Feminism

Count Duckula

What's the attitude towards it from a male perspective? A still-relevant movement that has a hell of a lot to fight for yet? Or is it now largely the domain of man-haters or those looking for superiority not equality?

Do the men of tGC consider themselves feminists, egalitarians, or neither? Are you interested in men's rights, and if so is the successful acquisition of those rights inextricably tied to the feminist movement and its goals?

I'd be interested to read the discussion from a decidedly male perspective.

Zombienosh

can we have a maleinism movement?

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Zombienosh wrote: »

can we have a maleinism movement?

No, that'd be classed as sexist I'd say.

Zombienosh

well if we cant move, they cant move.

18AD

Militant Feminists. I take my hat off to them...

They don't like that

- Milton Jones

:pac:

I'm in favour of equal rights but I don't come across many feminist issues. Being a man and all.

Otis Driftwood

I have my reservations about threads like this considering some of the shenanigans that similar topics have brought out in posters in the past however I will give the benefit of the doubt and leave it open.

However,if there are is any,and I mean ANY messing from anyone then infractions and/or bans will be handed out.

If people cant conduct themselves in a respectful and adult fashion then they will be dealt with.

Soap boxing,insults or thread de-railing to name but a few constitute messing just so there are no ambiguities.

I dont like having to put warnings like this in threads however its at the stage that its almost a must.

First and only warning guys and gals.

frag420

I was putting a funny feminist link here and it didnt work and when then I see the above warning.................the gods are looking out for me today. Hope I didnt waste all that good luck with the Euro Lotto coming up this eve.

Oh and I am all for equality and burning bras.........

Count Duckula

Zombienosh wrote: »

can we have a maleinism movement?

1) There is a male "version" of the feminist movement. It's called masculism.

2) Is the ultimate goal of gender equality (both genders) not inherent in feminism anyway?

3) Given the way that society is structured, is there such a call for masculism, or is the classic "well where's my movement" just trotted out to dismiss those calling for gender equality?

Brendan Williamson

@Count Duckula

I dont think both genders are equally represented in feminism, i think any beliefs that lead one towards feminism harbor with them a belief that women are being discriminated in some way and it should be stopped, leaving very little room to fight mens battles as well, and this happens across the board, activists of any cause can vey quickly be blinded to other causes around them.

And regards your qualms about the need for masculism, i think to a certain extent that could be one of the main reasons it got off the ground as a movement, but now that its here, i think there is a call for it, take injustices towards men in divorce courts, where primary custody of children is almost always given to the mother, women being allowed marry younger than men in some US states, men being charged drastically higher amounts for car insurance even though pricing by race is forbidden, and the insidiously harmful way in which men are treated in society, where they are expected to give up their seat for women, offer to carry a womans bag in an airport for example, or carry everything in to the house after a shopping excursion, pay more than their share in a restaurant or other situation, coupled with the abhorrent way in which violence against men is ignored and even considered common practice today, you can often see men being hit by their wives or girlfriends in many of our favourite sitcoms (but its so common most people wouldnt even notice), the popular stationary products emblazoned "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them", i myself have been given dirty looks just for grabbing an ex-girlfriends wrist to stop her from hitting me.

these are all injustices that would never be addressed by any feminism movement, i wouldnt consider myself a masculist, i think the ultimate road to gender equality is to almost ignore its existence so i would consider myself an egalitarian with goals entirely independent of, although not in opposition to, the feminist movement

Dravokivich

There was a thread about a month ago by Liah (link), that was pretty much looking to gauge what the perspective is also.

What's the attitude towards it from a male perspective?

Well from myself, I don't see women being put down in soceity today. Certainly as much as they once were.

A still-relevant movement that has a hell of a lot to fight for yet?

The relevance depends on what is left that they "want / need."

Or is it now largely the domain of man-haters or those looking for superiority not equality?

In media such as tv shows and movies they are often parodied as being agressive towards men. I don't think that can be a true representantion of a feminist as it would be going against the ideals they are looking to have set for themselves. If someone is having an issue with descrimination and their human rights are not being up held, it doesn't help one's case to then take someone elses into disregard also.

But with that said, no matter what ideal someone wants to pursue or how good their intentions are, envitably there can always be a degree of fanatisicm attached to it.

Do the men of tGC consider themselves feminists, egalitarians, or neither?

I'm just a bloke who believes in being fair to others as long as they don't give me reason otherwise. What that would make me, I honestly don't know.

