The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Geilinor]

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?

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

[MisandristMantis]

Still my preferred form of matriarchy only removes some rights for men. Men would still be treated better than women were in 1950s America. They would simply be barred from any positions of social, political, and religious authority or power and perhaps some rights that men take for granted now should be reinterpreted for men.

Why are you a feminist? Feminism means making women equal to men. Why do you trust men to be your equal? Hasn't history shown they will abuse any power they are given?

This is so unrealistic and stupid I'm really wondering if you're not a Poe.
No, it's false. In fact, I'm hoping you're one, because, if you're just speaking what appear to you to be "the truth", then you managed to shatter my faith in humanity even more than what 4chan could have ever managed to.

What, exactly, do you believe to be false about what I said?

[Aelex]

If this is how you react to a few women talking about how to eat healthier... I suspect that you may want to look in the mirror before calling others zealots.

To be honest; his reaction, even if disproportionate ain't false neither. The start of the article is allright but the second paragraph is just plain stupidity.

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, while ignoring the costs of irresponsible agricultural and food practices on people, especially women and children. The high cost of cheap food has robbed the United States population of its own health and stamina, and if women won’t lead the way out of this, who will?

First, the author mingle the real concept of Capitalism and oppression of the Bourgeoisie with the way less of "Patriarchy", blaming the later for the action of the first.Then it just forget that men are the first and most touched by obesity. And it eventually end up with simple vanguard party bullshit.

So no, this article don't deserve to go all screaming and kicking but it's still propaganda and a bad one qui plus est.

[Aelex]

This is so unrealistic and stupid I'm really wondering if you're not a Poe.
No, it's false. In fact, I'm hoping you're one, because, if you're just speaking what appear to you to be "the truth", then you managed to shatter my faith in humanity even more than what 4chan could have ever managed to.

What, exactly, do you believe to be false about what I said?[/quote]
The very logic that just when we managed to at least create a De Jure equality between men and women, and are progressing toward a De Facto's one, we should just throw everything over and deprive half of the population from their rights. It seem so stupid that I just can't believe people can really want or believe such things.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What, exactly, do you believe to be false about what I said?

The very logic that just when we managed to at least create a De Jure equality between men and women, and are progressing toward a De Facto's one, we should just throw everything over and deprive half of the population from their rights. It seem so stupid that I just can't believe people can really want or believe such things.

You've overlooked the details in her argument, let me explain:

Men bad. Women good.

Or something.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Hasn't history shown they will abuse any power they are given?

History has also shown abuse of power preformed by women.

Queen Mary, otherwise known as "Bloody Mary". She executed the Marian Prosecutions and burned at least 200 people at the stake.

Queen Mary was the first woman to be crowned Queen of England in her own right. Her reign was brief and troubled. Her marriage to Prince Philip of Spain provoked Parliamentary dissent and armed rebellion; the Spanish alliance later drew England into a disastrous war with France, ending with the loss of Calais - England's last French territory. Her religious intolerance is legendary. In 37 years Henry VIII had killed 90 heretics, Catholic and Protestant, burned at the stake; in four years Mary burned nearly 300 Protestants. Victims included blind men, pregnant women and Thomas Cranmer, Henry's Archbishop of Canterbury, who recanted his Protestantism seven times but reaffirmed it before his execution. The repression created a Protestant resistance which grew more resolute as the burnings continued. Protestants increasingly looked forward to the accession of Princess Elizabeth.

She dealt equally harshly with the Irish. She confiscated lands belonging to the O'Moores and the O'Connors in counties Laois and Offaly, renaming them Queen's County and King's County in honor of herself and her husband. The dispossessed chieftains waged a guerrilla war against the English settlements. Under the pretext of holding a peace conference with them, the English invited the O'Moores and the O'Connors to Mullaghmast where they had them and their families treacherously murdered.

Several of England's leading Protestant bishops were tortured and burned at the stake as heretics, including John Hooper, Nicholas Ridley, and Hugh Latimer. Even Thomas Cranmer, who had been Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry and Edward, was burned at the stake as a heretic. Over three hundred Protestants died in the Marian persecutions, and eight hundred more fled to Germany and Switzerland.

