The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Hyfling]

Did you? At first I thought it was just mildly silly

Exactly.

It just devolves into generic anti-GMO, anti-capitalist hippy dippy nonsense. Even if you consider those (GMOs, capitalism, whatever) to be real issues, what does feminism have to do with any of it?

Exactly!

Were you agreeing with me?

Haha, sorry about that.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

https://www.berea.edu/wgs/take-back-kitchen/

...
I've got nothing.

My mind has gone blank. I can't think of a way to properly convey how I feel about this, so i'm just going to sort of describe the zombie like state this article has induced in me for a bit until I finish rebooting.

I think feminists should probably stop saying they represent women.
You're going to make them look stupid and whiners for the sake of whining.
Though you're doing great work at combating the notion that women aren't funny.

If you don't like feminism, stop talking about them. They obviously bother you or else you wouldn't be spending the majority of this thread spewing venom at anyone who identifies as a feminist.

[Tahar Joblis]

https://www.berea.edu/wgs/take-back-kitchen/

...
I've got nothing.

My mind has gone blank. I can't think of a way to properly convey how I feel about this, so i'm just going to sort of describe the zombie like state this article has induced in me for a bit until I finish rebooting.

I think feminists should probably stop saying they represent women.
You're going to make them look stupid and whiners for the sake of whining.
Though you're doing great work at combating the notion that women aren't funny.

Reminds me of this.

[Gauthier]

https://www.berea.edu/wgs/take-back-kitchen/

...
I've got nothing.

My mind has gone blank. I can't think of a way to properly convey how I feel about this, so i'm just going to sort of describe the zombie like state this article has induced in me for a bit until I finish rebooting.

I think feminists should probably stop saying they represent women.
You're going to make them look stupid and whiners for the sake of whining.
Though you're doing great work at combating the notion that women aren't funny.

If you don't like feminism, stop talking about them. They obviously bother you or else you wouldn't be spending the majority of this thread spewing venom at anyone who identifies as a feminist.

When it comes to feminism, he pictures himself as Luke Skywalker on the plank above the Sarlaac.

[United States of White America]

https://www.berea.edu/wgs/take-back-kitchen/

...
I've got nothing.

My mind has gone blank. I can't think of a way to properly convey how I feel about this, so i'm just going to sort of describe the zombie like state this article has induced in me for a bit until I finish rebooting.

I think feminists should probably stop saying they represent women.
You're going to make them look stupid and whiners for the sake of whining.
Though you're doing great work at combating the notion that women aren't funny.

Feminism is cruel.

[Irona]

If you don't like feminism, stop talking about them. They obviously bother you or else you wouldn't be spending the majority of this thread spewing venom at anyone who identifies as a feminist.

When it comes to feminism, he pictures himself as Luke Skywalker on the plank above the Sarlaac.

Theirs nothing wrong with feminism, just extremists like the writer of that article.

[Ostroeuropa]

When it comes to feminism, he pictures himself as Luke Skywalker on the plank above the Sarlaac.

Theirs nothing wrong with feminism, just extremists like the writer of that article.

That's a wobbly proposition.
I've seen some forms of feminism which I think are fine, except for the name.
But most of feminism is gynocentric.
Most of it is sexist against males.

And because of that, it cannot properly serve as a movement for gender equality, for a number of reasons i've gone over before. But basically, there is something wrong with feminism, in that it's flawed in it's assertion on the nature of sexism.
Some feminists have addressed the flaw in it's outlook in their own ideology, and still call themselves feminists, but i've not really seen evidence that they are representative of the movement.

[United States of White America]

Theirs nothing wrong with feminism, just extremists like the writer of that article.

That's a wobbly proposition.
I've seen some forms of feminism which I think are fine, except for the name.
But most of feminism is gynocentric.
Most of it is sexist against males.

And because of that, it cannot properly serve as a movement for gender equality, for a number of reasons.

Gender equality in general needs to be destroyed.

[Gauthier]

That's a wobbly proposition.
I've seen some forms of feminism which I think are fine, except for the name.
But most of feminism is gynocentric.
Most of it is sexist against males.

And because of that, it cannot properly serve as a movement for gender equality, for a number of reasons.

Gender equality in general needs to be destroyed.

