Drinking, consent, and rape

monkry

I've been dating a girl who is a hardcore feminist, for the last while. I'm on board with most of the things she believes in, but something has just come up that has led to an argument between us.

She tells me that a woman cannot give consent when she is drunk. That's reasonable. If a guy has sex with a girl who says no, or is too drunk to say no, that's rape in my book. However, she says that there are NO circumstances in which a girl can consent to sex if she is drinking. This includes if the girl initiates and drives the whole thing herself. I find that hard to swallow because that makes every guy I know a serial rapist, and every girl I know a serial rape victim. It also means married couples that I know got together after a rape.

To be clear, I'm not talking about a girl who is so clearly blind drunk that she doesn't know what she's doing any more. I'm talking about someone who has had a few drinks, is reasonably well on, but knows exactly what they're doing at the same time. I equate it to a guy who gets drunk, cheats on his partner, knowing full well at the time that he has a partner and that he is doing wrong, but does it anyway. The guy is a cheat in this situation, so why not a girl?

She is a student of this stuff and very well versed on it, so basically she thinks my opinion on this is an uninformed joke. Is my thinking completely backwards on this? I'm doubting myself now, I would like to here from other people.

mike_ie wrote: »

Hi OP,

seeing this is more of a general discussion of a point of view than a personal issue, I think that you'd get a better range of responses in the Humanities forum. Please note that their charter applies from here on in.

Regards,
Mike

December2012

Can you agree to disagree or is this something that will affect your relationship?

louisenf2014

This sounds really ridiculous to me.

I'm guessing this girl is fairly young??

Yes, when a girl is drunk to the point where she doesn't know who you are or where she is, taking advantage of her could be seen as rape...

I'm a woman and have loved the idea of my BF calling over, having 3 or 4 glasses of wine and pulling him up to bed when we're very tipsy....it's crazy to suggest that is rape. Equally, if the man is drinking too then what's to say the woman involved isn't raping him.

If a girl is drinking and decides to sleep with someone who she would NEVER sleep with while she was sober then maybe you can argue that her capacity to consent was compromised.

I just think this sounds off the wall to be honest.

suicide_circus

Hardcore feminist or not, she is talking absolute nonsense I'm afraid.

Devine Wind 55

I don't see this relationship progressing to the next level, tbh...

LegacyUser

monkry wrote: »

I've been dating a girl who is a hardcore feminist, for the last while. I'm on board with most of the things she believes in, but something has just come up that has led to an argument between us.

She tells me that a woman cannot give consent when she is drunk. That's reasonable. If a guy has sex with a girl who says no, or is too drunk to say no, that's rape in my book. However, she says that there are NO circumstances in which a girl can consent to sex if she is drinking. This includes if the girl initiates and drives the whole thing herself. I find that hard to swallow because that makes every guy I know a serial rapist, and every girl I know a serial rape victim. It also means married couples that I know got together after a rape.

To be clear, I'm not talking about a girl who is so clearly blind drunk that she doesn't know what she's doing any more. I'm talking about someone who has had a few drinks, is reasonably well on, but knows exactly what they're doing at the same time. I equate it to a guy who gets drunk, cheats on his partner, knowing full well at the time that he has a partner and that he is doing wrong, but does it anyway. The guy is a cheat in this situation, so why not a girl?

She is a student of this stuff and very well versed on it, so basically she thinks my opinion on this is an uninformed joke. Is my thinking completely backwards on this? I'm doubting myself now, I would like to here from other people.

I would disagree with your girlfriend. I consider myself to be a hardcore feminist also and though I drink little let me assure that after one or two drinks I am still more than capable of consent. If I was blind drunk I mightn't be but, as you said, that's not what we're talking about.

Little Acorn

Do you and your girlfriend ever have a few drinks together and then have sex (like lots of couples do)? Tbh if I was a guy in your shoes I'd be very worried about how she would view this as non consensual. Risky territory. Her views just seem too over the top to me.

I can completely agree that people can get into an extreme drunken state where they really are not capable of giving informed consent, however from your post I'm getting that she even views a woman who is happy but drunk and horny initiating sex with her boyfriend as being raped.
"under NO circumstances in a which a girl can consent to sex if drunk" - that would imply to met that if she ever gets tipsy and initiates sex with you, she would view it as rape if you went along with it.

Just no. Don't agree.

Manco

Bottom line, it's vital that consent is agreed on before having sex. Obviously alcohol is a barrier to that in many situations, perhaps not so after one or two pints.

strandroad

There is no yes or no answer. People do stupid things when drunk and all depends on the context.
If a drunk guy is egged on by a stripper and gives her €5k tips feeling like he's on top of the world... Was it his conscious decision he can fully stand behind in the morning or was he influenced, conned, etc? Depends on the circumstances...

