The Murasakian

Feel free to ask me questions. Have a nice day!

After I made my last post about Sam Pepper’s Part 2 video, I was cleaning in the kitchen and it occurred to me what his “Part 3” might be.  I was right.  For the sake of this post, let’s assume this was his intention from the start and not just damage control.

Look, calling attention to abuse against men is a good cause, but this guy just made a total ass of both himself and his message.  If he expected that the first video was going to inspire basically pure outrage, while the second video would inspire pure lulz, he should have been able to see from the actual reactions that his hypothesis was wrong.  In the end best he could come up with was basically, “Uh…well, yeah, people got mad at both, but on the whole they got somewhat more mad when the women were harassed.”  And then from this he basically implies that abuse against women is taken seriously while abuse against men is ignored.

Are you fucking kidding me?!  Did you miss the part where droves of people came out supporting your first video where you appeared to harass women?  You have the audacity to imply that our society takes sexual harassment against women very seriously when a quick look through your comment section would show that a lot of people were perfectly fine with the behavior you yourself claim is disgusting?

What your social experiment proved is that there are a lot of people who care about abuse against women and there are a lot of people who care about abuse against men.  But also that there are a lot of people who don’t take either of these things seriously.  And instead of looking at the facts and saying, “Wow, people need to take sexual harassment more seriously when it comes to any gender,” you basically make it into a contest over who has it worse.  Fuck.  You.

Okay, so after Sam Pepper’s first video was uploaded, while I thought it was wrong and absolutely condemnable, I thought that Sam Pepper was at least probably somewhat oblivious to the damage he had caused/was potentially causing.  And that maybe after he saw people’s reactions, he would understand how this isn’t okay and learn a lesson.  And then he uploads a fucking part 2?!  After a shitload of high-profile people have called him out on his bullshit?!  This is not a guy who is blissfully ignorant to the fact that people think what he’s doing is wrong.  This is a guy who knows damn well the problems people have with what he’s doing and continues to do him anyway.  Any benefit of the doubt I’m giving him was gone.  I hope he winds up in prison.

murasakiyugata asked: Possible headcanon. What if Lauren wanted to "re-educate" the captured members of Tamika's militia, but never got the chance because of Diego's strict no-torturing-children policy?

videntefernandez:

Yeah I can totally see that

I feel like if they captured a single member of the milita, all three Strex representatives would want to take different tactics.  Lauren might want to use torture or manipulation or intimidation, Kevin might attempt to prosthelytize, and Diego might try to make some sort of business deal.

aishatyler:

notfuckingcishet:

socialjusticekoolaid:

Can’t stop, won’t stop: Protesters in Ferguson rally again, seeking justice for Mike Brown. More than a month and a half after his death, his killer, Darren Wilson, is still a free man. (Pt 2) 

Because it wouldn’t be a protest in Ferguson without fuckery from the police. A driver plowed his car through protesters, grazing several and running over a young boys foot. Beyond taking several hours to transport the boy to the hospital, they took even longer to arrest the motorist. Who did they not wait long to arrest? Two of the protesters who had been documenting the altercation for the world to see. If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention. #staywoke #farfromover #nojusticenopeace

September 20th, 2014

Just in case anyone thinks these are old posts still going round Tumblr: they’re not. 

sigh.

(via wilwheaton)

An Open Letter to Sam Pepper

wilwheaton:

edwardspoonhands:

lacigreen:

Hi Sam!

Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. As fellow YouTubers, we have much respect for others who put so much hard work into building their channel. It’s not easy, and you should be proud! That said, we’ve noticed that in your success, there has been a lack of respect in…

There are a lot of blurry lines in the world, but this isn’t one of them. I’m very pleased the our community has come together to discuss this openly and rationally. Five stars to Laci for binding people together in that, with an open and clear message.

I hope (expect even) that Sam will be taking the video down soon, because every moment it’s up is another moment where he’s normalizing assault and societal dominance of women. 

I further hope that Sam makes a considerable contribution to shelters that provide services for women who are victims of sexual assault.

shreksforthememories:

food should be free. water should be free. housing should be free. power, fuel, electricity should be free. basic necessities should be free.

the idea of “people should have to work for a living” carries the implication that some people deserve to die

This idea seems nice in theory, but I’m not sure how practical it is.  If food is free, who’s going to pay the farmers?  And if farmers don’t get paid, who’s going to grow the food?  Same goes with water, housing, and power.

Rather than simply giving everyone a minimum standard of living, why not make a minimum standard of living attainable by everyone?  Have the government provide more jobs where they’re needed, raise the minimum wage to something people can actually live off of, and provide accommodations to disabled people so that they don’t get left behind.

(via voiceofnature)

murasakiyugata asked: You seem to think that when Emma pointed out that creating equality for men would result in equality for women, she was prioritizing the needs of women's over men's. So by that logic, when a feminist claims that equality for women will lead to equality for men, are they prioritizing the needs of men's over women's?

talking-fedora:

murasakiyugata:

talking-fedora:

murasakiyugata:

talking-fedora:

Of course not.

When feminists say “But what we’re doing will help men!”, it is a diversion tactic, a way to shut down conversation related to the fact that feminism isn’t doing shit for men.

What Emma said, and perhaps it was merely her word choice, was that dealing with men’s issues was important because it could help women’s issues.

Have you listened to her whole speech?  Here’s some context for the part you’re referring to.