You do realize Margaret Atwood was writing fiction, right. It wasn't a proposal for government.

[Irona]

Theirs nothing wrong with feminism, just extremists like the writer of that article.

That's a wobbly proposition.
I've seen some forms of feminism which I think are fine, except for the name.
But most of feminism is gynocentric.
Most of it is sexist against males.

And because of that, it cannot properly serve as a movement for gender equality, for a number of reasons.

I don't think most of feminism is sexist against males. One thing that does annoy me through is the use of 'Patriarchy' to blame everything wrong with society on.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's disgusting. It blames men for the obesity epidemic. You did it too (see the underlined).

And it's supposed to be the SJWs reading between the lines now?

"Between the lines" isn't necessary. It assigns blame and victimhood directly:

the work to transform the American diet reflects an ardent struggle to undermine power driven, national agencies whose real hunger is for profits over people.

It announces that "national agencies" are motivated by profit. In any ordinary text, this would refer to things like the FDA. In this text, it may be simply a reference to corporations. More in a moment.

The ability to subordinate people’s health and longevity is rooted in a patriarchal tradition of privilege that allows a predominantly male-led industry to assert control over the life of communities,

This one pretty much point-blank says that men in the food industry are controlling your life.

while ignoring the costs of irresponsible agricultural and food practices on people, especially women and children.

This one announces that women and children are more affected by unhealthy food than men. This is in spite of the fact that the increased risk of obesity-related mortality is higher for men.

That said, there's a lot more text there. It tells you to click through. Things get weird and ironic.

This essay will explore the way that the post-World War II women’s movement,
in its valiant pursuit of gender justice in the workplace, helped to create
the conditions for the corporate takeover of women’s traditional domain—the
kitchen. Tragically, an unintended consequence of Second Wave feminism was
the usurpation of the kitchen by unbridled growth of the fast food economy.

Oops.

If a man said that out of context, we would be hearing incredible outrage.

[United States of White America]

Gender equality in general needs to be destroyed.

You do realize Margaret Atwood was writing fiction, right. It wasn't a proposal for government.

Yes. Her books are terrible.

[United States of White America]

That's a wobbly proposition.
I've seen some forms of feminism which I think are fine, except for the name.
But most of feminism is gynocentric.
Most of it is sexist against males.

And because of that, it cannot properly serve as a movement for gender equality, for a number of reasons.

I don't think most of feminism is sexist against males. One thing that does annoy me through is the use of 'Patriarchy' to blame everything wrong with society on.

I hate humanity.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's a wobbly proposition.
I've seen some forms of feminism which I think are fine, except for the name.
But most of feminism is gynocentric.
Most of it is sexist against males.

And because of that, it cannot properly serve as a movement for gender equality, for a number of reasons.

I don't think most of feminism is sexist against males. One thing that does annoy me through is the use of 'Patriarchy' to blame everything wrong with society on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/commen ... ?context=3

This thread basically covers why I think it mostly is. Both posts are good.