ForEffsSake

To be honest, she doesn't sound much of a feminist. Sorry i don't mean to be rude about your girlfriend but i think she seems quite immature as well.
To me (female), being a feminist means you want to be treated equally and not discriminated against because of your gender. Your girlfriend seems to want women to be treated as gombeens who don't know their own mind after half a glass of pinot grigio.
I agree that if a women is drunk or drugged to the point of not being of sound mind and would not consent to sex with the person sober then it is rape and the fellow's a class A pr*ck. But women have brains and some like a drink and sometimes they get braver and initiate something they wouldn't have without said drink.

If you want real equality then you have to take the responsibility for your own actions. I'm sure a lot of women regret doing something after having too much drink but they don't go around blaming someone else for it!
And as for belittling your opinion......well that smells of bullying if you ask me.....

monkry

Just to clarify. She is not talking about drinking and having sex in a relationship, or if it had been agreed when both parties were sober. Basically she is talking about when a girl gets drunk and initiates sex with a guy she never previously had sex with, or intimated that she wished to do that, when she was sober.

She says she has been raped several times in the past. I don't know the details, and am afraid to ask now, because it might just lead to another huge argument.

It's worrying for me because this girl does like to go out and get drunk + also most of her friends are guys, some of them who are complete horn-dogs. I'm worried that some night something will happen, and we're both going to have a completely different take on what happened. Which will upset both of us greatly.

I guess that if my opinion on this isn't completely backward, and I don't need to adjust it, I need to think seriously about whether I can continue with this relationship.

She is 28 btw.

Devine Wind 55

Run, run fast...

Tokyo

Hi OP,

seeing this is more of a general discussion of a point of view than a personal issue, I think that you'd get a better range of responses in the Humanities forum. Please note that their charter applies from here on in.

Regards,
Mike

Awkward Badger

It seems like she's using the ingestion of alcohol as the determining factor as it changes the persons behaviour from what it normally would be. So in that case maybe she feels like you can't have an arbitrary line between one pint and twenty to determine where the persons ability to consent stops. At which point is the person acting contrary to what they normally would ?

The problem is its not the alcohol that's the issue is the mental state of the person involved and whether or not they have the capacity to understand what they are consenting to. Normally a drink or two wont decrease anyone's ability to understand that to any real degree so at that point they are still in a fit mental state to be giving consent. Regardless of whether or not they would normally do it, if they still have the capacity to understand what they are consenting to consent can be deemed to have been given at that time.

Its a tough one to get to grips with because consent can be obtained in numerous ways and a person can have a different understanding of events after the effects of alcohol has worn off. But the term rape itself isn't something anyone should be throwing around to refer to past sexual partners on the grounds that they don't want to accept responsibility for their own part in a sexual encounter which seems to be the case here. Being drunk does not remove any obligation to take responsibility for yourself and your actions so it does not automatically remove a persons ability to consent.

Merkin

monkry wrote: »

She says she has been raped several times in the past. I don't know the details, and am afraid to ask now, because it might just lead to another huge argument.

Woooooah there. Rape is a life-changing event with far reaching and permanent repercussions for the victim and is not a term to be bandied about glibly.

Has your girlfriend actually been raped? (And I appreciate that the majority of rape cases are not instances whereby the perpetrator attacks from behind and drags the victim up a dark alley by the way). Has she genuinely been the victim of sexual violence?

Or us she using her own skewed, and frankly dangerous, definition of rape to define a number of instances of drunken sex?

Because if it's the latter my friend I'd be running for the hills tbh, she's a liability.

username123

Actually this pisses me off. She is making light of what an actual rape is.

It absolutely cannot be said that every instance of sex that occurs when even one drink has been taken by the woman is rape. It's a really backward and sexist view. Are men not also being raped in such circumstances then?

I would be very very careful with someone who holds such an odd definition of rape and consent.

diveout

username123 wrote: »

Actually this pisses me off. She is making light of what an actual rape is.

It absolutely cannot be said that every instance of sex that occurs when even one drink has been taken by the woman is rape. It's a really backward and sexist view. Are men not also being raped in such circumstances then?

I would be very very careful with someone who holds such an odd definition of rape and consent.

There are ideologies which hold this view. And women are believing it. Heck even courts are.

Nino Brown

A feminist, who thinks women are incapable of making basic decisions after a drink? While men maintain the ability? Not exactly consistent with what most feminists would think I'd imagine.

Buzz Killington the third

Apart from being idiotic, she sounds dangerous. She has an agenda and if I was you I would get away from her right now! I'd say my goodbyes and run as fast as I could. Never look back(she'd probably consider it stalking) and find yourself a normal woman!

