Feminist type.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I hope this topic doesn't degenerate into arguments about my view of sex.

Okay, I hold to feminism, but a very unconventional form of it. I have three positions were are all considered controversial in feminism, but none of them are universally rejected.

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity. Women empower themselves through self-respect and through earning the respect of others.

2. I think that some degree of biological essentialism HAS TO BE true. It's absurd to suggest that there are no statistical psychological differences between the genders, given that sexual dimorphism is universal in mammals. Most men are better than most women at spatial reasoning, probably for fundamentally biological reasons. Most women are better at multitasking and verbal communication, also likely for biological reasons. Of course, these differences are STATISTICAL which means that we still have to evaluate people as individuals.

3. I don't like the language of "equality." I don't think we're all equal. We're not equal in ability. We're not equal in moral character. We're not equal in importance. I think the real way to oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia is not with the idea that we're all equal, because we're not. The real way to oppose prejudice is to hold that we should judge people as individuals, rather than according to the arbitrary demographics they happen to belong to.

What kind of feminist would you say that I am?

And no, I'm not female. I'm a heterosexual male. If that means I can't be a feminist, then what kind of feminist would I be if I held these views and was a woman?

[Eine Heimat]

Idk, individualist feminism? You sound like a pretty mainstream conservative honestly.

[Natapoc]

I hope this topic doesn't degenerate into arguments about my view of sex.

Okay, I hold to feminism, but a very unconventional form of it. I have three positions were are all considered controversial in feminism, but none of them are universally rejected.

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity. Women empower themselves through self-respect and through earning the respect of others.

2. I think that some degree of biological essentialism HAS TO BE true. It's absurd to suggest that there are no statistical psychological differences between the genders, given that sexual dimorphism is universal in mammals. Most men are better than most women at spatial reasoning, probably for fundamentally biological reasons. Most women are better at multitasking and verbal communication, also likely for biological reasons. Of course, these differences are STATISTICAL which means that we still have to evaluate people as individuals.

3. I don't like the language of "equality." I don't think we're all equal. We're not equal in ability. We're not equal in moral character. We're not equal in importance. I think the real way to oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia is not with the idea that we're all equal, because we're not. The real way to oppose prejudice is to hold that we should judge people as individuals, rather than according to the arbitrary demographics they happen to belong to.

What kind of feminist would you say that I am?

And no, I'm not female. I'm a heterosexual male. If that means I can't be a feminist, then what kind of feminist would I be if I held these views and was a woman?

I need some clarification first on part 3. You say we're not all equal but then you say we should be judged as individuals.

Being judged as individuals is exactly what feminists mean when they speak of equality. Feminists are not saying that ever woman is as strong as the strongest man. Feminists are saying that some women are able to do things that some strong men can do. And that if you're dealing with a job that requires strength of a certain amount then you should evaluate strength. Not gender or sex and that no woman should be excluded from something because she is a woman.

Do you believe that?

Are you against laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender/sex rather than ability of the individual evaluated individuality?

ps. Yes you can be a male feminist if you're for equality in treatment for individuals without regard to sex or gender.

[Magnificent Angkar]

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity.

Sex is excretion.

[Kirav]

Sane Feminism.

[Mike the Progressive]

There's the bitchy type and the bitching type. That's about all I can think of.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I need some clarification first on part 3. You say we're not all equal but then you say we should be judged as individuals.

Being judged as individuals is exactly what feminists mean when they speak of equality. Feminists are not saying that ever woman is as strong as the strongest man. Feminists are saying that some women are able to do things that some strong men can do. And that if you're dealing with a job that requires strength of a certain amount then you should evaluate strength. Not gender or sex and that no woman should be excluded from something because she is a woman.

Do you believe that?

Are you against laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender/sex rather than ability of the individual evaluated individuality?

Number three is a semantics thing. Yes, I agree with you. I just don't like the language of equality. I am better than some people. There are people out there who are better than me. I don't think "We're all equal."

[Odins Scandinavia]

L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.

men are born free; everywhere they are in chains. - Rousseau

in the strict sense of the term, a true democracy has never existed, and never will exist. It is against natural order that the great number should govern and that the few should be governed. -Rousseau

women are a minority. more men are born then women (and certain east-asian practices dont exactly help keep the balance). it is against the natural order of things for any people to be equal- as equality is an arbitrary term that is used as a band aid to make important people feel better about being more important then their constituents.

anyway, i wouldn't label you as a feminist. i would label you as a moral conservative [joke]seeking to subvert society through the internet![/joke]

[Four-sided Triangles]

Idk, individualist feminism? You sound like a pretty mainstream conservative honestly.

