Feminist type.

[Erinkita]

Not a feminist at all. What Natapoc said.

[Terruana]

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?

Sorry, I'm a little confused. You're against people having sex because you think any sex is degrading to women? And that if a woman has sex, then people will automatically not respect her? Can I ask why you think this?

I'm not arguing with it, I'm just curious as to why you believe that?

[Dakini]

3. Ruination of potential friendship.

I probably wouldn't have become friends with my partner if we hadn't spent a lot of time in bed together first. I mean, before we started having sex we were at least amicable acquaintances...


Anyway, I'm sort of agreeing on the "not a feminist" thing given that you have this habit of telling women what's best for them or that we're wrong to want to do some things (e.g. sex). It doesn't make it right when Dworkin or whatever her name was did it either. I think I've mentioned that it's patronizing before. It still is.

[Yewhohohopia]

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?

A feminist^-1.

[Ashmoria]

Sorry, I'm a little confused. You're against people having sex because you think any sex is degrading to women? And that if a woman has sex, then people will automatically not respect her? Can I ask why you think this?

I'm not arguing with it, I'm just curious as to why you believe that?

DONT ASK

its his shtick and the only reason he really started this thread.

[Natapoc]

3. Ruination of potential friendship.

I probably wouldn't have become friends with my partner if we hadn't spent a lot of time in bed together first. I mean, before we started having sex we were at least amicable acquaintances...


Anyway, I'm sort of agreeing on the "not a feminist" thing given that you have this habit of telling women what's best for them or that we're wrong to want to do some things (e.g. sex). It doesn't make it right when Dworkin or whatever her name was did it either. I think I've mentioned that it's patronizing before. It still is.

I think Dworkin is misunderstood. I know that she certainly would not agree with the OP. She did not believe that all sex was rape (contrary to what her detractors claim) only that much of what happened between heterosexuals at the time could be called rape.

She believed that heterosexual relations between males and females could be equal and she believed that the people who were misunderstanding her were doing so because of exactly some of the reasons I mentioned in the previous page about why I believe the OP is not a feminist.

I provide for you, a source! Read below what she really said and felt. It sounds a lot less crazy then people make her out to be. Reasonable even

Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin ... rview.html

[Four-sided Triangles]

Okay my friend, I've concluded, after some very late night eating: You're not a feminist at all.

The reason is that your arguments are all the same ones that prop up the patriarchy. You give all the classic arguments that have always been used as an excuse for subjugation of women.

Now I'm not saying you are a bad person. I'm saying you grew up in a deeply sexist culture and interlized the fundamental beliefs of the patriarchy. You feel bad about that and so you try to use a mismatch of radical feminist and lesbian separatist arguments to justify your sexist beliefs.

But I can't ignore that you think females are biologically inferior .

"base instinct" or "that which is natural" has been associated strongly with anti rational concepts since Aristotle. What you may not realize is "natural" and "base instinct" have always been associated in our culture with women.

This is why people view women as not rational and why women tend to be less represented in scientific fields which require logic (women are not immune from identifying with patriarchy and believing in the myth that they are inherently more emotional then men and not as logical as men)

Hatred of sex has always been a feature of patriarchy.

You also perpetuate damaging gender myths that help rationalize rape. You're idea that "maleness" is the cause of sexual aggression is not new.

That's the excuse of every rapist: "It's not my fault, I needed sex! It's just the way I am!" When their real intent was domination and control. Not sex or love or anything like that.

You are demonizing a behavior which you should rightfully demonize but then you claim that this behavior is innate in all males. Following your logic we should assume that rape is natural and inevitable instead of the result of patriarchy and objectification.

Again by insisting that males "can't help" but objectify women you give men an excuse. It MIGHT be acceptable if you had serious scientific evidence. But you don't. You have a study that shows that female body parts, in isolation, light up the "tool" part of the brain in males who have been taught since infancy to objectify women.

Duh? Stop teaching men to objectify women! Don't accept that it's natural when you don't have sufficient evidence to do so.