MrBobbyZ

Its interesting that she differenciates between consent to sex in a relationship after a few drinks and a more casual sexual encounter.
Surely a persons ability to make a decision after a few drinks is the same for both.
Her idea that it is always rape is pretty extreme, narrow minded and frankly total rubbish in my opinion.
Also, from a general relationship point of view, her inability to accept your opinion on this would worry me greatly.

I'd run! In fact all she'd have of me is a memory of me running!

Wibbs

Nino Brown wrote: »

A feminist, who thinks women are incapable of making basic decisions after a drink? While men maintain the ability?

Indeed. In this worldview women are always victims. Of men of course and never themselves. They have no agency, even if in a case like this they're buying the drinks themselves. The agency and responsibility must be maintained in the man and more than that and even dafter he has to take responsibility for her as well as himself. Plus the woman can decide at a later date, maybe even far down the line that a line was crossed. Nice one. As you say it's suggesting women are incapable of their own decisions while drunk while men are perfectly capable of doing so and are expected to do so. They're basically suggesting that grown women are children and men are adults. Fantastically ironic that this is claimed by some to be feminist thought.

Not exactly consistent with what most feminists would think I'd imagine.

Most feminists in the real world, but the interwebs would be awash with a similar attitude. The OP's girlfriend didn't lick this from a stone.





If this was still in PI I'd be suggesting he runs and runs fast. This will only get nuttier with time, not less and it could get dangerous. Oh and it will always be your fault.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. In this worldview women are always victims. Of men of course and never themselves. They have no agency, even if in a case like this they're buying the drinks themselves. The agency and responsibility must be maintained in the man and more than that and even dafter he has to take responsibility for her as well as himself. Plus the woman can decide at a later date, maybe even far down the line that a line was crossed. Nice one. As you say it's suggesting women are incapable of their own decisions while drunk while men are perfectly capable of doing so and are expected to do so. They're basically suggesting that grown women are children and men are adults. Fantastically ironic that this is claimed by some to be feminist thought.

Most feminists in the real world, but the interwebs would be awash with a similar attitude. The OP's girlfriend didn't lick this from a stone.





If this was still in PI I'd be suggesting he runs and runs fast. This will only get nuttier with time, not less and it could get dangerous. Oh and it will always be your fault.

It's basically a 1950s neo puritan morality on sex. And it's naive to think this is just interweb feminism. It's all over the place.

Wibbs

Ah it's really not D. Not in my experience anyway. It's much more evident on the interwebs. Loud bloggists, some websites and the like. Yes you can have concentrated pockets of it in the real world QV US women's studies college faculties and courses and yes some of it does spill into the wider world as a nonsense given; IE the "1 in 4" stat, but it's not nearly so widespread or important among the vast majority out there. Certainly not in Ireland. I'd liken it to the "manosphere" on the interwebs, extreme in nature, small in number with a larger reading audience but again on a day to day basis for the rest of us, it's of minimal impact.

louisenf2014

So.....if your GF goes out on a night out with her mates, has a few drinks and sleeps with one of her horny pals that you mentioned. Will she claim this was rape and she didn't cheap on you?

Run, Run like the wind! This girl sounds bonkers, immature and a little stupid IMHO

nbar12

Grab your balls and run...she sounds like a nutjob who will one day ruin your life by accusing you of 'raping' her.

Penny Tration

Op, what your girlfriend is saying is actually hugely insulting to actual rape victims.

A few drinks, or even being drunk, does not mean you can't give informed consent. If you're paralytic, yes, it's rape. But my god, I'm tipsy at the moment. That doesn't make it rape if I sleep with my boyfriend tonight.

Your girlfriend's views are frankly scary. Saying she was raped several times doesn't ring true with me.

If someone genuinely believes that one drink makes any sex she has rape, they have serious issues and are hugely belittling people who haveaactually been raped, rather than pretending to have been

The Corinthian

monkry wrote: »

She is a student of this stuff and very well versed on it, so basically she thinks my opinion on this is an uninformed joke. Is my thinking completely backwards on this? I'm doubting myself now, I would like to here from other people.

As has been pointed out, it is her position that is 'completely backwards'. As you point out she is "a student of this stuff", which I presume means women's studies or similar and unfortunately such courses have long been little more than indoctrination centers for this kind of extremist misandry for a long time, with many of those graduating going on to make careers in the media, NGO's and politics.

As to her position, it is deeply flawed as Wibbs and others have pointed out and it is quite easy to demonstrate this to her; just ask her, if a drunk woman has sex with a sober man, is she committing rape?

This is where you'll get the 'that's different' defense (and legally speaking this is correct in Ireland as you literally cannot commit rape unless you have a penis). However even if not rape, by her logic it would still be sexual assault and she would have to logically accept this - otherwise she's adopting a position whereby the only difference left are the genders of the victim and perpetrator, and this would simply reveal her argument to be based simply on sexism.

