To celebrate women’s week, the Carolina Women’s Center is involved in a project entitled Take Back the F-Word. It is a project in which students are to “Imagine a world where no one is confined by rigid gender expectations . . . a world built on ideals of inclusivity and social justice.”
The f-word project is an attempt to redefine what feminism means: “No matter what you imagine—there’s a feminism for that!”
This week the Women’s Center is sponsoring an exhibit in the union full of offensive artworks. The artwork is meant to illustrate the need for consent before sex (I think). There are unnecessary nude/half-naked pictures of women and men meant to get their point across.
There are also T-shirts hanging along the wall. The shirts each have sentences scribbled on the front. Phrases such as “Rape hurts people” etc. are among the messages scrawled.
But, does this display make sense within the context of the f-word project? What if one’s feminism is so “inclusive” as to include rape? What if one’s standard is one’s pleasure? The f-word people seem to be hypocritical on this point.
To say that men should not rape women is to “confine” them into “rigid gender expectations.” It is, according to the feminist’s standard, not feminist.
Fornication is a sin against both God and the body. To say that it is not merely because one feels “constrained” is to open the door to moral relativism. Continuing along the same line of reasoning, rape is a sin as well not only because it is a sin against the body and against God, but because the rapist is violating an individual’s property (his body) and his inherent worth.
Unfortunately, feminists don’t see it that way. UNC feminists lack the moral authority to promote healthy relationships because they are relativists.
Good point, Crowder. My version of feminism doesn't allow me to be constrained from punching you in the back of the head for such a gross use of Reductio ad absurdum.
This would be funnier if I knew your name.
Anonymous flaming of message boards is more fun when done anonymously.
Good point.
So, I guess sex wouldn't be included in your definition of a "healthy relationship" then?
I didn't say sex. I said fornication.
Do you even know what you're talking about? First of all, before you start going off about the CWC exhibit, perhaps you should research exactly what the exhibit is about.
Secondly, in what context is rape ever OK? Like you mentioned, it's a violation of one's body. Unfortunately, women seem to be the targets of most sexual assaults. Does the fact that it's a demeaning, intrusive, and destructive action make rape "relative"? You'll probably fire back some farfetched counterargument, but I'd be willing to bet that nearly everyone -feminist or not- sees rape as an issue. Relative? i don't think so.
Where did he say that rape was OK?
I think that you simply saw someone use the word "rape" without it being immediately followed by "worst crime possible" and assumed that he had dismissed it as a non-issue. I won't speak for Justin, but I would think that he meant rape as an example of the contradictory nature of feminism.
Obviously most people see rape as a crime. I was merely asking why.
"To say that men should not rape women is to “confine” them into “rigid gender expectations.” It is, according to the feminist’s standard, not feminist."
Rape is the brutal physical manifestation of male dominance over a woman. So logically, saying that a man should not rape a woman is saying that a man should not confine himself to violent, abusive "rigid gender expectations" as you like to call it.
Also, when did fornication come into the mix. Pit preach much?
You're trying to force a point about morality that doesn't have a place here. If you want to talk about relativism, that's fine, but try forming an argument around something that actually applies. What this comes down to, is that you're uncomfortable with the material on display because it contains nudity. You're free to disagree with the exhibit and you could even write a story on "Moral Indecency in Modern Feminist Display" which may be slightly stupid, but it would at least have an argument based on the first half of your article. Honestly, it looks like you wanted to write an article about moral relativism and then forced the current situation to apply, when it doesn't.
Basically what I'm saying is that you need to learn to properly form an argument. It's fine to disagree with people, as long as you can back up why you disagree with them. Unfortunately you haven't backed up your arguments at all, so you look ignorant, as is often the case when conservatives talk about anything remotely pertaining to sexuality.
It sounds as if i touched upon a sensitive subject. I don't know you so I couldn't have meant it personally.
Justin, is it really necessary to belittle and insult someone's comments just because they disagree with you? Whether this commenter is taking it personally or not is really not the point, especially considering his/her comment is so much more competent and sensical than your original post. Did your debating skills form on your elementary school playground?
I didn't mean to belittle you at all. I was dead serious. Gracious alive you must be a woman.
Good comeback, man. Hard to believe no one takes you seriously.
Haha, well I mean I doubt anyone takes me seriously. If you've ever seen Crowder Chat . . .
question begging = you assume the very thing that you are trying to show
the "feminists" are trying to show that rigid gender expectations result in men raping women, so wouldn't saying that "men should not rape women" just be in support of the claim that rigid gender expectations tend to have bad consequences?
who's the one begging the question?
I changed it just for you 🙂
I am confused. Nevertheless I don't doubt I could have worded it better.
