow proof that they were too dumb to stop it. I mentioned people who claim that if they were in the situation where a mass murder is taking place, they would have heroically beaten up the perpetrator and saved the day. These people exist. If you want, I can find you some screencaps. It’s hard to misinterpret what they’re saying because of how clear this point is: If someone says, “Those people should have fought back, I would have beaten up the rapist/murderer myself!” how could this possibly be meant in any other way? These are the comments I’m talking about. This leads to my next point.

2. I don’t understand. Is this paragraph directed towards me? I agree with all of those things. Again, if it’s an argument meant for me, I have to wonder why you are making it, because I specified in my first response (the one to the OP) that I am talking specifically about the people who think they are superior to the victim in intelligence/bravery and make bold assertions about how they would certainly have been better off in the victim’s situation because of this superiority. I have nothing to refute this paragraph with because it’s refuting things I didn’t say. All I have to say about it is that I agree that telling people to be careful certainly isn’t victim-blaming and I do have a post where I argue this to someone who used that “teach men not to rape instead of teaching women not to get raped!” argument you were talking about.

3.

“ You state that a rape culture promotes the idea that only those who are foolish, stupid, do not pay attention, or are bereft of common sense get raped.”

Well, I would say more that the idea is the culture. I don’t think people think these things because we live in a rape culture, I think that the term “rape culture” refers to the fact that so many people say these things.

 “ would also add the statement that a rape culture must also blame the victim for the rape itself. Nothing “

Lots of people do. Legally, society doesn’t, and sure most people don’t either, but lots of people, the people who say the things I address in my first and second responses, do. My point isn’t that EVERYONE collectively blames victims for their rape. It is that the pervasiveness of these ideas that do blame the victim for their rape is what people are referring to when they say “rape culture”. It seems like we are about to get into an argument about the definition of rape culture, and I hope that’s not the case because that kind of argument goes nowhere fast.

3.5 (the middle of your third paragraph). Your example statement about how not being drunk at a bar alone can minimize your chance of rape is fine,as you said. I am talking about more extreme statements. People who claimed they would have fought the rapist, or somehow taken precautions that most people just don’t take in reality.

thatalbanianguy’s comments make a convenient example:

He says victims are “ people being retarded and putting themselves in a scenario that they think they could have magically escaped from “

  Would you really call getting drunk at a bar alone RETARDED? I’m sure most people have done that at some point. I’m not saying it’s safe, but this kind of intelligence-politics doesn’t sound like it’s coming from a place of concern to me. There is a difference between reminding people to be safe and acting as if they’re RETARDED and ASKING FOR TROUBLE because they didn’t take full precautions, as you said. I understand that it’s common sense not to get drunk at a bar alone, but this kind of attitude dehumanizes victims in a weirdly eugenicist way: “well, they got raped/killed because they were being stupid”. It’s an unrealistic way of looking at crimes and definitely seems to be saying that only those dumb enough to deserve it get raped/killed. My response to thatalbanianguy was more about murders because it illustrated the attitude I’m talking about better. If a case of rape does mention that the victim was out drunk and alone in a bar, it’s one thing to say that avoiding this is the safer route. However, it’s another for a person to make assumptions about the victim’s intelligence because surely they would never be in such a dangerous situation! It’s not like that. The average person is not constantly taking precautions against crime. I mean, to use your locks/robbery analogy: A person who keeps their doors locked when they go out could say to a person who DOESN’T keep their doors locked that keeping your doors locked is a good way to minimize the chance of robbery. If unlocked-door person gets robbed, locked-door person could give them this advise in a gesture of genuine concern. However, let’s say locked-door person instead chooses to use the robbery of unlocked-door person as an opportunity to brag about how much more intelligent they are because they lock their doors, and that unlocked-person’s robbery is proof that only the stupid are robbed, this is fallacious. Why? Let’s say locked-doors person gets robbed because someone breaks in through their windows. That leaves them open to a person with fortified anti-breakin windows (idk if that’s a thing but I hope you get the idea) mocking them for being stupid enough to get robbed, just as locked-doors person did to unlocked-doors person.  The problem with the attitude that rape victims are all just “retarded enough to put themselves in  that situation” is that it creates a false dichotomy of dumb people who get raped and smart people who have the sense to avoid these situations.  There are certain easily-avoidable situations that it’s sensible to  consider dangerous, and that is not victim-blaming. It is fine to tell someone with unlocked doors that they should try locking up to avoid robbery, or even that their robbery was easily avoidable. The problem arises when you make the claim that you have not yet been robbed because you are intelligent--you’d have to be certifiably the most paranoid person on the planet in order to actually be able to claim that you’re smart enough not to get robbed. 

