As I have always understood it, a "feminist" is someone who stands for gender equality and acceptance (if you read my post here, from the other thread, I say basically the same thing).
However, I understand that I am essentially a...post-structuralist feminist, and that this is relatively new-wave and distinct from the older feminism "waves" that were primarily concerned with legal barriers to women's empowerment.
The current wave, as it were, is if not directly post-structuralist, at least inspired by it. I can't find the best set of links around the web for easy description, but the Wikipedia is not bad, if short, and these two go into it in more detail.
In sharp contrast, the post-structuralist feminist group denies any possibility of defining "woman" at all. Any attempt at definition (whether it comes from a misogynist male, a cultural feminist, or anyone really) is impossible without, according to post-structuralist thinking, reinvoking "mechanisms of oppressive power". For post-structuralist theorists, the idea of a subject being some basic anything is dependent on prevailing discourses that construct us creatures this way or that way, even to the point of constructing us in such a way as to have us believe we are in control -- that (for many today "infamous") autonomous, coherent subject that is the product (construct) of humanist discourses.
Link 2
You guys are going to hate this one, but here goes...
The groundbreaking argument feminist theory makes is that in this logocentric binary Western logic of the universal subject woman is needed so that her difference can be used as a category to set up the this idea of the subject, and to affirm man's superiority
In this sense woman is omnipresent in culture as a construct as Woman (what a woman is: body, nature, irrationality) but is at the same time absent as existent subject in her own right, with her own originality and authenticity.
The difference that is set up by the patriarchal logic (man-woman) is a difference constituted in opposition (positive-negative, mind-body) which leaves no room for a difference to be set outside the established system. Meaning, a difference that cannot be defined in relation to something that sets itself up as (universal, valid) standard – such as is the case in the analogy: reason-order-man
In feminist theory we find a fundamental rejection of the universality of the knowing subject and a critique of the complicity of masculinity and rationality.This critique lead to a renewed interest in the sex-specific nature of the subject and a notion that when speaking subjectivity one must begin with the idea of embodiment.
It is important to note that I don't completely buy all of post-structuralism! If anything, my exact views can be summed up by Douglas J. Futuyma, writing a review of this book
Roughgarden rightly urges a distinction between biologically and socially defined categories (which differ among cultures). Thus, sexes (male and female) are biologically defined by gamete size, whereas man and woman are social categories that do not always correspond to ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female.’’ Gender, as Roughgarden defines it, is the phenotype (including behavior) of a ‘‘sexed body,’’ that is, one classified with respect to biological sex
In short, I consider gender to be a type of behavioral phenotypic expression, that is not dictated by (but can be influenced by) biological phenotype of sex (i.e. gamete size/chromosome makeup/etc).
So, to sum up, my view of "feminism", and my definition is thus:
"Feminism is a brand of thought (and a movement) that seeks equality and acceptance of all genders and sexual expressions. Feminism desires the uplifting of any individual being held back by society's expectation for their gender and/or sex and/or sexual expression, and seeks to abolish negative stereotypes associated with gender and sexuality."
As others have said, it may be broad, but I think it is so out of necessity.
TL;DR- Fukk da patriarchy and its limiting stereotypes, yo.
Feminism seems to be a clear example of "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Which is especially problematic when your orthodox idea of perfect seems pretty much nutballs crazy to many of the people you need to communicate the basic underlying ideas to.
What is an orthodox feminist view of a perfect society?
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Namrok on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
Do you not see how in the name of gender equality we've created a situation of new inequality? Is reverse inequality acceptable due to years of male privilege? Is it simply fair that we should craft laws that play on male stereotypes while shunning any law that plays on female stereotypes?
It's what the self labelled feminist who wield the political power and lobby for laws have accomplished.
But it's good to know you think they aren't real feminist.
Although I'm sure they'd like to have a few words with you about that.
Are the actions of self described Christians particularly descriptive the merits of Christianity?
