You really are going out of your way to defend the “down dog” rape-enablers who objectively make others’ lives worse.
If discussion of the Duggars bothers you, post elsewhere.
1 Like
No worries, and I appreciate the civility 
1 Like
Okay: There’s a difference (it’s subtle, but it’s there) between “women’s responsibility to prevent men from doing sexual things to them” and the implication of the article that it’s everyone’s responsibility not to put “stumbling blocks” in the paths of others. Regardless of whether you or I think extramarital sex is a sin, they do, and they want to avoid it as such. If I believe that eating oranges is a sin before I’m married, and I can shoot oranges out of my bellybutton at will, it would be cruel of me to shoot a bunch of oranges at unmarried people. Even if the unmarrieds resisted the temptation to eat an orange, there’d still be the discomfort of being tempted in the first place by the orange, all orangy and juicy, right there in front of them. It’d be way nicer of me to just not shoot the oranges out of my bellybutton unless the recipient can sinlessly enjoy them.
Again – I’m not endorsing their beliefs. I’m saying 1.) They’re allowed to have them, 2.) They’re allowed to talk about them, and 3.) There is no shaming in this article that I can see (the “shaming” being the point of Boing Boing’s spotlighting).
(To “Phrenological”) If my posts bother you, stop reading them.
And if you decide to criticize us for our belief in criticizing them for criticizing women, are you just as bad too?
This is all false equivalence. Real tolerance has never meant accepting intolerance without criticism. Tolerance means accepting people like women as equal, and that requires objecting when others trying to shame, control, or victim-blame them. That doesn’t change just because such misogyny marches under a banner of tradition.
Your whole defense here is predicated on form and ignoring as much as possible the actual content. The Duggar family isn’t perfect, neither is any other, so the implication is we are all sort of the same; but that’s only as long as we ignore what those “family imperfections” actually are and who they hurt. They have beliefs, we have beliefs, it’s all equivalent if you forget what they mean for women and gay people.
To hell with this kind of sophistry. If the only way to defend something is to ignore what it is, you shouldn’t be doing it.
9 Likes
I don’t disagree with your arguments, only with the fact that there is no evidence in this excerpt or the chapter in the book that merits Boing Boing’s accusation of “slut shaming.” There are plenty of better examples that we can point out and debate – why did they choose this relatively inoffensive article? I believe it’s because it’s cool to lambast the Duggars since the discovery of the molestation.
Boom, that is our disagreement.
The responsibility is with the party wishing to perform whatever action. Not the party that receives the action (heh).
3 Likes
[japhroaig] Well, probably. But my illustration wasn’t so much about my beliefs as it was about theirs. I think they believe that responsibility for avoiding the sin of extramarital sex lies with both parties, and as such they advise both parties. P.S. you’re doing a fantastic job of debating a volatile topic, btw. You’re awesome.
1 Like
Congratulations, your hot take is less evolved than Cosmopolitan.
A man’s hormones are a cross for the whole family to bear, but a woman’s appear to a solitary burden. And that’s one thing about Growing Up Duggar that seems a little sad.
Cosmo article is from last year, bub.
4 Likes
Hey, I like debate, not mudslinging :). It is a good way to keep the mind sharp, organize your thoughts (especially since i quit coffee), and figure out how to communicate better.
One last point, because I think our moot (hey, I used moot correctly! Bingo!) is drawing to a close: the number of words used to advise women on how to prevent men from being tempted is significantly more than the number of words to men to behave themselves.
7 Likes
You’re trying very hard not to see the slut shaming here. Telling women to “stop dressing so sluttily” (for whatever reason) is pretty much Slut Shaming 101.
6 Likes
This.
This is the kind of context that those defending the Duggars and their throwback ilk fail to acknowledge (and probably even realize). We live in a patriarchy that punishes female victims and overlooks the actions of abusive men, or slaps them on the wrist when pushed to do so. Any reminders that “Women should OF COURSE be careful!” and so on are redundant diversions from such facts.
8 Likes
There are certainly much more overt examples you could find, but this is a good example of how pernicious it is. Because you are wrong about whether there is shaming here. It’s written with a positive tone about helping each other, but it still implicitly treats women’s appearance as only about men, something they always ought to manage only for other’s benefit.
Look at this comic about a foolish woman who dresses in a way that tempts men! Fortunately she realizes her mistake and covers up. No sexism at all in asking people to do that, right?
You mention “advising both parties”, but of course these demands are not made of men, only to try not to be too tempted when the ladies dare show an ankle or shoulder. I wonder which they’re more forgiving of, the occasional inch of skin from the women or assault by the men? Ha, but I shouldn’t be pointing out these same people have been willing to cover for molestation, that would be kicking a dog when it’s down.
11 Likes
funruly: The Boing Boing post doesn’t refer or link to the Cosmo article; it leads to the Google book text. So that’s what I addressed in my comments. Love, Bub (p.s. I’m a woman)
Do you get paid to defend the Duggar’s on social media?
6 Likes
Or you could act as a grown man does instead of slut-shaming.
You’re the problem. Your attitudes are the sickness.
3 Likes
Have you not read my other comments? I don’t share the Duggar’s beliefs. I don’t believe that a scantily dressed woman is by definition a slut. I don’t believe that extra-marital sex is a sin (although it is sometimes dumb). But none of my points are about my beliefs or even how I feel about the Duggar’s beliefs. And incidentally, I’m a woman.
No, I don’t get paid to defend the Duggars or anybody else. I clicked through from my Facebook feed because I follow Boing Boing. I’d actually forgotten I’d commented about that other article, but now that you mention it, there does appear to be somewhat of a Duggar-bashing pattern emerging here.
chenille: You’re still missing the points I tried to make. I don’t know how to be clearer.