Are you interested in men's rights, and if so is the successful acquisition of those rights inextricably tied to the feminist movement and its goals?

I, like the UN think of it as Humans Rights, gender is irrelevant in that regard.

SugarHigh

I don't like the power feminists have and I don't think they make good use of it.
Being able to declare someones as sexist is a powerful weapon that they often abuse to get people fired who they disagree with even if they can't prove them wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/08/lazar-greenfield-semen-antidepressant-women

Count Duckula

But what power is that? Surely our androcentric society exerts more power over them than they do over it?

If feminists were some unstoppable force, would they still have anything left to fight for?

donfers

i think we are all in favour of equal rights, no one can really argue against that with any kind of credibility

the reality is that in a capitalist world there will always be inequalities and these inequalities are often not motivated by gender discrimination and are often not directed solely at women

the catch-all "I am a woman and something bad happened to me therefore there must be some conspiratorial patriarchal forces at play" gets very tiring after a while, when some feminists overplay that card it turns people right off

yes i have sympathy when women are treated unequally, unfairly or disrespectfully just because they happent to be women, that is simply wrong

so what is crucial is analysing the underlying causes behind the inequalities that affect women and responding accordingly, if they are merely a result of socio-economic realities then it is disingenuous and counter-productive to label these issues as feminist issues as they are not specifically targetting women or are not consciously treating women unequally (the system is indiscriminate in terms of who it screws over) - it's a divisive strategy that enables the oppressive hegemony to continue (we fail to unite), but there you go, the system relies on the fact that we are basically all selfish creatures and motivated by self-interest

Count Duckula

donfers wrote: »

i think we are all in favour of equal rights, no one can really argue against that with any kind of credibility

the reality is that in a capitalist world there will always be inequalities and these inequalities are often not motivated by gender discrimination and are often not directed solely at women

the catch-all "I am a woman and something bad happened to me therefore there must be some conspiratorial patriarchal forces at play" gets very tiring after a while, when some feminists overplay that card it turns people right off

yes i have sympathy when women are treated unequally, unfairly or disrespectfully just because they happent to be women, that is simply wrong

so what is crucial is analysing the underlying causes behind the inequalities that affect women and responding accordingly, if they are merely a result of socio-economic realities then it is disingenuous and counter-productive to label these issues as feminist issues as they are not specifically targetting women or are not consciously treating women unequally - it's a divisive strategy that enables the oppressive hegemony to continue, but there you go, the system relies on the fact that we are basically all selfish creatures and motivated by self-interest

Out of interest then, do you not consider the following feminist issues (ie, issues that affect only women) or just "socio-economic" ones?:

- The fact that 90% of rape victims are women.
- The media's representation of women as suggesting their worth is in their looks.
- The pay gap.
- Contraceptive and society's dislike of promiscuous women.

I could go on. It seems to me those issues are specifically ones that affect largely women only.

Logical Fallacy

Count Duckula wrote: »

Out of interest then, do you not consider the following feminist issues (ie, issues that affect only women) and just "socio-economic" ones?:

Do you mean "and" or "or" there? Just looking for clarification before i get involved in this thread.

pragmatic1

I'm for equal rights across the board. It all comes down to fairness.

18AD

Count Duckula wrote: »

- The fact that 90% of rape victims are women.
- The media's representation of women as suggesting their worth is in their looks.
- The pay gap.
- Contraceptive and society's dislike of promiscuous women.

I suspect there is a biological reason for all of these, except the pay gap.
I am not saying that they are right, but they are not feminist issues just because women are the targets.
Men being attracted to women is not sexism. Three of the things you mentioned involve sex (implicitly or explicitly), the one place you cannot avoid distinguishing blatantly between men and women.
Equal rights does not imply that men and women are the same.

Count Duckula

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Do you mean "and" or "or" there? Just looking for clarification before i get involved in this thread.

I mean "or", sorry. I'll edit the original post.

Count Duckula

18AD wrote: »

but they are not feminist issues just because women are the targets.

Maybe we have different definitions of what feminism is, but I'd say something that - by your own admission - exclusively targets and affects women is most certainly a feminist issue.