Two other scenarios you could ask her on are where two, equally drunk, gay men have sex. Who's the rapist? Two lesbians? These will also probably stump her and she'll most likely turn to ridiculing your position and otherwise avoid responding.

As such, I'd end my relationship with her were I you. At best you're with someone who has a very unhealthy attitude towards men, and at worst one day she may well cry rape with you.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not in my experience anyway. It's much more evident on the interwebs. Loud bloggists, some websites and the like. Yes you can have concentrated pockets of it in the real world QV US women's studies college faculties and courses and yes some of it does spill into the wider world as a nonsense given; IE the "1 in 4" stat, but it's not nearly so widespread or important among the vast majority out there. Certainly not in Ireland. I'd liken it to the "manosphere" on the interwebs, extreme in nature, small in number with a larger reading audience but again on a day to day basis for the rest of us, it's of minimal impact.

Not sure about that. You don't have to blog on the Interweb to be a racist, for example.

Most people keep their views to themselves because it's simply not practical to go around and potentially make enemies in real life. As such, those you cite may be more vocal about their views, but that does not imply that they even represent the bulk of those with such views. I understand that this is not in your experience, but if our experiences were accurate barometers of demographics, most people would have an IQ over 120 in my experience, which is not true and simply reflects those people I associate with professionally and socially.

Also, and most disturbingly, such is the saturation of propaganda regarding such views, that it is inevitable that more and more people will end up accepting them. The whole 'victim blaming' paradigm has at this stage become ridiculous, for example.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah it's really not D. Not in my experience anyway. It's much more evident on the interwebs. Loud bloggists, some websites and the like. Yes you can have concentrated pockets of it in the real world QV US women's studies college faculties and courses and yes some of it does spill into the wider world as a nonsense given; IE the "1 in 4" stat, but it's not nearly so widespread or important among the vast majority out there. Certainly not in Ireland. I'd liken it to the "manosphere" on the interwebs, extreme in nature, small in number with a larger reading audience but again on a day to day basis for the rest of us, it's of minimal impact.

Honestly I think it's impossible to know or say. Ostensibly reasonable normal people in real life can have these sub personalities that emerge on the web. I don't know if it's the subconcious nature of text which sets them free only to evaporate once it is set free or if it's the lack of social convention keeping them in check [like how people pick their nose in front of their dog or in their car when they think no one is looking]. And if this is the case if one self is more real than the other.

To consider also that academia is absolutely riddled with it, and let's face it most of our legislators and judges do emerge from these institutions. Yes on day to day basis it's on minimal impact- that is until you one day find yourself in the line of fire. For example, just to go slightly OT, if you found yourself in the unfortunate position of being attacked in the house by your girlfriend or mother or sister and you called the police, there is a significant chance that YOU would be the one who ended up getting arrested. And that is not even due to crazy radical feminism, that is just due to normal feminism's influence. Or let's say one day a woman had some serious doubts over her own consent or possibly regretted her consent- then yes it would have very real consequences. A rape charge has a whole set of inhibitors build into it to start with because very few people are going to want to have power point presentations of their genital areas displayed in a courtroom and go through all that forensic examination, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the ideologies have not intercepted to reinterpret a sexual experience as a rape. Nothing spreads so fast as fear. So it may not feel real on a day to day basis, until it actually happens to you.

And in my experience, which is obviously as limited as yours, I have encountered plenty of it, to believe that it might be a small minority, but it is a signficantly vocal minority nonetheless and one that does get heard.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not sure about that. You don't have to blog on the Interweb to be a racist, for example.

Most people keep their views to themselves because it's simply not practical to go around and potentially make enemies in real life. As such, those you cite may be more vocal about their views, but that does not imply that they even represent the bulk of those with such views. I understand that this is not in your experience, but if our experiences were accurate barometers of demographics, most people would have an IQ over 120 in my experience, which is not true and simply reflects those people I associate with professionally and socially.

Good points TC.

Also, and most disturbingly, such is the saturation of propaganda regarding such views, that it is inevitable that more and more people will end up accepting them. The whole 'victim blaming' paradigm has at this stage become ridiculous, for example.

"shaming"(aimed exclusively at women by men), "rape culture", "one in four", unequal pay etc could be added to that list and in every case are highly debatable or downright inaccuracies masquerading as facts/political point scoring.

diveout wrote: »

To consider also that academia is absolutely riddled with it, and let's face it most of our legislators and judges do emerge from these institutions. Yes on day to day basis it's on minimal impact- that is until you one day find yourself in the line of fire. For example, just to go slightly OT, if you found yourself in the unfortunate position of being attacked in the house by your girlfriend or mother or sister and you called the police, there is a significant chance that YOU would be the one who ended up getting arrested. And that is not even due to crazy radical feminism, that is just due to normal feminism's influence.

