Abomination said:
It is one sided and isn't tit-for-tat. YOU are not an organisation that is trying to convince the general public of something. If someone's message is not being heard or delivered then that organisation is responsible for changing their tactics, not the people they want to convince. Nobody is responsible to be convinced by someone else.
The problem is folks would hardly call themselves "radfems" they will just call themselves "feminists". If the moderates do not segregate THEMSELVES from the radfems then their image will (and does) sadly suffer from the actions of the radfems.
The MRAs are not an organisation. Feminism is not an organisation. The civil rights movement is not an organisation. LGBT rights advocates are not an organisation.
There are plenty of ideological movements concerned with society that are not organisations, and therefore they do not need to play by the same rules actual organisations do. By the fact that they are not an organisation, they don't need to have uniformity or codify their beliefs/behaviours. This is a
benefit, not a flaw. This allows for people who might have different ideas and philosophies to work together for a common goal. The fact that there are radfems and moderate feminists and anything in between, and that they all participate in slutwalks, political lobbying, blogging, voting and so on, is a good thing. The lack of needless restrictions allow people to work together when they otherwise wouldn't.
Restricting and dividing a movement is a bad thing. It drives clear lines in ideology, making it harder for the movement as a whole to put their differences aside and work together, and when it comes to marginalised groups (and particularly minorities), numbers are extremely important (for political and social weight). And I say this with full awareness that it counts for the MRAs too, who I wish quite fervently would dissolve already.
In the end, it's not as simple as you think it is. Would the moderate feminists benefit more from any new "converts" at the cost of the potential loss of the radfems? And what about those who are on the fence? Because I happen to sympathise with the radfems quite a bit (save for some of the most extremist views), so where would I go? Do we pick a side, knowing it won't fully represent us? Or do we fraction the movement even further, shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to presenting a unified front?
This isn't about ME being forced to agree to something. This is about the feminist movement's ABILITY to convince people and the problems it faces.
It isn't for MY benefit, it is for THEIR benefit. The reason they have issues convincing those left to be convinced is because of a public image issue. The very NAME feminism is a terrible term for what is supposed to be "gender equality". It doesn't matter how many times they repeat their goals, the movement is called "feminism" which any idiot could tell does nothing to help their supposed message of gender equality.
And I fail to see how your suggestions are more than just your opinion. I fail to see how it really IS in their benefit. It seems to me like an attempt to segregate the more radical side of feminism so that the moderate feminists are encouraged to allow for the more subtle forms of sexism to continue in the name of "public image."
Also, feminism isn't simply gender equality (that would be one of the facets of the broader ideology of equalism, which is also completely compatible with feminism. I myself am a feminist ally and an equalist). Feminism is about addressing the gender inequalities from the perspective of women, who are the ones that suffer the most from this. The MRAs, misogynistic as they might be, have a similar idea in that they want to address the problems men as a gender suffer. Feminism is just like that, but from the perspective of women.
So? It's still there and they are the bridge between the pro and the anti. If you can't convince them how will you possibly get through to the anti-feminists? Convincing those in the middle is exactly what can spell the difference between a majority and a minority.
If the bridge is a tiny minority, it's not going to make a difference whatsoever. In order to make the loss of the extremists mathematically advantageous, the middle ground has to be just as big. And in order for the ccange to be a tangible advantage, the middle ground must be a lot more numerous than the extremists.
I do not think this is the case.
And that very situation is perpetrated by women who DO intentionally accuse men of false rape. They are the ones who give this dismissal the benefit of the doubt required to result in a man being found not guilty. It doesn't have to happen OFTEN it just has to HAPPEN. That is what benefit of the doubt is about.
Statistically speaking,
it will always happen. Every single crime has its share of false accusers. Reducing them to zero is statistically impossible.