Mary died, childless, in 1558; she was 42. She had caused civil war. She had long lost the popular support which monarchs now needed. Granted a longer reign and an heir, she might have succeeded in integrating England into the Catholic Church and a Catholic empire; more probably, she would have made the country ungovernable.

Margret Thatcher

tarted the Falklands war over a country they didn't legally own, and also treated her own troops like cannon fodder. Contributed heavily to the Cold War (where each side was building up nuclear weapons and armies to kill each other out of fear, but no war happened). Contributed to the eventual destabilization of the USSR. Ordered atrocities of murder in Northern Ireland. Supported many dictators who crushed human rights (like Pinochet's Chilean regime). Ordered civilians on a peaceful strike in Northern England to be killed by mounted police.

Her programs, known as "Thatcherism," also produced high unemployment (which nearly tripled in her first two terms), high interest rates and increased class differentiation, as well as growth of the underclass. She was a racist who disliked Blacks and Indians.

Squandered multi billions of pounds, from the North Sea oil, in military projects, instead of putting it back into the nation for development. Britain had a chance to have modern industries developed taking Britain to the forefront of technology, like Japan is, but she squandered it! Ruined the mining and steel industries (closed them down), and refused to redevelop the areas affected but instead let them rot into crime and poverty. Removed trade union rights.

Caused many public strikes over her authoritarian reforms and paycuts. Privatized many British services, making a few people very rich, and making the services suffer greatly and still become more expensive. Privatizing can NEVER work in a monopoly, it always leads to greater prices and worse service, because the people running it profit out of this. Privatizing can only work with strong competition, because people then have choice. (Quote: "Allowing private companies to run essential non-competitive public services is like putting Dracula in charge of the bloodbank.")

Encouraged small businesses, and such businesses need loans. After encouraging them she raised interest rates so high many went out of business. Involved in corruption by giving her son hundreds of thousands of pounds, meant to be used by a government scheme.

Obsessed with money, having the "fat cat" mentality that is now plaguing the West. More of a business woman who just happened to find politics a good way to get rich. In an interview, she said the only song she liked was "How much is that doggy in the window", because she thought it had something to do with inflation! (Truly, it sounds bizarre but this was in an interview with a music magazine). Publicly said that any working man over the age of 25 that doesn't have a car to get to work could be considered a failure. So much for the environment, eh??

Caused a general revolt over the "poll tax", that lead to the Tory party being weakened and losing power. In fact they piloted the poll tax in Scotland and it was a dismal failure, Scotland became totally anti-conservative. So she decided to bring the poll tax to England, too! The Poll Tax was the end of her career. Many people refused to pay, there were marches against it, at the election she lost power, all because of the Poll Tax.

One of Britain's most unpopular Prime ministers. Liked by some only because she is a woman.

Golda Meir

Zionist. Contributed to the illegal settling and occupation of Palestine. She saw no need to seek compromise with the Palestinians so long as Israel was secure. Her rigid nationalism and blinkered view of the Arabs led her to say once: "There are no Palestinians."

As Prime Minister, Meir took a hard line toward the Arab world, refusing to stop expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. She refused to give back the lands Israel had stolen though war. She also tried to occupy the Sinai and Golan Heights, but the moderates in her party prevented her.

Elizabeth I

Elizabeth gave Queen Mary of the Scots refuge, then immediately betrayed her and kept her prisoner for nearly 19 years, then murdered her (with no intervening freedom!).

Encouraged raiding of Spanish ships during peacetime, by pirates. Took a share of the pirate's profit. Caused a long war going on for over a decade with Spain.

By lending unofficial aid to French Huguenots she managed for some time to harass France and Spain without involving England in an actual war. As part of her marriage negotiations she later supported the duke of Alenason's participation in the Dutch war against Spain.

Queen Isabella of Spain

Literally this needs no explanation; She drove out Gypsyies, Moors, and Jews. Sound familiar?

