Women's clothes?

[GrandizerII]

Nor I.

There's a difference between wanting equality and thinking you're superior to men.

Yep. That, and I think it just makes women come off like whiny, entitled brats. Which kinda defeats the whole purpose in the first place. As radicalism usually does.

Just for reference, who would be a popular example of someone who is, in your eyes, a radical feminist?

[MTL]

And for the record, "feminist" is a term that I am reluctant to apply to myself.

You speak not much different from a feminist tbh. Not sure why the feeling of shame of being associated with feminism. Even a lot of the radical ones aren't that bad when one sees what they actually believe in.

I'd like to agree with you.  I'd like for Feminism to be what it started-out as being.

But I've encountered enough Feminism, directly, myself, that left me disinclined to align myself with them,
although it saddened me to have to make that decision.

It's a shame it was corrupted, because it was a worthy cause, once.

ARe you familiar with the Men's Rights Movement? (MRM);
also referred-to as the Anti-Misandry Movement?

They basically oppose RadFems and support men whom they maintain are wrongly-accused of being abusers, rapists, or deadbeat dads.

So here's where I stand:

Had I lived in Victorian Times, I would have joined Mrs. Pankhurst, and been a Suffragette.
Because back then, the cause was clear-cut, and there was REAL need.

Same applies to the Civil Rights Movement.

Same applies to LGBT...it's the newest, and I've supported it as vocally and substantially as I am able.

But to my mind, by now, we should have the gist of it:

Question your privilege,
and equality for all.

If someone's not hurting anyone,
there's no reason to oppose their lifestyle.

But every minority-rights cause has its radicals.

And by "radicals" I don't necessarily just refer to those willing to take up arms
or go to drastic lengths for their cause,

....so much as people who swing too far the other way and start reverse discrimination.


When it comes to Feminism....and it's counterpart, the MRM,
there are good AND bad, in BOTH groups:



On the Feminist side,

1. There are decent women who simply support equality,
and know that realistically, we're not quite there yet,
and education still needs to be done
....but these women certainly do NOT hate men,
and these women DISLIKE when RadFems DO engage in male-bashing, crying wolf about rape or abuse, etc.,
primarily because these women don't hate men and don't want to see them wrongly accused,
and secondly because they realize that this undermines the credibility of Feminism.

2. Then there are some women who distrust men, or are contemptuous of men,
think men are idiots and apes....these are basically female chauvinists;

3. And then there are women who HATE men, who ABUSE men,
or cry wolf that they've been abused....these are the Misandrysts.

4.  And of course there are men who agree feminism is a good cause, at its core, and support that
(this group corresponds to the MRM Group 1)

5.  There are men who are militant feminists,
even to the extent of lecturing moderate female feminists that their feminism isn't militant enough



On the MRM side:

1. There are decent men, who simply don't want to be abused, or wrongly-accused by women,
but who don't hate women, and don't think all feminists are bad,
and DISLIKE any Male Chauvinism or Misogyny.

2. Then there are the chauvinists, who think a woman's place is at home in the kitchen, and having babies,
and believe men are superior to women, who are contemptuous of the feminist movement
and believe all feminists are lesbians or just sour grapes.

3. And then there are the Misogynists...men who HATE women, who might even ABUSE women.

4. Then there are women who agree with the ostensible purpose of the MRM,
that men should not be bashed, abused, or wrongly-accused
(This group corresponds to the Feminist Group 1)

5.  And then there are women who agree with men that women belong at home raising the kids.




I fall into the red group.

The men I agree with fall into the blue group.


Any Feminists or MRMers in the black, I want no part of.

[popsthebuilder]

Equal pay for equal work output should definitely be implemented everywhere.

People in general would have to observe humility or modesty in order to stop advertising from promoting women dressed seductively.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

On average, I get paid more than my male colleagues at the same level as myself.  That's because I do extra work when required, cover for them on shifts and because I'm also qualified in emergency medicine.

On the other.  I wear what I want, when I want outside of work.  If people have a problem with that then it's just that: their problem.

On your first point, that's what I was talking about.


On your second thing; I was commenting on advertisers objectifying women. Which I don't really understand, especially from your contrary perspective of wearing what you want.
I'm confused.

How is a woman used to attract attention of males making them seem is if they are a possession?
Also; if you promote freedom of wears, then why are you against it in advertising?

Thanks
Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[MTL]

I for one can't stand radical feminists.

Can't stand what exactly about them? What is a radical feminist anyway if we think about it? One who speaks "too loud" and is "annoying and bitchy"? Or is it one with extreme views (such as the one Beccs mentioned as an example) even though they may be polite in their demeanor?

I have no issue with loud feminists as long as they're all about equality.

Like I said, it is very unfortunate, but the cause has been sadly corrupted,
and while I completely agree with the letter of what Dr. Fuzzy had to say,
I personally shrink from calling myself "feminist",

...not because of the "loud" feminists...

...but because of the ones who corrupted the cause,
and call themselves feminists when in fact they are male-bashers and abusers,
and are only too willing to undermine the cause of feminism, itself,
in the process.

