# Feminism and Sensibility, Maybe We've Fallen Backwards?



## Loveabull (Mar 19, 2015)

We don't talk about Feminism as much as we used to back in the day...then they called it "Woman's Lib" and kind of smirked about it. But there were women then who definitely changed the lives of women in the present. Something that hasn't changed enough is domestic violence.

There was that sports guy who knocked his fiancée out cold in an elevator, videotaped and everything. She still married him and waved off his actions. I remember my teen daughter a few years ago talking about how hot rapper Chris Brown was...he who was arrested for attacking singer Rhianna many times. 

My daughter made a dark joke about " Oh he could beat on me any time". In fact Rhianna went on to record several songs suggesting she enjoys physically painful relationships. I don't know what to say. As a mature woman I've been noticing the ads for the program "Empire".

Actor Terrance Howard might not be Denzel, but he's still very attractive indeed. But I recently read an article about him and his history of hurting his wives. You shudder to imagine him acting like his character in "Hustle and Flow" in real life. But maybe that enhanced his performance<<<shudder>>>

But now with the confidence of older age I see Terrence in a different way. Maybe a good actor, but perhaps a bit creepy too. Especially when he's pushing women around on screen. I can only hope public service ads and education will give today's young women the confidence to realize relationship violence is wrong in any case.


----------



## Deafmute (Mar 19, 2015)

Its definitely a problem. I am always the first to suggest all situations need a closer eye to judge on, but why these men are being violent is not as important as the fact that they ARE being violent. No one should get away with that, both the woman and the man need help when this sort of abuse is happening, whether they want it or not.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 19, 2015)

Actually, I think the situation with domestic violence has improved, but not nearly enough. What used to be taken as a given--that a man would hit his wife and children--is no longer acceptable across all of society. We need for abuse to be viewed as not just unacceptable but reprehensible no matter who you are. At least there now is a "polite company" that disapproves of abuse. 

As a man and as a father of daughters, this is an issue that I speak up on and am more than willing to call abusers out on. There simply is no excuse.


----------



## Loveabull (Mar 20, 2015)

I remember talking to someone who worked for a women's shelter in maybe 2005, only ten years ago. And they had just recently changed two laws in Pennsylvania. One was the "Stitch Rule", that the police would only make an arrest based by how many stitches the victim required. The other that unfortunately is still practiced more than we want to think about. If there is a domestic disturbance the police would arrest BOTH members of the couple for disturbing the peace. It would be up to them individually to post bail. If there were children involved you best have next of kin to pick them up or child services would be on the way. In such a situation one can totally understand a women not reporting things dear Gawd...no protection from any side.


----------



## Sonata (Mar 20, 2015)

It is only fairly recently that domestic violence became a criminal act in England and Wales.  Before then the victim would have to take civil action to get an injunction against the abuser.  Police would not interfere in domestic violence if the victim called them.

 - 1991 Marital rape criminalised

Before 1991 it was a husband’s legal right to rape his wife – marriage  implied consent for sexual intercourse. This was the first time a woman  had legal protection from marital rape.

 - 1996 Family Law Act part IV

Important changes to this law gave police automatic powers of arrest where violence had been used or threatened. 

 - 2004 Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act

This made common assault an arrestable offence. This meant that police  could arrest a suspect immediately, rather than leaving them with  someone vulnerable while they applied for a warrant.

 ~ ~ ~

*Domestic violence legislation in England and Wales: timeline*

http://www.theguardian.com/society-...nov/28/domestic-violence-legislation-timeline


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 20, 2015)

I'm so glad that so many states/municipalities no longer let the victim decide whether to prosecute or not. If there's evidence of violence, the person is arrested and prosecuted regardless.


----------



## bazz cargo (Mar 20, 2015)

I miss the 'old school feminism,' the twisted version we have now makes me angry. Freedom to be exploited, the pornographers are having a laugh.

The law might be making some good moves but society is still lagging behind. We have only just started to imprison celebrity child molesters, I'm surprised it hasn't been made into a TV show.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 21, 2015)

Oh man. After wading through the gaming discussions of feminism and MRA, it's safe to say that it has become a divisive and partisan topic online. A screaming match where the battle lines are drawn and both sides just want the other strung up. 

Not to stir the pot too much, I think that too many people are equating current day feminism with "Tumblr feminism"... which is like comparing Parmesan with the !@#$ you get in the can.


----------



## BurntMason84 (Mar 21, 2015)

Loveabull said:


> My daughter made a dark joke about " Oh he could beat on me any time". In fact Rhianna went on to record several songs suggesting she enjoys physically painful relationships.