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
To be clear, Feminism did nothing to you. Laws do not actually do anything. I'm not saying it wasn't an awful situation, but hating the entirety of Feminism because you were with someone who was clearly not stable is like hating an entire minority because of a bad experience with one person. See: SKFM's example of hating gay people.
@Houn There is no such thing as reverse inequality. The term itself is discriminatory because it implies the other way is "normal". Inequality is inequality.
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
Yea that's wrong and hopefully the law gets changed because no matter who you are you should be able to defend yourself, and it sucks that because of that you have a negative view of "feminism" or at least the feminists who lobbied for those changes, but I certainly don't blame you for having that view point, our experiences alter our perceptions, and likely the lobbist who got those laws past had there own experiences that made them think that "Hey this is a good law"
While what happened to you, Namrok, is certainly horrible....I don't really think this is the fault of feminism, nor were her actions at all "feminism".
To tell someone else's story, there was another (male) poster who dealt with a physically abusive (female) ex...and he hasn't come out poisoned against feminism.
Seriously dude? There is nothing in his post that is at all the fault of feminism, unless you construct the most gigantic strawman ever.
@Houn I don't think we "crafted laws based on male stereotypes", I think we crafted domestic violence laws and enforcement based on a (regrettable) trend towards male-on-female domestic violence, not the other way around.
You guys are making some really spurious allegations and strawmen dudes.
Call the police and say you were hit? I mean that's pretty much what you have to do here. You can't claim, "I should've been allowed to hit her." That's kinda never ok.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Call the police and say you were hit? I mean that's pretty much what you have to do here. You can't claim, "I should've been allowed to hit her." That's kinda never ok.
I think you missed the point. The point is that the law has created a situation where an individual's right, nay, biological imperative to self-defense is denied.
If a man attacks a woman, and she fights back to protect herself, the man will be arrested for assault (and probably other charges).
If a woman attacks a man, and he fights back to protect himself... the man will be arrested for assault.
A feminist is a person who believes that women deserve social and legal rights, freedoms, and responsibilities equal to those of men.
Operating off that definition I have been unironically compared to nazis and flat-earth believers.
I think feminism has moved well beyond the above. I don't think a mere belief in equality qualifies as feminism these days. Without embracing more radical tenants, a person simply isn't a feminist.
To clarify, I'm not holding my crazy ex against feminism. She is clearly crazy. Who instigates violence when they don't get their way? That's nuts!
I blame feminism when it comes to how the laws they lobbied for shapes how the system they created reacts to it. It's not feminism's fault that my ex was crazy. It is feminism's fault that the law refuses to acknowledge male victims. It is laws specifically crafted by feminist to protect women no matter what, and cast legal blame on men, no matter what. Because their deluth model of abuse only acknowledges male abusers and female victims. The deluth model is the model pushed by feminists and taught to law enforcement to this day. The deluth model is the model that was codified into law by VAWA. It's an exclusively feminist concept.
According to some radical people yes. According to not radically people no. Feminism is no Hive Mind, which is something I think we can all agree on. So then the question is, who are these people and do they get the right to define "Feminism." I think that's part of where we're stuck at the moment.
Also, I work in criminal law, and I've seen cases where woman attacks guy, guy acts in self defense, woman goes to jail, and that's in NY.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Call the police and say you were hit? I mean that's pretty much what you have to do here. You can't claim, "I should've been allowed to hit her." That's kinda never ok.
I gotta call BS on that, if you have to defend yourself you should be able to defend yourself. (and yea there is exceptions, and that punching out someone might not be the best course of action)
According to some radical people yes. According to not radically people no. Feminism is no Hive Mind, which is something I think we can all agree on. So then the question is, who are these people and do they get the right to define "Feminism." I think that's part of where we're stuck at the moment.
Also, I work in criminal law, and I've seen cases where woman attacks guy, guy acts in self defense, woman goes to jail, and that's in NY.