True enough. Actually given your example, I saw a friend of a friend who was at the receiving end of spousal abuse being asked to leave his house(which he paid for before his partner came along) by the police after an incident one evening where she attacked him leaving him cut and bruised. She claimed he hit her and that was that. Even though he was the one injured and is a very big bloke. Add in that there are precious few if any resources for abused men like him. Yep my previous angle was a bit arseways alright.

limklad

Devine Wind 55 wrote: »

I don't see this relationship progressing to the next level, tbh...

I fully agree. When I was dating, I usually end the date as soon as I find out the woman is a feminist. They are illogical and do not thinks thing through properly and get very emotional if they feminist beliefs are criticizes or challenged. If you try to quote real surveys to counter theirs, that were verifiable that match other studies, They complain and attacked back. They complain that I am generalizing all women, which is not true , i only refer to Feminists or those who believe in feminist propaganda.

And Yes OP I general avoid sex with women who have been drinking or crying, mood swings or insecure or vane, or on drugs etc. They will cry foul if they did not enjoy the sex and cry rape.
Yes, It does reduce the pool of women to have sex with. I rather be free than than have a baby with a terrible woman.

In collage there was one guy who got into serious trouble when a drunk girl who came heavily onto him looking for sex in the pub, then cry rape the next morning because she did not remember it and the she had taken drink with her friends (not brought by him) reduces her inhibitions. He thought "he hit the jackpot", a attractive girl demanding sex with him. She relies in the morning after, that he was not "a stud", and she said she had her "standards", whatever that means. He was lucky that there was plenty of witness, both female and male, and the witness statement (which match his statement) and her statement did not match those who were there that night. Men avoid her like she had the plague in Collage after that, she complained bitterly about it.

Femenist inspire laws and attitudes are making it a dangerous world for dating or sex in general and it a mine field with feminists women. I much prefer to walk through a real mine field than date a feminist. I envy gay men especially when I am not gay.

Wibbs

limklad wrote: »

I fully agree. I usually end the date as soon as I find out the woman is a feminist. They are illogical and do not thinks thing through properly and get very emotional if they feminist beliefs are criticizes or challenged.

Boys oh boys I don't even know where to start with this.

limklad

Wibbs wrote: »

Boys oh boys I don't even know where to start with this.

What a shaming sentence, usual feminists tactics.. Not good behavior for getting men to date feminists.

It advertising for men to keep away.... Well done, keep it up..

28064212

limklad wrote: »

I fully agree. When I was dating, I usually end the date as soon as I find out the woman is a feminist. They are illogical and do not thinks thing through properly and get very emotional if they feminist beliefs are criticizes or challenged.

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Terrifying

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Boys oh boys I don't even know where to start with this.

I can understand that. If I were on a date with a MRA I'd be gone soooo fast.... anger city.

anncoates

I could never ever date somebody with such ridiculous views, with respect to your partner, OP.

The Corinthian

limklad wrote: »

I fully agree. When I was dating, I usually end the date as soon as I find out the woman is a feminist.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Many self-identifying feminists use the term because they erroneously identify feminism with gender equality. Or because they reject sexism. Or for various other reasons.

In reality they probably don't know much about the movement or it's various schools of ideology and would be horrified my what is being peddled as mainstream feminism nowadays. That some do realize is one of the reasons that many women, people, are increasingly choosing to reject the label.

So I wouldn't write anyone off simply because they used the 'F' word. It's what brand of the 'F' word that matters and that takes a little more probing. For example, if they think that car insurance costs should be gender based (where women would pay less) but health insurance should not (where women would pay more), that is a far better sign of the person you're with.

And an asshole is an asshole, regardless of what ideology they claim to follow.

28064212 wrote: »

the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

You don't see the problem with this?

limklad

28064212 wrote: »

Terrifying

Nazi were for freedom too, and equal rights for their own people. Read their speeches. Reality and actions are two different things in how you treat people.

As My late grandmother says "Actions speak louder than words".

Wibbs

limklad wrote: »

What a shaming sentence, usual feminists tactics.. Not good behavior for getting men to date feminists.

It advertising for men to keep away.... Well done, keep it up..

I'm a card carrying Online Feminist(TM) now? Me? :pac:

There's a whole heap of third wave feminism(or is it fourth, I get confused) I consider inaccurate, or over reaction to score political points or just plain daft. However it does not mean that I'm anti equality or anti feminism(of the non crazy US "women's studies" kind). Not by a long chalk.

As TC said:

The Corinthian wrote:

And an asshole is an asshole, regardless of what ideology they claim to follow.

