The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Wallenburg]

You sound an awful lot like Gloria Steinem.

How do you know?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/ ... index.html

[Unitaristic Regions]

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.

Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist

I thought your sig and what you said matched up pretty well XD

[New Edom]

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.

Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist

I thought your sig and what you said matched up pretty well XD

And idealists call realists cynics. Seriously though, can you disprove his statement?

[Unitaristic Regions]

Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist

I thought your sig and what you said matched up pretty well XD

And idealists call realists cynics. Seriously though, can you disprove his statement?

Wait what? I wasn't criticizing him. If I had to guess I'd say he's partly right. Don't jump to conclusions.

[New Edom]

And idealists call realists cynics. Seriously though, can you disprove his statement?

Wait what? I wasn't criticizing him. If I had to guess I'd say he's partly right. Don't jump to conclusions.

Fair enough, misunderstood you.

[New Edom]

So: the people who were urging me to only post feminist subjects in here--you had your chance to make your point. However my point has been made as well. I've seen viertually no discussion of anything here. A handful of posters will now and then examine some issue, but as we've seen, Chessmistress put up two threads in the interim which got a lot of discussion. So fair enough if people WANT to post here, but i will refuse henceforth to accept people telling me I should ONLY post about feminist subjects here, since it is very clear to me that it is unprofitable for me to do so.

[Balkenreich]

So: the people who were urging me to only post feminist subjects in here--you had your chance to make your point. However my point has been made as well. I've seen viertually no discussion of anything here. A handful of posters will now and then examine some issue, but as we've seen, Chessmistress put up two threads in the interim which got a lot of discussion. So fair enough if people WANT to post here, but i will refuse henceforth to accept people telling me I should ONLY post about feminist subjects here, since it is very clear to me that it is unprofitable for me to do so.

For some reason, people on here think that their opinion on what other people post as OP's in general when they are fleshed out and often very well sourced, matters.

Chances are, they are just butthurt about their sacred cow being up for slaughter.

[New Edom]

So: the people who were urging me to only post feminist subjects in here--you had your chance to make your point. However my point has been made as well. I've seen viertually no discussion of anything here. A handful of posters will now and then examine some issue, but as we've seen, Chessmistress put up two threads in the interim which got a lot of discussion. So fair enough if people WANT to post here, but i will refuse henceforth to accept people telling me I should ONLY post about feminist subjects here, since it is very clear to me that it is unprofitable for me to do so.

For some reason, people on here think that their opinion on what other people post as OP's in general when they are fleshed out and often very well sourced, matters.

Chances are, they are just butthurt about their sacred cow being up for slaughter.

You're probably right about that. They also consistently mischaracterize my purpose.

Anyway I gave it a shot out of curiousity but also to demonstrate that I would be willing to do as they asked if it worked, and it hasn't. What I also find funny is that Chessmistress quite correctly points out serious socio-political initiatives that mirror others that have been carried out, and still they doubt that it's reality. So it's no wonder that they don't see a point in what my threads try to accomplish.

[Cerillium]

For some reason, people on here think that their opinion on what other people post as OP's in general when they are fleshed out and often very well sourced, matters.

Chances are, they are just butthurt about their sacred cow being up for slaughter.

You're probably right about that. They also consistently mischaracterize my purpose.

Anyway I gave it a shot out of curiousity but also to demonstrate that I would be willing to do as they asked if it worked, and it hasn't. What I also find funny is that Chessmistress quite correctly points out serious socio-political initiatives that mirror others that have been carried out, and still they doubt that it's reality. So it's no wonder that they don't see a point in what my threads try to accomplish.

You haven't anything worthwhile to debate, Edom. "Blah blah sexist women on campus, blah blah Emma Watson says something new, blah blah rape culture doesn't exist, blah blah". You don't seem in it for the enjoyment of debate, either. From my perspective, you wear your hatred of feminists like a chip on your shoulder and seem to devote an inordinate amount of time towards tearing apart the 3rd wave.

