Guns or Dildos, Which Better Stops Rape?

[DrDelirium]

Hei, would you recommend a social media platform or general board with a political slash social psychology slash philosophy main orientation?

Sorry if I come across as being over-familiar.
I asked a couple of people whose posts interest me the same question. I also researched the internet but I'm undecided amongst the plethora of sites out there.

Much appreciated if you could provide a or some links.

I don't know of any to recommend. Let me know if you find something interesting.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Gun aimed at the balls is a pretty hard stop.

 

[Hypoxia]

Proficiency takes practice, 1,000 rounds with a rifle, 5,000 rounds with a handgun.

That depends on what 'proficient' means. A target-range marksman may be shit in combat, and vice-versa. And IMHO the greatest weapon-handling skill is: restraint.

 

[KimGordon67]

Perhaps you can, but if your argument is based on gender quotas at the top of the pyramid, you're only arguing against patriarchy. You might argue that in a gender-blind society, there would be approximately equal representation of the sexes in government, but you cannot argue that a gender-blind society is by nature a just society. Again, redistributing injustice is not a move forward except for those individuals who benefit at someone else's cost. Thus, participating in anti-patriarchal struggle that does not directly address the inequities of capitalism is actually a struggle on behalf of a system of privilege, it pits one group against another and maintains the system of inequity. It is selfish, self-serving and self-destructive.
If you are indeed arguing against both patriarchy and capitalism at the same time, citing the gender distribution of elected representatives and CEOs is counter productive.

You seem to be assuming that my only argument is about gender quotas at the top of the pyramid. In fact, I was using it to demonstrate that feminism hadn't yet fulfilled it's purpose in response to a completely different comment.

But clearly you've decided that if one's a feminist, one can't also be a social democrat or anything else, and that women should just get back in the kitchen and bake bread or whatever while the menfolk get on with the class war ... then and only then we might get some stuff like reproductive rights, equal pay, etc. So I guess let us know when you've won.

 

[DrDelirium]

You seem to be assuming that my only argument is about gender quotas at the top of the pyramid. In fact, I was using it to demonstrate that feminism hadn't yet fulfilled it's purpose in response to a completely different comment.

But clearly you've decided that if one's a feminist, one can't also be a social democrat or anything else, and that women should just get back in the kitchen and bake bread or whatever while the menfolk get on with the class war ... then and only then we might get some stuff like reproductive rights, equal pay, etc. So I guess let us know when you've won.

It's the only argument you've made. And, rather than add additional arguments, you invent a position for me that you can attack. There is no evidence for what you say about me, but you take and defend a position that is structurally untenable. Your rhetoric here continues to express the idea that an equal distribution of inequity by gender is some kind of social progress. The whole term 'equal pay,' for instance, is a lie. There is nothing 'equal' about pay in the capitalist economic system, there are exploiters and exploited. To struggle for your race or gender to be 'equally' represented among the exploiters is not a struggle for social justice. You can't address this problem, so you try to label me as a sexist, but apparently your idea of equality is for men to bake the bread and fight the class war, while you fight for privilege.

 

[JackLuis]

That depends on what 'proficient' means. A target-range marksman may be shit in combat, and vice-versa. And IMHO the greatest weapon-handling skill is: restraint.

Very true but most of the 'gun nuts' don't realize that pulling out their piece is an invitation to have it taken away from them, so if they pull it they had better be ready and willing to use it effectively within ~2 seconds.

 

[KimGordon67]

It's the only argument you've made. And, rather than add additional arguments, you invent a position for me that you can attack. There is no evidence for what you say about me, but you take and defend a position that is structurally untenable. Your rhetoric here continues to express the idea that an equal distribution of inequity by gender is some kind of social progress. The whole term 'equal pay,' for instance, is a lie. There is nothing 'equal' about pay in the capitalist economic system, there are exploiters and exploited. To struggle for your race or gender to be 'equally' represented among the exploiters is not a struggle for social justice. You can't address this problem, so you try to label me as a sexist, but apparently your idea of equality is for men to bake the bread and fight the class war, while you fight for privilege.