Coming out with a blanket statement of "I usually end the date as soon as I find out the woman is a feminist. They are illogical and do not thinks thing through properly and get very emotional if they feminist beliefs are criticizes or challenged." is beyond juvenile in thought and execution. Sure it's an opinion, but yet again that's being confused with fact and that's what I was pointing out.

limklad wrote: »

Nazi were for freedom too, and equal rights for their own people.

Godwin as well. The gift that keeps on giving.

limklad

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

I do not jump to conclusions. I do agree to much of what you say. I refer to how people say the words and their tone. A trick I learnt as a kid from dogs. They read emotions and tones better than most adults. It just Dog and most animals cannot identify fear from fight.

Most women identity themselves as feminists go on to tell blatant lies propagated by other especially hardcore feminists. I usually end the date as say it not a man you want, It is a woman.

They never spend the time to look at their literature and used their own assumptions to justify their causes and hurt they put on others. My mother was a feminist and she destroyed her family long term. She now is lonely and bitter. My Grandmothers and aunts and neighbors were not. They lived in the real world. They knew how to treat each other. I never use my experience with my mother to taint my views on feminists, the more I hear feminists stories the less I believe. I hear hate and disgust by many a feminists, even one who are not hard core. I hear shaming comments of feminist woman on men who are often confused on what they have supposedly done. I know many women who use the same shaming tactics. Where is the respect and honor in that behavior? There is none. It all about control,not community driven. It not about encouraging community spirit. It is driving men to behave in a different manner , such as metro sexual, Men going their own way, men burring their head, men committing suicide as they feel they do not know how to fit in. men going crazy that were relativity stable .

As an engineer. I study data and errors that creep into statistics. I know how easily stats are skewed and the danger to misinterpreted and how bias can effect the results, even one own bias. I also study patterns, I come up with assumptions and put them to real hard test. I am my own worst critics when I analyses my data and assumptions. I keep looking from different angles and points of views. Others at work get me to review their work, As I see problems when other do not see. I do the same with my work and get other opinions. I do not hide from problems, I head into them and figure them out and often people do not like what I see. I do get to too close to the bone for them.

The more I study and see feminist dogma is destroying families and communities. The denial of DV committed by women on men and children is horrendous by feminists. Where is the equality? Where are the feminists in getting equality for Jail sentences? Instead they are calling for less sentences for women who commit the same crimes as men and they want men to have longer sentences. Senator Ivana Bacik is one Feminist. Imagine the Rocommon mother who raped, mistreated and neglected badly her own children loose in society. Or the grandmother in Rathkeale who uses her grandchildren to harass, degrade and humiliate an old man for money. I bet Ivana have nothing to say about his right to live in peace or the children to be treated right by their own mother. Where is the equality there from Ivana? Right now she starting on petty crimes that women are jail for. Next is serious crimes. She has express that women should not be jailed.

She use shaming tactics such as "Bishops hate women"
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/senator-ivana-bacik-catholic-bishops-hate-women-28956668.html
When the opposite is true and it is women who are supporting the churches. Women far outnumber men at masses. It did not stop her from committing shaming tactics, to humiliate. Where is equality and respect for others? It is hugely missing.

There is less and less good role models for children. Over time, Less and less good men are dealing with children and children are losing out. They are losing out in how to deal with their own troubled emotions when one set of methods do not work for them. Feminists like to think only their methods is right and rest are wrong.

I hear lies that all Men always had the right to vote. It is not true. feminists like to think it it them who got women the right to vote. It also not true. Women Suffragette started right after men suffragettes got the right to vote. Most men never had the right to vote. Only a few men and many a women have far more power than men over many centuries. Many men had always protected women and children and did much to their own life to help protect them. Feminists reject this claims and say It always men who kill, harm and rape women and children. Yes there were men who did it there was always other men who protect the women and children. It also women who harm and hurt other women and children too. The shaming tactics come out in force when you identify the insane logic by them.

There is more and more men who now do not care about what others think as they been shamed and they do crazy rebellious things. Yes, there is real crazies out there, not just men but women too. I just keep seeing the same terrible patterns repeating over and over again. The common thread I see in recent decades are feminists are the main driver of the cycle of fear, shaming and depression, anger, etc.
Another one of my late grandmother quotes "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth to those who hear it."

28064212

limklad wrote: »

Most women identity themselves as feminists go on to tell blatant lies propagated by other especially hardcore feminists.

...

limklad wrote: »

As an engineer. I study data and errors that creep into statistics. I know how easily stats are skewed and the danger to misinterpreted and how bias can effect the results, even one own bias

I think you should study a bit harder

Amirani

limklad wrote: »

As an engineer. I study data and errors that creep into statistics. I know how easily stats are skewed and the danger to misinterpreted and how bias can effect the results, even one own bias. I also study patterns, I come up with assumptions and put them to real hard test. I am my own worst critics when I analyses my data and assumptions. I keep looking from different angles and points of views

This seems at odds to your opening statement and general view in this thread.

