The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Garrafas]

Chessmistress it's no surprise that lots of feminists and non-feminist women as well are disappointed with the radical feminism. It's harmful to the feminist accession as a whole, it can be harmful for women's emancipation. But you don't care at all, do you?

Sorry, kid, I didn't see your signature. Well, I can tell you a short history from my country, Brazil. In the medical school of the University of São Paulo (the better ranked college here) there were frequent parties where some students got raped. Whem the incidents came to light the university tried to cover it and some male students justified their agressive behavior as college tradition. It seems to me a lot as a culture.

I don't know if google translate will do it properly, but...

To respond to Garrafas to her post from the last thread, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
While I don't deny that those people seem like horrible persons, it don't mean that neither their behavior nor reactions are considered as "mainstream" nor "acceptable" and even less that the Culture with a great C actually endorse or protect such behaviors.

I'm a man, a cis man, not really a "her". Your definitions of culture are kind of strait. Rape is more aceptable than it should, at least for the college coordinators and to the male students involved. So if you identifies "culture" only in a macro nation-state scale, and reduces it to only the "mainstream" behaviors you're half right. Just half because those kind of parties, where men put drugs on women's drinks to have sex and stuff like that, are really common in almost every place in the world.
But it being aceptable for some fractions of society, having a cultural heritage to justify it and it still being frequent in some occasions like war, fits well in my "culture" definition. Besides that, the matter of the issue isn't the semantics of what culture really means to you, but the epidemic reality of the situation.
The root of this discussion is my shock at Chess' attack to other feminist group, by blaming them instead of the ones who perpetuates the normalization of rapist behavior, such as viewing people who want to have sex without consent as "ok". Her priority apparently is to treat "women's objectification" like a crime issue, prohibiting it by law instead of viewing that the reasons of the ones who proposed to use sex dolls as a solution to rape issues as sexist, naive or remiss about the persistence of rapist behaviors in society. So, when I used the term "culture of rape" I wasan't referring to her random quotation of some US law, but to the speech of the ones who wanted to implement sexual robots as a solution to rape issues.

[New Larthinia]

Stop calling men males. You call women women so drop the double standard.

Weird how it's apparently okay for women to treat other women as sex objects? You only focus on men doing it.

And ha ha ha, you overlooked sex robots may be made to look like men. Still sexually objectifying women in that case? I guess so. Gay porn apparently does too since you want it to ban it as much as you want to ban all sex bots.

You don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. Being authoritarian and banning everything you deem objectificationizing isn't going to help.

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

But, you see, you're so ignorant and hypocrite my head hurts.
I am not even going to bother. Read your post twice, then the third time I hope you realize how dumb it was.

[Threlizdun]

Stop calling men males. You call women women so drop the double standard.

Weird how it's apparently okay for women to treat other women as sex objects? You only focus on men doing it.

And ha ha ha, you overlooked sex robots may be made to look like men. Still sexually objectifying women in that case? I guess so. Gay porn apparently does too since you want it to ban it as much as you want to ban all sex bots.

You don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. Being authoritarian and banning everything you deem objectificationizing isn't going to help.

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

There is no right not to be objectified. Objectification is definitely shitty (with the exception of consensual objectification for the purposes of fulfilling fetishes), and should be discouraged, but you can't simply stop objectification from existing because you are literally talking about ending thoughts. If someone actually does something to harm you, then you can take action, but you are not entitled to the right to to not have people think derogatory thoughts about you or treat you in a rather shitty way that doesn't cause clear harm.

Even more: if a relationship is viewed as purely physical this would further encourage an attitude among males - already present - to treat women as sex objects.

So do you propose we ban casual sex? That's a purely physical relationship, so by your arguments it will make men treat women like sex objects and nothing else.

[Aelex]

I'm a man, a cis man, not really a "her".

My bad, thus. I've always more or less assumed that for one to be part of a racist supremacist group, he had to be part of the said ethnical group; so I logically thought that, for one to be part of a gender supremacist group, one needed the same pre-requis.

Your definitions of culture are kind of strait. Rape is more aceptable than it should, at least for the college coordinators and to the male students involved. So if you identifies "culture" only in a macro nation-state scale, and reduces it to only the "mainstream" behaviors you're half right. Just half because those kind of parties, where men put drugs on women's drinks to have sex and stuff like that, are really common in almost every place in the world.