Oh ffs ... I made the point about gender inequality in politics because I was responding to a point about the 'battle' of feminism having been won. The point I was responding to was about feminism ... I was making a response that related to feminism. You then rode in and basically told me that feminism is irrelevant if equal opportunity for women exists within an unequal capitalist structure. Without first checking what I thought about capitalism, or anything for that matter, and assuming that because I'm a feminist, that's my only political position.
I was quite clearly using the term 'equal pay' in relation to gender equity - I was, in no shape or form, suggesting that achieving gender equality in pay would solve all the worlds the problem - again, it was a response to a comment about feminism, not capitalism.

I don't happen to think the class war will be won any time in the near future. In the mean time, women are, at a population level, living in more poverty than men. Women are struggling to gain and maintain legal access to abortion. Women are being beaten in their homes. Women are being harrassed on the street. If any of these things are going to change now, I do think the chances are better if there is greater female (and other) political representation. So yes, I can fight for women's rights AND a more equitable political and economic structure at the same without my brain exploding. (I'm simultaneously also concerned for the rights of ethnic minorities, and non-heternormative folk.)

Basically, you are suggesting that women, ethnic minorities, non-hetero people, etc shelve their concerns until capitalism is brought to its knees, because otherwise we're buying into a system that supports inequality ... I'm saying lets tackle the inequalities that can be dealt with in a more immediate sense, because peoples lives are being hurt now, while at the same time keeping up with the fight for a better political/economic system overall.
But, if you can demonstrate that the class war will be won next week, or even really next year, and we can right on to dealing with all these other 'secondary' issues then, please do so.

 

[DrDelirium]

Oh ffs ... I made the point about gender inequality in politics because I was responding to a point about the 'battle' of feminism having been won. The point I was responding to was about feminism ... I was making a response that related to feminism. You then rode in and basically told me that feminism is irrelevant if equal opportunity for women exists within an unequal capitalist structure. Without first checking what I thought about capitalism, or anything for that matter, and assuming that because I'm a feminist, that's my only political position.
I was quite clearly using the term 'equal pay' in relation to gender equity - I was, in no shape or form, suggesting that achieving gender equality in pay would solve all the worlds the problem - again, it was a response to a comment about feminism, not capitalism.

I don't happen to think the class war will be won any time in the near future. In the mean time, women are, at a population level, living in more poverty than men. Women are struggling to gain and maintain legal access to abortion. Women are being beaten in their homes. Women are being harrassed on the street. If any of these things are going to change now, I do think the chances are better if there is greater female (and other) political representation. So yes, I can fight for women's rights AND a more equitable political and economic structure at the same without my brain exploding. (I'm simultaneously also concerned for the rights of ethnic minorities, and non-heternormative folk.)

Basically, you are suggesting that women, ethnic minorities, non-hetero people, etc shelve their concerns until capitalism is brought to its knees, because otherwise we're buying into a system that supports inequality ... I'm saying lets tackle the inequalities that can be dealt with in a more immediate sense, because peoples lives are being hurt now, while at the same time keeping up with the fight for a better political/economic system overall.
But, if you can demonstrate that the class war will be won next week, or even really next year, and we can right on to dealing with all these other 'secondary' issues then, please do so.

So your argument is that if the class war can't be won now, you'll grab what you can for yourself in the meantime. Nice.
I do not suggest that anyone shelve their concerns, I suggest that people frame their concerns in the context of solidarity rather than selfishness. Your framing does not raise women out of poverty, it allows a handful of elite women to climb a rung higher among the exploiters. If you look at the economic trends since the political 'victories' of feminism, the actual effect has been to impoverish more women and children. A person concerned about the mass of women and children would take a step back and examine how this has come to be instead of doubling down on a platform that divides class allies and empowers the elites of whatever race or gender.
If you aren't already aware of it, the gap between rich and poor has done nothing but grow since legal equality of race and gender has been legislated. This has not benefited women or people of color who are both, in the aggregate, worse off now than they were fifty years ago in terms of wealth and real income. One reason for this is that, however authentic their concerns, women and minorities have been played for patsies in the destruction of the labor movement.
The bottom line is that if you are not actively struggling for worker's rights, you are not struggling for working women's rights, you are struggling over the division of a shrinking share of wealth while the tiniest minority grow their share at your expense.

