The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Giovenith]

The original film is about two male con artists competing to extract a certain amount of money from a female mark. The final twist is that they both end up being fleeced by the mark, who is actually a con artist who set out to entrap them. The original Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the clever woman outwitting the dumb men. The remake will be the opposite.

I got Dirty Rotten Scoundrels mixed up with Horrible Bosses, a comedy that features a man trapped in a job he can't quit with a female boss who constantly sexually harasses him and then thought about how a gender swapped version couldn't be marketed as a comedy.

I was actually uncomfortable and disappointed with the end of Horrible Bosses 2 where Charlie Day's boss finally managed to rape him while he was in a coma. :/ The conflict and ending in the first one was so perfect specifically because of how hard it kicked the double standard of woman-on-man sexual harassment in the ass, and then they just completely took a shit on it in the sequel as if they forgot their own point they were trying to make with the first one.

[New Edom]

I can more easily imagine the dragons and ghost people. If you had this Amazon thing I'd want to know why, there'd have to be some kind of reason. I have read a fair amount of speculative fiction including stuff on this issue, and I roleplay in a region where three nations are matriarchal, so I'm willing to be open minded but there has to be a good backstory.

I used to read those books that were set in a matriarchal society--like the Clan of the Cave Bear series and this series about agrarian matriarchal people facing off against pastoral patriarchal people, and I found them to be kind of bullshit though entertaining to read.

You find talking dragons and ghosts more believable than a society with many athletic women?

No. what I find hard to believe is how some writers think a simple role reversal is easy. I respect the work of writers who put some thought into it. I find most science fiction and fantasy in fact makes the human relationships more unbelievable than the magic. I find the same thing to be true about Harry Potter, for example. But we digress.

[Wallenburg]

No. what I find hard to believe is how some writers think a simple role reversal is easy. I respect the work of writers who put some thought into it.

If that's what you meant, you could have actually said that. Thanks for changing your mind though, and expanding upon your opinion. Also, role reversals are both very easy and very difficult. They are very easy to do shoddily, and very difficult to do well.

I find most science fiction and fantasy in fact makes the human relationships more unbelievable than the magic. I find the same thing to be true about Harry Potter, for example. But we digress.

The quality of depicting relationships has little to do with genre, only the skill of the individual writer.

[Costa Fierro]

I propose that we gender-swap Disney's "Mulan," where a young man born into a matriarchal amazon culture must disguise himself as a woman to take his elderly mother's place in the army and prove himself as equal in the eyes of the establishment.

Sounds like an internship at Buzzfeed.

[Giovenith]

I propose that we gender-swap Disney's "Mulan," where a young man born into a matriarchal amazon culture must disguise himself as a woman to take his elderly mother's place in the army and prove himself as equal in the eyes of the establishment.

Sounds like an internship at Buzzfeed.

I've heard that working at BuzzFeed is basically working a white collar sweatshop. Kind of explains a lot.

[Ventlimer]

Sounds like an internship at Buzzfeed.

I've heard that working at BuzzFeed is basically working a white collar sweatshop. Kind of explains a lot.

Low quality articles for the sake of articles on anything from fake racism to fake sexism? Sounds like the cheap product of a sweatshop to me

[Costa Fierro]

Sounds like an internship at Buzzfeed.

I've heard that working at BuzzFeed is basically working a white collar sweatshop. Kind of explains a lot.

You get what you pay for.

[New Edom]

So what do you all think of Feminists who don't want male feminists around? Articles like the one I just mentioned are just as common as the ones demanding that men become feminist.

Whether it is "reminders" that men don't defend women and that women have all along just been protecting themselves, or that one above, there's this theme of 'men need to serve women better'. That seems to naturally asume that women are either too put upon to serve men in turn or else are doing more than their share or something. I'm not seeing any degree of call for actual partnership in any of this.

So some of these people like Julie Bindel in the first example are radfems and frankly I think they do hate men. I dont' care what they say, I care about what they actually do. Someone who constantly acts ungrateful, constantly shoots people down is acting with hatred. So what about the second example? Oh there's the nice little sop to abused men in there--that tiny rare unicorn of a few precious herds of those unique and strange men, but really--let's protect the women, and stand up for them. Maybe those guys might get another little sop if they're lucky.