Cicero

- the societal roles of men and women in Ireland these days are actually quite similar- if a couple, then both more than likely work to pay bills/develop careers/ raise family making joint decisions etc
This would have been a much rarer occurance 30 years ago. Feminism these days in Ireland is more about celebrating differences rather than about "equality pursuance"

Count Duckula

Cicero wrote: »

- the societal roles of men and women in Ireland these days are actually quite similar- if a couple, then both more than likely work to pay bills/develop careers/ raise family making joint decisions etc
This would have been a much rarer occurance 30 years ago. Feminism these days in Ireland is more about celebrating differences rather than about "equality pursuance"

Except studies show that women do on average two hours of housework a day, whereas men do thirty minutes.

As you say, both genders are now going to work and having full days of employment, so is there still not some imbalance at play when, after that day, the woman is still required to do the majority of the housework?

krudler

Count Duckula wrote: »

Except studies show that women do on average two hours of housework a day, whereas men do thirty minutes.

As you say, both genders are now going to work and having full days of employment, so is there still not some imbalance at play when, after that day, the woman is still required to do the majority of the housework?

expert studies :rolleyes: you can find an "expert study" claiming everything to blaming video games for ADD to immigrants stealing all the biscuits, thats daily mail reasoning. what about a house with two men living in it? like mine? or people with no kids or where the woman works and the man stays at home?

Who lets their house get so messed up you need to spend 2hrs a day cleaning it? unless you live in Wayne Manor.

Cicero

Count Duckula wrote: »

after that day, the woman is still required to do the majority of the housework?

Required by who?
And what statistics are you quoting and from what country?
Do those same women who do 2 hours housework also do 2 hours Gardening, or household shopping or child minding?
you see these women may simply elect to do 2 hours housework while their OH does other things to keep the household together....but of course the "studies" don't tell you that...do they?

Brendan Williamson

Count Duckula wrote: »

As you say, both genders are now going to work and having full days of employment, so is there still not some imbalance at play when, after that day, the woman is still required to do the majority of the housework?

Not considering men work 4-6 hours more per week.

Either way, i'm not denying that women do more housework, but in this day in age they're not expected to by any established societal norms, and in most marriages each person probably would've spent some time prior living alone and would be used to doing their own housework, not like 30 years ago when men went from having their mother do their washing to their wife, so if both parties are capable and expected to do housework, surely its more of a personal issue that each person should fix rather than blaming society for?

Count Duckula

Brendan Williamson wrote: »

Not considering men work 4-6 hours more per week.

Either way, i'm not denying that women do more housework, but in this day in age they're not expected to by any established societal norms, and in most marriages each person probably would've spent some time prior living alone and would be used to doing their own housework, not like 30 years ago when men went from having their mother do their washing to their wife, so if both parties are capable and expected to do housework, surely its more of a personal issue that each person should fix rather than blaming society for?

But if it's a trend throughout the entirity of society, then surely it becomes more than just being a personal issue and does become a societal one.

Am I to gather from this thread then that most men (at least here on Boards) believe there's no real need for feminism anymore; that women have now earned their rights equivalent to men's and there is no further progress on the matter to be made?

krudler

Count Duckula wrote: »

But if it's a trend throughout the entirity of society, then surely it becomes more than just being a personal issue and does become a societal one.

Am I to gather from this thread then that most men (at least here on Boards) believe there's no real need for feminism anymore; that women have now earned their rights equivalent to men's and there is no further progress on the matter to be made?

the ceo of the company I work for is a woman, as are the majority of the managers and supervisors, its about 80% female give or take in there. theres no pay difference (afaik) with anyone in there given their gender.

mens car insurance is higher, I (personally) know one guy whos been in a car accident (not his fault was rearended by someone texting) but three women who have been, all their fault. now does that mean women are safer drivers? nope, does it mean men are worse? nope, yet society deems they are.

women get maternity leave of months, men get paternity leave of weeks, is that fair?

I'm all for equality, a job is a job, pay shouldnt be affected by gender, but it should be the right person doing it, regardless of their junk.

Brendan Williamson

Count Duckula wrote: »

But if it's a trend throughout the entirity of society, then surely it becomes more than just being a personal issue and does become a societal one.

ok i suppose i misspoke, but i still think its an easily fixable problem, for example i do less than my fair share of cleaning in my apartment, but my male roommate hasnt ever called me on it or tried to force me to better my ways, i wouldnt get away with that a female roommate, i know full well no matter how stubborn i was i'd be worn down and would have to change, i dont understand how this doesnt happen across the board. in conclusion fixing that specific issue, presuming it needed fixing, would be a personal endeavour and not part of the agenda of a feminist group at large.