A lot of my post is also focused on people who have this kind of attitude towards victims of murder, which better shows that this attitude is only meant to denigrate the victims for no reason other than to make the commentor feel superior and convinced that they are therefore safe. Because, really, in mass murders, often the only crime committed by the victims is that of happening to be in a school or building the day of the murder. That’s why I used it in my argument--it’s a better illustration of the kind of attitude I’m talking about, because with things like rape there really are ways to try to avoid it and therefore a gray area exists between victim-blaming and just giving good advice. With murder, not so much. 

3.9 (the conclusion of your 3rd paragraph). Yes, I see very well the difference between the two statements. Again, it really just seems like you’re arguing to me things that I already agree with. It seems you think that I’m arguing that every instance of staying “you can minimize your chance of being raped by doing this/not doing that” is blatant victim-blaming. I guess that was my fault for not being clear enough in my first post about what kind of victim-blaming I am talking about and hopefully this response clears it up.

4. “ “rape is inevitable. It has always been in existence, and we don’t have a way to completely eliminate it. But no one should be raped. We should focus on reducing rape as much as possible even if we can’t eliminate it””

This is an argument I have literally made in another post. (And thatalbanianguy replied by taking offence to the  fact that I said there are certain societal notions about rape/women that, if corrected, could possibly reduce rape in some cases . Not that it matters, but since you think his statement to me here was simply about how not every instance of advising precaution is victim-blaming, and your first major point was that I misread this statement as something worse than it really was, I think this further contextualizes my response to him and why I do not believe I was misreading his response).

So, again, I really think we’re agreeing here, but that I wasn’t clear enough in my first response and now we’re having an argument about what I did/didn’t mean/say. These kinds of statements are not what I am talking about--this one is one that I have even made myself on the same day as making this post. Statements that are clearly unrealistic and imply that the victim was raped because of some sort of inferiority that is in reality how pretty much every human would act in the victim’s situation, such as comments like “If that were me, I would have beaten up the rapist/got out of his car/seen it coming!” 

I brought up the inevitability of rape because I see people claiming a victim got raped because they were being stupid even when the situation leading to the rape is not even mentioned. In many cases, the victim did nothing wrong and the rape was simply inevitable or at least could only have been prevented by the victim never leaving their house, and yet, people assume that any instance of rape is a result of being stupid. For example, a while ago I was talking to a person in my class that I did not know very well, with a group of other people. If I remember correctly, we were talking about abortion. Someone said, “What if a girl gets raped and it leaves her pregnant?” to which that person replied, “Well, she shouldn’t have been being such a slut then!” 

I know this is really “your word against mine” about what people do/don’t say about rape victims, but I’m not saying that 100% of society thinks this way about rape victims. I’m simply that when people do refer to “rape culture”, they are referring to this surprisingly common) notion, not to some kind of imagined North American Sharia law. I hope that clarifies things. And yes, I know I said “90% of people” which confused things further. I just meant “a substantial amount of people compared to the amount that does not hold these ideas”, not literally 9 out of 10 people. I apologize for that.

5. Basically this entire paragraph is addressing things I never said.

 “ We do not live in a rape culture. “

Thing that I did not say #1. I’ve already specified what I meant by “rape culture” enough in this response so I’m sure you’re sick of hearing it by now but at least I’ve clarified what I meant, and it was not this. I think you saw the words “rape culture” and assumed I have the same definition of it as most anti-sjs think feminists do, but my entire point in my first response was that rape culture does not mean that society encourages/does not punish rape but rather refers to the notions I addressed above.

5.1  “ Not even by your extremely loose and liberal interpretation of the term even without my addition. “

The definition I gave of it is the pervasiveness of the notions addressed above and your “addition” was already included in my original definition of rape culture:

“ People just don’t want to believe that awful shit like rape and murder can happen to ANYONE, even them, at any time, so they all want to make up some shit in their heads about how the victim probably deserved it/was too stupid to prevent it. That way, they rationalize away that fear that anything can happen–they’re sure nothing will happen to them because THEY’RE smart/careful/whatever. THIS IS RAPE CULTURE. “

Your addition was that rape culture has to blatantly blame the victim, right? And you gave the example of someone saying that a rape victim was asking to get raped by being stupid. Well, that’s explicitly included in the phrase:   

“ by [believing] the victim probably deserved it/was too stupid to prevent it. “

  I think the confusion comes from you believing that I think we live in some monstrous rape-apologist society when really I said that many people blame the victim without thinking critically about if they would really have done anything differently.

