So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Violet]

- Schrodinger's rapist isn't what you think it means. It doesn't mean all men are potential rapists - Only about 5-6% men will rape during their lives. Schrodinger's rapist tells us that upon meeting an unknown man a woman has zero way of knowing if he is a rapist or not, therefore he is a potential rapist until she knows more about him - And since the damage of rape is higher than trusting a good man (it depends) women should be careful. This is not offensive to me - If I was a woman, I'd think exactly the same - And mind you - Rapists are from all backgrounds so you can't identify one simply by the look or clothes. Schrodinger's rapist tells us that "this is wrong and it needs to be changed" - It is a critique to how rape is more frequent than people may think (and how it can happen to any kind of girl not just attractive ones) and that needs to be changed trough educating people.

It means exactly what I think it means, and it is utterly useless for rape-prevention. By this same reasoning, one should apply similarly the dangers of murder, mugging, theft, and kidnapping... what you're left with is a distrustful and skittish society, the depiction of which upon one's face increasing likelihood that one is perceived as 'weak'.... which ultimately leads to more predatory opportunism. Fear culture and blanket distrust of people is one of the most damaging features of our society... it turns out that most people aren't out to get you, and the ones who are have aggressor's advantage/your trust, so you're probably screwed to begin with.

Know what's a better idea than 'this person hasn't proven that they're not a rapist'? Always having an exit strategy if things get bad. Let people you trust know where you are, utilize the buddy system, and other general safety things. These are rational things to do, and they serve as actually effective defenses. Schrodinger's rapist is fearmongering only... the majority of rapes that occur in a male-on-female sense are from known persons. Another effective method? Trust nobody at all, because of what they 'can' do.

- As a white cis male, yeah our lives revolve a lot around sex at least until we hit 40. That is not a myth (but it revolves around other things) - But it is a problem because we give too much importance to sex as men, at least more than we should

Men aren't all built the same, and it does not do so to the exclusion of everything else a person ('even a guy') might find important.

There is nothing wrong with liking sex, wanting to have sex, or with having sex.

- If you think white men still don't have it easier you need to revise your standards. I wouldn't switch being a white man with anyone because I know my life has been easier and I like easy mode (unless it's for stealth games)

I have it much easier for my being a woman because of how I live my life, and what matters to me. Some white straight guys would much rather be at home with the kids, cleaning up, and doing some needlework to pass the time... but they tend to have a very hard time being socially accepted doing such.

'Privilege' is an irrelevant statement. All people have differing advantages between their socioeconomic class, cultural heritage, sex, physical stature, attractiveness, etc etc ad infinitum.

I'm gonna need more explanation. It's impossible to control everyone who gets in the movement and there are branches of feminism, some more aggressive others more passive - There's no way to foresee what will happen

Sure... but say you have a forum, right? You can moderate said forum... and you're a moderate of whatever group you're a part of (lets use islam). When someone threatens terrorism in your thread: what should you, being a 'moderator', do?

Aggressively threatening forms of feminism do not belong on moderated forums, especially ones for the purpose of discussion.

I'm curious - Why do you think a whole movement fixes everything? This is unreasonable - Cancer groups exist.. Well, for cancer, not for auto immune diseases. My government has around 30 ministries because the government itself cannot handle anything (the prime minister), specialization is need. A movement called egalitarianism would have to divide itself between many branches to hit all people's problems, and that would lead us to the division we have today.

I didn't say 'fixes everything'... I say 'consolidation of power base'. There's a reason 'governments' are quite a step up from 'organizations', and why 'organizations' are quite a step up from 'the guys you have coffee with every other Tuesday'.

There's no reason that there cannot be a unified movement with the intent of improving the most egregious pains of our society... cancer groups and autoimmune disease groups are NOT enemies... and they lose nothing in supporting each other, and they stand to gain in the forms of legislation, medical backing, and spreading of 'awareness' of the issues. Right now... breast cancer, which is quite possibly the easiest cancer to 'cure', is also the best 'advertised' cancer.

The sufferers of cancers that cannot be eliminated suffer more for the incredible societal focus upon a cancer for which the treatments are rarely fatal... it pulls people's attentions away just as easily as a McDonald's next to a salad bar with an unpronounceable name.