Nice strawman. But, the point is that rape is neither encouraged nor even considered as acceptable by neither what one may call "The West" nor by the multiple culture which compose it. And, for your last point; you know that young men ain't rapists in power, right?
Because it's true that there are some incidents where men drugs women to abuse them, but it don't mean that it's widely accepted as a normal thing nor even an acceptable's one. And that some asshole drug women in party don't mean the whole society support them, and not even some part of it.

But it being aceptable for some fractions of society, having a cultural heritage to justify it and it still being frequent in some occasions like war, fits well in my "culture" definition. Besides that, the matter of the issue isn't the semantics of what culture really means to you, but the epidemic reality of the situation.

Given that you just made-up a definition of Culture so it fit what you want it to fit in, I'm not THAT surprised that you manage to make it look like you made a point.
The truth is that you actually didn't.
The society as a whole say that "rape is bad", that, you can't deny it. Arguing that because some tiny fraction don't conform to this vision, the whole culture is pro-rape is about as intelligent as saying that Western Culture is pro-pedophilia because some assholes kidnap and hold kids in their basements.
That men afraid to die catharsis their fears by the violence; by plundering, pillaging, murdering and, indeed, raping; as little to do with the culture but rather with the very nature of the Human.
And, the epidemic you're talking about, being neither supported nor encouraged by the state is just a crime like any other. A crime which we indeed should try to reduce but which; like for thievery, burglary or murder; we can, in the end, do very less about.

So, when I used the term "culture of rape" I wasan't referring to her random quotation of some US law, but to the speech of the ones who wanted to implement sexual robots as a solution to rape issues.

The problem is that you used the term of Rape Culture in the first place. Because, you don't managed to prove me that it is real. You don't managed to prove me that it was part of our society. You don't managed to give me a SINGLE good argument which could justify it's existence.
Rape Culture is a way too broad concept which is too large to actually mean something and which is, in the end, nothing but another term used to encompass anything the Feminists want them to just so it could make their ideological arguments look more credible.

[Val Halla]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

[Morr]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Chess is an MRA decoy. "Sex robots" are something they're always on about and saying women will really be screwed when we don't need them for sex, and feminists will go crazy when sex robots come out, and so on. It's literally only a feminist issue as MRA's imagine it will be when worthless women have no more sex appeal to mooch with.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://youtu.be/-jEQYHAFfjg

"institutions of higher indoctrination."

Professor Janice Fiamengo, University of Ottawa, speaks about the negative effect that academic feminism has on freedom of speech. Examples of the increasingly drastic measures used to enforce adherence to policies imposed by gender ideologues clearly demonstrate the validity of Fiamengo's warning.

[Hirota]

There is no right not to be objectified. Objectification is definitely shitty (with the exception of consensual objectification for the purposes of fulfilling fetishes), and should be discouraged, but you can't simply stop objectification from existing because you are literally talking about ending thoughts.

Radical feminism in the west is less about womens liberation (and that's fair - women in the west have been largely liberated after all), and more about authoritarian thought policing.

[Val Halla]

There is no right not to be objectified. Objectification is definitely shitty (with the exception of consensual objectification for the purposes of fulfilling fetishes), and should be discouraged, but you can't simply stop objectification from existing because you are literally talking about ending thoughts.

Radical feminism in the west is less about womens liberation (and that's fair - women in the west have been largely liberated after all), and more about authoritarian thought policing.

Largely due -ERFs.

They're essentially conservatives in denial.

[Hirota]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Chess is an MRA decoy.

Textbook fallacy. Don't be so utterly deluded. Pretending that Chess isn't a real person with real objections (regardless how batshit insane they sound) doesn't render those objections nonexistent, regardless of how hard you close your eyes and pretend.

[Chestaan]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Chess is an MRA decoy. "Sex robots" are something they're always on about and saying women will really be screwed when we don't need them for sex, and feminists will go crazy when sex robots come out, and so on. It's literally only a feminist issue as MRA's imagine it will be when worthless women have no more sex appeal to mooch with.

We have no reason to believe that Chess is a false flag account. If you have evidence then you should bring it to moderation rather than simply posting about it here.

[Flame Trees]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Society should not endorse "sex robots" because it's a fucked up idea.

[Val Halla]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Society should not endorse "sex robots" because it's a fucked up idea.