It doesn't make me happy to say so.

it is the same reason i call myself Agnostic rather than Atheist
...because I don't want to START OUT on the wrong foot with someone,
and have them put up a wall, right away.

Later in the conversation, when I've gained their trust,
then I can point out that sincere Feminism, like Atheism,
is not entirely the monster they think it is.

I just don't think it helps to start out at an impasse,
and when the very meaning of the word has been corrupted,
and there's nothing to distinguish THEM from ME,
I have to find a workaround.

[GrandizerII]

I fall into the red group.

I think those in the blue zone are quite rare, though. The problem I see here is that it seems many feminists in the red group have been reinforcing this current mentality that feminism is bad. This gives great undeserved pleasure to those who are against feminism. It's as if considering oneself a feminist is an invitation to being stoned to death by the public or burnt at the stake, when it shouldn't be. I think no one who is, in essence, a feminist should be ashamed of being associated with feminism, which is about women having the same rights as men anyway.

Should moderate Christians avoid considering themselves to be Christians just because fundamentalist Christians exist?

[Losty]

The thing I hate about humility is it means "a modest or low view of ones own importance". All too often pushing that humility is a great virtue is a disguise for belittling someone's self worth to unhealthy levels. My parents raised me to have so much humility that even after over a year I think that I haven't associated with them or anyone else toxic from my past, if someone is hurting me I struggle asking them to stop or even having the "audacity" to complain about it. Humility is not always a good thing. Having a low view of your own importance can be extremely harmful. Pride means "a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from ones own achievements". Pride is not always a bad thing being satisfied with yourself, your achievements, and your life can be very healthy.

So no, humility isn't always good. It's all about balance. People should think highly enough of their own worth that they love themselves and never let others use them as a doormat, and they shouldn't think so highly of themselves that they allow themselves to impede someone else's path to happiness.

Pride leads to privilege, prejudice, and entitlement, none of which are positive.

Humility allows for learning and sincerity, both of which are needed for learning and peaceful advancement of civilization.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Did you even read my post?

[MTL]

---

Pops,

Time and again, rape treatment experts tell us that 90% of rapes are someone the victim knows.

That rape is almost always about power, and rarely about sex.

Listen,

I will readily admit that there are exceptions to this:

It usually in SITUATIONS that are ALREADY SEXUAL IN NATURE,
where it's not much of a jump, for a rapist to force sex to occur.

For example, I was date-raped when I was 15, by my then-boyfriend.
It was my first time, I was a virgin,
and we were fooling around.

But I only wanted to go so far, and told him to stop,
...and he didn't.

I believe THAT was about sex....not power.

He was just a spoiled, entitled, juvenile, horny young man,
who never liked being told 'no'
...especially he was so close to getting what he wanted.

however,

While I have no doubt whatsoever that prostitutes probably end up getting raped far more than the average woman,
I don't think it is because their situation is primarily sexual in nature,
I think it is because their situation is primarily highly-vulnerable to exploitation.

And yes, a provocatively dressed woman will undoubtedly come in for more sexual harassment,
walking down a busy street, in the middle of the day,
than a demurely-dressed one,

so it only stands to reason that if you changed the surroundings to a dark alley at night,
she might be putting herself at an even greater risk;

HOWEVER,

I have been sexually-harassed more times in my life than I can count,
and I'm not a provocative dresser AT ALL.

And MANY, MANY women will tell you the same thing.

And it was often at work, or school,
where harassment is officially against the rules,
and where I know my assailant

...not some dark alley.

I've been followed, by strangers, in public, more than once in my life,
and again, I wasn't provocatively-dressed.

And it's not like I'm a playboy centerfold, or a supermodel or anything;
I'm a very average woman.  I'm not even big-chested.
I don't wear tight clothes, heels, or makeup.

This raises the question:

If a man wants to rape, why would he put himself at risk,
by doing it in a situation where is he more likely to be caught or named?

The answer is twofold:

1.  Rapists are messed-up people

2.  Because it is about the vulnerability of the victim, and the power of the assailant.

Also:

The men who make a big show of catcalling, wolf-whistling
or otherwise harassing a provocatively-dressed woman on the street,
are usually either hoping she will notice them,
or they're just showing off for their stupid friends.

Whereas a would-be rapist of serious intent,
unless he is a completely psychotic, raving lunatic,
is less likely to make a spectacle of himself in public.

And a demurely-dressed, unsuspecting, lone teenager in a hoodie and jeans,
who just wants to mind their own business and doesn't go looking for trouble,
who gets off the bus and quickly walks home from work at night,
is a far more palatable target to a would-be rapist,
because they're more likely to freeze in fear,

than a confident, worldly woman who is deliberately putting it out there,
and is prepared for whatever reaction it may generate,
and is more likely to fight back.
She's obviously the kind of person who has no problem being the centre of attention,
so I doubt she would hesitate to put up a fight, if she had to.

Regardless of dress, whether provocative or demure,
if a woman gets herself blind-drunk,
or gets lost, alone, in a strange place, late at night,
then yes, she is taking a risk.