You say

I'm saying lets tackle the inequalities that can be dealt with in a more immediate sense, because peoples lives are being hurt now, while at the same time keeping up with the fight for a better political/economic system overall.

but you don't seem to recognize that now the particular form of struggle you're engaged in harms more people than it helps. Nor do you see that these inequalities cannot be 'dealt with' in a more immediate sense within a system of exploitation. Equal opportunity exploitation is not justice. And you don't make allies by insisting that the already exploited give up what they have struggled to gain from their oppressors so that whatever clique you belong to has a better shot at joining those oppressors.

 

[KimGordon67]

So your argument is that if the class war can't be won now, you'll grab what you can for yourself in the meantime. Nice.
I do not suggest that anyone shelve their concerns, I suggest that people frame their concerns in the context of solidarity rather than selfishness. Your framing does not raise women out of poverty, it allows a handful of elite women to climb a rung higher among the exploiters. If you look at the economic trends since the political 'victories' of feminism, the actual effect has been to impoverish more women and children. A person concerned about the mass of women and children would take a step back and examine how this has come to be instead of doubling down on a platform that divides class allies and empowers the elites of whatever race or gender.
If you aren't already aware of it, the gap between rich and poor has done nothing but grow since legal equality of race and gender has been legislated. This has not benefited women or people of color who are both, in the aggregate, worse off now than they were fifty years ago in terms of wealth and real income. One reason for this is that, however authentic their concerns, women and minorities have been played for patsies in the destruction of the labor movement.
The bottom line is that if you are not actively struggling for worker's rights, you are not struggling for working women's rights, you are struggling over the division of a shrinking share of wealth while the tiniest minority grow their share at your expense.

You say


but you don't seem to recognize that now the particular form of struggle you're engaged in harms more people than it helps. Nor do you see that these inequalities cannot be 'dealt with' in a more immediate sense within a system of exploitation. Equal opportunity exploitation is not justice. And you don't make allies by insisting that the already exploited give up what they have struggled to gain from their oppressors so that whatever clique you belong to has a better shot at joining those oppressors.

And you again assume that political representation is the only concern I have, based on one comment.
Again, for clarification - you latched onto one comment I made in response to a point about feminism and constructed my entire political position around that.

Are you seriously suggesting increased economic ineuality has been caused by increased gender and ethnic equality? Because that's sort of how your comment reads.

Do you know who I usually see making the argument that capitalism is the only enemy of significance? Straight white cis men. Do you know who is usually making the argument for an intersectional approach to inequality? People who aren't straight/white/cis/men. Obviously I have no idea whether this is the case for you, but I'd strongly suggest that the straight white cis male Marxists of the world check their privilege before they start telling other disenfranchised groups what they 'should' be fighting for.

 

[KimGordon67]

So your argument is that if the class war can't be won now, you'll grab what you can for yourself in the meantime. Nice.
I do not suggest that anyone shelve their concerns, I suggest that people frame their concerns in the context of solidarity rather than selfishness. Your framing does not raise women out of poverty, it allows a handful of elite women to climb a rung higher among the exploiters. If you look at the economic trends since the political 'victories' of feminism, the actual effect has been to impoverish more women and children. A person concerned about the mass of women and children would take a step back and examine how this has come to be instead of doubling down on a platform that divides class allies and empowers the elites of whatever race or gender.
If you aren't already aware of it, the gap between rich and poor has done nothing but grow since legal equality of race and gender has been legislated. This has not benefited women or people of color who are both, in the aggregate, worse off now than they were fifty years ago in terms of wealth and real income. One reason for this is that, however authentic their concerns, women and minorities have been played for patsies in the destruction of the labor movement.
The bottom line is that if you are not actively struggling for worker's rights, you are not struggling for working women's rights, you are struggling over the division of a shrinking share of wealth while the tiniest minority grow their share at your expense.

You say


but you don't seem to recognize that now the particular form of struggle you're engaged in harms more people than it helps. Nor do you see that these inequalities cannot be 'dealt with' in a more immediate sense within a system of exploitation. Equal opportunity exploitation is not justice. And you don't make allies by insisting that the already exploited give up what they have struggled to gain from their oppressors so that whatever clique you belong to has a better shot at joining those oppressors.

Also, to cast my position as 'selfish' is disingenuous in the extreme. I repeat - I am not arguing for the interests of a privileged clique of women - I was offering political representation as ONE example of the continued need for feminism.
Just to be clear - are you actually suggesting that feminism isn't necessary?