Do I dare ask what the ratio is of female arrests to male arrests is? Or even deeper, do I dare ask the race or income of the convicted women?
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Don't be a mra goose.
Any time that there is a fight the very last thing that anyone should do is to escalate it.
But I will ask again, how did you want that to go down? Knock her out? Tie her to a chair. In what way would violence had made you any safer?
I blame feminism when it comes to how the laws they lobbied for shapes how the system they created reacts to it. It's not feminism's fault that my ex was crazy. It is feminism's fault that the law refuses to acknowledge male victims. It is laws specifically crafted by feminist to protect women no matter what, and cast legal blame on men, no matter what.
I don't think this was the intention of the law! If there are feminists who believe this to be true, and they were the ones crafting the law, I would emphasize that they are a very radical minority.
Hey, if the police treated you unfairly why stop at blaming feminism? Why not blame the entire concept of a police force? I think the government failed you here too, maybe this "government" notion isn't such a great idea.
Call the police and say you were hit? I mean that's pretty much what you have to do here. You can't claim, "I should've been allowed to hit her." That's kinda never ok.
I think you missed the point. The point is that the law has created a situation where an individual's right, nay, biological imperative to self-defense is denied.
If a man attacks a woman, and she fights back to protect herself, the man will be arrested for assault (and probably other charges).
If a woman attacks a man, and he fights back to protect himself... the man will be arrested for assault.
It's an inequality, no matter how you slice it.
Ok firstly, before you imply that the "balance of inequality" in domestic violence situations has totally shifted over to being against men let me remind you that there are still countries where its legal to rape your wife.
Secondly, the optimal outcome in a domestic violence situation is one where both parties get out as unharmed as possible, not one where you get to up the ante by using force to "protect your property" or one where if there's the option between locking yourself in a room or "restraining" the other party you get to try the latter first.
In the context of containing a domestic violence situation questions like "who is physically larger" "who has more reason to be scared" isn't some trick question to screw over men, they're something that is totally relevant to the situation!
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Don't be a mra goose.
Any time that there is a fight the very last thing that anyone should do is to escalate it.
But I will ask again, how did you want that to go down? Knock her out? Tie her to a chair. In what way would violence had made you any safer?
Well, lets flip this around. Forget it being a partner of yours. Someone is attacking you in your home, right now! What do you do! And you can't leave because they are blocking the door. Remember, you can't put a hand on them, that's violence! And you can't lock yourself in a room, because they have the keys too! And even if you do successfully leave, they now, instead of hurting you like they want, instead just start destroying everything you own. Starting with whats most important to you. Like keepsakes of dead family members.
The relationship was obviously over the moment she attacked me. What I ended up doing was managing to just literally get punched in the arms, chest and face repeatedly while I got her in a bear hug, and then literally threw her out the door.
I found out after the fact that would have gotten me arrested. So woohoo?
it's not domestic abuse if they're a stranger... I've never heard of such a law that makes the man always the guilty party though. I'll have to look it up if you have links to actual statutes.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
You defend yourself with whatever force is necessary in order to leave or to get away and call the police. You said it yourself, they are attacking me. Is it a calculated risk that should it go to court I will be unjustly convicted? Sure, but it's a risk worth taking if my safety is on the line, and the likelihood of such a thing occurring seems pretty small. I am open to statistics that would indicate otherwise.
I am not blind or naive that in a physical altercation in a domestic dispute there is probably/generally a baseline assumption that the man involved is more likely to be assumed to be at fault or have started it, but nobody should have to 'take a beating' to gain a right to defend themselves.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
If you "forget about it being a partner of yours" then that's not a domestic violence situation is it?
In that case, the argument would be more along the lines of home defense, the rights of a property owner and such.
But a similar case would be made (depending on your country ): the important thing is everyones safety, not your property, dont engage them unless your life is at risk ect
it's not domestic abuse if they're a stranger... I've never heard of such a law that makes the man always the guilty party though. I'll have to look it up if you have links to actual statutes.
