I keep getting asked in round about ways, what could have possibly happened to me

[boston bean]

because of some of the opinions that I hold.

Such as, believing in the patriarchy. Believing that women are victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and that it is due to the culture we live in. I am questioned like I couldn't possibly hold a valid opinion because, well, I must have been raped, molested, abused in some fashion, and I am tainted against men. And the person just needs to know, "what could have possibly happened to me"... Like that is some sort of valid question to ask of someone you think might be a victim?

Also, I am accused quite often that because I focus on womens issues, that I must hate men. Which is categorically false on it's face.

Well, to all of you wondering what could have possibly made me the person who I am, it's none of your fucking business. Other than the fact that I am a progressive, liberal and a feminist. I've had it with the insinuations, and the below the belt type questioning in all walks of life. It's a disgusting tactic, it's not liberal or progressive or democratic in any way shape or form.

And this, not about DU, although it's happened here, where you see these types of accusations flying about, and it's disgusting if you ask me. You will find them on almost any site dedicated to womens issues, and newspaper articles that discuss this topic. I just wanted to point out something that I see happening quite often and would like others to chime in with their thoughts, and determine if you've seen it too.

Good day. I'm going shopping for a bit, and will catch up later.

[zerosumgame0005]

1. well when accusations are tossed about

by you or me or others it is to be expected to be questioned on what agenda is being used to promote them...

[NaturalHigh]

3. I agree.

So many people just expect everyone to accept their views as some sort of holy revelations and their motives as pure. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

[Morning Dew]

2. Women who question

get labeled "man haters" and are vilified.

Our culture hates women and it's not even noticed.


We live in a sick, sick world.

[mzteris]

6. Always reminds me of

back when I was young and go out dancing with my friends. If a guy asked you to dance, and you turned him down, then you must be one them there lesbians. . . No asshole. I just didn't like YOU.

How do some of these people explain male feminists, I wonder? They probably think they're all gay or something.

This country was built upon and still is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. That attitude is so entrenched and institutionalized that the vast majority of people don't even realize it or refuse to admit it exists. Those who protest the most? Well, it seems they may have the most to "lose" if that little set-up is ever dismantled.

Women - feminist women - are seen as a threat to that institution. As are minorities, atheists, glbt and anyone "different" from that demographic.

[Sheldon Cooper]

12. They think that male feminists are just

saying what they think women want to hear, in hopes of getting laid. That's always the ulterior motive with a certain subset of men, and they can't conceive that other males might do things without regard to their chances of getting sex.

[snooper2]

18. I think some folks here just need to start YouTube channels

Easier to get your point across...


Example #1

&nofeather=True

[Morning Dew]

19. That's all kinds of fucked up.

A full 16 minutes of fail.

[Orrex]

4. Atheists are, to a smaller degree, subjected to a similar "analysis"

That is, a certain brand of theist assumes that atheism can only be a response to religion-based trauma, such as sexual assault or some vile experience. This is a reductionist attitude and might describe some atheists but certainly doesn't describe most or all, and such victims of trauma shouldn't be seen as emblematic of the whole.

I imagine that some feminists have been inspired to their views as a result of trauma or assault, but I would imagine also that this is likewise a small and nonrepresentative sample of feminsts in general.


When asked when I "became" atheist, my usual response is that I have always been atheist, at least since I was old enough to consider the matter, but certainly since before I knew what the word meant.

I suspect that a lot of feminists could say something similar: they didn't "become" feminst so much as they realized that this term is consistent with their views on gender and equality.


And you're right about your roundabout questioners--it's none of their damn business.

[hfojvt]

5. actually it is

a couple weeks ago, I started a little online business called "what happened to Boston Bean to make her the way she is"

I figure if I sell 100,000 copies of your biography for $2 a pop, then easy street here I come.

I have long noticed a trend in discussions here, from talking about a topic to talking about a person.