In contrast, Chess' presents a better package. You blog. She frames her arguments. You blog. She presents a clear picture that isn't mostly opinion. You blog.

I don't give two shits about the feminist movement. I only stopped by because you declare in your (yet an)other thread that you won't be posting in the NSFM "because see thread". I'm here. What I see reads very much like "boo, hoo, nobody counters my shit any longer so I'm taking my toys and going home" even if that's not your intent.

Last I heard, this thread's OP was working on a revamp. She had surgery and is on a short leave from NS. I imagine she hasn't given up on her updating however.

[New Edom]

You're probably right about that. They also consistently mischaracterize my purpose.

Anyway I gave it a shot out of curiousity but also to demonstrate that I would be willing to do as they asked if it worked, and it hasn't. What I also find funny is that Chessmistress quite correctly points out serious socio-political initiatives that mirror others that have been carried out, and still they doubt that it's reality. So it's no wonder that they don't see a point in what my threads try to accomplish.

You haven't anything worthwhile to debate, Edom. "Blah blah sexist women on campus, blah blah Emma Watson says something new, blah blah rape culture doesn't exist, blah blah". You don't seem in it for the enjoyment of debate, either. From my perspective, you wear your hatred of feminists like a chip on your shoulder and seem to devote an inordinate amount of time towards tearing apart the 3rd wave.

In contrast, Chess' presents a better package. You blog. She frames her arguments. You blog. She presents a clear picture that isn't mostly opinion. You blog.

I don't give two shits about the feminist movement. I only stopped by because you declare in your (yet an)other thread that you won't be posting in the NSFM "because see thread". I'm here. What I see reads very much like "boo, hoo, nobody counters my shit any longer so I'm taking my toys and going home" even if that's not your intent.

Last I heard, this thread's OP was working on a revamp. She had surgery and is on a short leave from NS. I imagine she hasn't given up on her updating however.

Tell me again then: How many feminists can you cite who actually do something about childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by women against children? And what exactly are they doing about it? How many feminists can you cite who without qualification condemn sexual and emotional abuse by women of other women and girls? And then when you've done so explain to me how feminism has no issues that are worth addressing.

[Wallenburg]

Tell me again then: How many feminists can you cite who actually do something about childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by women against children? And what exactly are they doing about it? How many feminists can you cite who without qualification condemn sexual and emotional abuse by women of other women and girls? And then when you've done so explain to me how feminism has no issues that are worth addressing.

I remember us going over this before, and you shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs when I provided evidence that such feminists not only exist, but are quite prominent.

[New Edom]

Tell me again then: How many feminists can you cite who actually do something about childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by women against children? And what exactly are they doing about it? How many feminists can you cite who without qualification condemn sexual and emotional abuse by women of other women and girls? And then when you've done so explain to me how feminism has no issues that are worth addressing.

I remember us going over this before, and you shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs when I provided evidence that such feminists not only exist, but are quite prominent.

Again with the insulting contempt. Link me to your proof, otherwise I'm not impressed by this.

[Wallenburg]

I remember us going over this before, and you shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs when I provided evidence that such feminists not only exist, but are quite prominent.

Again with the insulting contempt. Link me to your proof, otherwise I'm not impressed by this.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm describing your behavior. And why exactly should I bother hunting for information all over again when you ignored it the last time?

[New Edom]

Again with the insulting contempt. Link me to your proof, otherwise I'm not impressed by this.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm describing your behavior. And why exactly should I bother hunting for information all over again when you ignored it the last time?

Then you could easily be lying, and have no point to make. Either way, without backing it up this is just slander.

[Des-Bal]

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm describing your behavior. And why exactly should I bother hunting for information all over again when you ignored it the last time?

I wouldn't mind a link to that information

[Wallenburg]

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm describing your behavior. And why exactly should I bother hunting for information all over again when you ignored it the last time?

Then you could easily be lying, and have no point to make. Either way, without backing it up this is just slander.