So again: remind me why men should support this ideology? I don't see why anyone should. If women want equality let them sink or swim like everyone else does now.

[Wallenburg]

So what do you all think of Feminists who don't want male feminists around? Articles like the one I just mentioned are just as common as the ones demanding that men become feminist.

This flavor of feminism is absolutely ridiculous. It antagonizes men even when they support feminism, and that is never a good idea. Even ignoring the clear assholery involved in alienating your own ideological allies, it just doesn't make sense to do so from a practical standpoint. Feminists who want to exclude men from feminism are doing everything they possibly can to decimate the number of people who actually call themselves feminists.

So again: remind me why men should support this ideology? I don't see why anyone should. If women want equality let them sink or swim like everyone else does now.

I thought you claimed to be an egalitarian?

[Hirota]

So again: remind me why men should support this ideology?

To crush puss, obviously Brah.

I thought you claimed to be an egalitarian?

Feminism isn't the only party in town. It just wants you to think it is by attempting to redefine feminism as it was described in first and second waves, back when it actually did something

[Wallenburg]

I thought you claimed to be an egalitarian?

Feminism isn't the only party in town. It just wants you to think it is by attempting to redefine feminism as it was described in first and second waves, back when it actually did something

I never said it was. New Edom just said that he thinks women should carry the burden of fighting for gender equality, and that anyone who isn't a woman should let egalitarianism "sink or swim".

[Costa Fierro]

So what do you all think of Feminists who don't want male feminists around? Articles like the one I just mentioned are just as common as the ones demanding that men become feminist.

It's good. Men cannot become feminists because they aren't women, in the same way women cannot become masculinists because they are not men. Men and women experience society differently and have a different set of social expectations and pressures that they have to live up to and because we experience the world through different viewpoints, we only look at how society interacts with viewpoints relevant to our own personal experiences.

Not only this, but I utterly find it bewildering that men choose to become feminists and support a movement that is inherently hostile to them. Feminism's move towards equity rather than equality is problematic because once again, the men in power will throw every man in the West under the proverbial bus to cater to women's issues and encourage the already widespread ignorance towards men issues. In the same breadth, I don't understand why women try to advocate for positions that are not advantageous to themselves, or try to remove the gender bias that is in favour of women.

[Wallenburg]

I utterly find it bewildering that men choose to become feminists and support a movement that is inherently hostile to them. Feminism's move towards equity rather than equality is problematic because once again, the men in power will throw every man in the West under the proverbial bus to cater to women's issues and encourage the already widespread ignorance towards men issues. In the same breadth, I don't understand why women try to advocate for positions that are not advantageous to themselves, or try to remove the gender bias that is in favour of women.

Some people have the capacity to empathize with people who do not have the same genitals as they do. That's why.

[Costa Fierro]

Some people have the capacity to empathize with people who do not have the same genitals as they do. That's why.

I don't believe so. I think some of the more militant male feminists have a secret desire to be dominated by women and are projecting it through their support for a society dominated by women. In addition, I imagine the majority of men who call themselves feminists only do so to get with women and are essentially exploiting that label for their own personal gains. And I certainly can't understand why men would feel sorry for a woman who gets away with sexual abuse, rape or walks off with his kids.

[The New Communist Order]

Darn was hoping for a Second-Wave Feminist Thread and not the cancerous kind.

[Lady Scylla]

Some people have the capacity to empathize with people who do not have the same genitals as they do. That's why.

I don't believe so. I think some of the more militant male feminists have a secret desire to be dominated by women and are projecting it through their support for a society dominated by women. In addition, I imagine the majority of men who call themselves feminists only do so to get with women and are essentially exploiting that label for their own personal gains. And I certainly can't understand why men would feel sorry for a woman who gets away with sexual abuse, rape or walks off with his kids.

Interesting, if not unfortunate view point.

[New Edom]

I don't believe so. I think some of the more militant male feminists have a secret desire to be dominated by women and are projecting it through their support for a society dominated by women. In addition, I imagine the majority of men who call themselves feminists only do so to get with women and are essentially exploiting that label for their own personal gains. And I certainly can't understand why men would feel sorry for a woman who gets away with sexual abuse, rape or walks off with his kids.