Can you think of a reason why you didn't notice the duality nature of sexism before? Out of curiosity.
(By the way: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 54aa.2.jpg )
The perceived lack of people having this insight you are talking about is a huge driving force in anti-feminism and the MRM.
I'm aware this is a feminist sub, and i'm only just back, but I think this is worth mentioning for this post, because the thread here is great.
I think a lot of peoples understanding of sexism has a female gaze problem.
Women developed and codified the theory of sexism and how to view it. This led to people interpreting each sexism event as one that victimizes women in favor of men, when as you point out that's not really the case, and that view may well prevent actually solving the problem. I also think this contributes to the lack of men in the feminist movement, because what it's talking about is a completely alien perspective to men. Not only that, but as I point out elsewhere, it encourages men to view the issue in terms of how it effects women, and to act on sexism to help women. Almost like, you know, their wellbeing was your responsibility. As opposed to allowing men to develop an internal framework to view sexism and oppose it out of self-respect and such. I think this problem means a lot of men just give in when women make appeals to traditionalist sexism, with no woman to protect, there's no problem, and even if you think there is, arguing you are being discriminated against to a woman as a man is something a lot of men just give up at the thought of, some don't even consider it, some try and have women who DO know this but still knowingly abuse their social power to derail the criticism, some try and women who lack this perspective on sexism dismiss the idea, and some try and succeed. This ALSO drives anti-feminist sentiment and the sense that it is a supremacy movement. Allowing men an internal framework changes that.
There's been a problem of people insisting over and over that it's a vase. Then men take a look and say you're a liar, it's two faces. Both fail to understand that the existence of one brings forth the other.
All sexist incidents are a matter of interpretation on whether they are misogyny or misandry. I think the feminist movement has made the mistake of asserting a particular interpretation as gospel, for understandable reasons, but that this has caused it to make big mistakes in terms of policy, as well as alienated potential converts. I've seen some feminists agree with the duality model, but not as many as i've seen asserting All Is Misogyny And The Patriarchy. Then again, i've also seen the former view grow slightly over time.
From your new perspective, would you agree that prior to you realizing this, your old worldview now seems quite hateful, or apathetic towards mens problems?
You now understand why people say feminists hate men and don't care about their issues. It's because a lot of them don't, because of this problem you just overcame. What they care about is womens perspective on mens issues. If you want to know how to get a much better wave of feminism going, it's to emphasize this point.
Now, this is where it gets real hairy.
You pointed out the academia is clung to.
How we'd put it in the MRM is,
Feminism has been institutionalized, and this results in the oppression of men. Do you see how they could think that?
What we mean is, a bunch of people who do not understand this revelation of yours are enforcing their view on society and indoctrinating people into believing it. Added to that is the cultural idea that you should be hostile to people challenging this system. And then you just how good old vested interests and money to keep it all together.
(Difficult to say "Gender studies was all only half the story, my degree is almost pointless without talking to men about their experiences too, unless i'm aiming to just entrench biases for women." Far easier to say "No, what I learned at university is the whole truth. It has to be. My paycheck depends on it." And when the latter sort of people start piling up in a profession, especially one where your peers have influence over your success, you've got a big problem for anyone who wants to tell the emperor he's naked. This dynamic has happened with a lot of stuff before. Feminists on the ground may be wildly different to what "Manufactured" feminists are.)
And now you've got a bunch of professionals pushing the same flaw in the media and in institutions and such. Then you throw on the penance overtones that occasionally rear their head of "Well, mens complaints about anything are meh because women have it so hard and have for centuries, so anything that happens/we do is just payback." in some women, though not many (And more depressingly, some men say this type of crap too), but it still forms a part of mens experience of feminism as an idea, that women can and some have used this to justify doing things that they acknowledge are petty and sexist bullshit, but that they don't care, something which is impossible to justify without lacking this insight, the feeling of demonization for all problems, all of the problems stemming from your old perspective, basically, drive the notion that feminism is a hate movement.
Now add that, from our perspective, feminists actively campaign against and shut down or try to discredit people who reject the patriarchal model of sexism, thus keeping the flawed view in place.
From that perspective, do you now understand why the MRM and anti-feminists think the feminist movement is oppressive to men and such? Because I think understanding why they think that, in addition to encouraging people to have this revelation, will probably be necessary for gender equality to ever succeed. Normally I see shit like "they are just afraid of losing their privilege." or "They just don't understand feminism.", but as you're now aware, that's not the case. I think feminists who believe in the duality model need to be a lot louder in their advocacy and pro-active in challenging feminists who don't. I don't think we've got much of a chance otherwise.
The MRM considers "Feminism" to be your view, prior to your revelation. Lots of MRAs would deny you are a feminist now.
I personally don't care what people call themselves, but do personally use feminist the same way the MRM does, because there's not a word for it otherwise that i'm aware of.
This is also why the menslib sub was received both well and mockingly. To the MRM, the notion of a mens movement that utilizes the female-gaze ideology is laughable, especially since you cannot reject fundamental parts of that gaze as innacurate, despite the fact it's regularly speculatory about mens reasons for behaving certain ways (A direct consequence of trying to build a complete narrative from only one genders perspective while still trying to figure out the other ones motivations, rationales, etc. Feminism fails to properly evaluate men, but is true of womens experience of sexism and their thought process in response to it. And yes, even their speculation on the motivations of men are interesting when they differ from mens actual motivations and rationalizations for behavior and stuff is good. That's useful. It's interesting data. We can use that to get clues for where sexism may be lurking in our behaviors and outlooks. It's why I support the mens rights movement too, even when they speculate on why women sometimes do things and some of the speculation is that they are just evil and hate men/are totally selfish. I think those moments are interesting, because they show a disconnect between the genders. There is very little point in trying to combat a problem if you don't allow yourselves to openly talk and engage in it. We should be saying out entire opinions about the other gender without fear of sexist remark, so that the data can be looked over, compared, and then we can discuss why certain things are inaccurate, or hurtful, etc. We shouldn't be avoiding the appearance of being sexist, if we're trying to fix sexism. It's counter productive. It restricts us from being totally open and frank with our opinions. I think the call out culture prevents progress.). Their assertion that feminism being challenged is a mens rights issues entirely true, for their conception of feminism.
I've previously said that whether or not the feminist movement is the movement for gender equality depends on whether it can adapt to duality. If it insists on retaining a gynocentric view of sexism, it isn't the movement for gender equality and never was, we merely mistook it for one. If it adapts, then this is just another evolution of the movement.