That's not how slander works, buddy. Try again.

[New Edom]

Then you could easily be lying, and have no point to make. Either way, without backing it up this is just slander.

That's not how slander works, buddy. Try again.

I don't care what you think. I'm done responding to you.

[Des-Bal]

I don't care what you think. I'm done responding to you.

Why is it all of your discussions seem to be ending this way now?

[New Edom]

I don't care what you think. I'm done responding to you.

Why is it all of your discussions seem to be ending this way now?

Someone throws an accusation at me, saying that I spam, that i don't take evidence seriously, that I lack integrity. I respond with what I believe is reasonable outrage, and the person says "I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact" which is a liar's way of insulting you. So I then reasonably say "prove that what you're saying is true" and they refuse to. So then I stop interacting with them. That's why.

[Wallenburg]

I don't care what you think. I'm done responding to you.

Why is it all of your discussions seem to be ending this way now?

Because New Edom refuses to admit he is ever in the wrong.

[Killdash]

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.

Costa Fierro brings up a good point. I've not commented here before, so I will attempt to spin a reply to their statement and at the same time expand my current views and the reasonings behind them.

I am male, and though I wouldn't call myself a "feminist" (as I feel the term is far too loaded for usage these days) I would consider myself a supporter of woman's rights to a fair (or, more accurately, the same) treatment in almost all areas, being equal with men; and, along with, again ideally, all races, sexualities and people, as simply being judged upon the skills needed for that particular field(s). It was not always so, I will admit, and it's only through reading, talking to people, and engaging in these debates, that I've come to realise the senselessness in my previous, rather more patriarchal stance. I guess it could be said that I could be considered one of those "not like other guys" kinda guys, except that you see these guys everywhere at parties and such, talking about it, and there is a questionable motive in these cases sometimes. Besides, why talk about it? In this day and age, it's a ridiculous thing to expect praise for it. Stand or fall on the strength of the argument, I'd say.

Digressing, I have attended an all-male scout troop for five odd years. I really love the place, and enjoy going there, and therefore had quite a few ties to consider. I was fortunate that on the debate about whether to let in a female member for the first time, I was the Senior Representative for the Governing Body, and, aided by a few members who shared my opinion on the matter, and a round of demolishing arguments, both silly, (usual, "girls can't survive the roughness" nonsense) to the more sophisticated, (concerns about sleeping and changing situations) arguments, we admitted in the girl. She has been absolutely brilliant, and I'm pleased to report that when I am scheduled to present my report on whether to commit a full inclusion with females, or consider this a trial, I have absolutely no reason why the full intregration won't pass. The girl herself has also been very good against any attacks against her, and has worked hard as an example, to the point where I confess that she damn near gives me a run for my position.

Referring back to Costa Fierros point, I see what they mean. It is true. I saw it in the behaviour of a few of the other scouts who I talked to in private to get their feelings on the mission. During, I noticed that very few of them had an actual, concrete opinion in the matter, for or against. They were critical or favourable, based entirely on how I presented the questions. Likewise, if I spoke on an against line, I could rile some up to scary levels of hate against, yet talking to the lady, I observed that many would immediately jump poles to full on feminism in an effort to fit in, almost. I realised I have done the same sometimes. On a veto issue, I was outspoken amongst supporters, but hemmed and hawed when talking to opposition, not wanting to hurt feelings. This has led me to believe that there are few hardliners in these things, just mainly people hanging on for tradition, friendship, or crowd appeal. All they need is an example, someone tangible, not a lofty concept, but another person, with full on flaws and attributes, to simply show them that it's just another, different person, who isn't really that different at all.

You'll excuse for the rambling and length of this post.

[New Edom]

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.

Costa Fierro brings up a good point. I've not commented here before, so I will attempt to spin a reply to their statement and at the same time expand my current views and the reasonings behind them.