Why is it?

[Flame Trees]

Society should not endorse "sex robots" because it's a fucked up idea.

Why is it?

Well do we want a society of virtue or not? Do we care about egalitarianism? Do we want sex, something so essential to our lives, to be based on equal relationships between consenting adults? Or do we want some atomised transhumanist wasteland, complete with a disgusting industry where you can buy your own artificial sex slaves and never leave your room?

For fuck's sake what's stopping anyone from just having a wank?

[Hirota]

Or do we want some atomised transhumanist wasteland, complete with a disgusting industry where you can buy your own artificial sex slaves and never leave your room?

Thats a big leap in "logic" you made there. You have not demonstrated that one leads to the other.

[New Benian Republic]

Radical feminism in the west is less about womens liberation (and that's fair - women in the west have been largely liberated after all), and more about authoritarian thought policing.

Largely due -ERFs.

They're essentially conservatives in denial.

Personally I don't see the appeal of sex robots but I think we should all have one just to irritate feminist, oh and they'd all be delivered via the government to every house.

[Flame Trees]

Or do we want some atomised transhumanist wasteland, complete with a disgusting industry where you can buy your own artificial sex slaves and never leave your room?

Thats a big leap in "logic" you made there. You have not demonstrated that one leads to the other.

What exactly do you have issue with? Widely available sex robots will further commodify and dehumanise sex, something so central to the human condition. The societal normal will no longer revolve around forming real physical and emotional relationships, instead we'll have the growing ability to manufacture controlled virtual experiences. This is part of and contributes to the general trend of the digital revolution, that is the the breaking down, or atomisation, of human society.

[Hirota]

Thats a big leap in "logic" you made there. You have not demonstrated that one leads to the other.

What exactly do you have issue with?

All you'd done was claimed x, inserted a bunch of question marks for everything in between, and then come out with an outcome. There was no evidence offered to support the claim of one leading to the other.

Widely available sex robots will further commodify and dehumanise sex,

I guess thats something women already do right?

...something so central to the human condition. The societal normal will no longer revolve around forming real physical and emotional relationships, instead we'll have the growing ability to manufacture controlled virtual experiences. This is part of and contributes to the general trend of the digital revolution, that is the the breaking down, or atomisation, of human society.

Again, this is speculation. You assert things without any evidence. It's fear mongering akin to the luddites breaking looms. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Until sexbots can cross the uncanny valley, they will continue to be a fringe fetish. And once they do cross, and sound human, and act human, and feel human, what precisely makes them that different from genuine lifeforms equally deserving and capable of physical and emotional relationships?

[Valystria]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Chess is an MRA decoy.

Chess routinely quotes feminist authors she agrees with, feminist politicians passing laws she agrees with, feminist university policies she agrees with, etc etc. I suppose all those feminists of the Chessmistress variety who are in positions of power and influence are "MRA decoys" too?
What you're doing is attempting to make it appear as if Chessmistress is an isolated incident or a lone radical. She isn't. Her brand of feminism is quite popular among the establishment feminists. Resorting to conspiratorial tactics like painting Chessmistress as an "MRA decoy" is little more than an unsubstantiated smear against the MRA movement while propping up a shoddy illusion of making it appear as if Chessmistress feminism is a fringe ideology, when in reality it's anything but that.

[Chessmistress]

There is no right not to be objectified. Objectification is definitely shitty (with the exception of consensual objectification for the purposes of fulfilling fetishes), and should be discouraged, but you can't simply stop objectification from existing because you are literally talking about ending thoughts. If someone actually does something to harm you, then you can take action, but you are not entitled to the right to to not have people think derogatory thoughts about you or treat you in a rather shitty way that doesn't cause clear harm.

I can even agree with your reasoning.
But banning harmful things is not exactly banning ALL objectification.

Even more: if a relationship is viewed as purely physical this would further encourage an attitude among males - already present - to treat women as sex objects.

So do you propose we ban casual sex? That's a purely physical relationship, so by your arguments it will make men treat women like sex objects and nothing else.