Basically. (You'll probably need the first post for context.).

[Kelinfort]

You do realize Margaret Atwood was writing fiction, right. It wasn't a proposal for government.

Yes. Her books are terrible.

Terribly funny.

I'm surprised you don't rub one out to the theocracy in, The Handmaid's Tale.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I don't think most of feminism is sexist against males. One thing that does annoy me through is the use of 'Patriarchy' to blame everything wrong with society on.

I hate humanity.

My current favorite content produce is Turd Flinging Monkey when it comes to MGTOW material. is newest video concerning the NAWALT argument is worth a watch IMO

Both men and women are stupid.

Go make a thread about how edgy you think you are and why you hate humanity and think no one deserves rights, just stop posting the same utter shit in two different threads nonstop.

[Irona]

I don't think most of feminism is sexist against males. One thing that does annoy me through is the use of 'Patriarchy' to blame everything wrong with society on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/commen ... ?context=3

This thread basically covers why I think it mostly is. Both posts are good.

Can you think of a reason why you didn't notice the duality nature of sexism before? Out of curiosity.
(By the way: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 54aa.2.jpg )
The perceived lack of people having this insight you are talking about is a huge driving force in anti-feminism and the MRM.
I'm aware this is a feminist sub, and i'm only just back, but I think this is worth mentioning for this post, because the thread here is great.
I think a lot of peoples understanding of sexism has a female gaze problem.
Women developed and codified the theory of sexism and how to view it. This led to people interpreting each sexism event as one that victimizes women in favor of men, when as you point out that's not really the case, and that view may well prevent actually solving the problem. I also think this contributes to the lack of men in the feminist movement, because what it's talking about is a completely alien perspective to men. Not only that, but as I point out elsewhere, it encourages men to view the issue in terms of how it effects women, and to act on sexism to help women. Almost like, you know, their wellbeing was your responsibility. As opposed to allowing men to develop an internal framework to view sexism and oppose it out of self-respect and such. I think this problem means a lot of men just give in when women make appeals to traditionalist sexism, with no woman to protect, there's no problem, and even if you think there is, arguing you are being discriminated against to a woman as a man is something a lot of men just give up at the thought of, some don't even consider it, some try and have women who DO know this but still knowingly abuse their social power to derail the criticism, some try and women who lack this perspective on sexism dismiss the idea, and some try and succeed. This ALSO drives anti-feminist sentiment and the sense that it is a supremacy movement. Allowing men an internal framework changes that.
There's been a problem of people insisting over and over that it's a vase. Then men take a look and say you're a liar, it's two faces. Both fail to understand that the existence of one brings forth the other.
All sexist incidents are a matter of interpretation on whether they are misogyny or misandry. I think the feminist movement has made the mistake of asserting a particular interpretation as gospel, for understandable reasons, but that this has caused it to make big mistakes in terms of policy, as well as alienated potential converts. I've seen some feminists agree with the duality model, but not as many as i've seen asserting All Is Misogyny And The Patriarchy. Then again, i've also seen the former view grow slightly over time.
From your new perspective, would you agree that prior to you realizing this, your old worldview now seems quite hateful, or apathetic towards mens problems?
You now understand why people say feminists hate men and don't care about their issues. It's because a lot of them don't, because of this problem you just overcame. What they care about is womens perspective on mens issues. If you want to know how to get a much better wave of feminism going, it's to emphasize this point.
Now, this is where it gets real hairy.
You pointed out the academia is clung to.
How we'd put it in the MRM is,
Feminism has been institutionalized, and this results in the oppression of men. Do you see how they could think that?
What we mean is, a bunch of people who do not understand this revelation of yours are enforcing their view on society and indoctrinating people into believing it. Added to that is the cultural idea that you should be hostile to people challenging this system. And then you just how good old vested interests and money to keep it all together.
