Move Along

EDIT CIRCA 2024: I'm opting to leave up original posts that I'm... not especially fond of, because I think it's important to understand and face our respective intellectual and emotional journeys. With that in mind, however, this post is no longer applicable. I slowly curved back as a feminist over the three or so years after this post. There are elements of it that I still agree with, but I think I ultimately misread a truth about social movements in general, which is that they're all movements with large elements of passion next to large elements of reason. Even in scientific fields meant to be relatively unbiased by emotion, I think people are generally uncomfortable confronting the fact that it's absolutely riddled with passion and manipulation for the purpose of sending a message. 

I'm not perfect and I never will be. But on this issue, I think I came around in the right way. Sure, my biggest strength is carrying an analytical and critical approach to issues, but that doesn't have to be devoid of compassion or passion. People are suffering and they deserve to be heard, respected, and cared for. Regardless of anyone else's motivation for or approach to social issues, my own motivation and approach can be about both empathy and logic. And for anyone whose approach I disagree with, I can safely ignore them unless they solicit my opinion. For the morbidly curious, my original post is below:

 

This is a personal post more than anything to document the moment whereupon I have decided to no longer identify as a feminist.

To be clear, I believe in equal rights for everyone, I believe in the existence of privilege (and its weight towards males, whites, and heterosexuals, as well as those who can pass), and I believe that gender roles are an absurd contrivance of a culture that is regressive at best.

The reason I'm finally picking a side of the fence to fall on in this issue is because it has become apparent that feminism is not a place for discussion. It is a place for passionate movement and sympathy only.

I am not suggesting that this is a bad thing, but rather that it's irrelevant for me personally. I cannot offer the sympathy sought after by feminism since I am a man who knows not their struggles, and I cannot abide by passion that is not carefully tempered when it is for the purpose of a social movement.
I do not contest the necessity of pure force of will or passion in the fight for equality and the fight to end atrocities committed out of prejudice and bigotry. However, I will not participate in a movement that sees this passion as mutually exclusive with careful consideration of words and actions.

As the very height of privilege incarnate, my dis-alignment with the movement will create no ripples; it will be a surprise to no one, and it will be seen (by the few who choose to waste the energy) as confirmation that this is a zero sum game and it's us or them.

But I am tired of trying to apply my one strong skill to the grounds of feminism. Rhetorical criticism is expected for the refinement of papers and formal arguments. But for ideas, chants, slogans? It has no apparent place.

I will continue to fight the horrendous wave of racism, sexism, and prejudice when and where I see it.

Because this is assuredly a testament to my gross ignorance, my willful support of the status quo, and proof that I'm a misogynist jerkoff, I will expect and accept any friends who wish to distance themselves from me for this position.

No. No, Nope, Nope, No, Nu-uh, You're Kidding Me...

Everyone who's had the displeasure of engaging in a spirited debate with me knows that I'm extremely liberal in a firmly moderate way when it comes to issues of feminism. I still consider myself a feminist, but I go out of my way to call out what I see as problematic behavior on both sides of the fence. I try desperately to see both sides of any argument. While I believe feminism is and was a necessary movement that has afforded so much good for our society, I believe that with any movement, there are extreme elements that not only provide their own problematic viewpoints, but also pollute the roots of the movement in subtle ways.

But I'm absolutely not here to harp on what I perceive to be the shortcomings of a social movement that I support (this time). I need to blast the other side of this issue, because holy shit are privileged white males tearing out my last nerve (I say knowing full well that I fall squarely into that demographic).

Today, I had the misfortune of stumbling upon a Reddit thread about a false rape conviction. Predictably, the comments in it were largely misguided, shameful, abhorrent, and downright ignorant. There was, however, one gem that carried a glossy sheen more blinding than the rest;

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/264tdv/til_brian_banks_was_ordered_to_serve_5_years_in/chnt6jv

I had originally upvoted (Reddit's system of Likes) this comment having interpreted it as a mockery of how absurd it is that we don't focus on the problem of rape in our society and instead focus on the concerns that arise from that problem. I thought it was really clever at first glance!
Then I saw the first few comments under it and re-read it a few times.