The "feminists" (why the quotation marks?) are saying that NOBODY should rape another person, regardless of the gender of either party involved in the assault. Just because the CWC is sponsoring this doesn't mean they're doing it with only females in mind.
Here, here!
Yeah, I'm a bit confused about the fornication part. Maybe if Mr. Crowder actually knew something about sexual relationships he wouldn't be spouting such nonsense.
Haha, um the fornication part was meant to explain one of the reasons rape is wrong.
I think Mr. Crowder's argument has been torn well and truly apart already, but just some points for clarification: 1) feminism is not about morality, it is about equality–which is not relative, 2) though women are disproportionately affected by rape, rape also affects men and children and 3) to say that feminists as a general population are all moral relativists who lack the authority to promote healthy relationships is as insulting as saying that all Christians as a general population (and just pause here to think about how I'm lumping you in with Greek Orthodox Catholic, Latter Day Saint and Southern Baptist) are narrow-minded in their approach to issues of gender equality. And that last statement is put much more euphemistically than your own.
I didn't say that feminists as a general population are all relativists. Its just that the Women's Center said we should feminism whatever we want.
Actually, you did: "Unfortunately, feminists don’t see it that way. UNC feminists lack the moral authority to promote healthy relationships because they are relativists."
Okay, then. I meant UNC feminists who adhear to the specific philosophy I outline. I thought that was obvious.
"Unfortunately, feminists don’t see it that way. UNC feminists lack the moral authority to promote healthy relationships because they are relativists."
I am a feminist, I am a member of the UNC community, and I am not a moral relativist. Among other things, I think rape is wrong, period. I think anyone who believes that rape is acceptable is wrong, period. How's that for some absolutism?
Let's chill with the generalizations, please.
sigh
sounds like a feminist
There's nothing serious here other than Justin Crowder's determination to proclaim his own ignorance and antipathy for feminism. Mission accomplished.
hear hear! feminism is stupid!
I wish that this argument would have been formed in a way that promoted discussion. Instead you throw us off by suggesting that rape might be a way to free oneself from "rigid gender expressions."
That suggestion was, to use your own words, "unnecessary… to get [the] point across." I understand what you're trying to discuss, but in forming your argument around such a theme, you falter in the same way that the exhibit might.
You could have used arguments and examples that made people think critically about their own beliefs and actions. Let's say you changed your focus slightly to argue the following: Modern day feminism seems to withhold critique on any decision made by a woman (whether or not it falls within the ideal of empowerment and equity) on the basis that she is exercising "choice." The Women's Center holds that "No matter what you imagine– there's a feminism for that!" … Well, then you could go on to discuss some specific examples of broadly supported decisions self-proclaimed feminists have made that might not actually promote gender equity. I'd imagine people who had made those choices might then be open to discussion to promote understanding.
Though your article got our attention for it's outrageous statements, it shut people down. If that was your goal, so be it, but I would hope that your intent was to make the reader think critically, not lash out like some kind of "feminist-gone-wild."
I am sorry you think so. I don't understand how I shut people down. I also don't understand where I make outrageous statements. The title was the only thing I could come up with, it is not very good. I didn't write this to promote discussion I wrote it because it's how I feel about a subject and I needed a post because I am apparently the only one left writing for CRdaily.
Since multiple people are outraged, I'd call this outrageous.
Since no one is discussing the true issue in your column, I'd say you shut discussion down. (Perhaps that is more aptly worded.)
Since you're openly criticizing yourself and your paper, you should think twice before you publish your next article.
Your first two sentences make no sense to me. I think perhaps you should think twice before reading my next article if it makes you this upset. But thank you for your input, and I am sorry I offended you.
Let's be clear. It doesn't upset me. It makes me question whether you should be writing articles.
I question this based on the following:
– You're not writing articles to cause people to think critically
– You feel like you have to write them because no one else is writing
– You admit that you were rushed in writing it and did not put much thought into title, etc.
I'm not trying to be hyper-critical, I'm just trying to make you realize and question something, before you're just mass-producing articles that you don't even care about. If you're going to write an opinion piece, it should be to convince. Which only happens through discussion.
To write "because it's how I feel about a subject," is what you should do in your diary, not the "number one university alternative media outlet."
And you really, really still don't get my first two assertions?
They were answers to your first "I don't understand" statements. And they are worded as clearly as I can think possible.
I agree that Gillian's first two assertions are quite clear. The "since…then…" type argument is a basic debate strategy. Perhaps your grasp of how to build a logical argument is…erm…underdeveloped.
wowzers can you ever teach me?
I do care about my posts, just not as much as you apparently.
I get your first two assertions in the sense that, like you said about me, I understand what you are trying to say, but I do not think they make sense. It does not follow that because people think something is outrageous it is. Nor does it follow that because no one is discussing my post as you would like that I have shut discussion down.