Dudette, I know what you mean in that I have no idea what goes through some of their minds.  My wife had been abused by her second boyfriend.  They started dating in school, and dated through her first years in college.  We've talked about it, and she said it wasn't as bad as many others, but something tells me she downplays it from what she has let slip and what friends have said before.

And you know, I always wondered if it was just the environment and experiences that cultivate that mentality.  My wife is tall and very, well, has an hour glass figure that might put Christina Hendricks to shame, but has been that way since she was about 12 or 13; an early bloomer.  She also grew up in a super religious, conservative family who did shelter her from most television and music.  They're good people and meant well, just sheltered a bit too much, and you can only shelter until they grow up.  So her self consciousness and highly religious upbringing, coupled with the fact that her first boyfriend came from a very traditional Korean family, where his mother was born and raised in Korea, and was very much about women "knowing their place"... I can see that once they had broken up, she had a sense of mind, which she recognizes and admits now, that she was inferior and deserved what she got, even though that's completely outrageous.  Her second boyfriend was just a pure, male chauvinistic douche who was completely jealous of all the attention she got (not only was she a tall, redheaded bomb shell, but she was super outgoing and nice too, wanted to be everyone's friend) and well, took out all of his rage on her.

She's grown out of her shell since we've been together for nearly nine years, but I can see her revert when she gets depressed, and it pisses me off.  To be completely and brutally honest, I'd have no reservations beating the life out of an abuser, but the sad thing is, some women (or guys for that matter) would still dive in to protect them, no matter how many bruises, broken bones and cuts they have.  I just can't wrap my head around it sometimes.


----------



## ppsage (Mar 21, 2015)

I think in the post-industrialized west it's sort of easy to overlook the breadth and depth to which issues raised by feminism have now penetrated. They have spread globally, to bastions of male dominance like India, Africa and South America. Questions are even asked in the Middle East. In places like where I live these are concerns at all socio-economic levels and in every arena of life: employment, politics, medical treatment, religion, military, etc., etc., etc. With such success there is bound to be issues and discussions and disagreement. There is reason for concern on nearly all fronts, certainly domestic violence is one of the foremost, but viewing the changes just I have personally witnessed, I don't see any reason to worry about backsliding yet. I think it's also the case that criminality and violence are, in all their aspects, proving to be more intractable than expected in the most modernized societies, which doesn't in any way lessen the concern about domestic violence, but which calls in additional contexts  besides the feminist.


----------



## Mistique (Mar 21, 2015)

Its not just domestic violence against woman, but against men too. I saw this experiment where they send two actors in the streets and they pretended that one was abusing the other. Half of the time the man was abusing the woman and half of the time the woman was abusing the man. Those times that the woman was being abused the public responded very quickly to defend the woman. Some guys even had to be told very quickly that it was just an act because they were willing to beat the guy up for what he did to that girl. Some even had difficulties accepting that it was an act after they had been told it was and would go to the woman and ask her if she was sure she was safe. Those times the man was being abused they jumped to defend the man some of the time, but the rest of the time they either ignored it or cheared the woman on. Violence if wrong no matter who does it and both parties involved need to get help.


----------



## BobtailCon (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm glad there are others here who share my views of modern feminism. It isn't what it used to be.


----------



## Plasticweld (Mar 26, 2015)

I wonder how much of this has to do with feminism verses, the fact that the strong will always dominate the weak.  Man is a group animal we have always established a sense of hierarchy.  While man claims to evolved in many social issues I wonder if it sometimes comes down to our basic design. 


True feminism would claim that no such boundaries exist and that true equality is possible, yet in reality there is no social gathering or relationship that really functions that way.  In any relationship each or gathering there are always those that are more dominant those that stand in the front and those that stand in the middle or the back of the gathering.  In one sense we push our kids to be the toughest, the smartest, number one in the class and at the same time ask them to treat everyone as an equal. It does send a mixed message. 


For an evolved species we certainly still seem to have trouble with understanding the dynamics of it.


----------



## Sonata (Mar 26, 2015)

Plasticweld said:


> I wonder how much of this has to do with feminism verses, the fact that the strong will always dominate the weak.  Man is a group animal we have always established a sense of hierarchy.  While man claims to evolved in many social issues I wonder if it sometimes comes down to our basic design.
> 
> 
> True feminism would claim that no such boundaries exist and that true equality is possible, yet in reality there is no social gathering or relationship that really functions that way.  In any relationship each or gathering there are always those that are more dominant those that stand in the front and those that stand in the middle or the back of the gathering.  In one sense we push our kids to be the toughest, the smartest, number one in the class and at the same time ask them to treat everyone as an equal. It does send a mixed message.
> ...