Let's say you have a party, and a bunch of teenagers who get wasted.

Two girls, one dressed provocatively, and the other not, both pass out in separate bedrooms.

I say there is just as much likelihood that the the demurely-dressed one will be raped,
as the provocatively-dressed one

....maybe even more, if the demure one is introspective by nature,
and the provocatively-dressed one is assertive.

The rapist will target the one least likely to fight back.

---

The issue your missing is that you're scenario lacks any real context. A girl who is modest in nature(resulting in modesty through dress) would not be drunk, passed out at a party.

Up until now, the argument I've been hearing from you is that if one woman is dressed demurely,
and the other provocatively,
that the provocative clothes increase the likelihood of sexual assault occurring.

You supported "modesty" in this thread, before now, but as far as I was able to ascertain,
you were still referring primarily to clothing.

Perhaps I missed the distinction you made, somewhere.

It sounds like you are now edging over to this side of the argument,
agreeing that it is SITUATIONAL risk (IE what you are now calling "immodest behavior")
that outweighs any AESTHETICS that might increase risk.

What If the two aren't passed out but just drunk?

Are you saying the one "putting it out there" is equally at risk as the one still not even insinuating a sexual nature?

Yes.  There is far too great an amount of data that says rape is not about the clothes.

People are focusing on the clothing as if it is separate from the nature of the people wearing them. The whole promiscuous way of life that this generation seems to idolize is very damaging.

People have been promiscuous since the dawn of time.

Nothing is new.

Society goes through swings towards and away from repressive morals.

But instead of seeing these problems, and owning them, allowing for change for better, people just want to greedily justify their own personal behavior as their own business.

We ARE trying to change it for better!!

We are telling people that using the defense of how a girl was dressed, or acted,
does not absolve men of responsibility for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

That mentality has been pervasive in the world for thousands of years,
and it is time it changed.

We are also educating and encouraging people to not make unwise choices about situational increases in risk.

[Losty]

It really just depends on how we use the word "pride" and "humility." IMHO.

When you accomplished a goal and you feel good about yourself, that is not the bad type of "pride" I think of. Nor is it the bad type of pride to hold a high standard to yourself and do things well. When I think of the sinful, harmful type of pride, I think of when someone is too proud to admit that they are mistaken when they know they are. Or when they are too proud to forgive someone who is apologizing, or too proud to apologize when they know they have unjustly wronged someone else. Or just plain being an arrogant butt hole who looks down on everyone else and thinks they are above everyone else.

^That's how the sin of pride was explained to me. And the opposite of that "bad pride" is the virtue of humility - being willing to forgive and ask for forgiveness, being willing to admit you're wrong when you know you are, not looking down your noses at others and feeling like you are above everyone else. The virtue of humility is NOT feeling ashamed of yourself constantly, it is not feeling like you're worthless, it is not being too weak to stand up for yourself when you need to.

...This is how it was all explained to me. Basically, the "sin of pride" is *not* simply pride across the board. As the "virtue of humility" is *not* simply humility across the board. Just figured we needed to distinguish the difference here so we are all on the same page.

I completely agree with you (except the sin part, I don't believe in sin). But what you just said was exactly what I said. Pride isn't always bad and humility isn't always good.

[MTL]

I fall into the red group.

I think those in the blue zone are quite rare, though. The problem I see here is that it seems many feminists in the red group have been reinforcing this current mentality that feminism is bad. This gives great undeserved pleasure to those who are against feminism. It's as if considering oneself a feminist is an invitation to being stoned to death by the public or burnt at the stake, when it shouldn't be. I think no one who is, in essence, a feminist should be ashamed of being associated with feminism, which is about women having the same rights as men anyway.

Should moderate Christians avoid considering themselves to be Christians just because fundamentalist Christians exist?

I don't think the blue group is THAT rare.

There's lots of good guys that fit the bill.

Several of that ilk are here, on AF.

and I hear what you're saying,
but, at no point did say I was AGAINST feminism.

I merely hesitate  to give myself that label, right up front, as an introduction to myself.
there is nothing to separate ME from those that have corrupted that term,
so people don't know what to think,
and if I OPEN with that...I may not get a chance to disabuse them of any misconceptions,
they may simply shut me out.

Same with the term "Atheism".

With regards to your final statement, I think that's apples and oranges.

You're asking an Anti-Theist if Christians should be Christians.

My answer is 'no'.

[Losty]

Feminists are hilarious. Instead of helping women that get brutally raped and murdered almost every day in places like Afghanistan with organization like ISIS promoting these cruelty they are busy fighting the college boy that had hardcore sex with his girlfriend.

HANG HIM!! haha, lol.

I've seen videos of women getting raped and then decapitated by fucking assholes of a cunts of terrorists. This is real misogyny. This is what you should be fighting against. This is sexism. What are you doing to help these helpless women? Oh let me guess, you eat 3 times a day, you claim the guy that calls a girl "honey" a sexist, you shame a guy for embracing his masculinity and then you take a shit 2 times a day.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of relative privation?