There's a lot of truth in what you posted, but you're falling foul of the base rate fallacy in your outlook - not something I'd associate with someone who's statistically astute and willing to criticise their own thinking. There's so many broad streams of feminism, to simply silo them all together is pretty crazy in my opinion. There's just as much diversity in opinion there as there is between father's rights groups and that guy in Santa Barbara on the men's rights spectrum.

How about next time your on a date, you find out what kind of a "feminist" your date is and make a decision based on that? It's not quite putting your assumptions to "real hard test" like you're used to, but it's something I guess.

The Corinthian

limklad wrote: »

I usually end the date as say it not a man you want, It is a woman.

What, they're lesbians?

They never spend the time to look at their literature and used their own assumptions to justify their causes and hurt they put on others.

Some do, certainly. However, you'd be surprised how many are utterly oblivious to many of the positions held by mainstream feminism. People ascribe to labels without having a clue as to what those labels really mean all the time.

My mother was a feminist and she destroyed her family long term. She now is lonely and bitter.

There are always going to be assholes, but you cannot allow bad experience you've had or witnessed to turn you into a paranoid.

Certainly, I would agree that feminism - as an ideology or movement - is fundamentally broken. It represents the interests of one gender and is happy to ignore or even choose a path detrimental to equality of the genders for the benefit of that gender.

But a lot of 'feminists' genuinely can't see this. They still think you can serve two conflicting aims. Many are completely unaware of the misandrist nonsense such as what the OP's girlfriend came out with. Many disagree with such views, yet still consider themselves feminists.

So it's not black and white.

As an engineer. I study data and errors that creep into statistics. I know how easily stats are skewed and the danger to misinterpreted and how bias can effect the results, even one own bias.

Then you should be able to recognize that your position is flawed. If you believe that one should seek an objective truth, you should be the first to accept that much of your argument has been subjective and emotional.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Good points TC.


True enough. Actually given your example, I saw a friend of a friend who was at the receiving end of spousal abuse being asked to leave his house(which he paid for before his partner came along) by the police after an incident one evening where she attacked him leaving him cut and bruised. She claimed he hit her and that was that. Even though he was the one injured and is a very big bloke. Add in that there are precious few if any resources for abused men like him. Yep my previous angle was a bit arseways alright.

I can't entirely blame feminism for that particular chain of events. Women had and still do have second status, so it is demeaning to come forward and admit defeat or vulnerability to a second status being. It's the tail wagging the dog. But I can point to them assisting and creating a perception of prejudice when viewing a DV scene which contributes to making it harder for a guy to make his case. There are two dynamics at play.

The failure of law enforcement to be trained enough to detect defensive and offensive wounds so they don't arrest the wrong person... is that feminism's fault.. maybe partially? I dunno.

Your friend of a friend being asked to leave the house...yes not fair...however at least he didn't get charged or arrested. That could potentially ruin a career especially one where there guarda vetting, affect custody arrangements if there are children involved. I know of a police man whose career is entirely destroyed because of a fight he got into with his sister who was also a cop but kept her job. So the "war on domestic violence" completely supported and fueled by feminist groups has certainly built on the second status.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Women had and still do have second status, so it is demeaning to come forward and admit defeat or vulnerability to a second status being.

Honestly, I don't think that one can say this - at least with any authority.

Certainly discrimination against women does still exist, but as with what is left of the pay gap, how much of this is because of gender and how much of this is because women still retain an effective monopoly on childcare - a monopoly that feminism has done absolutely nothing to challenge it (and supporting the opportunity for to take parental leave, without affording them any rights isn't challenging it) and it is this rather than their gender that is behind that gap.

Meanwhile laws literally exist that discriminate quite blatantly against men. Do any exist that do the same against women? And add divorce, conscription, health, safety at work and so on and it starts to look suspiciously like men are more likely to have second status than women on balance.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think that one can say this - at least with any authority.

Certainly discrimination against women does still exist, but as with what is left of the pay gap, how much of this is because of gender and how much of this is because women still retain an effective monopoly on childcare - a monopoly that feminism has done absolutely nothing to challenge it (and supporting the opportunity for to take parental leave, without affording them any rights isn't challenging it) and it is this rather than their gender that is behind that gap.

Meanwhile laws literally exist that discriminate quite blatantly against men. Do any exist that do the same against women? And add divorce, conscription, health, safety at work and so on and it starts to look suspiciously like men are more likely to have second status than women on balance.

While those are all valid points for debate, it still remains that women are the weaker sex and the heroic model is still built into masculinity.