Think of a pride of lions.  Who stalks and kills the prey - the food?  Not the male.  He sits back and waits for the food to be brought to him while the females kill the prey - the food for him and for them.

Is that feminism or just typical of the expectation of females, whatever species they might be.

It appears to me that whoever and whatever sex a person/animal/living thing of whatever kind is or are, it requires both sexes in order for their species to survive.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 26, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm so glad that so many states/municipalities no longer let the victim decide whether to prosecute or not. If there's evidence of violence, the person is arrested and prosecuted regardless.



I was basically told by the prosecutor's office they weren't going to charge my husband for breaking into my apartment and threatening me when we were separated.  The only charge I *could* file was domestic violence because we weren't actually divorced so my renting the property gave him the right, as my spouse, to be physically present there.  And they said it would damage the children to have their father have a record.

This was in 1990.  So yes, it was a while ago.  Laws and attitudes are changing slowly.


----------



## The Green Shield (Mar 26, 2015)

BobtailCon said:


> I'm glad there are others here who share my views of modern feminism. It isn't what it used to be.



From what I gather, the word 'feminism' had been mangled to such a degree that it's almost wholly unrecognizable. Feminism means, as I understand, equality for both sexes. Both men and women get to enjoy the same rights protected under law. As a man, I would really rather not be treated better than women just because I happen to have a dick. Its the personality and behavior that matter, not what sex organ you've got.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 26, 2015)

Plasticweld said:


> I wonder how much of this has to do with feminism verses, the fact that the strong will always dominate the weak.  Man is a group animal we have always established a sense of hierarchy.  While man claims to evolved in many social issues I wonder if it sometimes comes down to our basic design.



I think common chimpanzees and bonobos show two different sides of our primal form. Chimps live in areas where food is hard to get at, usually high in the trees. The females carry the young, so males can outrace and hoard the food for themselves. Thus, they are territorial, violent and male dominated. Bonobos live in lush acres where food is generally accessible and available. They are maternally lead (male usually just sort of sit around), mostly peaceful and use sex to greet one another and resolve intergroup issues. Both are very closely related to us genetically, and I think demonstrate two distinct and opposing societies of male or female-centric tendencies elicited under different environments. 



Plasticweld said:


> True feminism would claim that no such boundaries exist and that true equality is possible, yet in reality there is no social gathering or relationship that really functions that way.  In any relationship each or gathering there are always those that are more dominant those that stand in the front and those that stand in the middle or the back of the gathering.  In one sense we push our kids to be the toughest, the smartest, number one in the class and at the same time ask them to treat everyone as an equal. It does send a mixed message.



I agree. There is sexual dimorphism but also a lot of overlap. Finding where exactly these lines are and how to respect them, I think, it our way forward.


----------



## Plasticweld (Mar 26, 2015)

Guy Faukes said:


> I think common chimpanzees and bonobos show two different sides of our primal form. Chimps live in areas where food is hard to get at, usually high in the trees. The females carry the young, so males can outrace and hoard the food for themselves. Thus, they are territorial, violent and male dominated. Bonobos live in lush acres where food is generally accessible and available. They are maternally lead (male usually just sort of sit around), mostly peaceful and use sex to greet one another and resolve intergroup issues. Both are very closely related to us genetically, and I think demonstrate two distinct and opposing societies of male or female-centric tendencies elicited under different environments.



Are you then saying that if you switched the groups and put each in the other environment that the personality of respected group  would remain the same or would the environment change the personalities  of the chimpanzees in each group?


----------



## Mistique (Mar 26, 2015)

So what if I said I want to be dominated by my man? Does that mean I have fallen back in terms of feminism? I know my friend complained that she wants to be a housewife and other woman stare ar her when she says it out loud because they consider her weird. Would true feminism not mean that a woman could be whoever she wants to be - so also a more traditional house wife or submissive girl - rather than have others, and that would include feminist who consider being a housewife isnt liberated enough, tell her who she could or should be?


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 27, 2015)

Plasticweld said:


> Are you then saying that if you switched the groups and put each in the other environment that the personality of respected group would remain the same or would the environment change the personalities of the chimpanzees in each group?



I think they would change personalities quickly, within a generation or so, especially the bonobos. 



Mistique said:


> So what if I said I want to be dominated by my man? Does that mean I have fallen back in terms of feminism? I know my friend complained that she wants to be a housewife and other woman stare ar her when she says it out loud because they consider her weird. Would true feminism not mean that a woman could be whoever she wants to be - so also a more traditional house wife or submissive girl - rather than have others, and that would include feminist who consider being a housewife isnt liberated enough, tell her who she could or should be?