Here's the best link I can find. Googling "Primary Aggressor Doctrine" turns up surprisingly little. Maybe I'm a little off about what it's officially called. This article refers to it as Predominant Aggressor Policy.
Interesting. I can see where the problems can stem from, but it's going to come down to each situation, and using self-defense sounds like a way to avoid problems still. You MAY POSSIBLY both end up arrested, but you'll end up released pretty fast, and the case dismissed. Still a day of hassle for sure though.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
0
Options
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
Interesting. I can see where the problems can stem from, but it's going to come down to each situation, and using self-defense sounds like a way to avoid problems still. You MAY POSSIBLY both end up arrested, but you'll end up released pretty fast, and the case dismissed. Still a day of hassle for sure though.
Yeeeeaaaaaaah. A lot of other states also have mandatory arrest and prosecution, or "no drop" laws. Because too many abused women don't press charges you see. So in cases of domestic violence, they MUST arrest one party, and the DA has no choice but to continue on with prosecution.
To me, Feminism is what Feminism does. And in my lifetime, I'm not a fan of what Feminism has done.
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Don't be a mra goose.
Any time that there is a fight the very last thing that anyone should do is to escalate it.
But I will ask again, how did you want that to go down? Knock her out? Tie her to a chair. In what way would violence had made you any safer?
Well, lets flip this around. Forget it being a partner of yours. Someone is attacking you in your home, right now! What do you do! And you can't leave because they are blocking the door. Remember, you can't put a hand on them, that's violence! And you can't lock yourself in a room, because they have the keys too! And even if you do successfully leave, they now, instead of hurting you like they want, instead just start destroying everything you own. Starting with whats most important to you. Like keepsakes of dead family members.
The relationship was obviously over the moment she attacked me. What I ended up doing was managing to just literally get punched in the arms, chest and face repeatedly while I got her in a bear hug, and then literally threw her out the door.
I found out after the fact that would have gotten me arrested. So yoohoo?
A robbery and a domestic dispute are two very different things. If someone breaks in there is a clear endgame, the person out of your house. There is a definite aggressor, the person who broke into your house. There is no chance of escalation, we are already at life or death. And when the law gets there and both of you are missing teeth they can arrest the person responsible.
Now let's contrast your situation. Your girlfriend lived with you (I assume) which means that she has squatter rights (in Illinois) and you need to get a court order to kick her out so she has as much right to be there as you do. There is a huge chance of escalation, I mean do you think she would be more or less likely to come at you with a weapon of you hit her. If your life is actually in danger you has every right to protect yourself, including killing her. When the law gets there your arms have some bruises and she is missing teeth. You were in the right but how are they ever going prove it? Most likely both of you go free and you are back where you started.
Now your situation sucked, no question but no jury on earth is going to convict you for bearhugging someone and nothing would be different in your perfect world except your girlfriend missing some teeth.
So really, how did you want it to go down. I am actually curious.
You drop it because you're innocent, and you get a summary judgment in your favor or dismissed due to facial insufficiency. It doesn't get dropped because they don't want to press charges. TOTALLY different reasoning.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Feminism is concerned with issues of oppression, power, and privilege. It's a mistake to try and separate racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, out from sexism- they are all related and intertwined.
Third wave feminism is largely a reaction to feminism being primarily a movement of middle-class white women and the inherent privileges that they enjoy, and a striving towards a broader recognition of the issues facing women of color.
That explains why so many middle-class white women seek to avoid the label of feminist then doesn't it?
not really?
The third wave is basically "over" inasmuch as the "waves" ever actually end (see the American legislation about the recent equal pay act- that is reminiscent of first or second wave issues for sure).
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
Feminism seems to be a clear example of "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Which is especially problematic when your orthodox idea of perfect seems pretty much nutballs crazy to many of the people you need to communicate the basic underlying ideas to.
What is an orthodox feminist view of a perfect society?