Cleopatra

Also needs no explanation. Whored herself over two rulers of Rome, she never fought a war herself, but whored herself to Romans (Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony), and got them to do the fighting for her, and destroyed the ancient civilization of Egypt, and as such, she was the last emperor of Egypt.

[Esternial]

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.

From what I gather the aim of this is to encourage healthier eating in general, basing that off some premise that the patriarchy promotes unhealthy food - which actually reads more like an excuse to involve feminism in a movement to encourage healthy eating, since it does have little to do with feminism. That said, it's a lovely idea. The slogan, well...it's just a slogan.

The way I see this, your consistent complaining about how feminist only represent men has resulted you automatically assuming all feminists only represent women by default, and thus you enter a circle of you interpreting instances in such a way that you use to legitimize your views, which cause you to further misinterpret instance to further legitimize your views.

The only reason so far for me to dislike it is because they're whining about genetically modified foods and praising 'organic' food (what food isn't fucking organic lelwut). It's pretty much a surefire way to lose my favor, surpassed only by kitty-genocide.

So they're not idiots because they're feminists, they're idiots because they're idiots.

[Irona]

Hasn't history shown they will abuse any power they are given?

History has also shown abuse of power preformed by women.

History has pretty decisively shown power corrupts everyone

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

History has also shown abuse of power preformed by women.

History has pretty decisively shown power corrupts everyone

Pretty much.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

From what I gather the aim of this is to encourage healthier eating in general, basing that off some premise that the patriarchy promotes unhealthy food - which actually reads more like an excuse to involve feminism in a movement to encourage healthy eating, since it does have little to do with feminism. That said, it's a lovely idea. The slogan, well...it's just a slogan.

The way I see this, your consistent complaining about how feminist only represent men has resulted you automatically assuming all feminists only represent women by default, and thus you enter a circle of you interpreting instances in such a way that you use to legitimize your views, which cause you to further misinterpret instance to further legitimize your views.

The only reason so far for me to dislike it is because they're going against genetically modified foods and praise organic food (what food isn't fucking organic lelwut)

So they're not idiots because they're feminists, they're idiots because they're idiots.

I'm not complaining about a movement to fix the obesity epidemic and such.
I'm pointing out that the excuse to involve feminism reveals a lot.

It's pretty funny that both of them didn't notice the misandry in the article.
But because of that, they also completely failed to grasp the misogynistic mirror to that misandry.

It really has come full circle.
They now hate men so much they want to shove women back into the kitchen, because the men are no good at it.

Ok, great.
Good job guys, this is a huge improvement. I can clearly see that hundred years or so was time well spent.

I think my brain is still partially numb from this. I'm worried it might be permanent. I opened the article and blew a fuse or something.

This is the bit that gets me.

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

It just shows that a lot of feminists are completely unhinged from reality.

a movement to reclaim simple, traditional foods that will lead to families and communities eating a more sustainable American diet.

But I thought it was a patriarchy tradition of privilege.
Which is it.
Is the food you're talking about traditional or not.

How is it that women were expected to do all the cooking and such, and then feminism demanded they not do that anymore, and get jobs and all that, resulting in the rise of quick and easy to cook food since most people no longer had hours to fuck around, the fault of the patriarchy.
(By the way, I'm not opposing this change. I'm just pointing out what caused it.)

It isn't. It isn't the fault of the patriarchy.

I'm still stunned by that article, there is so much wrong with it I could talk about it all day. More of me is shutting down. I think I need to do a line of coke.

It's clear that feminists just blame everything they don't like on patriarchy, even if it's the result of feminist actions.
(Such as custody laws, as Tahar points out.)

It's just a further demonstration of the incoherency and pseudo-ideological nature of feminism.

[Esternial]

From what I gather the aim of this is to encourage healthier eating in general, basing that off some premise that the patriarchy promotes unhealthy food - which actually reads more like an excuse to involve feminism in a movement to encourage healthy eating, since it does have little to do with feminism. That said, it's a lovely idea. The slogan, well...it's just a slogan.

The way I see this, your consistent complaining about how feminist only represent men has resulted you automatically assuming all feminists only represent women by default, and thus you enter a circle of you interpreting instances in such a way that you use to legitimize your views, which cause you to further misinterpret instance to further legitimize your views.