Your proposal is not bad, but it needs further explanation. I don't see why individuals can't specialize. Some feminists are LGBT as well, black feminists are probably black activists, etc.

There's no reason people can't 'specialize' in issues that matter to them personally... my only concern with specializing is what has been happening and what still appears to be happening, which is this:

On this I agree but I think people dwell too much on the "my problems are bigger" and that's wrong. A group should address some issues and refrain from minimizing other group's issues.

Yeah... people in africa need help, definitely... but that doesn't mean there isn't starvation occurring in America, or people who aren't suffering from piss-poor healthcare.

Many people dislike the UN. Human rights groups are not enough since HR are a worldwide conception to be applied everywhere and every nation should enable measures to fulfil those rights - With specializations. The same way we don't have One law ruling over all, we have over 1000+ laws regulating different aspects of social life

I dislike the wars that gave the UN a reason to exist. We have so many laws of such contradictory magnitude in the USA that we cannot not break laws in some places. Tens upon tens of thousands of utterly pointlessly trivial, woefully outdated, and impressively misguided laws... WE HAVE A 97% CONVICTION RATE. And that's just a quick look a how bad it is... in many more ways than one: we need our legal system utterly shredded and built back up from scratch.

The common man should be able to understand the rules of his society, and the introduction of 'legalese' into the mix neither prevents loopholes from occurring, nor allows the common man to even understand what it is he is being charged with.

I disagree with you on that but we've probably had different experiences. In my country feminism is seen as being empowering and an answer to sexist conducts (that still happen, a good example is firing pregnant women and prohibiting women from getting pregnant after getting the job), I don't see a lot of problems with it. America has it's fair share of nutjobs but America is a bad example (sorry) for the rest of the world, in feminism and any other issue.

Feminism used to be both of those things here... it's not near so much anymore. We're ahead of yall You'll get here sooner or later~

People who remain quiet like me dislike social networks because they are annoying. they make me sick and are full of retarded boring monotonous people everywhere. In my dictionary it says primarily support and belief in gender quality (which extends to men and trans* folks by definition) - Culturally and historically it has always been that, but even in the 70s, 60s, 50s and 1920s there were women who hated men and their voices were felt at the moment. Do you know that back in the day people were having the same reaction to feminism we are having right now (by calling them radicals)? It's curious don't you think?

Well, there you go... social networking (and the internet in general) is a pretty big thing (and it's just getting bigger)... and it's honestly not so different from attending events in the fleshworld (lots of annoying shit when you're not the one speaking).

Yes... but this is a considerably more 'liberal' society than 1920s america... and 2015 amercia is finding only 'radical feminism' to be extremist. Not very many are concerned about women having jobs, or wearing jeans... but our current society tends to draw the line around 'bullying' and 'threatening'.

Alice, I identify primarily as an egalitarian - But in this context I think it's cool to dislike or hate feminism because of Rebecca Watson and so on; and I don't line up with the cool crowd (I like being controversial) - I've also witnessed scenes of violence and sexism against women (yesterday I saw domestic violence in public street) and it's too disturbing for me to say that women already have it equal. I also like my feminine side so, I don't have much to lose. If it wasn't for feminism, men wouldn't be have it easier displaying feminine traits (still frowned upon, but a little more acceptable)

* Violet doesn't care whether it's 'cool' or not... she dislikes it for her own reasons, which are laid out above.

I have seen abuse from every angle, and have likely given if from every angle. Men are physically stronger, sure... but there's plenty of damage that women do to men socially, psychologically, emotionally, and financially. There's more than one type of abuse... and the reality is that there's lots of abuse in many relationships, both from men and from women. There's plenty of it to go around.

Historically, feminism has done great things... it's only in the modern (and likely american/english) sense that its continued usefulness has to vie with the backsteps that appear to have absorbed the movement (privilege in particular), and with the toxic people shouting over the top of the rest of the movement.

---

Trans* identities are one of the most important social issues in society. In my opinion, trans* people are the most discriminated against group next to poor people. I identify as a male and I'm comfortable as such, but that's just me.

Heh... maybe. The most hilarious part about trans* discrimination is that we do a damn fine bit of it ourselves xD

You'll never find a more utterly divided and bitterly fighting community that everyone and their brother just wants to get out of