I still hear it every so often by a parent or grandparent or on the playground..."You are scared of a girl!!!" in that nanny nanny poo poo voice. It's still there.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

I still hear it every so often by a parent or grandparent or on the playground..."You are scared of a girl!!!" in that nanny nanny poo poo voice. It's still there.

Yes and boys are made of slugs and snails and puppy dog tails. What's your point? Because boys are told not to be scared of girls it's OK that 92% of work related deaths are men?

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes and boys are made of slugs and snails and puppy dog tails. What's your point? Because boys are told not to be scared of girls it's OK that 92% of work related deaths are men?

Yeah that's what I meant. Exactly.:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Yeah that's what I meant. Exactly.:rolleyes:

When if "you are scared of a girl!!!" is such an indicator of sexism, what is being seen as the product of slugs and snails?

And how does this change the reality of inequality in adulthood? Or how does it affect the fact that there is a serious case to argue that men and not women have become the second class citizens?

Unless you're just changing the subject, I don't really understand the relevance of your point is what I'm saying.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

When if "you are scared of a girl!!!" is such an indicator of sexism, what is being seen as the product of slugs and snails?

And how does this change the reality of inequality in adulthood? Or how does it affect the fact that there is a serious case to argue that men and not women have become the second class citizens?

Unless you're just changing the subject, I don't really understand the relevance of your point is what I'm saying.

Nevermind. It really doesn't matter.

limklad

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Many self-identifying feminists use the term because they erroneously identify feminism with gender equality. Or because they reject sexism. Or for various other reasons.

In reality they probably don't know much about the movement or it's various schools of ideology and would be horrified my what is being peddled as mainstream feminism nowadays. That some do realize is one of the reasons that many women, people, are increasingly choosing to reject the label.

So I wouldn't write anyone off simply because they used the 'F' word. It's what brand of the 'F' word that matters and that takes a little more probing. For example, if they think that car insurance costs should be gender based (where women would pay less) but health insurance should not (where women would pay more), that is a far better sign of the person you're with.

And an asshole is an asshole, regardless of what ideology they claim to follow.

You don't see the problem with this?

Unfortunately many I have met on date are, quite frankly have degrading attitude of men. It the the words and phrases they choose and the tone of their voice. That tell me here we go again, then I catch myself, and then actually I not playing her game, I am on a night out. So I give them a little time to explain herself, but it always downhill. Then I Just say politely say "Goodnight, I need to go". It has gone so bad I gave up on dating full time, Mainly, because of the ones I met on the internet. I do get other women annoyed when I politely reject their advances. When I politely say "Thanks, but I not interested" or "Thanks, not tonight" if I am somewhere new and never be again. I tried wearing a wedding ring to put them off, but it actually draws more nut cases looking for sex when they are drunk. I seem to attracted the weird drunk ones. I find that if I now look around and enjoying myself they are drawn closer. If I see them coming from a distance, I shake my head. Most get the message, the more weird drunk ones do not.

Feminists do not actually believe in equality. It power of control and money they want, not to share it. If they actually want equality, then all fathers would have 50% parentage of kids even after separating, women and men been given same prison sentences so more equality in the courts. More men be in schools teaching kids, equality in marriage, and proper separation when divorce. Same punishment for women who commits DV in the family home as men. Men to be believed by the guards/Courts/Government that they are been abused by the their partners. Women arrested for committing DV in the home. Then many a man would not be afraid of rape culture purported by feminists in public life.

The one thing I am glad of is that feminists here in Ireland is not that strong as it is in Canada and US, especially in their universities where feminists run riots over anyone having a different view that feminists do not like, such as men rights movements.

limklad

Here one of many of feminists blogs about rape, which is actually all male sex with females is rape. I hear this from feminists many times, especially lesbian feminists in the US when I visits over the years.

PIV = Penis Intercourse with Vagina. = Rape

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

By the way: Not all lesbians are feminists. They do like women, but not feminists.
I met many lesbians who have gay friends in the US. and they tell me alot about lesbians abuse mainly from feminists. They feel safer around gay men. When I tell them I not gay, they laugh and Say "You are in a Gay bar. you know that?" My response "yes, to get away from women and relax while drinking and not get harass by women looking for sex"

Feminists like these women are the basics for main stream media quotes about rape culture.

I find that gay bars are the best in the US cities for relaxation and enjoy a night out, even though I am not gay.`I never got hassle from gay men for sex, to my surprise. I get less hassle overall from gay men (usually some comment or two to provoke a response) than from drunk women. By god, the gay men can handle a conversation in different view points. It was refreshing., one of my many best nights out.

Cowboy bars are the next best thing in more rural areas, where I get less hassle from feminists., sorry drunk women looking for sex.