“ Rapists are generally blamed for the crime of rape to the degree that individuals who are accused of rape without evidence are found inevitably guilty in the court of public opinion. “

Yes, because rape is illegal and considered bad. Never in my post did I say that people LIKE rape. I think I clarified that here:

   “ “we don’t live in a rape culture because there are laws against rape!” God, I don’t understand why people need to be so fucking literal. It’s the same with the “oppression” thing, just people nitpicking about words. Sure, most people see rape as BAD. That’s not what rape culture is about. Rape culture is the attitude we have towards the victim and the crime. “

I really can’t think of any other way to respond than to direct you to where I said the very thing that you are trying to convince me of. 

  Also, people believing rape victims without evidence is a separate issue from the one at hand: We’re talking about victim-blaming, which you can only do if you believe a rape happened in the first place. 

“ There’s a rousing debate about which is worse rape or murder which points out that the crime is not in fact accepted or socially ignored as it likely would be in a rape culture. Some individuals accused of rape are even attacked and killed by mobs of protesters because of the perceived horrific nature of their possible crime. Child-rapists are often attacked and killed by cellmates or other unrelated inmate in prison. Absolutely none of this illustrates the idea that victims are blamed for their rape, held to be responsible for their rape, or that their rape is condoned. “

Again, see: “ Sure, most people see rape as BAD. That’s not what rape culture is about.”

and

“ Finally, I already explained that rape culture is not literally 'a culture that NORMALIZES, CONDONES, and even sometimes PROMOTES rape’ “

Most people with the attitudes I described think rape/murder is bad or else they wouldn’t be so concerned with whether or not it could happen to them. And most of these people probably would see it as tragic and horrible if someone was walking in broad daylight on a crowded street got dragged into an ally and raped. It’s just that as soon as they have something to nitpick at, they can rationalize the horribleness away by using the victim’s supposed stupidity to assure themselves that it would never happen to them/doesn’t happen to good people. It’s a coping mechanism that they employ BECAUSE they think rape is so horrible, not because they think rape is good. 

At this point, I am wondering if you even read my arguments, too, or if I’m really that bad at getting them across. You are refuting things that I never said and “disagreeing” with me about things I explicitly stated I agree with you on. I’m very confused. 

Also, child rape is treated very differently from adult rape for obvious reasons. There aren’t children getting drunk alone at bars.

There’s nothing else to refute here because you’re simply talking about things I never said. I will once again summarize my point: people who argue that “rape culture doesn’t exist because we have laws against it/rape is seen as bad!”--and go on to say that people who believe in rape culture are deluded--are misunderstanding the issue and misrepresenting the arguments of those who believe in it. In my opinion, the term “rape culture” refers to the surprisingly pervasive attitude many take towards victims of not just rape but also crimes such as murder, where the crime is rationalized away by dehumanizing the victim into someone that was “stupid enough to get raped/too cowardly to fight the murderer”  without any critical thinking about whether or not the crime was really easily preventable, or whether or not the commentor would have fared any better in that situation themselves. It is the attitude that oversimplifies crime into the punishment the world gives to profoundly stupid people for their blatant lack of intelligence/common sense/precaution/martial arts skills (?) rather than something that can happen to anyone and that most people are not reasonably equipped to prevent entirely/deal with. 

What I did not say: The West is a rape-loving culture where everyone loves rape and sees rape as a great, positive thing and rapists are rewarded while the victims are publicly stoned as an example for others who dare get themselves raped. I’m not aware that rape is illegal and that most find it one of the most disgusting crimes that can be committed. We might as well live under Sharia law. THE WEST LOVES RAPE!

So, I will leave it at that. I hope I clarified my points because this was really a bizarre argument for me, seeing you argue my own arguments back to me. I apologize for any confusion caused by vagueness on my part and I thank you for your thoughtful and civil response, but unfortunately, it seems we have both wasted our time here. Cheers.

[holyfilaments-remade-deactivate]

Me

[asgardreid-deactivated20180407]

“Call the cops like I give a fuck”

[notjustbitchy]

I want to be that badass when I grow up.