Casual sex is a right for women, and I'll never support banning a women's right.
On the other hand, I support laws and policies that are inherently harmful towards casual sex, in example SB 967 ("yes-means-ye"s Californian Law).
I have read the criticism of some "feminists" within other sites, and you may be surprised but I agree with them: they wrote that SB 967 would limit hook-ups, actually narrowing the chances of a girl to have casual sex, just because some good guys could be afraid and confused by the new rules, so they would give up to hook ups. That's true, I'm not negating it.
I even add: years ago, when I was a weird mix of Radical Feminist and highly sex-positive Feminist I would have rejected SB 967, exactly on the same grounds. I would have preferred having hook-ups and protecting myself from rapes using pepper spray.
Then I realized that oppression is not just only when you're raped: even feeling the need to carry pepper spray is oppression, a very harsh form of oppression.
And there's even more:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/06/ine ... o-hookups/
Such article is very balanced, it highlights all pros and cons, is not against nor in favor of casual sex.
I agree with all they said.
My idea is that casual sex can be good for women, sometimes, but it's always good for men: they have a better deal within casual sex.
That's why I support, on the grounds of women's right to feel safe, a policy that actually limits casual sex, like SB 967 is.

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

Chess is an MRA decoy. "Sex robots" are something they're always on about and saying women will really be screwed when we don't need them for sex, and feminists will go crazy when sex robots come out, and so on. It's literally only a feminist issue as MRA's imagine it will be when worthless women have no more sex appeal to mooch with.

*yawn*
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/09/ ... men-girls/

http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/how- ... tionships/

"You are the captain of your own ship. But I am the ocean. Don't test me." - Chessmistress

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH6txXaupLM

Conversation with a Trans MRA who leads one of our chapters.

Lauren spills her spaghetti at the end apparently:

Sorry for the spaghetti at the end

A libertarian woman MRA and a Transwoman MRA, both in positions in the movement, discussing the movement.

Can someone from the feminist side find me a discussion between two men about feminism which includes criticism of the movement, and is STILL popular and linked among the adherents?

The men must have positions within the movement itself. There must have been no backlash to the discussion.

The Trans MRA agrees with me that the problem with feminism is it's assertions of universality and inability to co-exist with other perspectives. It is, at it's core, a bigoted movement intolerant of dissent.

[Flame Trees]

Widely available sex robots will further commodify and dehumanise sex,

I guess thats something women already do right?

This isn't just a tool to help you masturbate, this is your own ersatz person. And this topic really doesn't need to be gendered, sex toys and potentially these robots are and can be used by both genders.

Again, this is speculation. You assert things without any evidence. It's fear mongering akin to the luddites breaking looms. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't see the need to academically reference a forum discussion. This is all extrapolation, we're talking about a future scenario based on current phenomena. If you can't see how digital technology has already started to break down community and has started to atomise society, then fair enough, that's your issue not mine. And as for Luddites, you need to re-read history if you think they were irrational fearmongers...

Until sexbots can cross the uncanny valley, they will continue to be a fringe fetish. And once they do cross, and sound human, and act human, and feel human, what precisely makes them that different from genuine lifeforms equally deserving and capable of physical and emotional relationships?

I've always thought the uncanny valley to be about aesthetics more than anything else. You can manufacture an outwardly perfect android without giving it consciousness, and that is the issue. If it doesn't have consciousness it's fundamentally degrading to human relationships and the values of an egalitarian society. If it does have a consciousness it is no longer an object, it should not be bought and sold, and must be given the freedom to choose its own life.

[Chessmistress]

Chess is an MRA decoy.

Chess routinely quotes feminist authors she agrees with, feminist politicians passing laws she agrees with, feminist university policies she agrees with, etc etc. I suppose all those feminists of the Chessmistress variety who are in positions of power and influence are "MRA decoys" too?
What you're doing is attempting to make it appear as if Chessmistress is an isolated incident or a lone radical. She isn't. Her brand of feminism is quite popular among the establishment feminists. Resorting to conspiratorial tactics like painting Chessmistress as an "MRA decoy" is little more than an unsubstantiated smear against the MRA movement while propping up a shoddy illusion of making it appear as if Chessmistress feminism is a fringe ideology, when in reality it's anything but that.

Even Feminist Current may be a MRA decoy, and even Leah Reich, when she wrote

But even if sexbots are not currently conscious, they do have the external markings of personhood, and we are programming them to be person-like. Indeed, we are programming them to be like a specific type of person: the type of woman who can be owned by a heterosexual man.

