Monday, September 3, 2012

It never ends

No matter how many times they get what they want, female activists will always find a way to complain about how they're being oppressed:
Your blog claims that men who take up more space than they physically need when using public transport are practicing an "invisible and unconscious expression of power in an everyday, public space." Can men oppress women without even knowing it?

Absolutely. I think one of the most problematic aspects of having such an extensive power structure is that a lot of people aren't even aware that how they act affects others. The fact that men get more space in classrooms, at board meetings, and so on, is part of a structural oppression that not everyone knows they're taking part in.

What would you say to those claiming that, in the grand scheme of things, this issue is a "luxury problem"?

My point is that this is part and parcel of the kind of oppression that leads to women being raped, getting lower salaries, and being exposed to violence in relationships.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy. For some, it's a fundamental approach to life.


Pete said...

I would claim that women who douse themselves with perfume and use public transit are practicing an entirely conscious expression of malignant disrespect in an everyday, public space.

You could apply this sort of toxic, rubbish finger-pointing to almost any public human behaviour.

Stingray said...

Does that mean fat girls have more power?

Unknown said...

The bimbos don't even have a clue who they should thank for the fact that they have time to obsess about BS like this.

kh123 said...

I once had a girlfriend tell me, after walking out of a convenience store with (ba-da-bum) a rack full of rice rocket and nudie mags at the front entrance, "How are guys expected to resist with all of that constantly in their faces?"

The hamster was weak with that one at times.

kh123 said...

From the article: "I think one of the most problematic aspects of having such an extensive power structure is that a lot of people aren't even aware that how they act affects others. The fact that men get more space in classrooms, at board meetings, and so on, is part of a structural oppression that not everyone knows they're taking part in."

You'd think Feminists would get on the ball, tie this argument in with abortion, and start targeting unborn boys more aggressively than they are girls at present.

But it goes to show which competing interest has more weight: Potential rivals in the SMP are more threatening to Feminists than those who merely rival them in economic or footspace terms.

Stickwick said...

... a lot of people aren't even aware that how they act affects others.

Pot, meet kettle.

One of my pet peeves is a guy sitting next to me on an airplane and splaying out so that our legs touch. While it's annoying, it never once occurred to me that this was some kind of conscious or subconscious power play. Men just sit differently. You've got to be seriously warped to think this is anything but a minor difference between the sexes. If these women are so fragile and hysterical that they can't cope with such minor differences, then maybe it would just be easier to keep them locked in the house and only let them out with a male relative.

willneverpostagain said...

Stadiums have more stalls in the women's restrooms and bigger stalls as well as opposed to the men, therefore they take up more space.

Where's the outrage?

Anonymous said...

Space is actually a legitimate feminist issue; they get all hot and bothered when a stud doesn't turn his elbows inwards and gives them the right of way.
So was men creeping them out and giving off rapey vibes during night time. The solution was for men to go over to the other side of the road and keep their hands in some suitably non-threatening position.
Then there was the feminist issue that is sleep and well that didn't over go too well...

Anonymous said...

They have patriarchy in porcelain and you are concerned about the number of stalls!!

female urinals naooo!

okrahead said...

I do not use public transportation. Having read this article, however, I may do so in the future while being extra conscious of my ability to take up as much space as physically possible, while making every effort to intrude into the personal space of any possible nearby feminist.

Retrenched said...

Girl Writes What posted a good video a while back. Basically her point was that the safer women become in reality, the greater lengths to which they will go to justify their innate fears and suspicions. This is why we see women, and particularly feminist women, continually expanding the definitions of rape, harassment, abuse, violence, danger, oppression, and so on. And this tends to trigger the white knight reflex in men who, like women, tend to be much more concerned with the safety and well being of women than that of men.

And it's not just the Schwyzers and Futrelles. Hell, we even have some so-called Christian pastors now telling men that they can actually "rape" women verbally or over the Internet.

Retrenched said...

BTW that was our pal Driscoll, and he may have meant that definition for "sexual assault" instead of "rape" (not that it makes any more sense really).

Draw your own conclusions.

Mr Green Man said...

I tend to move through space like I'm a line backer because, well, I usually outweigh the girls I date by a factor of two and can lift them with one arm. I used to run a team of programmers where I was the smallest guy -- everybody was really into weight lifting because, well, it's cold and dark here half the year, you have to do something.