 

[DrDelirium]

Also, to cast my position as 'selfish' is disingenuous in the extreme. I repeat - I am not arguing for the interests of a privileged clique of women - I was offering political representation as ONE example of the continued need for feminism.
Just to be clear - are you actually suggesting that feminism isn't necessary?

By no means. However, there is more than one kind of feminism, just as there is more than one kind of struggle for the rights of ethnic and racial minorities. As I mentioned, a struggle for equal opportunity, quota-based slavery would be easily recognized by most people as the wrong kind of struggle for civil rights, because, to spell it out, it doesn't increase the total of human rights one iota.
It's not just theoretically likely, it's historically factual that struggles to reapportion the limited wealth and privileges that are unevenly distributed among the lower classes are divisive and support the massive privileges of the ruling class. Struggles to gain entry for 'representatives' of oppressed groups into an oppressive elite just lead to the reinforcement of oppression as those representatives are co-opted. This is glaringly obvious with the congressional Black Caucus, for instance, but you can go back to ancient Rome and look at the history of 'Tribunes of the People,' to see the same principle in action.
There are different kinds of feminists in the US, but our media tends to talk only about specific kinds of feminists- those who are 'breaking glass ceilings,' or those that are wealthy celebrities. Since the media is a tool of the ruling class, this is no surprise, but it ought to be a caution.

 

[KimGordon67]

By no means. However, there is more than one kind of feminism, just as there is more than one kind of struggle for the rights of ethnic and racial minorities. As I mentioned, a struggle for equal opportunity, quota-based slavery would be easily recognized by most people as the wrong kind of struggle for civil rights, because, to spell it out, it doesn't increase the total of human rights one iota.
It's not just theoretically likely, it's historically factual that struggles to reapportion the limited wealth and privileges that are unevenly distributed among the lower classes are divisive and support the massive privileges of the ruling class. Struggles to gain entry for 'representatives' of oppressed groups into an oppressive elite just lead to the reinforcement of oppression as those representatives are co-opted. This is glaringly obvious with the congressional Black Caucus, for instance, but you can go back to ancient Rome and look at the history of 'Tribunes of the People,' to see the same principle in action.
There are different kinds of feminists in the US, but our media tends to talk only about specific kinds of feminists- those who are 'breaking glass ceilings,' or those that are wealthy celebrities. Since the media is a tool of the ruling class, this is no surprise, but it ought to be a caution.

Jesus wept. It was one example in response to one comment, not a thesis on my poltical position as a feminist or anything else. You decided to extrapolate from that to my entire ideological universe, and from there tell me how I 'should' be doing feminism.

 

[DrDelirium]

Jesus wept. It was one example in response to one comment, not a thesis on my poltical position as a feminist or anything else. You decided to extrapolate from that to my entire ideological universe, and from there tell me how I 'should' be doing feminism.

No, I only say what I think people should not be doing. I don't expect that your original comment reflects the totality of your political views, but you have not expressed any other, and you've made further comments that support my interpretation of the original. Of course, you don't care what I think, but somewhere along the line it might be helpful to articulate how your view of gender representation fits in with a broader struggle for social justice.

 

[coachdb18]

Proficiency takes practice, 1,000 rounds with a rifle, 5,000 rounds with a handgun.

Now there’s a pile of horseshit! The average liberal is a firearms illiterate, paint a broomstick black and put a cooling jacket on it, and they’ll be screaming ‘assault rifle’ and try to get it banned. The number of rounds you shoot doesn’t make you any better shot than does the number of times your heart beats makes you smart. Technique comes with skill developed from more practice than counting spent cartridges, and making the same illiterate mistake 5000 times only satisfies those doing the same with public education.

 

[sr71plt]

I have no idea what putting a "cooling jacket" on a weapon would do, but I can distinguish 59 bodies created within 10 minutes from 1 or 2 before the killing stops and am smart enough to know that the only reason that people like you support having weapons that do the former job in civilian hands is because those civilians need to have their penis toys.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, I only say what I think people should not be doing. I don't expect that your original comment reflects the totality of your political views, but you have not expressed any other, and you've made further comments that support my interpretation of the original. Of course, you don't care what I think, but somewhere along the line it might be helpful to articulate how your view of gender representation fits in with a broader struggle for social justice.