Interesting, if not unfortunate view point.

Costa Fiero has a good point there though. I was watching an interview with eve Ensler and the guy interviewing her revealed, not to my surprise at all, that he had been picked on for being effeminate while in school. That's too bad, and shouldn't have happened, but it showed a common theme I've seen in male feminists which is that they seem to want to clearly announce "I'm not like most other guys" one way or another. Whether they are men at the apex who are denouncing bro culture which they used to e a part of and are kind of repenting for, whether they are men like the guy I just mentioned or men who saw women in their lives suffer, they are bringing a very particular experience to the table and tend to ignore and dismiss other kinds of experience.

Se I'm not doing that. I don't dismiss that it is valuable to a conversation about sexual equality to talk about how a guy had to deal with his mom or sisters being abused for instance, or a man wanting to talk about how he struggled with being gay and being picked on. What I dislike intensely is that there's an assumption that every OTHER man is some asshole who needs to be harnessed and civilized by feminism And as I've said before, it's very clear to me that people are following an agenda when they pursue this stuff and then pretend they're not.

Also, because of this, while it's easy enough for feminists of your stripe to dismiss the views of someone like Julie Bindel as not being definitively feminist, what people can see is the power that this lobby wields. They can get you fired from your job, they can get a show to have to edit its content, they can change an educational curriculum, so they have power. People tend to serve power out of a sheer instinctive drive for survival and prosperity. So yeah, men supporting feminism are also in some cases supporting it because they see it as a way to be approved of.

[Lady Scylla]

Interesting, if not unfortunate view point.

Costa Fiero has a good point there though. I was watching an interview with eve Ensler and the guy interviewing her revealed, not to my surprise at all, that he had been picked on for being effeminate while in school. That's too bad, and shouldn't have happened, but it showed a common theme I've seen in male feminists which is that they seem to want to clearly announce "I'm not like most other guys" one way or another. Whether they are men at the apex who are denouncing bro culture which they used to e a part of and are kind of repenting for, whether they are men like the guy I just mentioned or men who saw women in their lives suffer, they are bringing a very particular experience to the table and tend to ignore and dismiss other kinds of experience.

Se I'm not doing that. I don't dismiss that it is valuable to a conversation about sexual equality to talk about how a guy had to deal with his mom or sisters being abused for instance, or a man wanting to talk about how he struggled with being gay and being picked on. What I dislike intensely is that there's an assumption that every OTHER man is some asshole who needs to be harnessed and civilized by feminism And as I've said before, it's very clear to me that people are following an agenda when they pursue this stuff and then pretend they're not.

Also, because of this, while it's easy enough for feminists of your stripe to dismiss the views of someone like Julie Bindel as not being definitively feminist, what people can see is the power that this lobby wields. They can get you fired from your job, they can get a show to have to edit its content, they can change an educational curriculum, so they have power. People tend to serve power out of a sheer instinctive drive for survival and prosperity. So yeah, men supporting feminism are also in some cases supporting it because they see it as a way to be approved of.

Being effeminate doesn't inherently mean you're a feminist, however. So that's rather non sequitur. I'm also having difficulty following much else you're saying, I'm unsure if it's because I'm still waking up, or I'm staring at some sort of logical salad.

As far as the premise that every other man is some asshole, I don't believe that. I also don't believe men and women are somehow, besides biology, inherently different. They can have different experiences, but that's not a result of some biological make-up, but societal pressure. I'm somewhat of a tomboy, I don't fit into the cookie-cutter caricature of some prissy gal obsessed with her vanity, or some meek social recluse needing obedience. I also don't hold men to the expectation that they must be some rough, solemn, and emotionally depleted curiosity, or some braggart drunk on their bravado.

These are gender roles, defined boxes that people try to assume, whereas the reality is that the human condition, and thereby people's expression and how they are, cannot be so easily defined into such perfect boundaries. Do men and women suffer from different social afflictions? Definitely, but because of how people view them. It's rather ridiculous to perceive a man has somehow weak because he's more effeminate, it's quite insulting honestly, just as it is ridiculous to perceive that a woman has some sort of 'Man complex' or some sort because she's tomboyish.