To answer your question, yes i do believe women have earned equal rights

18AD

Count Duckula wrote: »

Maybe we have different definitions of what feminism is, but I'd say something that - by your own admission - exclusively targets and affects women is most certainly a feminist issue.

So straight men being attracted to women is a feminist issue? Dresses being marketted to women is sexism?

What is your definiton of feminism?

Count Duckula

18AD wrote: »

So straight men being attracted to women is a feminist issue? Dresses being marketted to women is sexism?

What is your definiton of feminism?

I'll use Wiki's as it's a much better description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism wrote:

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.

I don't think that marketing dresses comes into that, somehow. It's about giving women the opportunities that have historially been limited solely to men, and then empowering women to take those opportunities.

But I asked a question and received and answer, so the thread's run it's course!

18AD

Count Duckula wrote: »

But I asked a question and received and answer, so the thread's run it's course!

Aw Oh well.

Good hussle.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Seriously CD - you are bringing housework up as a reason feminism is needed?

That shows you how pathetic it is. What do you expect - a government official in every house ensuring the husband and wife both do equal shares of chores?

Feminism has served its purpose. There are still some inequalities facing both genders but they pale in comparison to the inequalities caused by class divisions in society.

There is no need for feminism anymore and there is no need for a male version either. If anything there should be an egalitarian movement addressing issues for both sides and challenging gender stereotypes.

The only way to comprehensively abolish inequality is socialism/communism. F*ck that.

Toby Take a Bow

18AD wrote: »

I suspect there is a biological reason for all of these, except the pay gap.
I am not saying that they are right, but they are not feminist issues just because women are the targets.
Men being attracted to women is not sexism. Three of the things you mentioned involve sex (implicitly or explicitly), the one place you cannot avoid distinguishing blatantly between men and women.
Equal rights does not imply that men and women are the same.

Rape is a biological issue? As in the rapist is just horny? Most people would see it as a power issue, and little to do with wanting to procreate.

Feminism is an equality issue, so it's probably a bit misleading in its title (as if it got its ultimate desire, it would be blanket equality between the sexes), so Battle of Smoke is probably right in that a socialist/communist society is the best way to achieve equality, if that's what you want. Issues surrounding pay, depiction of woman in the media and so on, what jobs are considered appropriate for women would suggest (to me, anyway) that equality has not been achieved by women.

However, as I see it, socialism or communism is about as far away from being achieved in this country as it ever has been (the last election saw maybe 8 people elected who were truly left-wing) so I think feminism has a role to play.

Logical Fallacy

Count Duckula wrote: »

Except studies show that women do on average two hours of housework a day, whereas men do thirty minutes.

As you say, both genders are now going to work and having full days of employment, so is there still not some imbalance at play when, after that day, the woman is still required to do the majority of the housework?

Any links to these studies?

I know it's a really basic question but was the study done on partners who are co-habiting?

HavingCrack

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Any links to these studies?

I know it's a really basic question but was the study done on partners who are co-habiting?

Even if these studies exist, do they matter? Presumably nobody is forcing the woman to do the housework.

Logical Fallacy

HavingCrack wrote: »

Even if these studies exist, do they matter? Presumably nobody is forcing the woman to do the housework.

I don't know, i tend to look at the validity of things and work from there.

18AD

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Rape is a biological issue? As in the rapist is just horny? Most people would see it as a power issue, and little to do with wanting to procreate.

Rape is common among other animals, not just humans. It doesn't have to involve procreation to be biological.

donfers

The housework issue is a red herring, it cannot be legislated for and it is nothing to do with do with gender inequality unless the men in the households are forcing their wives/girlfriends to do the house work (and vice versa).

Do the men who do more of the physical work/carrying stuff/confronting strangers or burglars/DIY work constantly make reference to this type of stuff as a sign of being oppressed or as a sign of gender discrimination or inequality?
No

Why? Because they choose to do this stuff, nobody forces them to do it (at least I hope not)

Are there loads of studies on this – probably not as most of the so-called gender study departments in academia see things from one perspective only and divert their resources accordingly.