I am male, and though I wouldn't call myself a "feminist" (as I feel the term is far too loaded for usage these days) I would consider myself a supporter of woman's rights to a fair (or, more accurately, the same) treatment in almost all areas, being equal with men; and, along with, again ideally, all races, sexualities and people, as simply being judged upon the skills needed for that particular field(s). It was not always so, I will admit, and it's only through reading, talking to people, and engaging in these debates, that I've come to realise the senselessness in my previous, rather more patriarchal stance. I guess it could be said that I could be considered one of those "not like other guys" kinda guys, except that you see these guys everywhere at parties and such, talking about it, and there is a questionable motive in these cases sometimes. Besides, why talk about it? In this day and age, it's a ridiculous thing to expect praise for it. Stand or fall on the strength of the argument, I'd say.

Digressing, I have attended an all-male scout troop for five odd years. I really love the place, and enjoy going there, and therefore had quite a few ties to consider. I was fortunate that on the debate about whether to let in a female member for the first time, I was the Senior Representative for the Governing Body, and, aided by a few members who shared my opinion on the matter, and a round of demolishing arguments, both silly, (usual, "girls can't survive the roughness" nonsense) to the more sophisticated, (concerns about sleeping and changing situations) arguments, we admitted in the girl. She has been absolutely brilliant, and I'm pleased to report that when I am scheduled to present my report on whether to commit a full inclusion with females, or consider this a trial, I have absolutely no reason why the full intregration won't pass. The girl herself has also been very good against any attacks against her, and has worked hard as an example, to the point where I confess that she damn near gives me a run for my position.

Referring back to Costa Fierros point, I see what they mean. It is true. I saw it in the behaviour of a few of the other scouts who I talked to in private to get their feelings on the mission. During, I noticed that very few of them had an actual, concrete opinion in the matter, for or against. They were critical or favourable, based entirely on how I presented the questions. Likewise, if I spoke on an against line, I could rile some up to scary levels of hate against, yet talking to the lady, I observed that many would immediately jump poles to full on feminism in an effort to fit in, almost. I realised I have done the same sometimes. On a veto issue, I was outspoken amongst supporters, but hemmed and hawed when talking to opposition, not wanting to hurt feelings. This has led me to believe that there are few hardliners in these things, just mainly people hanging on for tradition, friendship, or crowd appeal. All they need is an example, someone tangible, not a lofty concept, but another person, with full on flaws and attributes, to simply show them that it's just another, different person, who isn't really that different at all.

You'll excuse for the rambling and length of this post.

I think today that Girl Guides do some pretty cool stuff, so I'm not always sure why a girl wants to join Boy Scouts, which I know some organizations are just calling Scouts now.

You're right that sometimes people are just relying on old traditions and that challenging them can be done diplomatically, though it's not always possible. However it's very common to have the story of women fitting in with a formerly male organization being told as though the men are huge jerks who held back from accepting the woman for no reason at all until tough amazing women forced them to change their ways. I suspect your sort of story is common enough that it would be nice if we also heard this kind of point of view more often. I'm glad things worked out well for your Scout troop.

[Killdash]

Costa Fierro brings up a good point. I've not commented here before, so I will attempt to spin a reply to their statement and at the same time expand my current views and the reasonings behind them.

I am male, and though I wouldn't call myself a "feminist" (as I feel the term is far too loaded for usage these days) I would consider myself a supporter of woman's rights to a fair (or, more accurately, the same) treatment in almost all areas, being equal with men; and, along with, again ideally, all races, sexualities and people, as simply being judged upon the skills needed for that particular field(s). It was not always so, I will admit, and it's only through reading, talking to people, and engaging in these debates, that I've come to realise the senselessness in my previous, rather more patriarchal stance. I guess it could be said that I could be considered one of those "not like other guys" kinda guys, except that you see these guys everywhere at parties and such, talking about it, and there is a questionable motive in these cases sometimes. Besides, why talk about it? In this day and age, it's a ridiculous thing to expect praise for it. Stand or fall on the strength of the argument, I'd say.