I think the problem with mass movements is that they can't communicate nuance. It's fine if a woman wants to be a stay at home mom (same thing with stay at home dads) as long as it's her choice and there's no pay disparity that is forcing more women to do so out of financial reasons, but good luck putting that on a poster.


----------



## Mistique (Mar 27, 2015)

Guy Faukes said:


> I think the problem with mass movements is that they can't communicate nuance. It's fine if a woman wants to be a stay at home mom (same thing with stay at home dads) as long as it's her choice and there's no pay disparity that is forcing more women to do so out of financial reasons, but good luck putting that on a poster.



My friend would say.... there you go... you automatically asumed she would be a stay at home mum, but I never said anything about her being a mum. She is a house wife and only a house wife since she has no kids and she doesn't have any particular desire to have kids either. She just wants to clean the house and be pretty for her man and that's it. She is fine with that and he is fine with that, but the outside world considers her lazy. Or they say that she takes advantage of him. Woman used to get judged for having ambitions and now it sometimes seems that they get judged for not having ambitions.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 27, 2015)

Okay, as an individual, you can express yourself however.  Dominant, dainty, or anything else.  But ascribing these types of characteristics based on gender is stupid.  The point isn't that all men or all women are any specific characteristic; it's that people can have characteristics that are not what has been considered the _norm_ for their gender.  So yes, there can be dainty men.  And dainty women. And it goes for every characteristic.

Feminism is specifically about equality but generally about elevating women because women need elevation in more areas than men do.  And this elevation cannot and is not achieved by diminishing men.  There are some people who call themselves feminists who are about lowering the peaks and not filling in the troughs. No one can prevent anyone for using a particular self-label. But these people do not speak for feminism any more than the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for Christianity.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 27, 2015)

Mistique said:


> My friend would say.... there you go... you automatically asumed she would be a stay at home mum, but I never said anything about her being a mum. She is a house wife and only a house wife since she has no kids and she doesn't have any particular desire to have kids either. She just wants to clean the house and be pretty for her man and that's it. She is fine with that and he is fine with that, but the outside world considers her lazy. Or they say that she takes advantage of him. Woman used to get judged for having ambitions and now it sometimes seems that they get judged for not having ambitions.



I felt that information was withheld deliberately 

Can they afford to do that? If so, by all means. He must make a pretty penny. 

Housework and attending to another can take up a lot of time, but I question if she'll be happy down the line. Wives were taking anti-depressants because after dropping the kids the off (I know, she doesn't want kids), making meals, keeping the house in tip top shape, attending to the husband, at the end of the day, they thought "is that all life is?"


----------



## Mistique (Mar 28, 2015)

Guy Faukes said:


> I felt that information was withheld deliberately
> 
> Can they afford to do that? If so, by all means. He must make a pretty penny.
> 
> Housework and attending to another can take up a lot of time, but I question if she'll be happy down the line. Wives were taking anti-depressants because after dropping the kids the off (I know, she doesn't want kids), making meals, keeping the house in tip top shape, attending to the husband, at the end of the day, they thought "is that all life is?"



Yeah, they can afford it  She seems to be perfectly happy at the moment, but to the question 'is that's all life is?' she would say, well of course not. There is the beautician, the nail salon, the gym (she works out a lot), the hair dresser, shopping and of course the spa


----------



## dale (Mar 28, 2015)

a pro-feminist man is a lot like being a christian against christ. you may as well buy a ball-bat and repeatedly
beat yourself in the nuts with it.


----------



## dither (Mar 28, 2015)

dale said:


> a pro-feminist man is a lot like being a christian against christ. you may as well buy a ball-bat and repeatedly
> beat yourself in the nuts with it.



Life eh?


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 28, 2015)

Mistique said:


> Yeah, they can afford it  She seems to be perfectly happy at the moment, but to the question 'is that's all life is?' she would say, well of course not. There is the beautician, the nail salon, the gym (she works out a lot), the hair dresser, shopping and of course the spa



You have shown me my nemesis, Mistique, thank you. I must travel to the Netherlands so we can battle for the fate of the world.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 28, 2015)

dale said:


> a pro-feminist man is a lot like being a christian against christ. you may as well buy a ball-bat and repeatedly
> beat yourself in the nuts with it.


Why do you say that?  A feminst man (i.e. a man who believes that the way to achieve gender equality is by elevating women) doesn't do the whole ballbusting thing. I think the word you're looking for is masochist. And, like I said above,  if you want to be that, it is okay--just don't assume that it's a gender trait.