[crashington]

what the fuck how is this badass? this seems mentally unstable if anything

[aboatmaleprivilege]

yeah p fucking much

[holyfilaments-remade-deactivate]

Me

[asgardreid-deactivated20180407]

“Call the cops like I give a fuck”

[aboatmaleprivilege]

dfabpr S T O P

I see this way too much in tumblr feminism and I didn’t expect to find it on a radfem blog. Beating someone up and shooting them with an arrow is not “badass” just because a woman is doing it. This isn’t a feminist post, it’s just an edgy and childish joke. There are better exampls of women actually doing badass things and not just beating up men. Like, there seems to be this subculture of tumblr feminism where girls just act as edgy as possible and make jokes about beating up men or killing them or whatever and somehow this is supposed to be liberating. It just fuels unhealthy ideas about what being badass means. We shouldn’t have to feel like we need to be violent to be badass. I understand that this woman is breaking out of traditional ideas of femininity by being violent and that men are expected to prove their badassery through violence, but we’re basically celebrating the fact that she’s doing something that men feel pressured to do due to gender. These kinds of posts just seem like they’re glorifying a certain idea of a badass woman which is basically just one that acts like a really macho dude. Celebrating macho women is great and all, but if masculinity was abolished then this wouldn’t be a thing in the first place--so it’s not abolishing gender roles, it’s just encouraging women to engage in the kind of toxic masculinity that men do to prove their “badassery” which sounds really counterintuitive to me. In this idea of a badass woman, her badassery is based the stigma of her femininity being attached to the macho things she does, and it just reduced badass women down to a genderred construct again. Really don’t see how that’s liberating. 

 The fact that this would be consider a serious crime if done by a man but is now a tumblr joke because it was done by a woman just kind of makes me wonder if this isn’t perpetuating the same attitude of not taking women seriously that it’s trying to fight against. 

This rant isn’t meant to be having a go at dfabprivileges but I saw the “badass women” tag and wanted to get this off my chest. 

[skyakafreckles]

I was on Reddit and found a couple comments on how our skin color makes it more difficult for us than others in the exact same situation.

The third and last comment really is definitely true as well

[aboatmaleprivilege]

I follow/am followed by a lot of people who think that white privilege is a reverse-racist concept because “being white doesn’t stop bad things from happening to you! White people can have hard lives too! We all experience hardship from time to time!”  You know, those kinds of people. Well I don’t follow much of them anymore, but it’s still something I see too much. I’m always trying to explain that white privilege doesn’t mean you can’t be in a bad situation if you’re white, it just means that you will have it easier than a person of colour in the exact same situation as you because you have racial privilege over them. I’m constantly seeing “anti-sj” posts that show rich black people and then a homeless white man and going “Who has the privilege now?” These people do not understand that a) that poor white person still has RACIAL PRIVILEGE over those rich black people, as in, even if he’s poorer, he will still never be treated badly FOR BEING WHITE, whereas the rich black people will and that b) a homeless person of colour will have a harder time than a homeless white person. THAT is white privilege.

So this is a nice explanation to whip out whenever someone is saying that kind of shit, especially because it’s written by a white person as the last comment points out no one can make that “black people blaming white people for their problems!” argument. 

[compoyo-deactivated20200529]

I don’t want white people learning Spanish

[lieber-tot-als-rot-deactivated2]

I don’t want brown people learning English.

Wait, was that racist?

[compoyo-deactivated20200529]

I’m tired

[lieber-tot-als-rot-deactivated2]

>says something racist >gets called out on it > “I’m tired”

[sjwbullcrap]

A summary.

[poorpoorpitifulme]

I have some bad news for OP about a place called Spain. 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

I don’t know the context of the OP but I wouldn’t say that “I don’t want brown people learning English” is “just as racist” as what OP was trying to get at if their post was in reference to white-Latino relations.

However...yeah, I’m not sure how OP figures white people learning Spanish is appropriation seeing as it was the white colonists who are the reason Americans learn Spanish. 

[actuallytoocute]

Some tips for my cis friends!

Don’t use the term truscum if you’re CIS.

Do not call others truscum if you’re CIS.

Do not label yourself truscum if you’re CIS.

It’s a trans topic between trans people. You can weigh in your opinion but do not use a name that transmedicalists are reclaiming for themselves as your shield. 

Thanks. 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Oh, I recently reblogged a post of yours referring to truscum. Is it ok to use the term to mean people who refer to themselves as truscum? Like not that I’m asking you to “educate me” or something but in case you see my reblog and would have rather I used “transmedicalist” instead.

[frogmunist-deactivated20190724]

some videos about the toby turner situation. one of the girls who came forward removed every video from her channel, and now has nothing on there.

