Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "SvZurich"Nonsensai, did you not see CNN wail about the promising bright future of two young rapists being forever tarnished because they are on a sex offender list, poor them?  And they only get 1 year in Juvie, for RAPE!  No mention of the victim and what she must go through to rebuild her life.  Yes, all of the kids were drunk, but sex with a woman who is not coherent to give permission is RAPE.  And those "poor young men" are convicted rapists who only have to give up a year.  Disgusting.  In the US, the onus is still placed on women to watch how we dress, where we go, who we hang out with.  We hear "boys will be boys and you have to expect that from men".  Bullshit!  Now look up rape and sexual assault stats for the US.  You're damn right I am armed.

Kimmie, gun owner.

I saw it and its disgraceful. But I am unwilling to make a generalization about society based on that. If theres anything ive learned its that what we say and what we do are two very different things.

Which is why, as recently as 60 years ago, the first question a rape victim was often asked was what she did to cause the man to rape her.  Which is why there was no crime of raping your wife, because you had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not.  Which is why many rape victims still are on trial at their rapists' trials.

We don't raise boys to not objectify girls - and we should.

I can't believe these are actually real commercials and that a group of people got paid to create them.

Also robots are creepy.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "SvZurich"Nonsensai, did you not see CNN wail about the promising bright future of two young rapists being forever tarnished because they are on a sex offender list, poor them?  And they only get 1 year in Juvie, for RAPE!  No mention of the victim and what she must go through to rebuild her life.  Yes, all of the kids were drunk, but sex with a woman who is not coherent to give permission is RAPE.  And those "poor young men" are convicted rapists who only have to give up a year.  Disgusting.  In the US, the onus is still placed on women to watch how we dress, where we go, who we hang out with.  We hear "boys will be boys and you have to expect that from men".  Bullshit!  Now look up rape and sexual assault stats for the US.  You're damn right I am armed.

Kimmie, gun owner.

I saw it and its disgraceful. But I am unwilling to make a generalization about society based on that. If theres anything ive learned its that what we say and what we do are two very different things.

Which is why, as recently as 60 years ago, the first question a rape victim was often asked was what she did to cause the man to rape her.  Which is why there was no crime of raping your wife, because you had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not.  Which is why many rape victims still are on trial at their rapists' trials.

We don't raise boys to not objectify girls - and we should.

Im wondering if, 100 years from now, feminists will be saying "as recently as 160 years ago..."

Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"You will have a hard time argueing that men are sexualized to the same level females are by the media.  :P

But I certainly agree with a lot of your points. The second last paragraph is a bit like attacking a windmill though, unless she has actually made the claim that she has never brought products with adverts that objectified men. I'm certainly not an expert on her, she could have, but that doesn't sound likely. I think her point is to show inequality/problems against women, hence the name (and I have seen her talk negatively of problems that harm men as well, her Lego vid for example). I don't see anything wrong with focusing on just one group in this sense. Are you gonna attack organizations that help Africa for no helping the middle east, or the starving homeless on the streets in their own country? Focus tends to have great effects, everyone can't work at making everything better so they split up the work.

I'm arguing that sexualisation by the media is a problem of its own.

I'm not saying that she's wrong for only focusing on female issues (even though I think this is a silly way to approach the issue of inequality), so the African aid agency analogy seems a bit redundant. I'm saying that instead of focusing on real issues most of her videos are about made-up issues that detract from the seriousness of the issue of real inequality eg. heavily criticising a joke in an advert, heavily criticising a film because a character in it is a bad example of a boyfriend (he's playing a fucking part, idiot), etc. etc. If her videos were "Here is a serious problem, look at the numbers to back it up/the data I have deduced this from/the news report I'm discussing/etc., here is a solution/this is really bad, something should be done" I would applaud her for her journalistic approach with integrity and purpose. It isn't though, it's random nitpicking.

If we're talking about African aid agencies, I'm saying that real African aid agencies raise awareness about the lack of food, clean water and shelter in parts of Africa, ie. the actual problems, and ask for help in providing aid to help those affected by them, rather than talking about which parts of Africa they do and don't like, which people in Africa are cool and which aren't, which movies are portraying life in Africa accurately or not etc.

I'm not saying she's claimed never to have purchased such products. However, what she is doing is cherry-picking adverts, marketing schemes and segments of entertainment media and twisting them to pander to her personal agenda. Either the jokes in adverts/stereotypes in movies/physiques of models on posters are allowed to play on typical male/female interactions and traditional roles or they aren't. You can't just pick the one or two jokes you personally chose to take offence at and do a whole video on how this means that marketing is all about objectifying women and it is oppression. It isn't, it's a way of making money, and they'll do whatever it takes. If such tactics are wrong, then she should be calling them out and boycotting them in all cases, but she isn't, she's taking issue with the ones that can be twisted to her agenda, which has nothing to do with media regulation, and more to do with making sweeping generalisations about every facet of society.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think its hard to justify the statement that society doesn't tell men not to rape. Its illegal, and when men get convicted they go to prison. If that isn't society telling men not to rape, what is?

Conversely there is no law on the books penalizing women for dressing a certain way. The only place where your assertion holds up is in the realm of public discourse, a place where fucking retards scream the loudest.

Not to mention the huge disparity in the severity of punishments for male and female rapists, and that most rape victim support services wholly ignore males. This is in developed, western countries as well. Some countries don't even recognise a female as being able to rape a male in terms of the law, such as India. The FBI only recognised rape as not just being a male forcing himself on a female in 1992.

If anything, wider society views male rapists as disgusting, vile criminals (which they are), but female rapists as either non-existent or not so bad.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Im wondering if, 100 years from now, feminists will be saying "as recently as 160 years ago..."

We talk about things in Lincoln's time.  We even talk about things in the time of the Puritans.  So probably.

But mores change.  You can't get a parking ticket if you park illegally because a pedestrian is having a heart attack and you stop to call the police.  Maybe in 100 years, if you hit a rapist on the head while he's in the middle of the act, you won't be subject to arrest for assault.  Knowing that any passerby can put you in the hospital (or worse) for rape would give most potential rapists pause.  It's only because most women won't fight back that rape occurs.  If the average woman were 7 feet tall, weighed 375 and was all muscle, very few men would even think about rape.

Quote from: "Colanth"Maybe in 100 years, if you hit a rapist on the head while he's in the middle of the act, you won't be subject to arrest for assault.  Knowing that any passerby can put you in the hospital (or worse) for rape would give most potential rapists pause.

What?

If I struck someone to prevent them from raping either myself or someone else I would not be convicted of assault, and I live in the UK where self-defence laws are comparatively restricted.

Arrested, maybe. The police sometimes have to arrest people on suspicion of assault in self-defence cases to get the situation under control and to find out what happened. Being arrested on suspicion of something is not the same as being charged with or convicted of committing a crime.

What country are you suggesting it is unlawful to defend yourself or someone else against rape in?