----------



## The Green Shield (Mar 28, 2015)

Um...I want gender-equality, believe women should feel 100% free to make whatever choices they want and be given the same rights as men, and I'm a man. What does that make me?

I'll be whatever you want, ladies, but as far as I'm concerned, no one should be discriminated on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 28, 2015)

The Green Shield said:


> Um...I want gender-equality and I'm a man. What does that make me?


A feminist if you believe in elevating women; a man-hater if you believe in diminishing or punishing men.


----------



## dale (Mar 28, 2015)

astroannie said:


> Why do you say that?  A feminst man (i.e. a man who believes that the way to achieve gender equality is by elevating women) doesn't do the whole ballbusting thing. I think the word you're looking for is masochist. And, like I said above,  if you want to be that, it is okay--just don't assume that it's a gender trait.



i don't think women need "elevating". do women really want social equality with men? any woman who does must be straight up off her rocker. domestic violence has been brought up already. i've never hit a woman in my life. wanna know why? because i'm a "sexist". i was raised from birth to elevate women to a level where i find it impossible to ever raise my hand in anger to one. if i truly considered women on an equal social standard with me? that would not be the case. if any man would have treated me like a few women in my life have? i would have beat the tar out of him.
women get a privileged status with me because i'm a sexist.


----------



## The Green Shield (Mar 28, 2015)

astroannie said:


> A feminist if you believe in elevating women; a man-hater if you believe in diminishing or punishing men.


 Ah, I'm a feminist, then.  The kind that wants to elevate women.


----------



## KellInkston (Mar 28, 2015)

Oh~ I love these talks- it's such an interesting observation of personal gestalt; very sexy.

My feeling on it is that while domestic violence has been getting pushbacks through the years, it is still a problem today and always will be, simply because there will always be a form of this violence that the authorities, media, and/or culture itself will look over, deeming it as "just part of the relationship". Domestic violence is obviously something that should never be supported, as that would support subjective, personal punishments- reducing the victim to a child-level of authority, and often proves quite dangerous to the victim.

But that's the normal view, isn't it? People say and do as they please, but once they're in front of a camera they will cry out for the good of mankind to help support women in violent relationships. The PC machine has devolved into a PR mask that everyone uses, those who don't are called any number of rude, probably-inaccurate adjectives.

I think when it comes down to it, I feel people simply need to love each other more- true, unflinching, unconditional love. I would happy to be tied down and made an animal were my master to reflect that love- but chances are they would allow me to be free if they knew that is what I wanted most. I think that's one of our most important jobs as writers; rather than cry out against _this one thing that is definitely the worst thing ever_, we should simply teach people to act with the love and compassion that other people _want_ to be shown. So long as you show a person the love they can _understand as love_ you're headed in the right direction- certainly. If men loved women the way they should, they would not hurt them, physically or emotionally unless necessary, the same goes for women hurting men. Society would be a much fairer place, were we the masters of this.

But that's really all I have to say on that, I think.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 28, 2015)

dale said:


> i don't think women need "elevating". do women really want social equality with men?



Yes. 



> any woman who does must be straight up off her rocker.



Why do you say that? Do you believe women shouldn't have property rights? Or the vote? These are some of the areas where women have made progress toward equality. Do you think that's bad?



> domestic violence has been brought up already. i've never hit a woman in my life. wanna know why? because i'm a "sexist". i was raised from birth to elevate women to a level where i find it impossible to ever raise my hand in anger to one.



Good for you. But I also think you have no business raising your hand to a man, either. 



> if i truly considered women on an equal social standard with me? that would not be the case. if any man would have treated me like a few women in my life have? i would have beat the tar out of him.



Ah, okay.  I don't believe violence is appropriate, either as initiative or response (past the level of defense). I take it you're not a Christian, as Jesus the Christ said that the appropriate response to violence is to turn the other cheek. What does _your_ religion teach?



> women get a privileged status with me because i'm a sexist.



Really? So you advocate for higher pay for women than men?  You advocate tougher rape laws?  Reproductive rights?  If so, I'm proud of you.


----------



## dale (Mar 28, 2015)

astroannie said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



actually, jesus became angry and violent in the temple once and started turning over the tables of the money changers
and flogging them. and if you understood jewish definitions of things, you'd understand that "turn the other cheek" has absolutely
nothing to do with pacifism. "turning the other cheek" by jewish definition is a gesture of insult and mockery.


----------



## J Anfinson (Mar 28, 2015)

*Since this thread has turned into a debate, it's now locked. Do not debate here. Ever.*


----------