But I'm not conservative at all. I still want people to be able to choose to have sex. I just think it's the wrong choice.

[Natapoc]

I need some clarification first on part 3. You say we're not all equal but then you say we should be judged as individuals.

Being judged as individuals is exactly what feminists mean when they speak of equality. Feminists are not saying that ever woman is as strong as the strongest man. Feminists are saying that some women are able to do things that some strong men can do. And that if you're dealing with a job that requires strength of a certain amount then you should evaluate strength. Not gender or sex and that no woman should be excluded from something because she is a woman.

Do you believe that?

Are you against laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender/sex rather than ability of the individual evaluated individuality?

Number three is a semantics thing. Yes, I agree with you. I just don't like the language of equality. I am better than some people. There are people out there who are better than me. I don't think "We're all equal."

Can you answer the question: Are you against laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender/sex rather than ability of the individual evaluated individuality?

With yes or no (answering sometimes is or most of the time is the same as a no)?

[Imperial Parhe]

Ah, so you did make a thread on this.

Well, anyhow, I do not disagree all too much.

1. I also dont believe women, or men, are empowered by sex, but at the same time, i do not believe sex works against empowerment.

2. I completely agree here so far.

3. Same as above.

however, though you do mention judgement through individuals not statistics(which i take to also mean stereotypes and such), some of your posts do exactly that. Many times it seems as if you are alienating one gender completely from the other. On some of your posts on the prostitute legalization, you constantly seem to speak of how you believe men act and think, while also speaking as if women do not think or act similarly.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Can you answer the question: Are you against laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender/sex rather than ability of the individual evaluated individuality?

With yes or no?

Yes.

[Treefolk]

A radical one.

[Four-sided Triangles]

however, though you do mention judgement through individuals not statistics(which i take to also mean stereotypes and such), some of your posts do exactly that. Many times it seems as if you are alienating one gender completely from the other. On some of your posts on the prostitute legalization, you constantly seem to speak of how you believe men act and think, while also speaking as if women do not think or act similarly.

I have to generalize in order to quickly summarize my views on sex. They are so far from the mainstream that it's impossible to explain them without paragraphs and paragraphs of information.

[Shnercropolis]

I agree.

[Natapoc]

Can you answer the question: Are you against laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of gender/sex rather than ability of the individual evaluated individuality?

With yes or no?

Yes.

Then you are a feminist that does not subscribe to any particular style or movement. However, because of your insistence on using the word "equality" or "equal" in a different way then most feminists you will frequently encounter people who declare you anti feminist. They do this because they attach a different meaning to the word then you do and do not know that you do such.

You should also know that you may very well upset some people by using such terminology (people will assume you're calling them inferior. This will make rational conversation with 50% of the population more difficult for you)

[Four-sided Triangles]

Then you are a feminist that does not subscribe to any particular style or movement. However, because of your insistence on using the word "equality" or "equal" in a different way then most feminists you will frequently encounter people who declare you anti feminist. They do this because they attach a different meaning to the word then you do and do not know that you do such.

I'm a very pedantic person when it comes to certain semantics issues.

[Korintar]

I hope this topic doesn't degenerate into arguments about my view of sex.

Okay, I hold to feminism, but a very unconventional form of it. I have three positions were are all considered controversial in feminism, but none of them are universally rejected.

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity. Women empower themselves through self-respect and through earning the respect of others.

2. I think that some degree of biological essentialism HAS TO BE true. It's absurd to suggest that there are no statistical psychological differences between the genders, given that sexual dimorphism is universal in mammals. Most men are better than most women at spatial reasoning, probably for fundamentally biological reasons. Most women are better at multitasking and verbal communication, also likely for biological reasons. Of course, these differences are STATISTICAL which means that we still have to evaluate people as individuals.

3. I don't like the language of "equality." I don't think we're all equal. We're not equal in ability. We're not equal in moral character. We're not equal in importance. I think the real way to oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia is not with the idea that we're all equal, because we're not. The real way to oppose prejudice is to hold that we should judge people as individuals, rather than according to the arbitrary demographics they happen to belong to.

What kind of feminist would you say that I am?

