|
Zonie63 -> RE: Why the double standard? (11/29/2012 4:40:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: naughtynick81
quote:
You have yet to state what you have done personally.
If I could do something that would change things, I would. We've been through this over and over and over and over and over again. WTF is wrong you? Read back in this thread, all the answers are there.
But again, look at the fucking article. This is what all of this drama is about.
Where in the article does it mention me? What do I have to do with the article? I have no connection at all to this article, right? So why the fuck bring my personal life into it?
I re-read the article in question, and perhaps there are a few good points:
quote:
This week on campus, a number of movements picketed and soapboxed to prevent sexual assault. And don’t get me wrong; that’s a very good thing. Rape and sexual assault are some of the more heinous and damaging crimes that human beings can enact upon one another. My problem is not with groups determined to prevent these crimes, but with the nature of these groups.
Take the main organization on campus, for example: CHAMPS.
CHAMPS is a division of the CARE office here on campus, and it stands for “Challenging All Men to Prevent Sexism.” Now, ignoring the fact that that’s an imperfect acronym, I have another beef with the naming of the program: Men. Hang on, let me check a dictionary really quick: n., prejudice or discrimination based on sex. That’s weird … it doesn’t say anything about how sexism is a sin relegated only to the proportion of our population possessing penises.
And then there’s the White Ribbon Campaign, which CHAMPS makes a point to associate itself with.
A glance at the White Ribbon Campaign’s website reveals some dynamic logos and the words: “What Does It Mean to Be A Man Today? It’s Time For A New Vision of the Perfect Man.” The White Ribbon Campaign further promises to educate men about how they can further prevent gender-based violence, a trait seemingly limited to their barbaric sex.
That’s my main problem here. Last I checked, our society was striving for an egalitarian approach, not a sexist one. The vision was that men and women are equal, and must be treated equally … so then why does no one care about men?
I suppose my beef with this approach is that it somehow views all men as being responsible for the behavior of other men. It also implies that only men can be sexist, which is also untrue.
I sense that your complaint here is that this "CHAMPS" campaign is seemingly directed solely at men, especially in the context that feminists are often accused of male-bashing or hating all men. So, this "CHAMPS" organization seems to carry the implication that all men are brutes and barbarians who rape and brutalize women. Perhaps it should be "Challenge to All People to Prevent Sexism," but then that would make the acronym "CHAPPS."
It also indirectly relates to those asking "what have you done about the problem," since this "CHAMPS" thing seems to imply that only men are supposed to do something about the problem.
It is, however, a valid question to ask "What does it mean to be a man today?" I think it's a question that only men can answer, since only men can know what it means to be a man.
I don't think the writer was correct in implying that no one cares about men, though. That's not true.
quote:
Oh, I know what you’re thinking, reading that line. Privilege comes to mind, I’m sure; a word you’d love to scream at me. What does a man know about sexism? When are men ever mistreated? How can a woman rape a man?
That last question is oh-so-poignant. Last week, images of a young man holding Sharpie’d posters (in the vein of “I need feminism because”) explained the dangers of viewing rape as a gendered crime. When he explains that he was raped, people simply ask: “How can a woman rape a man?” When he saw his rapist out on the street, he simply broke down, as can be expected, and his then-fiancee’s only response was: “Why don’t you man up?” Man up? Same sort of sexism as calling someone a “pussy” for being in touch with their feelings, isn’t it?
I suppose terms like "man up" and "pussy" are technically sexist, but as I mentioned earlier, men are more inclined to use those terms with other men than women would. I've never in my life ever heard a woman refer to a man as a "pussy," except perhaps in a movie or some other piece of fiction. I have heard a few women say things like "be a man" or "man up," although if men said to women that they should "act like a lady," then that would likely be viewed as sexist.
quote:
Let’s put it in a pop culture perspective. During the AMA’s this previous week, 18-year-old Justin Bieber was practically molested on stage by the 40-year-old Jenna McCarthy, who groped, kissed and wouldn’t let him go, despite furious wriggling on the Canadian pop star’s part. Afterwards, Bieber struggled away and somewhat jokingly claimed, “I feel violated.” McCarthy was flirtatious, but unapologetic. When Bieber tried to explain his displeasure, fellow stars and starlets claimed to be envious of his position, and even joked about his sexual preference. Right. Because you’d have to be gay to not allow unwarranted, public sexual advances, right? But to really get a grasp on this situation, just picture a gender reversal: a washed-up man in his forties, groping a nubile young 18-year-old girl on stage. Think society would be up in arms? Think you’d be?
Well, now, the writer seems to be a bit ageist here. Not too cool when writing against sexism or reverse sexism.
But yeah, there is a bit of a double standard here that should probably be addressed. I think it is being addressed, though.
quote:
One being its definition: until this past January, the federal definition of rape was “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” Not only does this discount female-to-male rape, and other forms of sexual assault, but it also totally discounts the thousands of men who are raped in prison each year, who are still wholly ignored in rape statistics today.
This is actually an interesting bit of information, something I didn't know. So, prior to this year, female-to-male rape was not recognized by the law? Well, at least they've changed that, so that seems a move in the right direction. Male-to-male rape in prison should also be addressed, although that might be an area where more needs to be done. We probably could use some serious prison reform, and there are groups working towards that goal.
quote:
I suppose the real issue here is gender roles, on both sides. An absurd amount of sexism in society has made it so men must be tough, because men are privileged. Men are naturally sexist brutes, and all of them have the potential to rape. That’s why they have the distinct privilege of being drafted into the military, whereas women are not. And the same sexism victimizes women, indoctrinating them into buying into myths like Schrödinger’s Rapist (assume every man is a potential rapist).
Consider the very nature of feminism’s monopoly on equality, that implies oh-so-ironically that men, or anyone who does not ally themselves with feminism, is not an egalitarian.
But feminism, as much as it claims to be, is not a band-aid for the world’s problems. Feminism does not truly assist with trans issues, or men’s issues, or race issues. In a way, it only furthers the divide between men and women by pitting them against each other.
There shouldn’t be a Men’s Rights Movement, nor should there be a feminism, because women and men should be treated equally, in every respect, from the draft to child custody battles (women almost always win) to rape.
Everyone, progressive men and women both, desire equality and egalitarianism.
Well, I guess maybe men do have to be tough. Johnny Cash said so in "A Boy Named Sue," so it must be true. Even despite what feminists might say or the decisions made in divorce/custody cases, the reality is that one has to be tough to get by in this world - both men and women.
I don't know if society really needs feminism or a men's rights movement at this point. Maybe they've become irrelevant and the goal should be equality for all. So, maybe the writer has a point there. Do they pit men and women against each other, as he suggests? I don't think that's happening, although perhaps it might be true for some.
|
|
|
|