False accusers are a very, very small minority, and if you think that they are responsible for the awful travesty real victims have to go through, you are gravely mistaken. Do they contribute to the situation? Yes. But in any problematic situation with multiple factors, you need to prioritise. False accusers are not a priority, since they are not as important as many other factors that are far, far more influential in the situation, such as societal misogyny and rape culture, just to name the two biggest factors in this case.
Don't find it offensive, it isn't. They are both suffering the SAME problem. THAT is what a parallel is. The difference is that feminism has the tools available to FIX the problem. The parallel is drawn to highlight just how much a select few can ruin the image and goals of the whole movement. How false rape accusations result in a far worse time for legitimate rape accusations.
And I personally don't think it's a problem that needs fixing. I think societal movements work just fine the way they are, for the reasons I mentioned above, and I think it's a lot more productive to educate people to accept that they can identify with a movement without identifying with the more extremist types, than to fragment a movement to the point where it has no political weight. I know this because that's how politics in my country work. To make a long story as short as possible, the current government has very little opposition because the fragmentation in the different political parties prevent them from coming together as a block despite the fact that doing so would likely get them a majority. Everyone denounces how terrible the current government is, but the opposition cannot get its act together because they can't put their differences aside.
If the feminism movement fragmented, the radfems would fight the moderate fems, who'd fight the trufems (or however the third fragmentation would end up calling themselves), who'd fight the radfems and so on. Instead of coming together under the banner of feminism, they'd spend all their time squabbling over who embodies the true spirit of feminism and how all the other feminists have it wrong. And, most importantly, considering all three groups as minorities instead of one big group would rob them of their political power. They would give more ammunition to those who dismiss feminism as unnecessary, as they would point at the fragmentation and lack of union as "proof" that feminism is superfluous and not something worth listening to.
And a lot of people do not, they also tend to be the people who need convincing of the merits of gender equality, that's why feminism needs to take heed. They have already made allies or converted the reasonable people, it's the unreasonable people they need to convince because unreasonable people STILL vote and STILL make up the demographic.
You are displaying the typical problem now: "feminism doesn't have to adapt, THEY do!". That attitude shoots the feminist movement in the foot. Being unwilling to adapt to the successes feminism has had, to face a more concentrated opposition is doing it no favours and is leading to stagnation. You will never convince people who have deeply held beliefs by repeating the same mantra at them, you need to change the method of delivery and consider what their issues are. A lot of people who do not agree with the feminist ideal do so because they are either confused as to what it exactly stands for (as we can see with this very thread title and the responses given - depends on the feminist) or they are turned off by the radicals that have not been segregated by the more reasonable and moderate feminist movement.
All movements need to carefully balance gaining new adherents with "selling out" their core beliefs. With the deeply ingrained sexism in our society, separating themselves from the radfems and attempting to make compromises and concessions to gain more adherents might end up harming the moderate feminists in the long run.
I think every movement needs the balance between extremists and moderates to function. Not only because this indicates that the movement welcomes the entire spectrum of ideology, but they also act as a positive influence on each other. I firmly believe that the moderates often prevent the extremists from being
too extremist, and that the extremists prevent the moderates from being
too moderate. It also emphasises cooperation and putting aside differences to reach a common goal instead of emphasising differences and fragmentation.
That there are variations of opinion within a movement is a good thing. Feminism shouldn't be a tyrannical regime where dissenters from the official dogma are exiled and forbidden from calling themselves feminists. No movement should ever be like that. We have to accept that there will always be people with the same goals as us who will have radically different opinions on some things, and that does not stop us from working together or adopting the same designation.
So? That had nothing to do with what was being discussed. What was being discussed was how a particular subset of a group can ruin the image of others. Unfortunately for MOST males or MOST of those who take issue with some of the ideals held by some feminists they are not part of "the patriarchy". I say "unfortunately" because to be one of those people sounds like it would be a pretty awesome thing, not because of the ideals but because of the power and influence one would have to hold to be considered a member.