And no, I'm not female. I'm a heterosexual male. If that means I can't be a feminist, then what kind of feminist would I be if I held these views and was a woman?

I addressed my opinions concerning your positions in the prostitution thread. I'd most certainly say that you are anti-sexual. Note, I did not say asexual, meaning you cannot feel sexual attraction, but anti-sexual because, though you are capable of feeling attraction, you have a negative, if not hostile, attitude towards human sexuality in general. I think that you could be considered a separatist feminist, if you were female, but the more radical feminist groups might not describe you as a feminist, but rather as a pro-feminist, simply because you have a penis. However, from what I've read, pro-feminists seem more moderate than feminists. So you are a heterosexual antisexual separatist feminist male

[Neo Arcad]

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity.

Sex is excretion.

Nope. We are NOT turning this into some cophrophagiafest. This shit (if you'll excuse the pun) is about feminism.

Anyway, yeah, I think you need to just go join some monastic order somewhere and stop telling us about how you cut yourself when you think sexy things. I think we've established that you do NOT have normal views on sex, and that your views aren't shared by anyone, at least on NSG.

MY views on sexism are that it, along with racism, can go both ways, and that we need to just say, "Fuck it, everyone's equal, and if you bitch about it, we'll just throw EVERYONE to the tigers." Mass executions in the name of gender and race equality oughta help fix things, or at least make everyone stop bitching about it...

[Four-sided Triangles]

You should also know that you may very well upset some people by using such terminology (people will assume you're calling them inferior)

Some of them are inferior. I am better than Rush Limbaugh. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to mince any words on this.

[Natapoc]

You should also know that you may very well upset some people by using such terminology (people will assume you're calling them inferior)

Some of them are inferior. I am better than Rush Limbaugh. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to mince any words on this.

Do you feel that most females are inferior to most males?

[TableRase]

Can't say I know too much about the "types" of feminism, but if I may respond to a few points...

1. I agree, I don't think the activity is really empowering to either. Initiative in the dating process though could be though.

2. Yup, can't argue with biology.

3. "Equality" is a tough term. Certainly people aren't the same, but the idea of equality generally stems from equal value and equal treatmnet. Value is infinitely subjective, and I don't think it's good to say everyone is of different value of of equal value because value can't really be defined. I do however think that, regardless of "value", people shoud generally, so long as happiness may be greatest to most people, be treated just as well as the other, because we're all people, why should the untalented and unintelligent guy get slapped in the face? My point their's not too related to feminism, but I thought I'd share my views on equality.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I addressed my opinions concerning your positions in the prostitution thread. I'd most certainly say that you are anti-sexual. Note, I did not say asexual, meaning you cannot feel sexual attraction, but anti-sexual because, though you are capable of feeling attraction, you have a negative, if not hostile, attitude towards human sexuality in general. I think that you could be considered a separatist feminist, if you were female, but the more radical feminist groups might not describe you as a feminist, but rather as a pro-feminist, simply because you have a penis. However, from what I've read, pro-feminists seem more moderate than feminists. So you are a heterosexual antisexual separatist feminist male

I'm kind of a weirdo. Heterosexual anti-sexual male radical feminist who accepts biological essentialism. Atheist. Physicist.

Oh well.

[Korintar]

I addressed my opinions concerning your positions in the prostitution thread. I'd most certainly say that you are anti-sexual. Note, I did not say asexual, meaning you cannot feel sexual attraction, but anti-sexual because, though you are capable of feeling attraction, you have a negative, if not hostile, attitude towards human sexuality in general. I think that you could be considered a separatist feminist, if you were female, but the more radical feminist groups might not describe you as a feminist, but rather as a pro-feminist, simply because you have a penis. However, from what I've read, pro-feminists seem more moderate than feminists. So you are a heterosexual antisexual separatist feminist male

I'm kind of a weirdo. Heterosexual anti-sexual male radical feminist who accepts biological essentialism. Atheist. Physicist.

Oh well.

It's okay to be a weirdo, though

[Mushet]

however, though you do mention judgement through individuals not statistics(which i take to also mean stereotypes and such), some of your posts do exactly that. Many times it seems as if you are alienating one gender completely from the other. On some of your posts on the prostitute legalization, you constantly seem to speak of how you believe men act and think, while also speaking as if women do not think or act similarly.

I have to generalize in order to quickly summarize my views on sex. They are so far from the mainstream that it's impossible to explain them without paragraphs and paragraphs of information.

Is that you Hipster Cat?