Dear Christ, I think this person is actually making fun of the root phrase about teaching men not to rape...

And the subsequent comments are virtually all agreeing with this person... How is that even..?
No. Alright. Back up. I'm going to try to pick this apart, one grueling misconception at a time.

1. You know how many women I would have raped by now if it wasn't for someone teaching me not too? /s

This is not how sociology works. People are not born bad or good as you are implying, anonymous internet patron. People are actually taught what behavior is acceptable to model and what behavior is unacceptable to model. This is why people in impoverished homes are more likely to commit crime- their upbringing often lacks an educational background as well as structure and discipline, while the environment encourages a life of crime for a number of factors.
People are not born rapists, nor are they born saints. People are taught how to act, and our individual personality adjusts to our environment combined with how we conceive of the world as we age. This accounts for individual differentiation, since biology does play some role. This explains why identical twins, reared separately, still wind up very similar to each other despite differing environments. It also explains why environment directly impacts crime rates, IQ, and a host of other life factors.

In short, what I'm saying in response to you is "Maybe a lot! Who knows?"

2. None of this in any way defends the original quote. But I know that a lot of feminists just like pissing in the face of men, and love issuing long screeds in defense of the indefensible.

No one is defending false rape allegations. They're defending the ideology that we should fix the root issue, which is poorly raising our children and poorly reinforcing our culture. Most feminists are just looking for things like making sure that they and their loved ones aren't being raped. Spitting in the faces of men specifically is something we might more appropriately attribute to specific, extreme sections of the feminist movement. The quote itself is completely defensible for the reason I stated above.

3. I've recently been seeing people give advice about how to stay safe at the Fifa World Cup in Rio. Shouldn't they be focusing on instead telling the criminals in Rio to stop?

Sorta', yeah. Telling someone when they're already a criminal to stop isn't very effective though (still better than waiting until after they're done and punishing them). No, what the quote means is that we should teach our kids how to appropriately behave, which includes nuanced differentiation between what is and what is not okay. Leaving any open gaps invites people to learn the lessons from society directly. This, in turn, perpetuates the problem. When we have a society where, for example, 33% of Pakistani police believe that women sometimes deserve rape, then we're inviting our kids to potentially take these lessons away as acceptable.
By our inaction, we are potentially allowing our children, peers, loved ones, students, etc. to make the incorrect assumption that some rape is "legitimate" and some rape isn't.

4. lol a feminist blog. bleh. No there isn't a "sea of rape" going on. ffs. Just because feminist said so. Is a bullshit blog women are all victims etc. Just bullshit.

In fairness, this depends on your definition of the hyperbole "sea," however, going by the statistics found here once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
We can use the UN's baseline of 250,000 reported rape/rape attempts per year in 68 countries.
If we assume the low-end of the UK's studies which estimate 75-95% of rapes go unreported (and I can't imagine how many attempted rapes go unreported), then we can assume that 250,000 is, at minimum, only about 1/4 of the actually number, indicating at least a million per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That's about double the estimated homicide rate per year in the world.
So yes. Yes I would use the word "sea," going purely by low-estimate statistics. The blog post that was linked to you was not to be taken as a study or a fact, it was to be taken as an argument which presents studies, facts, claims, and a logical progression of thought.



I'm so angry, I can barely see straight.

Perjury sucks. It is illegal for good reason.
Provided the account in the article linked is accurate, the woman who did this deserves the book thrown at her.

But you know what would stop false rape claims? If we address the societal problem of talking about false rape claims as though that is the major issue at play here- if we address the societal problem of ignoring rape is a serious concern- if we address the societal problem of dismissing some rapes and holding others as "legitimate"- if we talk about why people grow up and commit crimes, maybe we'll fix the over-present crime itself, which would fix the false reporting of that crime in tandem.

What is being advocated here by these people is akin to a doctor trying to treat the numb arm symptoms of a heart attack without treating the fucking heart attack or, even better, addressing what caused the heart attack in the first place!

I'm not going to fare particularly well with this message, but I am going to post a copy of this argument on several of the offending comments on Reddit.