So tell us, Namrok, how would you like to solve the problem of handling DV cases? Should we go back to the bad old days, where abusers would force the abused to recant their calls, tying the hands of police?
And frankly, most of the issues with primary aggressor laws stem from poor police work.
Interesting. I can see where the problems can stem from, but it's going to come down to each situation, and using self-defense sounds like a way to avoid problems still. You MAY POSSIBLY both end up arrested, but you'll end up released pretty fast, and the case dismissed. Still a day of hassle for sure though.
Yeeeeaaaaaaah. A lot of other states also have mandatory arrest and prosecution, or "no drop" laws. Because too many abused women don't press charges you see. So in cases of domestic violence, they MUST arrest one party, and the DA has no choice but to continue on with prosecution.
So then do you understand the power scenario in play that causes many abused women to not press charges? Do you understand why these laws were instituted?
And, if the answer to both questions is "yes", then the third question is "do you think we should repeal these laws."
Posts
However, I understand that I am essentially a...post-structuralist feminist, and that this is relatively new-wave and distinct from the older feminism "waves" that were primarily concerned with legal barriers to women's empowerment.
The current wave, as it were, is if not directly post-structuralist, at least inspired by it. I can't find the best set of links around the web for easy description, but the Wikipedia is not bad, if short, and these two go into it in more detail.
Link 1
Link 2
You guys are going to hate this one, but here goes...
It is important to note that I don't completely buy all of post-structuralism! If anything, my exact views can be summed up by Douglas J. Futuyma, writing a review of this book
In short, I consider gender to be a type of behavioral phenotypic expression, that is not dictated by (but can be influenced by) biological phenotype of sex (i.e. gamete size/chromosome makeup/etc).
So, to sum up, my view of "feminism", and my definition is thus:
"Feminism is a brand of thought (and a movement) that seeks equality and acceptance of all genders and sexual expressions. Feminism desires the uplifting of any individual being held back by society's expectation for their gender and/or sex and/or sexual expression, and seeks to abolish negative stereotypes associated with gender and sexuality."
As others have said, it may be broad, but I think it is so out of necessity.
TL;DR- Fukk da patriarchy and its limiting stereotypes, yo.
Well done
Feminism is responsible for primary aggressor laws which almost got me kicked out of my home when my ex girlfriend decided to attack me. When I made it through the first attack and called the police, asking what I should do if she does it again, they said all I was allowed to do was lock myself in a room. If I laid a hand on her in any way shape or form, no matter what she does first, I get arrested. This is what the police officer who would have shown up at my apartment to arrest someone told me.
This is because Feminism has pushed the Deluth model of domestic violence to the point where it is federal law. The Violence Against Women Act has pushed the Primary Aggressor Doctrine to all state police departments. But contrary to common sense, the Primary Aggressor Doctrine isn't something like "Who is hurt worse" or "Who threw the first punch". It's thinks like "Who is physically larger" (almost always the man), "Who has less reason to be afraid" (almost always the man), "Who has more access to resources" (almost always the man). So basically it's policy that the man is always arrested in DV situations.
Thankfully I was able to have a friend of mine who was a navy MP, and a woman most importantly (weird how that works) supervise me and my ex breaking up and her moving out. My ex wasn't afraid to attack me at all because she knew the law would take her side no matter what. She wasn't as keen to attack another woman.
So yeah, I'm not a fan. And all the "That's not what feminism is!" in the world won't change that it's what feminism has done. And crazy me, judging something by what it's done. Go figure.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the definition constricts.
It's what the self labelled feminist who wield the political power and lobby for laws have accomplished.
But it's good to know you think they aren't real feminist.
Although I'm sure they'd like to have a few words with you about that.
Wow, to think that feminism forced you to look for a non violent means of resolving a problem. Thats a tough one.
But in all seriousness would your situation have been greatly improved had you been able to put her in the hospital? Do you not see how "she hit me first" could be used by abusive partners?