(Difficult to say "Gender studies was all only half the story, my degree is almost pointless without talking to men about their experiences too, unless i'm aiming to just entrench biases for women." Far easier to say "No, what I learned at university is the whole truth. It has to be. My paycheck depends on it." And when the latter sort of people start piling up in a profession, especially one where your peers have influence over your success, you've got a big problem for anyone who wants to tell the emperor he's naked. This dynamic has happened with a lot of stuff before. Feminists on the ground may be wildly different to what "Manufactured" feminists are.)
And now you've got a bunch of professionals pushing the same flaw in the media and in institutions and such. Then you throw on the penance overtones that occasionally rear their head of "Well, mens complaints about anything are meh because women have it so hard and have for centuries, so anything that happens/we do is just payback." in some women, though not many (And more depressingly, some men say this type of crap too), but it still forms a part of mens experience of feminism as an idea, that women can and some have used this to justify doing things that they acknowledge are petty and sexist bullshit, but that they don't care, something which is impossible to justify without lacking this insight, the feeling of demonization for all problems, all of the problems stemming from your old perspective, basically, drive the notion that feminism is a hate movement.
Now add that, from our perspective, feminists actively campaign against and shut down or try to discredit people who reject the patriarchal model of sexism, thus keeping the flawed view in place.
From that perspective, do you now understand why the MRM and anti-feminists think the feminist movement is oppressive to men and such? Because I think understanding why they think that, in addition to encouraging people to have this revelation, will probably be necessary for gender equality to ever succeed. Normally I see shit like "they are just afraid of losing their privilege." or "They just don't understand feminism.", but as you're now aware, that's not the case. I think feminists who believe in the duality model need to be a lot louder in their advocacy and pro-active in challenging feminists who don't. I don't think we've got much of a chance otherwise.
The MRM considers "Feminism" to be your view, prior to your revelation. Lots of MRAs would deny you are a feminist now.
I personally don't care what people call themselves, but do personally use feminist the same way the MRM does, because there's not a word for it otherwise that i'm aware of.
This is also why the menslib sub was received both well and mockingly. To the MRM, the notion of a mens movement that utilizes the female-gaze ideology is laughable, especially since you cannot reject fundamental parts of that gaze as innacurate, despite the fact it's regularly speculatory about mens reasons for behaving certain ways (A direct consequence of trying to build a complete narrative from only one genders perspective while still trying to figure out the other ones motivations, rationales, etc. Feminism fails to properly evaluate men, but is true of womens experience of sexism and their thought process in response to it. And yes, even their speculation on the motivations of men are interesting when they differ from mens actual motivations and rationalizations for behavior and stuff is good. That's useful. It's interesting data. We can use that to get clues for where sexism may be lurking in our behaviors and outlooks. It's why I support the mens rights movement too, even when they speculate on why women sometimes do things and some of the speculation is that they are just evil and hate men/are totally selfish. I think those moments are interesting, because they show a disconnect between the genders. There is very little point in trying to combat a problem if you don't allow yourselves to openly talk and engage in it. We should be saying out entire opinions about the other gender without fear of sexist remark, so that the data can be looked over, compared, and then we can discuss why certain things are inaccurate, or hurtful, etc. We shouldn't be avoiding the appearance of being sexist, if we're trying to fix sexism. It's counter productive. It restricts us from being totally open and frank with our opinions. I think the call out culture prevents progress.). Their assertion that feminism being challenged is a mens rights issues entirely true, for their conception of feminism.
I've previously said that whether or not the feminist movement is the movement for gender equality depends on whether it can adapt to duality. If it insists on retaining a gynocentric view of sexism, it isn't the movement for gender equality and never was, we merely mistook it for one. If it adapts, then this is just another evolution of the movement.