So, if I, as a man am comfortable with cleaning the house once a week and my girlfriend doesn't feel right unless a stricter cleaning regime is applied then fine, she can go ahead and clean, but don't attribute your stricter standards of living or lifestyle to me as a way of suggesting I am somehow discriminating against you, it's absolute nonsense

there is always a danger in these debates of people extrapolating sexist inequalities or gender discrimination from situations where it absolutely does not exist.

yes women tend to do more housework than men

yes men tend to do more DIY and physical/heavy-lifting work than women

Is this because they are consciously adopting discriminatory policies, is this because we are stuck in age-old gender defined roles or is it simply because women tend to be less tolerant of untidiness and men are bigger and stronger?

There will always be inequalities in all walks of life, the numbers will never match up identicially on anything and we can do our studies and cry foul and say "x amount of men did this and y amount of women did this" and then extrapolate that some grand sexist conspiracy is at play or we can merely accept that men and women are different and sometimes one gender will gravitate towards a particular role/task/feeling on an issue more than the other for biological reasons (although yes we have to be careful to acknowledge that genuine gender discrimination does exist with regard to certain issues and is of particular concern in less well developed countries and the Muslim world).

Funny how we so rarely hear about feminists complaining why the overwhelming majority of soldiers are men, why no media screeching for quotas on this issue, why no studies on the statistical imbalance in terms of gender of those who have died in combat serving their nation's citizens.

legally apart from the contraception, abortion and maternity/paternity leave questions there's not a lot that feminists can aspire to change in Ireland. There are no legal impediments to a woman progressing.

The cultural stuff, the man who talks down to the woman or who makes a comment on her appearance. That is not illegal, it seems the some feminists think they can control this kind of stuff, they talk of education and empowerment and so on, but it's again nonsense, there will always be morons in the world and unless we get the Orwellian mind police onto the scene there's not a lot you can do about that kind of stuff except accept that jerks exist (unless it happens in a more formalised or supervised environment). Nobody has exlusive rights to being offended, or a more privileged sense of offense


The simple reason why men bring up men's rights issues during feminist debates is to negate the idea that there is some grand conspiracy aimed at women and women alone, it's not whataboutery and i have seen this argument lazily put forward several million times on boards when feminists raise issues that they think are a sign of the patriarchy oppressing them or a concerted campaign of gender discrimination against women, they say "well why can't you just support us on this instead of talking about comparable issues that affect men" - it's like say Limerick saying they don't get enough funding from the government and how terrible it is that the government is so anti-limerick, and then galway jumps in and says, heh we get hardly any funding too, then limerick says "well this is about limerick's lack of funding so buzz off, anyway you guys don't lack funding for roads and schools like we do", then galway responds "yes our problems are lack of funding for hospitals and jobs but don't you see it's not a case of the government simply picking on Limerick”, yes if you focus on your particular issues it is, but the general issue affects us all and to attempt to suggest otherwise is to disingenuously seek to prioritise or glorify or separate from everything else your own specific issues when the general issue affects us all and we would be better off fighting it together


but you know I am delighted that at least we can have the debate here and I personally have no problem at all with people disagreeing with me or challenging my view - for me that is the essence of debate and what a discussion forum should be about, imagine how boring and pointless the forum would be if we all approached this debate from the same perspective and sought to dismiss or discredit all those who disagreed with our views just because they were different views. Debate is never something to fear unless you are a fascist or an idealogue so why the op is saying the thread has run its course, just because s/he asked a question and didn't get the answers s/he wanted, is mystifying to me.

metrovelvet

It's very equal in my house. I do everything.

Elle Collins

18AD wrote: »

Rape is common among other animals, not just humans. It doesn't have to involve procreation to be biological.

Rape is biological??? What a seriously creepy view.

18AD

Elle Collins wrote: »

Rape is biological??? What a seriously creepy view.

Why?
I don't condone it or excuse it on the basis that it is biological.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Elle Collins wrote: »

Rape is biological??? What a seriously creepy view.

It would only be creepy if someone saw that as a justification for rape.

Its similar to arguing murder/theft are natural/biological - something being genetic does not make it right or acceptable!

Count Duckula wrote:

Out of interest then, do you not consider the following feminist issues (ie, issues that affect only women) or just "socio-economic" ones?:

- The fact that 90% of rape victims are women.

I don't see this as a feminist issue no. Its a social/criminal issue.

- The media's representation of women as suggesting their worth is in their looks.

I hate that this is the case but under a capitalist system it will never change. No amount of feminism will prevent a girl from wearing a bikini for easy cash. Furthermore you cannot control the media in a democracy

- The pay gap.

which doesn't exist when you compare pay for the same hours/work.