I am happy to learn I was oppressing people by taking up extra space. It makes me want to pump more and get even bigger.

stg58 said...

Note that the Swedish word for "Public" as in "Public Transportation": is "Kollektiv".

Nuff said.

Res Ipsa said...

"My point is that this is part and parcel of the kind of oppression that leads to women being raped, getting lower salaries, and being exposed to violence in relationships."

women being raped: would happen less if they stayed home in the kitchen taking care of their families.

getting lower salaries: they make more money than men now and are the last to get laid off.

exposed to violence in relationships: maybe if they'd shut up and quit bitchen about everything that would stop.

SarahsDaughter said...

Looks like some of you white males have failed to unpack your "Invisible Knapsack." Tsk Tsk.

MaMu1977 said...

Chris Rock says it best. There's a reason why the strongest bonds between women are made by mothers, then high-IQ women, then ugly women. Simply put: if there's even the slightest chance that stabbing a fellow woman in the back will improve a given woman's mating opportunities, she will do it. Feminists tend towards the homely/smart continuum, post-menopausal mothers have their own bonds, and they use their power in congress. "Available" women (to include married-yet-fertile women) see nothing wrong with acting like snakes (and even then, a woman with an 'alpha' mate can be trusted to tell the other women in her circle that "no one notices" the extra pounds, or that they'd look better with short hair...)

Shutterbug said...

Yeah, girls, men are pigs./sarcasm!/photo.php?fbid=4502864810606&set=a.2394836751222.2142342.1260054727&type=1&theater

Stilicho said...

Does this mean that Chris Christie rapes women merely by being in the same room with them?

Cohab Monkey said...

Legal or 'civil marriage' kicked mutual couple commitment of the house decades ago. When a couple sign the civil marriage contract they are in reality committing more to the government, the third spouse in every civil marriage, than they are to each other.
And who wants to marry the government?
Ever fewer couples, as the evidence of the past four decades clearly shows. According to an analysis of marriage rate data at The Spearhead, no one at all will form a civil marriage in the US by the year 2034. Very soon married couples will account for less than half of the adult US population. In Britain, married couples are already in a minority.
But the terminal decline of civil marriage does not mean that couple commitment is dead or even dying. It’s just being reborn in an era when politicians have transformed the legal aspect of marriage from a union of two spouses (as social conservatives imagine it to still be) into a triangular relationship with the state as the domineering head of the household.
Rather than complain that modern couples aren't buying what the government marriage and divorce system is selling, marriage and family advocates should instead celebrate the rise of couple-created cohabitation agreements or 'cohabs'.
Cohabs can reproduce important legal elements of civil marriage such as rights of inheritance and powers of attorney - while at the same time empowering individual couples to design their own mutual commitments that reflect their shared values, life goals and circumstances.
Moreover, seeking to strike a fair, mutually acceptable and legally-enforceable deal with someone is also a revealing way of really getting to know them as a person. Are they capable of compromise? Of give-and-take? Of thinking in terms of 'we' rather than 'me'? Of sustaining a long-term relationship? Of sharing the joys and tribulations of responsible parenting and raising children to adulthood?
Rather than a flight from commitment cohabs are in fact a different and better expression of it.
Unlike civil marriage that is based on family law, cohabs are grounded on the right of free association and based on the law of contract - the law of making, exchanging and keeping promises. Cohabs bring marriage back to its contractual roots: you make a promise, you keep it. Simple as. It does not mean you will always stick together, but it does mean you will stick forever to your promises.
As for the spiritual dimension of marriage, it's time for US churches to let couples choose their own legal vehicle of earthly commitment - whether a couple-created cohabitation agreement or a politician-drafted marriage contract. The fact that that the second document has the word 'marriage' in its title and the first has not says absolutely nothing about the degree of commitment expressed in either.
Like the money-changers of old the family lawyers of today have no rightful place on church property; they belong outside the temple not inside it. It's time for individual clergy and churches as a whole to exile from their property and their marriage ceremonies all civil marriage paperwork - in reality application forms for the state divorce system - and say 'Goodbye and good riddance'.
For a free, open source sample cohabitation agreement check out Cohab Monkey. There is also a wiki version where all are welcome to contribute their ideas, comment on other's suggestions, and join in the discussion – all for the purpose of helping couples create commitments that are fair to each of them and great for both of them.

Shaun said...

dear feminism: go fuck yourself.

my cock

(and i mean that as Biblically as possible)

Post a Comment