Basically. (You'll probably need the first post for context.).

Thank you that was interesting reading, what she says is right but I don't think the number of feminists who are gynocentric are as high as your suggesting. It's a significant minority but still a minority. That said I have no numbers

[Tahar Joblis]

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/commen ... ?context=3

This thread basically covers why I think it mostly is. Both posts are good.



Basically. (You'll probably need the first post for context.).

Thank you that was interesting reading, what she says is right but I don't think the number of feminists who are gynocentric are as high as your suggesting. It's a significant minority but still a minority. That said I have no numbers

Almost every book, article, news release, official statement, et cetera coming out of a prominent feminist in current good standing or feminist organization exhibits "gynocentric" views for pretty much any selected definition of gynocentrism (whether you're talking about taking a female perspective or simply treating women as more important than men).

[Gauthier]

Thank you that was interesting reading, what she says is right but I don't think the number of feminists who are gynocentric are as high as your suggesting. It's a significant minority but still a minority. That said I have no numbers

Almost every book, article, news release, official statement, et cetera coming out of a prominent feminist in current good standing or feminist organization exhibits "gynocentric" views for pretty much any selected definition of gynocentrism (whether you're talking about taking a female perspective or simply treating women as more important than men).

Soo... when it comes to equality women should shut up and let the grown men do the talking?

[Irona]

Thank you that was interesting reading, what she says is right but I don't think the number of feminists who are gynocentric are as high as your suggesting. It's a significant minority but still a minority. That said I have no numbers

Almost every book, article, news release, official statement, et cetera coming out of a prominent feminist in current good standing or feminist organization exhibits "gynocentric" views for pretty much any selected definition of gynocentrism (whether you're talking about taking a female perspective or simply treating women as more important than men).

There's nothing wrong with having a female perspective, the problem arises when you treat one sex as more important than another. Most feminists don't claim that women are more important.

[Tahar Joblis]

Almost every book, article, news release, official statement, et cetera coming out of a prominent feminist in current good standing or feminist organization exhibits "gynocentric" views for pretty much any selected definition of gynocentrism (whether you're talking about taking a female perspective or simply treating women as more important than men).

There's nothing wrong with having a female perspective, the problem arises when you treat one sex as more important than another. Most feminists don't claim that women are more important.

There is something seriously wrong with having only a female perspective on gendered issues.

Most feminists treat women as more important, whether or not they are aware they are doing so.

[Irona]

There is something seriously wrong with having only a female perspective on gendered issues.

Most feminists treat women as more important, whether or not they are aware they are doing so.

Most feminists are women, it makes sense for the articles to have female perspective. It depends who wrote the article but some women think the male view point is obvious or try and include it.

[Tahar Joblis]

There is something seriously wrong with having only a female perspective on gendered issues.

Most feminists treat women as more important, whether or not they are aware they are doing so.

Most feminists are women, it makes sense for the articles to have female perspective. It depends who wrote the article but some women think the male view point is obvious or try and include it.

There are several large differences between simply being a woman and writing an article, and writing an article from a female perspective.

[Ashkera]

Soo... when it comes to equality women should shut up and let the grown men do the talking?

More like women should stop telling grown men to shut up, and allow them to talk too.

It's often assumed that the male perspective is just so obvious that women can understand it without having to ask, and that it somehow saturates everything so it doesn't need to be discussed. (Not to mention womens' traditional role as social and understanding.) But that's basically getting your idea of what America is from Hollywood movies and advertising, so to speak.

The reality is that women are about as clueless about the male experience as men are about the female experience, and any movement relying on just one set of experiences (including those being simply repeated by the opposite sex) is going to have an incomplete view of the gender system. In order to free everyone, we have to have a more complete view, since the gender roles graph contains many cycles.

Feminism doesn't have to be about incorporating that male perspective too so long as it does not demand a monopoly on the gender discourse.

[Irona]

Most feminists are women, it makes sense for the articles to have female perspective. It depends who wrote the article but some women think the male view point is obvious or try and include it.

There are several large differences between simply being a woman and writing an article, and writing an article from a female perspective.

I still think you understand my point.