One person starts an OP or makes a post that says something like "X is true". Where X is something like "Rich people are not taxed enough". or "Occupy Wall Street has failed" or any topic of debate. Then many replies will end up talking, not so much about the topic, but about the PERSON who just made the post. "You are jealous of rich people", "You WISH that OWS would fail, but it hasn't". But is does not even have to be a DUer. For example this thread seemed to revolve around the PERSON talking rather than the CONTENT of what the person actually said http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022246619#post223

Perhaps that is politics. I remember reading once that a scientist reacts differently to a statement than a politician. The scientist will hear a statement and ask "Is it true?" whereas a politician will want to know "WHY did he/she say it?"

But there certainly can be validity in the latter question, because sometimes people will say things not because they believe them to be true, but because they want to provoke a reaction. Because writing things will get reactions, particularly about charged topics like rape, and some people, rather than engaging in honest discussion, could actually be playing some sort of game, like "poke the liberals" or something.

[DCKit]

7. You must be one of them uppity wimmens. nt

[ananda]

8. Well, I would agree that ..

.. women's oppression is part of a wider societal problem: classism.

Subsets of classism are created to keep people divided and powerless: sexism, racism, homophobia, adultism, and so on.

In my opinion, this is all now subject to the meme of mechanism: that everything, including humans, can be fixed with a mechanical or technological solution. The problem is that this meme itself is false. The world in its entirety, including humanity, is actually holistic; and treating it as an other thing with parts that can be destroyed or fixed is exactly what will bring down life as we know it.

Until we start seeing past the "other" to the actual reality of holism, nothing will really change for the better.

[patrice]

9. Pretty sure this is the first time I've ever said this: I wish I could rec this post 1,000 times.

Yes, victims should have specific consideration due to victimization . . .

But a Victim Culture that says ________________ CANNOT be understood, except as a victim of _______________ , is something that I will resist, no matter what ________________ is, with whatever I have to offer.

Yes, things/experiences are "understood" differently, but absolute 100% uniqueness would have to deny a HUMAN context that potentiates very specific concretely shared experiential traits that can be valued by ANYONE authentically motivated to do so.

[Jim Lane]

10. I see these less as "accusations" than as irrelevant distractions.

Each of us has a particular set of experiences, life circumstances, etc. Of course those shape our opinions. I'm a cancer survivor and that affects my view of health care policy.

The best answer is: "So what?"

Something that you write about how the government treats rape, or something that I write about pre-existing medical conditions, is correct or it's incorrect, regardless of why we wrote it.

You focus on how this amateur psychologizing is "none of your fucking business." I don't disagree, but I think it's even more important to note the point that hfojvt made in #5: The question of why someone said something is generally less important than the question whether what was said is true.

[In_The_Wind]

11. We all have a right to an opinion. You don't need to defend yourself from personal attacks.

[Logical]

13. It is a discussion board, so people are allowed to ask you that. Don't take....

It so personal!

[curlyred]

16. I think the people asking make it personal

And the repetitive nature of thinly veiled insinuations, insults and assumptions Is sickening. I've read some of these and BB is right on.

[Logical]

21. Some people take a anonymous discussion board too serious. n-t

[Lunacee_2013]

14. Nothing to add really, but

I know what you mean. Luckily, I don't see it happen here too often, but I have seen it before.

[stevenleser]

15. Ad-hominem arguments are logical fallacies for a reason

Unfortunately, there is a lot of it in political discussion. Few of us here on DU can say we have never done it. I try not to do so but I fail every once in a while.

[snooper2]

17. LOL

Thanks for listening to my rant-

Now I'm off to buy some yard tools and maybe a snickers

[olddots]

20. This is the internet

This is the internet -----this is the internet ---

[smirkymonkey]

22. K&R, Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I know all too well what you are speaking about.

[rrneck]

23. Well, you're right that it's none of my business.

But I wonder, and I wonder because I don't know, how much speculation can be found in feminist theory regarding the motivations for mysogyny and patriarchy? What is behind the male gaze? What drives benevolent chauvenism? Do you think I could find any speculation about men's experiences to explain their behavior?