Also, what in tarnation do you mean by think critically? I'm sorry, I am too stupid to understand.
Also, I was being a bit sarcastic.
Also, the title is irrelevant.
Also, have a nice day.
wow, speak for yourself. If you are not a UNC feminist, then don't assume you know what they are or believe in. First of all, not all feminists believe the same thing. One thing I am sure of, rape is not in any way condoned by feminists. Feminism would never condone rape because at the base of all types of feminism is the belief in gender equality and the belief that everyone should have equal access to the same opportunities. Feminists believe in treating other people with respect. Rape is a violent crime in which 95% of the time it's a male perpetrator hurting a female. Clearly rape is one issue that feminists take very seriously and would NEVER consider okay.
On another note, how is it possible that you are this ignorant? Maybe you should actually talk to someone from the CWC, LISTEN to them, and try to understand the exhibit a bit more.
p.s. god has nothing to do with it
Yes, I take issue with this. Rape is not the same thing as forceful sex. Rape is about exerting control over someone else body. It is a general consensus among people of all moral backgrounds that violating someone else body is wrong.
Feminist ideology is by definition not morally relativist. Justin, why do you continue to claim it is?
God has to do with everything. Secondly, what are you talking about? Thirdly, I never said anyone condoned rape.
Awww, poor Justin’s still got a third-grade attitude: “Ewww, sex is gross!”
Seriously, what’s so “offensive” and “unnecessary” about images of naked people?
haha . . . I must admit that being someone with artist friends I understand how people see it as art. People are basically taught that crap is art from elementary school thanks to our stupid public school system. They are offensive because the art in the union is bad art.
hear hear!
they make me puke.
Now I get why you dig moral absolutes…it makes it very easy to judge others and dismiss their opinions. How convenient for you. I assume that's what gives you the authority to make presumptions about the attitude towards sex of every single person on campus.
I don't know why I'm even reading this blog.
GASP! NOT MORALS!!! ANYTHING BUT MORALS!!!
Let me ask you this, since you apparently dig images of naked people. Would you be fine if posters of you or (if you have one) your sister in the nude, were posted all over the place?
"most modern nudity is grotesque"
you guys are hilarious. even though the original post was the rhetorical equivalent of farting in an elevator, you got a few earnest responses, to which you have revealed that A. you find modern representations human body to be grotesque and B. if God wasn't telling you what to do, you'd think rape was just fine.
Wow, I’ve never been called an elevator-farter before. Hilarious.
O, I think the response confirms a little theory of mine. I believe that at a core level, conservatism is built around disgust, especially disgust of things that remind people of their animal nature, such as sex. As a result, conservatives are also obsessed with purity (code name: moral absolutes). They must make sure they are never contaminated by icky, dirty sex — unless they follow strict rules to purify it — because icky, dirty sex reminds them that they are animals and like animals, they one day will die.
An image of a naked body in the Union is a contamination, and therefore disgusting.
Sorry, I was referring to Crowder as the rhetorical elevator farter, not you.
I am glad you think "we" are hilarious. Carry on, then.
"And where the hell do you get the idea that if God wasn't tell us to do, we'd think rape was just fine?"
I got it from Crowder, who said this:
"I am talking about it in the perspective of God and the Bible etc. Without taking those two things into account I wouldn't have any reason to believe rape to be wrong."
"You guys, on the other hand, have no basis for saying rape is wrong other than "General consensus" or whatever other silly premise you throw out."
This is not a serious argument, you sound like a 14 year old who's just discovered rudimentary logic. Only people who believe in fairy tales are allowed to condemn rape? Ninja please.
i think the issues are all interconnected and you did a great job showing this justin!
great post!
Thanks for seeing that.
Here’s is the problem with this: we are not talking about “sin” in the perspective of God and the Bible, or even in the cultural idea that “sin” is “morally wrong.” We are talking about the violation of a human, woman OR man – the moment in which a person has lost control of their body because someone has taken it from them by force. How is that relative? I’m pretty sure that being stripped of your dignity and forced into humiliation is wrong – absolutely, not relatively. And, upon removal of predisposed notions and concepts of sin, let us examine the effect of gender on a societal scale. Maybe men are tired of being “accused,” and by that I mean that maybe men are tired of being guilty. Well, let’s look at the statistics. Violence against women is present, at all times. I get in my car after work at night and the first thing I do is lock my doors before I even turn on the car. Men, do you do that? If not, why? Maybe, Justin Crowder, the artworks are offensive because they strike up a topic that you don’t want to confront – or maybe have no knowledge of in the first place. Here is my challenge to you – don’t be so quick to generalize things and say that there are “unnecessary nude/half-naked pictures of women and men to get their point across.” Because there IS a point and it MUST be put across, forgive us for being ignored in the past and forgive us for attempting to find new ways to show this. There is no pleasure in being violated; there is no justification for rape. The mere title of this article “Feminists Gone Wild” is a complete diversion from the point of the matter. Males have to stop generalizing the subject and misconstruing the point – and the point of “Take Back the Night” is for HUMANS to take back the rights they have as people to feel comfortable walking out of their doors every day and every night. Unfortunately, statistics and facts tell us most of those people, are women.