The reason I bring up the patriarchy is because the patriarchy isn't isolated from the world in its gold-and-ivory tower. It exerts its influence on the world in many different ways, and has been doing so since the first patriarchal societies were formed. Your very opinion is proof of the influence the patriarchy has on most people. The patriarchy paints its status as highly desirable, its opinions as something to respect, and its lifestyle as something to hold dear. Most straight cis white males aspire to become a patriarch, and the world turns accordingly. The antiquated ideals of the patriarchy will always trickle down to the rest of society for as long as we consider the patriarchy a respected "exclusive club" to aspire to.
In the case of the patriarchy, that extremely small portion of the population has far more influence on society than any extremist, and (straight white cis) males are the most influenced by the patriarchy because they were raised on traditionalism, conservativism and antiquated ideals (all stemming, of course, from the patriarchy). And the reason I say "males" despite the fact that there are women who aren't feminists (and there are plenty of anti-feminist women) is because only males are allowed to aspire to join the patriarchy. A woman who aspires to hold the same power and influence as a patriarch is a feminist by default.
Do not discount the influence of the patriarchy simply because they're a very small minority. Not all extremists are created equal, and some wield vastly more power than others.
11 times before she was punished. Eleven. One woman was able to make ELEVEN accusations before facing punishment for lying about being raped. The police have to follow up and investigate every single one of these. Her actions have indirectly harmed the cases of legitimate rape victims. That's the point I have been making from the start.
Over a decade.
Serial killers have gone on longer undiscovered (and unpunished). Do not underestimate the time period over which a person commits their crimes.
The benefit of the doubt is always given to the defendant, not the accuser.
Which is precisely why I do not share your opinion that false accusers are such a large part of the problem. The court is already biased in favour of the defendant, and far more so in the case of rape and sexual assault. I do not think false rape accusations harm legitimate rape accusation as much as plenty of other factors.
There is no way of knowing how many not-guilty verdicts were false accusations or, unfortunately, due to lack of evidence. We have proof of both occurring but the investigation required to prove if a woman was making a false accusation has the same issues as proving a man raped a woman - benefit of the doubt being given to the fake accuser that it wasn't fake. The woman has to be proven to have lied about the rape, which means there needs to be evidence that there was a motive, it was performed intentionally and the woman knew what she was doing at the time. Think about how hard it is to prove someone guilty for rape, it is even more difficult to prove a false rape accusation.
You just said that the benefit of the doubt always goes to the defendant (and it's true). It's even more so in the case of rape. The possibilities of an innocent person being convicted of rape is practically nil.
They deserve attention because they harm legitimate victims' cases indirectly. They deserve attention because they tie up the police's time. They deserve attention because just being accused of rape still isn't a nice thing to have happen. It is a way a woman can really mess with a man's day, week or month (or potentially life if a conviction occurs) with relatively minimal blowback, if any, if it is her first accusation. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean that it should be ignored because it causes collateral damage to other justice proceedings.
I happen to think that there are far more important things that deserve attention when it comes to rape accusations, such as the ingrained sexism in society, rape culture, slut-shaming and other societal aspects. I consider false rape accusations to be exceedingly low in the list of priorities.
And more importantly, I consider that overly focusing on false rape accusations is a form of subtle misogyny, as it yet again focuses on what the woman is doing wrong, on how it's women who are harming rape convictions (instead of societal sexism), on how men are the 'real victims' and so on. I consider that overly focusing on the
one thing in the entire affair of male-on-female rape where the man is the victim and the woman is the wrongdoer, instead of on the numerous things men do (such as physical and verbal harassment, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, dirt-throwing, considering the bodies of women as public property, considering themselves entitled to sex, manipulation, coercion, threatening, assaulting, drugging, not giving two shits about consent and oh, I don't know,
RAPING) is incredibly disingenuous, whether inadvertently or wilfully.
I am not going to give a crap over false rape accusations until the higher-priority matters are taken care of.