The law robbed me of my ability to protect myself. Not even with reasonable force. I could not protect my property as she set about destroying everything she could get her hands on. Even the bruises she got from ineffectually slamming her fists against my fore arms would have sent me to jail had she called the police. I was not allowed to non-violently restrain her.
But hey, it's good to know that if someone is attacking you, RIGHT NOW, you are committed to finding a nonviolent way to end it. Good luck with that.
And my fear was that the next attack by her would be more severe. It had been escalating for a while. She'd try to hurt me, it didn't work, she'd get angrier, she'd put more force into it, rinse repeat. I was honestly afraid she was going to resort to using weapons.
But sure, we'll go with your explanation. I'm just looking for an excuse to beat up women. I wasn't the victim at all. Hell, maybe she was even putting me in my place by assaulting me, right? Maybe I had it coming?
Do you not see how in the name of gender equality we've created a situation of new inequality? Is reverse inequality acceptable due to years of male privilege? Is it simply fair that we should craft laws that play on male stereotypes while shunning any law that plays on female stereotypes?
Are the actions of self described Christians particularly descriptive the merits of Christianity?
@Houn There is no such thing as reverse inequality. The term itself is discriminatory because it implies the other way is "normal". Inequality is inequality.
Yea that's wrong and hopefully the law gets changed because no matter who you are you should be able to defend yourself, and it sucks that because of that you have a negative view of "feminism" or at least the feminists who lobbied for those changes, but I certainly don't blame you for having that view point, our experiences alter our perceptions, and likely the lobbist who got those laws past had there own experiences that made them think that "Hey this is a good law"
To tell someone else's story, there was another (male) poster who dealt with a physically abusive (female) ex...and he hasn't come out poisoned against feminism.
I think you have lashed out at the wrong target.
And @Bagginses
Seriously dude? There is nothing in his post that is at all the fault of feminism, unless you construct the most gigantic strawman ever.
@Houn I don't think we "crafted laws based on male stereotypes", I think we crafted domestic violence laws and enforcement based on a (regrettable) trend towards male-on-female domestic violence, not the other way around.
You guys are making some really spurious allegations and strawmen dudes.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
This isn't what he was implying at all dude
I think you missed the point. The point is that the law has created a situation where an individual's right, nay, biological imperative to self-defense is denied.
If a man attacks a woman, and she fights back to protect herself, the man will be arrested for assault (and probably other charges).
If a woman attacks a man, and he fights back to protect himself... the man will be arrested for assault.
It's an inequality, no matter how you slice it.
Operating off that definition I have been unironically compared to nazis and flat-earth believers.
I think feminism has moved well beyond the above. I don't think a mere belief in equality qualifies as feminism these days. Without embracing more radical tenants, a person simply isn't a feminist.
I blame feminism when it comes to how the laws they lobbied for shapes how the system they created reacts to it. It's not feminism's fault that my ex was crazy. It is feminism's fault that the law refuses to acknowledge male victims. It is laws specifically crafted by feminist to protect women no matter what, and cast legal blame on men, no matter what. Because their deluth model of abuse only acknowledges male abusers and female victims. The deluth model is the model pushed by feminists and taught to law enforcement to this day. The deluth model is the model that was codified into law by VAWA. It's an exclusively feminist concept.
Also, I work in criminal law, and I've seen cases where woman attacks guy, guy acts in self defense, woman goes to jail, and that's in NY.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
I gotta call BS on that, if you have to defend yourself you should be able to defend yourself. (and yea there is exceptions, and that punching out someone might not be the best course of action)
Do I dare ask what the ratio is of female arrests to male arrests is? Or even deeper, do I dare ask the race or income of the convicted women?
Any time that there is a fight the very last thing that anyone should do is to escalate it.
But I will ask again, how did you want that to go down? Knock her out? Tie her to a chair. In what way would violence had made you any safer?