I am not sure who the "we" is you are refering to. If it includes me then I am talking about it in the perspective of God and the Bible etc. Without taking those two things into account I wouldn't have any reason to believe rape to be wrong. I say that because I believe reality to be contingent upon these two things.
Secondly, I don't know who the "us" is you are refering to, but if it's UNC feminists affiliated with the Women's Center I assure I have not ignored you in past years.
Lastly, you are quite right in saying that there is no justification for rape. I never argued that it wasn't.
I'm **OFFENDED**. Did someone just make a stereotype against men? Did someone just say that men are more likely to rape women than vice versa? THAT'S a stereotype.
And, Hilary, spare me about us wicked, power-mongering, testosterone-filled men not hearing you. We hear your high-pitched, banshee screams (I wouldn't really call them "roars") telling us all the time that rape is wrong. But what's sad is that we've never disagreed with you–we've always agreed that rape is wrong. Guess what else? Chapel Hill is in North Carolina. The earth is spherical. The sun is hot. Give us a break.
Riley, are you aware that you used a misygonostialls slur in order to establish your dominance over Hillary?
Pay close attention to the phrase "high-pitched, banshee screams". What does this express about your beliefs concerning the ways women communicate?
"oh look at me, look at me..do I have the most wittier comment?!?" Please…spare us your power trip anakin.
C'mon, dmatthews. You know you laughed.
"What does this express about your beliefs concerning the ways women communicate?"
Stop being so sensitive, Freud. You know, normally I refrain from getting involved in debates about sexual issues, but I can't help it this time. All you liberals bitch and moan about the Carolina Review writers for being Christian, pro-abstinence, and being against casual, extramarital sex. But you know–these guys are not the douche bags that these UNC feminists probably hook up with every Thursday night. These guys honestly do respect women, that much I think is obvious. Now granted, they may not think that women are equal to men (I don't want to speak for them), and therefore they may not meet your feminist standards, but still, give them some credit and stop thinking with your penis.
And Hilary, you're really fighting the wrong enemy here. Justin is clearly not offended by the images because he doesn't want the issue of rape to be addressed. Like most guys, I'm sure Justin hasn't raped anyone, and therefore doesn't need to do any soul-searching. If anything, he'd defend you against a rapist at his own expense (now that you've stereotyped that women are more likely to get raped by a man, I'll stereotype that men are more likely to defend nobly a woman than vice versa). In my own male opinion, modern feminists are almost captivated by the idea of rape. They can't seem to talk about it enough (to "raise awareness," no doubt), but they really don't seem to want to do anything to prevent it. I've never heard them advocate the death penalty for rapists. Any conservatives (i.e., non-feminists) out there who would be opposed to that policy?
I don't think anyone knocks the Carolina Review writers for being Christian, pro-abstinence, and being against casual, extramarital sex. I wouldn't care if they were those things or atheists having orgies with each other every night. The problem is when they feel that the rest of the population to abide by their standards. One of the later articles on this blog for example (by the same author as this one) proposes that information about sex on the CHS website be taken down. Because the Carolina Review doesn't want to have pre-marital sex. Yet that information is helpful to other UNC students and individuals that do not want to abide by YOUR (meaning the Carolina Review staff) personal rules. No one is forcing all the abstinent students to read the webpage, it's just there for the people that want it, yet you STILL felt it shouldn't be there.
That's what people are arguing against. Trust me, none of us liberals (or anyone) really care whether you're going to be a virgin forever or banging 10 dudes/girls a night. It's just when you try to force US, the non-Carolina Review staff, to live our lives the way you all want to live yours, is when it becomes a problem.
Riley, are you aware that you used a misygonostialls slur in order to establish your dominance over Hillary?
Good post, Justin! Anyone who thinks Justin is trying to say that he is not against rape or that he "doesn't want to confront" the issue of rape obviously doesn't know him and didn't read his post carefully. He's just trying to say that when you start accepting the idea that no one (not even God) can say what is right and what is wrong, you can't condemn rapists because the justifications against rape are ultimately based in a system of morality that is rigid, universally applicable, and originates from God.
@Riley, I'm pretty sure that most of the guys on the Review do think that women are (intellectually) equal to men. Just defending their honor. 🙂