"Gender equality if your issue too, because to date I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.  I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a men - or less of a man.  In fact, in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer, and coronary heart disease.  I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success.  Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.  We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence."

To me this doesn’t sound like someone who’s saying the men’s issues are only important because of the effect they have on women’s issues.  To me this sound like someone who is willing to acknowledge some of the struggles men face, which are already worth addressing on their own merits.  The idea that tackling these issues will help women too doesn’t mean that’s the only reason we should address them.

If she had stopped with “Men don’t have the benefits of equality either,” I’d be perfectly happy. But considering the campaign she’s advocating for (which has a “commitment” that says it’s purely for men to stop discrimination against women), and considering she ends it with “and then this will all help women eventually,” I can’t exactly be blamed for hearing “this will help women, which is why we should do it.

If that wasn’t her intention, fine. And I’m glad she is recognizing that men face discrimination as well. I just wish it didn’t have to have the caveat of “but fixing this will also help women” to be legitimate.

To me this sounds strikingly similar to when feminists say, “Our movement shouldn’t have to justify its existence by acknowledging the needs of men.”  Which I guess is legitimate, but I think it’s sadly divisive, when ideally there could be a movement that addresses both the issues of men and women without having to apologize for acknowledging the potential benefits to one or the other.  And I think that’s the sort of thing Emma’s trying to promote here.  She herself admits in the speech that feminism has a troublesome reputation associated with man-hating, and that not everyone may be comfortable using the word “feminist”.  However, she talks about how while we may not have a particular word to we can all agree on, we do have the ideas and principals to unite behind a common goal that benefits both men and women.

I did appreciate her bit that we shouldn’t focus on the word so much as the belief, but she did also say that women who didn’t call themselves feminists because the movement (which she equates to “women’s opinions”) is seen as unattractive and too strong. As if the women who aren’t feminists choose that because they want to be attractive and weak and basically play into the stereotype.

Further, there is a movement that works for all of gender equality. It’s called egalitarianism. And you know what feminists do when they meet egalitarians? Call them closeted misogynists who are actually prioritizing men, and just generally act like paying any attention to men will take attention away from women.

I’m sorry you’ve had such negative experiences with feminists and that your viewpoints have been dismissed by people who don’t understand your movement.  But there are many different branches of feminism and I actually think that a lot of liberal feminists might actually be open to the idea of openly embracing and even switching over to egalitarianism if they knew more about it.  That said, since feminism already has so much traction and funding, I think it’d be more effective to work within the feminist movement to try and get it back on track.  And I like to think that’s part of what Emma is trying to do here.

I do think it’s unfortunate when people assume that the only reason women choose not to be feminists is because “they want to appeal to men” or some other such bullshit.  Although I don’t think that Emma was pinning it specifically on one cause or another, or even saying that it was necessarily wrong for a woman to want to distance herself from the word.  The fact that she listed being perceived as “anti-men” as a reason that some women might not want to identify as feminists is actually acknowledging a very legitimate and justifiable reason - a reason that actually comes not from men, but from within the movement itself.  So, yeah, I can’t speak for her, but my interpretation is that she understands that part of the reason feminism has such a bad reputation comes  in part from the behavior of feminists themselves.  That’s my take on it anyway.

murasakiyugata asked: You seem to think that when Emma pointed out that creating equality for men would result in equality for women, she was prioritizing the needs of women's over men's. So by that logic, when a feminist claims that equality for women will lead to equality for men, are they prioritizing the needs of men's over women's?

talking-fedora:

murasakiyugata:

talking-fedora:

Of course not.

When feminists say “But what we’re doing will help men!”, it is a diversion tactic, a way to shut down conversation related to the fact that feminism isn’t doing shit for men.

What Emma said, and perhaps it was merely her word choice, was that dealing with men’s issues was important because it could help women’s issues.

Have you listened to her whole speech?  Here’s some context for the part you’re referring to.

"Gender equality if your issue too, because to date I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.  I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a men - or less of a man.  In fact, in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer, and coronary heart disease.  I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success.  Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.  We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence."

To me this doesn’t sound like someone who’s saying the men’s issues are only important because of the effect they have on women’s issues.  To me this sound like someone who is willing to acknowledge some of the struggles men face, which are already worth addressing on their own merits.  The idea that tackling these issues will help women too doesn’t mean that’s the only reason we should address them.

If she had stopped with “Men don’t have the benefits of equality either,” I’d be perfectly happy. But considering the campaign she’s advocating for (which has a “commitment” that says it’s purely for men to stop discrimination against women), and considering she ends it with “and then this will all help women eventually,” I can’t exactly be blamed for hearing “this will help women, which is why we should do it.

If that wasn’t her intention, fine. And I’m glad she is recognizing that men face discrimination as well. I just wish it didn’t have to have the caveat of “but fixing this will also help women” to be legitimate.

To me this sounds strikingly similar to when feminists say, “Our movement shouldn’t have to justify its existence by acknowledging the needs of men.”  Which I guess is legitimate, but I think it’s sadly divisive, when ideally there could be a movement that addresses both the issues of men and women without having to apologize for acknowledging the potential benefits to one or the other.  And I think that’s the sort of thing Emma’s trying to promote here.  She herself admits in the speech that feminism has a troublesome reputation associated with man-hating, and that not everyone may be comfortable using the word “feminist”.  However, she talks about how while we may not have a particular word to we can all agree on, we do have the ideas and principals to unite behind a common goal that benefits both men and women.