The only reason so far for me to dislike it is because they're going against genetically modified foods and praise organic food (what food isn't fucking organic lelwut)

So they're not idiots because they're feminists, they're idiots because they're idiots.

I'm not complaining about a movement to fix the obesity epidemic and such.
I'm pointing out that the excuse to involve feminism reveals a lot.

It's pretty funny that both of them didn't notice the misandry in the article.
But because of that, they also completely failed to grasp the misogynistic mirror to that misandry.

It really has come full circle.
They now hate men so much they want to shove women back into the kitchen, because the men are no good at it.

Ok, great.
Good job guys, this is a huge improvement. I can clearly see that hundred years or so was time well spent.

I think my brain is still partially numb from this. I'm worried it might be permanent. I opened the article and blew a fuse or something.

This is the bit that gets me.



It just shows that a lot of feminists are completely unhinged from reality.



But I thought it was a patriarchy tradition of privilege.
Which is it.
Is the food you're talking about traditional or not.

How is it that women were expected to do all the cooking and such, and then feminism demanded they not do that anymore, and get jobs and all that, resulting in the rise of quick and easy to cook food since most people no longer had hours to fuck around, the fault of the patriarchy.
(By the way, I'm not opposing this change. I'm just pointing out what caused it.)

It isn't. It isn't the fault of the patriarchy.

I'm still stunned by that article, there is so much wrong with it I could talk about it all day. More of me is shutting down. I think I need to do a line of coke.

It's clear that feminists just blame everything they don't like on patriarchy, even if it's the result of feminist actions.
(Such as custody laws, as Tahar points out.)

It's just a further demonstration of the incoherency and pseudo-ideological nature of feminism.

Hmm, I don't agree with their assertion that feminists/women somehow "know it better" when it comes to food. Experts know it better, regardless of sex.

[Dyakovo]

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.

I fail to see the problem.

[Esternial]

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.

I fail to see the problem.

It's a little silly, imo, but frankly I just skimmed through it.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not complaining about a movement to fix the obesity epidemic and such.
I'm pointing out that the excuse to involve feminism reveals a lot.

Hmm, I don't agree with their assertion that feminists/women somehow "know it better" when it comes to food. Experts know it better, regardless of sex.

That's my point.
That's why i'm stunned.

The circularity of it, the sense of closure and completeness.

Women don't have traditional gender roles because they suck at things, they have them because men suck at things.
Women have to make the sandwiches because men are no good at it, and if they don't then everyone will get fat and die horribly.

It's a zen like moment of observing such an utter lack of self-awareness. I've transcended. It's almost a religious experience.

The refusal to take seriously the notion that they should stop the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic, and "everything is misogyny" stuff, has led to this.

Two feminists in this thread read that article, and because it was hateful towards men, they didn't notice that it's basically a demand for women to do all the food shopping and cooking.
Didn't even register with them.

The idea that hate towards men does anything bad has been declared impossible by the party, and so the thought cannot even cross their minds.

There is a patriarchal tradition of keeping women out of the kitchen.
We were always at war with eastasia.

EDIT:
Lol, now it's three of them. Great.
Keep it coming guys. Step right up and show everyone how your pseudo-ideology really works.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=342581&p=25801473&hilit=air+conditioning#p25801473

All three of those feminists demonstrating this problem in the link.

[Knask]

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.

I don't believe you went beyond the summary and actually read the essay.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Hmm, I don't agree with their assertion that feminists/women somehow "know it better" when it comes to food. Experts know it better, regardless of sex.

That's my point.
That's why i'm stunned.

The circularity of it, the sense of closure and completeness.

Women don't have traditional gender roles because they suck at things, they have them because men suck at things.
Women have to make the sandwiches because men are no good at it, and if they don't then everyone will get fat and die horribly.

It's a zen like moment of observing such an utter lack of self-awareness. I've transcended. It's almost a religious experience.

The refusal to take seriously the notion that they should stop the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic, and "everything is misogyny" stuff, has led to this.

