So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Dystopia]

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.

Of course we should - I see many people in my daily life as 'potential' criminals - I don't trust anyone.

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.

I don't see how your reasoning applies - This isn't about fear - It's about saying that the fact women suspect with such frequency means it's completely urgent to educate people on rape, the only solution (IMO) to reduce rape rates given that most rapists (men) are not mentally ill, just poorly educated on consent on how to treat people. It's from someone you know, but curiously Schrodinger's rapist applies much more to the way you react to people and signs. Alice, check out this - It has a brief explanation and I can't put it any better.

Oh and Schrodinger's rapist isn't even the most pressing concern in women's issues or feminist literature.

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.

I agree. But yeah we think about sex too much and our culture plays a part (media)

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.

In specific cases yeah, you can have it easier. But in terms of freedom and accounting for everything it is possible to do, being white and male has almost no downsides

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

True, but some advantages are unjustified and just because others have it it doesn't mean we shouldn't address ours. The advantages whites get in the west are 1000x larger than disadvantages other people get. You can start by checking out who's in power and who controls everything

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.

True, but feminism probably exists everywhere around the world in many forms. It's not like I can go to tumblr and stop people from expressing idiotic opinions or stop another woman in the far end of the world to voice her opinion.

Alice, I have seen people dislike animal rights because of PETA. Do you honestly think that PETA are that relevant to animal rights, even with all the vocal opinions? (I truly hate their pokemon parody!)

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'.

In this sense I agree with you

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.

Agree

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.

Then we should address other cancers - But regardless, you are entitled to fight for the specific cancer you wish too, as long as you don't say your cancer is more important. If I want to focus solely on discrimination in the workplace against pregnant woman, that's my prerogative, it's not an excuse for people to call me out because I'm letting bigger issues aside. For any problem there's a larger one, it's possible to find a superior problem for every problem out there

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:

Not everyone will campaign rationally and not everyone will enjoy your ideas. That's part of the game. LGBT folks who tried to physical assault conservatives (I think this was in Spain, dunno) are seen badly but I don't think LGBT sucks because of that.

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.

Precisely. And helping ourselves helps the 3rd world since we have an influence over them

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.

Good luck guys

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.

Lawyers

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~

I don't think so, I'm fine the way I am. I doubt your assertion is true given that there are a lot of feminists around the world (America is not even representative) and you have good examples of celebrities or activists. I'm thinking about Emma Watson as a good example (and Daniel Radcliffe) - There's also Tony Porter who cares about men's problems and is a feminist (he talks about the toxic masculinity that harms boys, etc.)

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).

And that's why most of what you read there, including on social networks, is either not true or bullshit. I don't trust anyone on the internet apart from AF and a few other forums.

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'.

In the 1950's people were saying that this is "a more liberal society than in the 1920's" (I wonder how the world will look like in 2050 and what things will be outdated that we don't even realize today). Fems are concerned about women in the workplace, quite a lot, specially in male dominated fields (we still label some jobs as feminine or masculine - Curiously women's jobs are usually related to children) - And higher level/power jobs like politicians, CEO's, etc that are mostly male (I think we still think of those jobs as associated with men and cultural rules + gender roles don't help in defining what jobs you will most likely want or not)

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.

Financially it's highly unlikely - In fact one of the greatest problems in domestic violence is economic dependence on the abuser. Men make more money than women (regardless if you think it's justified or not)
I agree with you with the abuse part, I had a suicide threatening ex-girlfriend, I suffered because of it - But society can perfectly address those issues (and create groups for it by the way) while keeping groups that address women's issues. Your argument here is basically "there's other angles so feminism is not logic"

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.

On the toxic people I agree. I think you should genuinely pick up a book by a 2nd wave feminist and check priorities. Most goals of feminism are pretty legit, and include, for example, redefining/erasing gender roles, a higher education for rape purposes (victim-blaming) which would benefit men as well, domestic violence (I know men suffer from it too, but it's not plausible to compare both), wage-gap (the feminine + masculine labels on jobs + the fact it exists even on female dominated fields), media representation (people think this is not important but I don't see how it's bad)...

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

I see