I don't think this was the intention of the law! If there are feminists who believe this to be true, and they were the ones crafting the law, I would emphasize that they are a very radical minority.
Ok firstly, before you imply that the "balance of inequality" in domestic violence situations has totally shifted over to being against men let me remind you that there are still countries where its legal to rape your wife.
Secondly, the optimal outcome in a domestic violence situation is one where both parties get out as unharmed as possible, not one where you get to up the ante by using force to "protect your property" or one where if there's the option between locking yourself in a room or "restraining" the other party you get to try the latter first.
In the context of containing a domestic violence situation questions like "who is physically larger" "who has more reason to be scared" isn't some trick question to screw over men, they're something that is totally relevant to the situation!
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Well, lets flip this around. Forget it being a partner of yours. Someone is attacking you in your home, right now! What do you do! And you can't leave because they are blocking the door. Remember, you can't put a hand on them, that's violence! And you can't lock yourself in a room, because they have the keys too! And even if you do successfully leave, they now, instead of hurting you like they want, instead just start destroying everything you own. Starting with whats most important to you. Like keepsakes of dead family members.
The relationship was obviously over the moment she attacked me. What I ended up doing was managing to just literally get punched in the arms, chest and face repeatedly while I got her in a bear hug, and then literally threw her out the door.
I found out after the fact that would have gotten me arrested. So woohoo?
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
I am not blind or naive that in a physical altercation in a domestic dispute there is probably/generally a baseline assumption that the man involved is more likely to be assumed to be at fault or have started it, but nobody should have to 'take a beating' to gain a right to defend themselves.
In that case, the argument would be more along the lines of home defense, the rights of a property owner and such.
But a similar case would be made (depending on your country ): the important thing is everyones safety, not your property, dont engage them unless your life is at risk ect
Here's the best link I can find. Googling "Primary Aggressor Doctrine" turns up surprisingly little. Maybe I'm a little off about what it's officially called. This article refers to it as Predominant Aggressor Policy.
http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-Predominant_Aggressor.pdf
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
try this
Yeeeeaaaaaaah. A lot of other states also have mandatory arrest and prosecution, or "no drop" laws. Because too many abused women don't press charges you see. So in cases of domestic violence, they MUST arrest one party, and the DA has no choice but to continue on with prosecution.
A robbery and a domestic dispute are two very different things. If someone breaks in there is a clear endgame, the person out of your house. There is a definite aggressor, the person who broke into your house. There is no chance of escalation, we are already at life or death. And when the law gets there and both of you are missing teeth they can arrest the person responsible.
Now let's contrast your situation. Your girlfriend lived with you (I assume) which means that she has squatter rights (in Illinois) and you need to get a court order to kick her out so she has as much right to be there as you do. There is a huge chance of escalation, I mean do you think she would be more or less likely to come at you with a weapon of you hit her. If your life is actually in danger you has every right to protect yourself, including killing her. When the law gets there your arms have some bruises and she is missing teeth. You were in the right but how are they ever going prove it? Most likely both of you go free and you are back where you started.
Now your situation sucked, no question but no jury on earth is going to convict you for bearhugging someone and nothing would be different in your perfect world except your girlfriend missing some teeth.
So really, how did you want it to go down. I am actually curious.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
not really?
The third wave is basically "over" inasmuch as the "waves" ever actually end (see the American legislation about the recent equal pay act- that is reminiscent of first or second wave issues for sure).
@Namrok- I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that it wasn't somehow the fault of "feminists" that you perceived yourself as unable to go to the police in your situation. I am truly sorry that you had to go through that, but I really think you are continually doing harm by laying the blame for this tragedy at the feet of feminists.
*tips hat*
And frankly, most of the issues with primary aggressor laws stem from poor police work.
So then do you understand the power scenario in play that causes many abused women to not press charges? Do you understand why these laws were instituted?
And, if the answer to both questions is "yes", then the third question is "do you think we should repeal these laws."
EDIT: Hedgie and I are asking the same questions