Two feminists in this thread read that article, and because it was hateful towards men, they didn't notice that it's basically a demand for women to do all the food shopping and cooking.
Didn't even register with them.

The idea that hate towards men does anything bad has been declared impossible by the party, and so the thought cannot even cross their minds.

There is a patriarchal tradition of keeping women out of the kitchen.
We were always at war with eastasia.

EDIT:
Lol, now it's three of them. Great.
Keep it coming guys. Step right up and show everyone how your pseudo-ideology really works.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=342581&p=25801473&hilit=air+conditioning#p25801473

All three of those feminists demonstrating this problem in the link.

At first I liked you, but you just annoy me now.

[New Grestin]

That's my point.
That's why i'm stunned.

The circularity of it, the sense of closure and completeness.

Women don't have traditional gender roles because they suck at things, they have them because men suck at things.
Women have to make the sandwiches because men are no good at it, and if they don't then everyone will get fat and die horribly.

It's a zen like moment of observing such an utter lack of self-awareness. I've transcended. It's almost a religious experience.

The refusal to take seriously the notion that they should stop the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic, and "everything is misogyny" stuff, has led to this.

Two feminists in this thread read that article, and because it was hateful towards men, they didn't notice that it's basically a demand for women to do all the food shopping and cooking.
Didn't even register with them.

The idea that hate towards men does anything bad has been declared impossible by the party, and so the thought cannot even cross their minds.

There is a patriarchal tradition of keeping women out of the kitchen.
We were always at war with eastasia.

EDIT:
Lol, now it's three of them. Great.
Keep it coming guys. Step right up and show everyone how your pseudo-ideology really works.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=342581&p=25801473&hilit=air+conditioning#p25801473

All three of those feminists demonstrating this problem in the link.

At first I liked you, but you just annoy me now.

And the award for most useless, half-hearted response to a good point ever goes to...

[Hyfling]

I fail to see the problem.

First half of the article was alright, but then we came to this:

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

Not everything has to lead back to the Illuminati Patriarchy to be a womens issue. Even then, poor eating habits and things like obesity affect both genders pretty much equally, it should really be a seperate national health issue, not just badly duct-taped onto feminism.

[Hyfling]

At first I liked you, but you just annoy me now.

>shitposting this loudly

[New Grestin]

I fail to see the problem.

First half of the article was alright, but then we came to this:

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

Not everything has to lead back to the Illuminati Patriarchy to be a womens issue. Even then, poor eating habits and things like obesity affect both genders pretty much equally, it should really be a seperate national health issue, not just badly duct-taped onto feminism.

Ah, but if we pretend that an enemy still exists, then we can justify not going after the actual patriarchy in under-developed nations.

If we keep making up new boogeymen, we can ignore the real problems.

[Knask]

I fail to see the problem.

First half of the article was alright, but then we came to this:

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

Not everything has to lead back to the Illuminati Patriarchy to be a womens issue. Even then, poor eating habits and things like obesity affect both genders pretty much equally, it should really be a seperate national health issue, not just badly duct-taped onto feminism.

You didn't read the full article either I see. A bold move, Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

[Hyfling]

First half of the article was alright, but then we came to this:


Not everything has to lead back to the Illuminati Patriarchy to be a womens issue. Even then, poor eating habits and things like obesity affect both genders pretty much equally, it should really be a seperate national health issue, not just badly duct-taped onto feminism.

You didn't read the full article either I see. A bold move, Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

Did you? At first I thought it was just mildly silly, but now:

When we organize to insist that foods be labeled “genetically modified” when they are, and that “organic” food be really organic, we will witness a seismic shift in the way we eat. Grains will become healthy again. Fruits and vegetables will come from local growers who will understand that organic farming is more efficient (and profitable) than chemical agriculture. Chemical companies like Monsanto will be threatened, its suicide seeds rendered powerless.

There will be no millennial goals to end poverty because women (and men) will have already led the charge to take back the kitchen. Karl Marx’s vision of a society where people fish in the morning, read literature in the afternoon and create feasts (and maybe some philosophizing) in the evening, will have finally triumphed over the savage corporate capitalism that characterizes our current eating culture and its patriarchal control of the world.