As far as agendas, everyone's pursuing an agenda. I've no doubt you've your own for why you frequent these sort of discussions. Your rhetoric is typically hostile towards the RadFem movement, which I'm not complaining, but at the same time, you appear to meander and display this quality of generalisation that makes it difficult to determine if you're a) Simply wanting to target RadFem and their idiocy, or b) Have some sort of vendetta. I have my own agenda, I have unpopular political ideas compared to some inherent mainstream views, and I'm all in favour of a new 'civil war' in the Feminist movement to expel the RadFem and Third wave from the stage. On some issues, I'm willing to look for a compromise, on others, I'm not and am more willing to undermine my opponent. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people have underlying agendas.

And it isn't 'easy' to be dismissive. You never know how people are going to react until you post. When it comes to discourse, such as within this forum, debates get heated, mud gets slung. Chess and her ilk have accused me of having 'internalised misogyny', a 'gender traitor', that I'm somehow 'delusional because of patriarchy'. Meanwhile, on the other line, we have Ostroeuropa and their ilk, who, I'm fairly certain, has some underlying issues giving rise to their overwhelming hostile rhetoric towards women in general. Everyone else in between becomes a game of politics, and that's all it is. You have to get people to agree with you, so you compromise, even if you might not want to.

My views for the movement are relatively simple. Inclusion of men, and a shift in focus on men and women's issues. Because that's what equality is. RadFems don't care about women, they care about power, if they truly cared about the equality and plight of women, then they wouldn't exclude women who are in need of help. They perpetuate victimisation of women through their own rhetoric because of a persecution complex. However, how are we suppose to push the Feminist movement into a better direction if the outside won't stop generalising? Instead of targeting the people needing to be targeted, the whole movement receives the blame, even though it is an amalgam of many distinct components.

You do the same. The fact I'm not an ascriber to RadFem theory is a secondary characteristic every time you mention me. And this is where I struggle to understand exactly where you are, because it's Feminist movement this, Feminist movement that, oh, and then there's these people. It's discrediting, and it undermines all of us, even those who are trying to push the RadFems out. And all it does is strengthen their position in the movement, instead of being seen as a fringe group, they're the first thing people think of when they see Feminism, and all that does is validate them, while invalidating those of us who are staunchly opposed.

[New Edom]

Costa Fiero has a good point there though. I was watching an interview with eve Ensler and the guy interviewing her revealed, not to my surprise at all, that he had been picked on for being effeminate while in school. That's too bad, and shouldn't have happened, but it showed a common theme I've seen in male feminists which is that they seem to want to clearly announce "I'm not like most other guys" one way or another. Whether they are men at the apex who are denouncing bro culture which they used to e a part of and are kind of repenting for, whether they are men like the guy I just mentioned or men who saw women in their lives suffer, they are bringing a very particular experience to the table and tend to ignore and dismiss other kinds of experience.

Se I'm not doing that. I don't dismiss that it is valuable to a conversation about sexual equality to talk about how a guy had to deal with his mom or sisters being abused for instance, or a man wanting to talk about how he struggled with being gay and being picked on. What I dislike intensely is that there's an assumption that every OTHER man is some asshole who needs to be harnessed and civilized by feminism And as I've said before, it's very clear to me that people are following an agenda when they pursue this stuff and then pretend they're not.

Also, because of this, while it's easy enough for feminists of your stripe to dismiss the views of someone like Julie Bindel as not being definitively feminist, what people can see is the power that this lobby wields. They can get you fired from your job, they can get a show to have to edit its content, they can change an educational curriculum, so they have power. People tend to serve power out of a sheer instinctive drive for survival and prosperity. So yeah, men supporting feminism are also in some cases supporting it because they see it as a way to be approved of.

Being effeminate doesn't inherently mean you're a feminist, however. So that's rather non sequitur. I'm also having difficulty following much else you're saying, I'm unsure if it's because I'm still waking up, or I'm staring at some sort of logical salad.

As far as the premise that every other man is some asshole, I don't believe that. I also don't believe men and women are somehow, besides biology, inherently different. They can have different experiences, but that's not a result of some biological make-up, but societal pressure. I'm somewhat of a tomboy, I don't fit into the cookie-cutter caricature of some prissy gal obsessed with her vanity, or some meek social recluse needing obedience. I also don't hold men to the expectation that they must be some rough, solemn, and emotionally depleted curiosity, or some braggart drunk on their bravado.

