Drama in /r/adviceanimals when a rape victim posts an image bashing feminists who 'trivialize rape by calling literally everything rape'. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
69 ups - 30 downs = 39 votes
94 comments submitted at 16:57:07 on Mar 10, 2014 by drdrama
I'm having a really hard time figuring out how anyone can be mad at people who want to expand the definition of rape to things that didn't count once -- like spousal rape, date rape, and the rape of sex workers -- rather than, I don't know, 12-year-olds on XBox Live who use the word "rape" more than any other word except "faggot." Oh, and Republicans that say that the female body has a way of just shutting down and not getting pregnant when you get raped.
Most people aren't mad at those people. They're mad at the people who say that drunk sex is rape, and that regretting sex later makes it rape, and that sort of thing.
I'm having a really hard time believing that anybody influential says anything like "all drunk sex is rape" and "if you regret it, automatically rape."
Meanwhile, there's a movement that's actually trying to redefine rape. As in, huge influential gathering places and the most visual personalities of the movement are totally for all sorts of rape redefining.
And it's not feminism.
Who said anything about "influential"? A belief doesn't have to originate from an influential person to be annoying or downright dangerous.
And I'm just as pissed at assholes trying to claim that rape isn't rape as I am at assholes trying to claim that things that aren't rape are. I can get mad at both types of people: there are loud, obnoxious assholes in both groups.
> Who said anything about "influential"? A belief doesn't have to originate from an influential person to be annoying or downright dangerous.
Well, considering the OP is calling out "feminists," thus associating that belief with the entire movement, I'd suggest that influence is incredibly relevant. She's essentially taking a belief held by a crazy few and pretending as if every feminist feels that way. That's like saying that all MRAs believe in forced abortions... It's just not even remotely true.
Calling out feminists who do one thing does not necessarily mean that one thinks that all feminists do that thing. The fact is that almost all of the people who are trying to claim that things that aren't rape are rape are, in fact, feminists... or self-proclaimed feminists, at least. Saying something like "I hate when feminists do X." isn't automatically trying to imply that all feminists to X, it could just be saying that all (or most) people who do X are feminists.
While it could be interpreted both ways, one should generally avoid assuming one specific interpretation until one knows more about the meaning behind the statement.
So, if 50 self-proclaimed MRA's on Tumblr were totally cool with say... spousal rape (which they are not... that I know of)? And I made a meme which read "You know what really grinds my gears? When MRA's commit spousal rape," I would be totally justified in saying that? Because a bunch of people on Tumblr, who self-identify as MRA's said that's one of their tenents? Even though the majority of influential MRA's think that it's total crap? Because a few fringe MRA-crazies said it, spousal rape should be conflated with MRM?
There's a slight difference there, since MRA's are not the majority of those committing spousal rape. Like I said, most people trying to relabel things that aren't rape as rape are feminists... but most people committing spousal rape are not MRA's. And also, it's not "a few fringe feminists" saying that things like drunk sex are rape, it's a fairly commonly held stance among feminists.
That said, yes, I would still make sure of your actual meaning before getting mad at you for it. Because I prefer to think the best of people until I'm proven wrong. And, maybe surprisingly, I'm not proven wrong nearly so often as many might think... because most people are decent at heart, and most of the hate and vitriol that comes out of these sorts of things are the result of misconceptions and misunderstandings, at least in my experience.
> Like I said, most people trying to relabel things as rape are feminists... but most people committing spousal rape are not MRA's. And also, it's not "a few fringe feminists" saying that things like drunk sex are rape, it's a fairly commonly held stance among feminists.
Any source on any of that? Are these actual facts or just musing you're presenting as such? Actually, you know what, it doesn't even matter. Take either meme (real or imagined) and changed Feminists/MRAs to "Black people." Is it still ok? To make wide generalizations about an enormous group of people based entirely on the worst behavior of a vocal minority?
>> To make wide generalizations about an enormous group of people based entirely on the worst behavior of a vocal minority?
You are kidding right? A few days ago someone linked to comment from /r/badhistory where someone was saying there were two origins to modern mr movements. One of them was all about being anti-feminist, the other one was actually focusing on issues that affected men. No one here even bothered to read the link, instead, they just focused on the former, completely ignoring the fact that there ARE groups that DO care about issues that affect men.
What about yesterday's post linking to the SNL sketch? Wasn't this sub actually repeating the same BS from the sketch (ALL MRAs are against planned parenthood, all MRAs are against equal pay, etc)? Wasn't this sub actively celebrating the sketch and making fun of /r/MensRights reaction?
I'm talking to the collective you here, to the sub; nobody really cares what you like or what you dislike, but holy shit if this isn't the cradle of hypocrisy of the metasubs. When places like /r/circlebroke have way more selfawarness than you I'd say it's time to take a mirror and look at the kind of idiots you are harboring here.
More Comments - Click Here
> A belief doesn't have to originate from an influential person to be annoying or downright dangerous.
Really? So you'd be equally worried when a goat herder in Pakistan thinks they should nuke the US, versus when the president of Iran thinks the same?
I didn't say that there is never any difference between a thought held by an influential person and one held by a non-influential person. Only that not all thoughts have to originate from an influential person to be dangerous.
You did follow up that clause with a sentence starting with "I'm just as pissed..."
Maybe if you don't want me thinking that you prioritize your ire without accessing actual threat level, you shouldn't have said that.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other, though. The majority of people claiming that rape isn't rape have no more power than the people that claim that that which isn't rape is. And furthermore, there's a difference between despising someone for saying something and thinking that someone with power who says something is dangerous: I'm just as pissed at both, even if one may have more power than the other. A repugnant view is just as repugnant coming from a nobody than from somebody with power, even if the one with power has a greater ability to act on their view.
Also, it's "assessing". Accessing something would mean to gain access to it, assessing is what you do when you examine or take stock of something. (That sounds like I'm trying to be petty, sorry, I'm really not. I just thought I'd point it out, on the off chance it wasn't just a typo.)
>I'm just as pissed at both, even if one may have more power than the other. A repugnant view is just as repugnant coming from a nobody than from somebody with power, even if the one with power has a greater ability to act on their view.
So you're saying you suck at prioritizing things. I mean, do you not realize how incredibly black and white and unnuanced this sort of thinking is?
You don't expect more from people in power or people of means? You're equally pissed at the bad opinions of rednecks who live in trailers in West Virginia as you are at the opinions of, I don't know, a rich Yale graduate who remains willfully ignorant about the state of the world, despite having access to literally every possible means of educating himself?