Digressing, I have attended an all-male scout troop for five odd years. I really love the place, and enjoy going there, and therefore had quite a few ties to consider. I was fortunate that on the debate about whether to let in a female member for the first time, I was the Senior Representative for the Governing Body, and, aided by a few members who shared my opinion on the matter, and a round of demolishing arguments, both silly, (usual, "girls can't survive the roughness" nonsense) to the more sophisticated, (concerns about sleeping and changing situations) arguments, we admitted in the girl. She has been absolutely brilliant, and I'm pleased to report that when I am scheduled to present my report on whether to commit a full inclusion with females, or consider this a trial, I have absolutely no reason why the full intregration won't pass. The girl herself has also been very good against any attacks against her, and has worked hard as an example, to the point where I confess that she damn near gives me a run for my position.

Referring back to Costa Fierros point, I see what they mean. It is true. I saw it in the behaviour of a few of the other scouts who I talked to in private to get their feelings on the mission. During, I noticed that very few of them had an actual, concrete opinion in the matter, for or against. They were critical or favourable, based entirely on how I presented the questions. Likewise, if I spoke on an against line, I could rile some up to scary levels of hate against, yet talking to the lady, I observed that many would immediately jump poles to full on feminism in an effort to fit in, almost. I realised I have done the same sometimes. On a veto issue, I was outspoken amongst supporters, but hemmed and hawed when talking to opposition, not wanting to hurt feelings. This has led me to believe that there are few hardliners in these things, just mainly people hanging on for tradition, friendship, or crowd appeal. All they need is an example, someone tangible, not a lofty concept, but another person, with full on flaws and attributes, to simply show them that it's just another, different person, who isn't really that different at all.

You'll excuse for the rambling and length of this post.

I think today that Girl Guides do some pretty cool stuff, so I'm not always sure why a girl wants to join Boy Scouts, which I know some organizations are just calling Scouts now.

You're right that sometimes people are just relying on old traditions and that challenging them can be done diplomatically, though it's not always possible. However it's very common to have the story of women fitting in with a formerly male organization being told as though the men are huge jerks who held back from accepting the woman for no reason at all until tough amazing women forced them to change their ways. I suspect your sort of story is common enough that it would be nice if we also heard this kind of point of view more often. I'm glad things worked out well for your Scout troop.

Unfortunately, they're still very much a "baking and sewing" thing in South Africa.

I am aware that I am recycling the plot to every 90s feminist film, but I guess stereotypes have to form somehow. In this case, it's also got to do with a wider program to chat about the issues, and also releasing my report on the subject to all in the troop.

[New Edom]

I think today that Girl Guides do some pretty cool stuff, so I'm not always sure why a girl wants to join Boy Scouts, which I know some organizations are just calling Scouts now.

You're right that sometimes people are just relying on old traditions and that challenging them can be done diplomatically, though it's not always possible. However it's very common to have the story of women fitting in with a formerly male organization being told as though the men are huge jerks who held back from accepting the woman for no reason at all until tough amazing women forced them to change their ways. I suspect your sort of story is common enough that it would be nice if we also heard this kind of point of view more often. I'm glad things worked out well for your Scout troop.

Unfortunately, they're still very much a "baking and sewing" thing in South Africa.

I am aware that I am recycling the plot to every 90s feminist film, but I guess stereotypes have to form somehow. In this case, it's also got to do with a wider program to chat about the issues, and also releasing my report on the subject to all in the troop.

Yeah it's different here in Canada, so I'm glad as I said that things went well in your unit and that you were able to handle things so ably.

Generally in Canada the tone of feminists is that women have it really tough still and men don't do enough about and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into helping women at all with anything. There's not much of a sense of goodwill except where male feminists nod and agree with what i just said.

[Heidisteinian Fempire]

I realized that the Manosphere actually harms men a infinite amount more than feminism is capable.

Like, you can't tell men that they are oppressed and they can't do anything about it UNLESS THEY BEAT WOMEN AND BUY YOUR ANDROGENCREAM