These are gender roles, defined boxes that people try to assume, whereas the reality is that the human condition, and thereby people's expression and how they are, cannot be so easily defined into such perfect boundaries. Do men and women suffer from different social afflictions? Definitely, but because of how people view them. It's rather ridiculous to perceive a man has somehow weak because he's more effeminate, it's quite insulting honestly, just as it is ridiculous to perceive that a woman has some sort of 'Man complex' or some sort because she's tomboyish.

As far as agendas, everyone's pursuing an agenda. I've no doubt you've your own for why you frequent these sort of discussions. Your rhetoric is typically hostile towards the RadFem movement, which I'm not complaining, but at the same time, you appear to meander and display this quality of generalisation that makes it difficult to determine if you're a) Simply wanting to target RadFem and their idiocy, or b) Have some sort of vendetta. I have my own agenda, I have unpopular political ideas compared to some inherent mainstream views, and I'm all in favour of a new 'civil war' in the Feminist movement to expel the RadFem and Third wave from the stage. On some issues, I'm willing to look for a compromise, on others, I'm not and am more willing to undermine my opponent. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people have underlying agendas.

And it isn't 'easy' to be dismissive. You never know how people are going to react until you post. When it comes to discourse, such as within this forum, debates get heated, mud gets slung. Chess and her ilk have accused me of having 'internalised misogyny', a 'gender traitor', that I'm somehow 'delusional because of patriarchy'. Meanwhile, on the other line, we have Ostroeuropa and their ilk, who, I'm fairly certain, has some underlying issues giving rise to their overwhelming hostile rhetoric towards women in general. Everyone else in between becomes a game of politics, and that's all it is. You have to get people to agree with you, so you compromise, even if you might not want to.

My views for the movement are relatively simple. Inclusion of men, and a shift in focus on men and women's issues. Because that's what equality is. RadFems don't care about women, they care about power, if they truly cared about the equality and plight of women, then they wouldn't exclude women who are in need of help. They perpetuate victimisation of women through their own rhetoric because of a persecution complex. However, how are we suppose to push the Feminist movement into a better direction if the outside won't stop generalising? Instead of targeting the people needing to be targeted, the whole movement receives the blame, even though it is an amalgam of many distinct components.

You do the same. The fact I'm not an ascriber to RadFem theory is a secondary characteristic every time you mention me. And this is where I struggle to understand exactly where you are, because it's Feminist movement this, Feminist movement that, oh, and then there's these people. It's discrediting, and it undermines all of us, even those who are trying to push the RadFems out. And all it does is strengthen their position in the movement, instead of being seen as a fringe group, they're the first thing people think of when they see Feminism, and all that does is validate them, while invalidating those of us who are staunchly opposed.

Here's some things that feminists could do a lot better.

1. Show some gratitude. Feminism exists in part because of political and legal systems designed by men and led by men. Change the story a bit to show that we were all in it together. We don't need bullshit movies like "Suffragette" to display feminist heroes.

2. Stop making everything a crisis. "Feminist Fight Club" is a good example of the special snowflake bullshit that online feminism often promotes suggesting that our society is so misogynistic that we need to panic every time a woman bursts into tears. Let's ee more praising of women who start businesses and have good careers and do good for their communities rather than making it a crisis of how women can't get anything done without the government holding their hand.

3. Show more open contempt for radfem ideas as a thing of the past we don't need anymore. Go on the attack and support Christina Hoff Sommers. Do you rown threads or something or start your own ideas too, make it clear that they suck and that they're unhelpful. Shut them down.

[Wallenburg]

1. Show some gratitude. Feminism exists in part because of political and legal systems designed by men and led by men. Change the story a bit to show that we were all in it together. We don't need bullshit movies like "Suffragette" to display feminist heroes.

And black civil rights exist in part because of political and legal systems designed by white people and led by white people. LGBT civil rights exist in part because of political and legal systems designed and led by non-queer people. That feminism doesn't grovel to men should neither be a surprise, nor should it be expected.

2. Stop making everything a crisis. "Feminist Fight Club" is a good example of the special snowflake bullshit that online feminism often promotes suggesting that our society is so misogynistic that we need to panic every time a woman bursts into tears.