To start a discussion around how to address the inherent and extremely varied inequities of current western late-capitalist societies would be an extreme derailment of the OP, and also a bit of a waste of time, because you and I are the only people in this particular thread interested in that topic. The depth and breadth of that particular topic is something that deserves a much wider discussion - if you want to start the relevant thread, by all means do so.

 

[JackLuis]

Now there’s a pile of horseshit! The average liberal is a firearms illiterate, paint a broomstick black and put a cooling jacket on it, and they’ll be screaming ‘assault rifle’ and try to get it banned. The number of rounds you shoot doesn’t make you any better shot than does the number of times your heart beats makes you smart. Technique comes with skill developed from more practice than counting spent cartridges, and making the same illiterate mistake 5000 times only satisfies those doing the same with public education.

While I can agree that repetition and skill development are needed as part of the practice, I can see that you are a knee jerk reactionary, so having a conversation with you would be futile.

I find this often the case with east coast assholes, it must be something in the water out there?

 

[DrDelirium]

And you again assume that political representation is the only concern I have, based on one comment.
Again, for clarification - you latched onto one comment I made in response to a point about feminism and constructed my entire political position around that.

You still decline to offer any other view.

Are you seriously suggesting increased economic ineuality has been caused by increased gender and ethnic equality? Because that's sort of how your comment reads.

Increased economic inequality is a function of capitalism. The particular form
of so-called gender and ethnic equality, which has not resulted in actual equality at all, is a tool to destroy working class movements, undercut wages, and facilitate the rapid transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper. As long as people struggle around percentages of representation in elite bodies or income groups and DO NOT AT THE SAME TIME STRUGGLE AROUND FUNDAMENTAL CLASS ISSUES they will be aiding the system of oppression.


Do you know who I usually see making the argument that capitalism is the only enemy of significance? Straight white cis men. Do you know who is usually making the argument for an intersectional approach to inequality? People who aren't straight/white/cis/men. Obviously I have no idea whether this is the case for you, but I'd strongly suggest that the straight white cis male Marxists of the world check their privilege before they start telling other disenfranchised groups what they 'should' be fighting for.

Perhaps you're only looking selectively. I, for instance, am not a straight white cis male. And most of the people that I see discussing these issues are not either. If you would like to learn something on the topic, you might start with Black Agenda Report. https://blackagendareport.com/

"Intersectional" is, btw, a reference to an approach to social change that starts with the superficialities of gender and ethnicity and then attempts to find common cause among different identity groups. But the cause already exists if you begin from the perspective of class and unite around class issues. Is there a problem with legacy cultural attitudes among people who do this? Certainly. As everywhere else. Intersectionality, however, is special in terms of attempting to enforce some kind of invented 'post-revolutionary' standard of social/cultural behavior on people before the fundamental components of that revolution are even in play- and actively resists engaging in that revolution, because its leading proponents are members of various elites striving for greater privilege.

 

[DrDelirium]

To start a discussion around how to address the inherent and extremely varied inequities of current western late-capitalist societies would be an extreme derailment of the OP, and also a bit of a waste of time, because you and I are the only people in this particular thread interested in that topic. The depth and breadth of that particular topic is something that deserves a much wider discussion - if you want to start the relevant thread, by all means do so.

I am happy to discuss the issues as they arise, but certainly no one is preventing you from starting that thread. Do you think that your deflections are less of a derailment than actually discussing issues that are relevant to the OP- which, I believe was about the inanities of at least certain flavors of 'leftist' protesters?

 

[DawnODay]

I did not read the original post to be so much about the pros and cons of gun control as I read it to be about the ridiculous ways self-styled "Progressives" handle political debate now-of-days....

It was both, actually.

 

[SandraSxy]

Ah yes, America's answer to everything "more guns".

"guns dont kill people, people kill people" - obviously with the guns from above of course. But the second amendment assholes cant understand that. LOL. How many people with a concealed carry permit have actually used their weapon? ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[hogjack]

Gonna be fun!

Oddsmakers have the Right as a distinct favorite in a civil war but the Left has enough bodies available to make it closer than people think.

 

[My I]

Nevermind. Just realized how old this thread is and liberals haven't learned a fucking thing.