(A few choice paragraphs)

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?

[Hyfling]

First half of the article was alright, but then we came to this:


Not everything has to lead back to the Illuminati Patriarchy to be a womens issue. Even then, poor eating habits and things like obesity affect both genders pretty much equally, it should really be a seperate national health issue, not just badly duct-taped onto feminism.

Ah, but if we pretend that an enemy still exists, then we can justify not going after the actual patriarchy in under-developed nations.

If we keep making up new boogeymen, we can ignore the real problems.

And this, IMO, is what's wrong with feminism today.

I think feminism definetly has a place in the world, but the issues and movements they've (obviously not all) been choosing to focus on recently are petty, insignificant and just downright bizarre. Whinging about non-issues like 'manspreading' and throwing your weight behind idiocy like Ban Bossy and Free-Bleeding is just alienating potential supporters and distracting from the real issues facing women worldwide.

Execution of women who dare drive a car in the Middle East? The existence of so-called 'rape gangs' in Africa and Pakistan? Acid throwing in India and China? Pfft, those aren't feminist issues, silly!

Walking down a street with a thousand other women in Progressiville, First Worldia wearing your underpants to 'fight' a strawpatriarchy? Now that's real bravery.

[Knask]

You didn't read the full article either I see. A bold move, Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

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!

[Chessmistress]

I doubt there would be any increase in M2F trans people under matriarchy. Consider that under patriarchy there F2M transexualism is very rare.

But even if that happened I'm sure it could be dealt with. What you probably would see is a increased preference for female children. Still my preferred form of matriarchy only removes some rights for men. Men would still be treated better than women were in 1950s America. They would simply be barred from any positions of social, political, and religious authority or power and perhaps some rights that men take for granted now should be reinterpreted for men.

Why are you a feminist? Feminism means making women equal to men. Why do you trust men to be your equal? Hasn't history shown they will abuse any power they are given?

I already explained why I think it would be an increase in M2F trans people under matriarchy. It’s true that under patriarchy F2M transexualism is very rare, even much more rare than M2F, luckily.
Ipotizing it would be an increase in M2F you said: I'm sure it could be dealt with.
How?

Preference for female childrens is not “probable” but absolutely sure, even under a true equal society, also because that’s already a reality: when couples can select the gender of their babies they actually choose 75% for girls. Due the fact more and more reproduction will be carried out in artificial way, due the introduction of “designer babies”, and due women’s empowerment, I guess the preference for female childrens will rise even more. But under a true equal society I’m pretty sure we’ll never see a dramatic unbalancement: actually 106 males are born for every 100 females, in the future it’ll be about the parity, or maybe even 105 females born for every 100 males. Nothing so dramatic.
Under a matriarchy I guess the unbalancement would be very severe, and worrying.

I agree that some rights that males take for granted now should be reinterpreted for males, but that must be about very few things, in example about matters related with gender-based violence and such things. That isn’t a matriarchy, but substantive equality, gendered laws, like in example the Spanish law against violence against women, already passed since 11 years, or Article 4 of Convention of Istanbul.

Matriarchy cannot work, it would backfire, for sure.
Theoretically, in some ways, and just only in some ways, not on the whole, it would be even justified, since males have oppressed women for a so long time. But a matriarchy, even very light, would morally justify males spreading a very violent counter-reaction, and that would be very likely to kill a lot of women.
I’m even pretty sure that there are even males who are waiting for such move, EXACTLY in order to have a good justification for a massive counter-reaction.
Have you considered that?
Flying with auto-pilot just only through male allies can be very relaxing, and nice, but it can be very misleading - you should consider that not all males are friendly towards women like him

I fail to see the problem.

Not even all males are like Roosh V , who will be in jail, sooner or later (at least, I hope: I think he really deserve it, because he's a rapist and a rape apologist).

Some males can be very sneaky, and very cold.
It’ s like the difference between a pacific Brontosaurus, an aggressive but stupid T-Rex, and a Velociraptor...