I've literally never heard of such a ridiculous brand of feminism.

Let's ee more praising of women who start businesses and have good careers and do good for their communities rather than making it a crisis of how women can't get anything done without the government holding their hand.

And I've never heard anyone but hardline sexists suggest or behave otherwise.

3. Show more open contempt for radfem ideas as a thing of the past we don't need anymore. Go on the attack and support Christina Hoff Sommers. Do you rown threads or something or start your own ideas too, make it clear that they suck and that they're unhelpful. Shut them down.

This very strongly resembles fundamentalist Christians screaming about how the Muslim community needs to denounce Islamic terrorism. Here's the thing: many--and probably most--feminists actually do show contempt for radical feminism. Such behavior simply does not generate nearly as much attention as a handful of college feminists saying some stupid SJW bullshit.

[New Edom]

1. Show some gratitude. Feminism exists in part because of political and legal systems designed by men and led by men. Change the story a bit to show that we were all in it together. We don't need bullshit movies like "Suffragette" to display feminist heroes.

And black civil rights exist in part because of political and legal systems designed by white people and led by white people. LGBT civil rights exist in part because of political and legal systems designed and led by non-queer people. That feminism doesn't grovel to men should neither be a surprise, nor should it be expected.

2. Stop making everything a crisis. "Feminist Fight Club" is a good example of the special snowflake bullshit that online feminism often promotes suggesting that our society is so misogynistic that we need to panic every time a woman bursts into tears.

I've literally never heard of such a ridiculous brand of feminism.

Let's ee more praising of women who start businesses and have good careers and do good for their communities rather than making it a crisis of how women can't get anything done without the government holding their hand.

And I've never heard anyone but hardline sexists suggest or behave otherwise.

3. Show more open contempt for radfem ideas as a thing of the past we don't need anymore. Go on the attack and support Christina Hoff Sommers. Do you rown threads or something or start your own ideas too, make it clear that they suck and that they're unhelpful. Shut them down.

This very strongly resembles fundamentalist Christians screaming about how the Muslim community needs to denounce Islamic terrorism. Here's the thing: many--and probably most--feminists actually do show contempt for radical feminism. Such behavior simply does not generate nearly as much attention as a handful of college feminists saying some stupid SJW bullshit.

Feminist Fight Club (Note: shitty behaviour at work not because of corporate dog eat dog culture--it's sexist.)

My issue is not whether or not egalitarianism should be pursued, it's how. I don't want feminists to think they can get away with being the only game in town when it comes to male/female equality. The input of men who are neither blase about the status quo nor groveling before the ideology will have to be accepted.

The next phase of my efforts around here will be a lot more focused on men themselves. Whether people like it or not, I believe I and others have sufficiently demonstrated that we can debate about the issues surrounding feminism very clearly. Of course people can if they wish try to pretend this is nonsense and we are just confused or ignorant, but more fool them. Most of my critics haven't really done their research and know less about he history of feminism than I do.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't believe so. I think some of the more militant male feminists have a secret desire to be dominated by women and are projecting it through their support for a society dominated by women. In addition, I imagine the majority of men who call themselves feminists only do so to get with women and are essentially exploiting that label for their own personal gains. And I certainly can't understand why men would feel sorry for a woman who gets away with sexual abuse, rape or walks off with his kids.

Interesting, if not unfortunate view point.

Why is it unfortunate? A great deal of men would call themselves feminists if it got them a date or sex with a woman if she was attractive enough.

[Wallenburg]

Why is it unfortunate? A great deal of men would call themselves feminists if it got them a date or sex with a woman if she was attractive enough.

You sound an awful lot like Gloria Steinem.

[Costa Fierro]

Why is it unfortunate? A great deal of men would call themselves feminists if it got them a date or sex with a woman if she was attractive enough.

You sound an awful lot like Gloria Steinem.

How do you know?

[Ostroeuropa]

Meanwhile, on the other line, we have Ostroeuropa and their ilk, who, I'm fairly certain, has some underlying issues giving rise to their overwhelming hostile rhetoric towards women in general. Everyone else in between becomes a game of politics, and that's all it is. You have to get people to agree with you, so you compromise, even if you might not want to.

Got an example?