[laurdlannister-kingslayer]

I love seeing what boogie always have to say, imma check it out when I get home

[laurdlannister-kingslayer]

Boogie does it again. *boogie too good! boogie too good!* *clears table*

[mexican-mario-n-luigi]

Shit yes! @rapunzel-corona-lite 😀 Boogie is one of sweetest guys ever and gives out some of the most balanced opinions on youtube. If I’m ever gunna make a youtube channel I’m definitely take after him when it comes to talking about certain subjects.

[laurdlannister-kingslayer]

I love boogie

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Haven’t watched these yet or heard anything about this but I’m just here to say Boogie is best. He’s seriously role-model material. 

[actuallytoocute]

Transphobic things..

Saying that abolishing gender roles will make every trans people suddenly feel totally comfortable and cis. 

saying that gender roles have anything to do with being trans. (Not conforming to these roles makes you gender-nonconforming.)

Saying biological sex isn’t a real thing at all

Saying you want to kill all ‘truscum’ aka every trans person who disagrees with your world view.

claiming Dysphoria isn’t real. 

Claiming Dysphoria as a mental illness

Claiming that the believe of needing dysphoria erases trans poc when the exact opposite is true. (Just because they’re from another culture doesn’t mean they don’t have dysphoria. Saying they don’t and using them as a basis on “Dysphoria is racist!!!” is actually very harmful to them.)

Also, in addition to the latter, saying that the medical system is just cis and racist and that it can only harm trans people. 

Claiming that being trans is a choice. 

Basically everything that I keep hearing from a variety of tucutes/anti-transmed. 

Do any of you have anything to add? 

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Not that I belong in this conversation at all, but I’ve never heard a tucute say that gender roles are related to trasnness. I’ve only ever heard the opposite. Or is this an extension of the  tucute logic that you can be trans with no dysphoria which implies that being trans is therefore your feelings about your gender role? (Also don’t tucutes argue against calling dysphoria a mental illness too?)

Not defending tucutes or anything, just genuinely curious.

Another thing I’d like to talk about in this post but isn’t a question directed exactly at OP: Do truscum consider social dysphoria a valid form of dyshporia?

I look up social dysphoria and I find things like this: https://gyazo.com/e020c7537b0434501ec48c96be959f07 https://gyazo.com/035a8908dc5a43f943715b482a3e4be2

https://gyazo.com/44ee0630b1a7e9c7bb926626ba23cc6f And other things about being uncomfortable with the way your assigned sex is supposed to socialize. The first post was for r/asktransgender and the rest from susans.org.

If this is really the case about social dysphoria, doesn’t this mean that if gender was not a thing in society, social dysphoria would go away since it is only related to the social aspect of gender and not physical body dysphoria? Is the extension of this logic to mean that transness is defined by not liking your gender roles rather than physical dysphoria the reason that truscum consider this implication transphobic? Because when I first read the first two points, I thought it was in reference to cis people who just think being trans is feeling like you’re not stereotypical enough of your sex, but then when I saw the bottom talking about tucutes, it confused me a lot because tucutes usually and aggressively believe the exact opposite. The only way I could make sense of it was to come up with this roundabout extension of tucute logic that transness has nothing to do with dysphoria and therefore is a choice. 

There was also a post on the subreddit about a person describing the feeling of feeling that you’re “playing the part” of your gender in social situations. These feelings resonated a lot with me and I’ve always felt like that’s how I feel in terms of my gender. But it sounds a lot like social dysphoria is very much related to discomfort with gender roles. I’m not one of those people who think that all trans people are just “cis people that break gender roles” and honestly I find it pretty repulsive when people imply that, but in my own case I really can’t tell if what I’m feeling is just discomfort with gender roles, and I also wonder if because of this gray-area regarding social dyshporia, truscum also feel that it’s not enough to gauge if you’re trans. I don’t know, one hand, I really don’t want to fall into fuelling that misconception that non-physically-dyshporic transness is just being  a gender-non-conforming cis person, but at the same time descriptions of social dysphoria really match what I think is just the feeling of not identifying with my gender role, and I feel like I’m torn between being transphobic and being misogynistic and all the while not knowing what’s going on with my own gender. 

[endlessrebel]

are you serious?? smh..

[aboatmaleprivilege]

Not to undermine the point of this post, but most of the google image results for “unprofessional hair” are from articles talking about the issue of black hair being considered unprofessional. One image is even from an article talking about how google image results for “unprofessional hairstyles” show mainly black women.