Personally I find even more interesting a comment to the piece of Feminist Current, by mimi

Why are these people never asking why there isn't a market for male robots? In that answer lies why women robots are sexist, misogynistic idea. I would really love for all subhuman women haters who buy those robots to leave all women alone, but they wont. They would get tired of that robots pretty soon, and they would start to wish for a human female to molest and humiliate her like a robot.

[Valystria]

"I don't like this, therefore it should be banned"

Way to limit freedoms. Does it not occur that women may wish to use sex robots, or that the robot could be a male one?

I did bring that up... but Chessmistress didn't seem willing to provide clarification on it.

I'm still not sure how to reply to her post considering it didn't really address the criticisms at all, and that the premise of her position appears to rest upon the fallacy of "sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies."
Uhmm....
Okay, let's see... sex toys can generally be used by anyone, woman or otherwise. But the more problematic issue with the core of her beliefs on sex toys is that according to Chessmistress, sex toys used by women are always objectifying men's bodies? Even when the sex toy is shaped like a woman's hand? That sex toy is used by women. From this I can conclude either Chessmistress is not very well versed on sex toys, or that she genuinely believes a sex toy shaped like a woman's hand is sexually objectifying men.

Stop calling men males. You call women women so drop the double standard.

Weird how it's apparently okay for women to treat other women as sex objects? You only focus on men doing it.

And ha ha ha, you overlooked sex robots may be made to look like men. Still sexually objectifying women in that case? I guess so. Gay porn apparently does too since you want it to ban it as much as you want to ban all sex bots.

You don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. Being authoritarian and banning everything you deem objectificationizing isn't going to help.

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

As pointed out... men do care about being sexually objectified.
You're being very sexist to stereotype men and women in such inaccurate ways.

Also mentioned in the thread, you do not have a right to not be sexually objectified. What you're doing is creating a category of thoughtcrime. Men and women are going to be sexually objectified no matter how many prudish bans you come up with. But I'm sure you know this and don't care.

Are fleshlights to be banned too? Are those sexually objectifying women? They must be, going by your reasoning. So... ban fleshlights too? Expand your focus beyond banning female sex bots.
It is quite strange how you appear to be in support of allowing women to have male sex robots but you have a zero tolerance stance on allowing men (and women) to have female sex robots. This leads back to how you haven't yet addressed if women are allowed to sexually objectify women.

Are women allowed to use sex toys sexually objectifying women? Are women allowed to use female sex robots? As far as I can see, every prudist ban you come up with operates on extremely genderized assumptions such as implying only men use female sex robots, or only men view porn, regardless of all evidence to the contrary. So far you've been ignoring the reality that these sexual activities are things anyone can do regardless of gender. Drop the gendered and sexist narrative about it, and answer the question of are women allowed to use female sex robots too? Are women allowed to sexually objectify other women? Or does your lust for thoughtcrimes know no boundaries?

Lastly, you didn't provide an answer to Ostro's question about if a dildo shaped like a dog penis is sexually objectifying men. How about if horse penis dildos sexually objectify men too?

[Hirota]

Casual sex is a right for women, and I'll never support banning a women's right.

Apart from banning their right to perform porn, if they want to.

On the other hand, I support laws and policies that are inherently harmful towards casual sex, in example SB 967 ("yes-means-ye"s Californian Law).

Californian CIVIL law. You've been corrected on this already.

My idea is that casual sex can be good for women, sometimes, but it's always good for men: they have a better deal within casual sex.
That's why I support, on the grounds of women's right to feel safe, a policy that actually limits casual sex, like SB 967 is.

Thats a horrendous justification. "It's good for women, but it's better for men, so lets ban it." And you claim feminism isn't about taking rights away?

*yawn*
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/09/ ... men-girls/

Wouldn't feminists be better off dealing with the actual objectification of living breathing women in the third world, rather than getting antsy over the possibility of plastic ones being objectified, which might, maybe, if the planets are in alignment and it's a sunny day in June contribute to the perceived (but at best minimal) objectification of women in the west?

"You are the captain of your own ship. But I am the ocean. Don't test me." - Chessmistress

"Quotes are bullshit used by pretentious douchebags to make them try and sound intelligent, when they just sound daft." - Me unironically, 30 seconds ago.
Or:
"Ha ha ha! Higher, Papa, toss me higher! Wheeeeeeee! I’m Papa’s little flying fairy!" - Theodore Roosevelt
Whichever you think is more profound I suppose.