- Contraceptive and society's dislike of promiscuous women.

I could go on. It seems to me those issues are specifically ones that affect largely women only.

What do you mean by contraceptives? If its abortion campaign for abortion rights, what has feminism got to do with it?

Elle Collins

The urge to have sex is biological. The urge to TAKE sex by force is not biologically driven in humans, it is pathologically driven. To inaccurately label it and then dismiss it as a biological urge is a de facto justification all of its own.

Contrasting the flavour of this thread with that of the current TLL thread of the same subject presents the clearest recent evidence I've seen that feminism most certainly has not served its purpose. Not by a long way.

18AD

Elle Collins wrote: »

The urge to have sex is biological. The urge to TAKE sex by force is not biologically driven in humans, it is pathologically driven. To inaccurately label it and then dismiss it as a biological urge is a de facto justification all of its own.

Yes, the urge is biological. But also the fact that males are more physically aggressive is also biological. This leads naturally to more crime commited by males.

The pathology part is a normative statement based on what we think a normally functioning person should behave like. This does not make the biological claim defunct although it is true that it is pathological behaviour as well. Although you could say that the term pathology itself is describing an illness or disease, which itself would be a biological claim.

I have not dismissed it as a unpreventable biological urge I am only claiming that the figures show that men are the majority offenders and that there is a reason for this that is biological.

It is not a justification. If I say 'murder happens and there is a reason for it' I am not condoning it.

Logical Fallacy

An interesting article people might want to read before getting bogged down in a "biology vs pathology" argument around rape.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-we-rape-kill-and-sleep-around.html

Logical Fallacy

18AD wrote: »

Yes, the urge is biological. But also the fact that males are more physically aggressive is also biological. This leads naturally to more crime commited by males.

Maybe not. Interesting study here.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Elle Collins wrote: »

The urge to have sex is biological. The urge to TAKE sex by force is not biologically driven in humans, it is pathologically driven. To inaccurately label it and then dismiss it as a biological urge is a de facto justification all of its own.

I think your claim that it is any kind of justification is abhorrent. Natural does not equal acceptable.

Elle Collins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

An interesting article people might want to read before getting bogged down in a "biology vs pathology" argument around rape.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-we-rape-kill-and-sleep-around.html

Small wonder this 'theory' garnered legions of critics. It basically boils down to 'My stone-aged ancestors did it and I was unwittingly passed on the 'rape gene' ' :rolleyes:

Logical Fallacy

Elle Collins wrote: »

Small wonder this 'theory' garnered legions of critics. It basically boils down to 'My stone-aged ancestors did it and I was unwittingly passed on the 'rape gene' ' :rolleyes:

Not really, i think you are being a little bit too simplistic in your view. Once again it's a case of the idea being taken as an excuse when that is not what is happening.

Technically my genes are set up to fight other males for dominance and establish my territory yet i don't wander from apartment to apartment in my building beating the crap out of my neighbours and raiding their fridge when i am hungry, the vast majority of men don't.

It's also interesting that you see the idea of genetic driven rape as an excuse but you find the idea of pathological driven rape as NOT being an excuse...when pathology is basically the study of disease...so this "rape disease" is, by your own definition, an affliction of the rapist???

Elle Collins

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think your claim that it is any kind of justification is abhorrent. Natural does not equal acceptable.

My stance is that the false premise that rape is a biological urge will be seen and accepted as justification by those whose agenda will be served by viewing it so. I am quite sure you know what I mean.

As for 'natural does not equate to acceptable' - I do not view the urge to rape as the urge to commit a 'natural' act. Quite the opposite.

While we're on the subject of abhorrent claims, I view your contention that rape is not a feminist issue abhorrent. Females make up the vast vast majority of victims of rape and other sexual assaults and you are telling us that this is something we women should not concern ourselves with?

Elle Collins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's also interesting that you see the idea of genetic driven rape as an excuse...

I think you need to read my posts again.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Elle Collins wrote: »

Small wonder this 'theory' garnered legions of critics. It basically boils down to 'My stone-aged ancestors did it and I was unwittingly passed on the 'rape gene' ' :rolleyes:

The scary thing about your attitude is it implies that if it actually were true that a rape gene existed it would be ok to rape.

Pretty much everyone accepts we are a product of nature and nurture. Murder could be in our genes but that doesn't mean we can abandon the legal system.