Your view that women are always victim and male always aggressor (by nature) is standard patriarchy. Watch almost any Hollywood movie and you'll learn that women can't take care of themselves but instead need a strong man who is rare and unlike most men who are bad and evil and want to hurt her! (myth of the need for a male hero to rescue her)

Your hatred of "instinct (especially sexual instinct)" is classic patriarchy also. Patriarchy feels the need to suppress sexual instincts in order to stay in control. This is why sexuality was so highly controlled in the most patriarchal cultures (yes male sexuality too!)

I could go on and on but i'll conclude:

To be a feminist you actually need to be working for or advocating gender equality. You admit that you are not. At the same time you are actively advancing causes that are contrary to feminism and harming the cause of gender equality.

My comments here are not to make you feel bad. I know that you've internalized gender myths because you grew up in a sexist culture; Not because you have some desire to oppress women.

But you're in luck! The problem is all in your head. It's not your testosterone producing genitals that are the problem. It's the fact that you've internalized sexist stereotypes from birth and you really don't understand women. But that's okay because you can learn and change and grow. I'm not judging you. I'm not saying you are bad. Actually you probably have greater empathy then most because you're actively thinking about this instead of just accepting patriarchy overtly.

Your nature is not the problem. You said you feel the need to make up for being born male. There is nothing at all wrong with being male. You can't control what you're born as and even if you could there would be nothing wrong with choosing male or female.

Advocating that no one ever has sex is patriarchal? Advocating that people be evaluated as individuals rather than according to their demographics is patriarchal?

And no, I do think that testosterone is the reason for the increased amount of sex, aggression, and sexual aggression in males. I don't think it's all cultural. All culture serves to do is to leash that testosterone. There's only one way to really deal with the problem permanently. If I wasn't such a pathetic coward, I'd have it done myself.

Maybe in the future, once we've externalized reproduction completely, we can engineer all new infants to be born sterile and genderless.

And sorry, but no. The attitude that sex is inherently immoral and that no one should ever have sex is not identical to the beliefs that prop up rape culture.

[Farnhamia]

I probably wouldn't have become friends with my partner if we hadn't spent a lot of time in bed together first. I mean, before we started having sex we were at least amicable acquaintances...


Anyway, I'm sort of agreeing on the "not a feminist" thing given that you have this habit of telling women what's best for them or that we're wrong to want to do some things (e.g. sex). It doesn't make it right when Dworkin or whatever her name was did it either. I think I've mentioned that it's patronizing before. It still is.

I think Dworkin is misunderstood. I know that she certainly would not agree with the OP. She did not believe that all sex was rape (contrary to what her detractors claim) only that much of what happened between heterosexuals at the time could be called rape.

She believed that heterosexual relations between males and females could be equal and she believed that the people who were misunderstanding her were doing so because of exactly some of the reasons I mentioned in the previous page about why I believe the OP is not a feminist.

I provide for you, a source! Read below what she really said and felt. It sounds a lot less crazy then people make her out to be. Reasonable even

Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin ... rview.html

Michael Moorcock interviewing Andrea Dworkin! How did I not know about this?

[Four-sided Triangles]

And that if a woman has sex, then people will automatically not respect her?

I never said that.

[Four-sided Triangles]

As for you saying that I'm claiming to know women better than they know themselves, well that's obvious. Psychology shows us that we are terrible at self-evaluation. Other people are MUCH better at evaluating us than we are at evaluating ourselves. OF COURSE women don't evaluate their situation properly, that's a given. With all the cognitive biases there are, it's impossible.

[Yewhohohopia]

As for you saying that I'm claiming to know women better than they know themselves, well that's obvious. Psychology shows us that we are terrible at self-evaluation. Other people are MUCH better at evaluating us than we are at evaluating ourselves. OF COURSE women don't evaluate their situation properly, that's a given. With all the cognitive biases there are, it's impossible.

trolololol

[Natapoc]

As for you saying that I'm claiming to know women better than they know themselves, well that's obvious. Psychology shows us that we are terrible at self-evaluation. Other people are MUCH better at evaluating us than we are at evaluating ourselves. OF COURSE women don't evaluate their situation properly, that's a given. With all the cognitive biases there are, it's impossible.

That's right. Women need men to tell them what to think!

[Yewhohohopia]

As for you saying that I'm claiming to know women better than they know themselves, well that's obvious. Psychology shows us that we are terrible at self-evaluation. Other people are MUCH better at evaluating us than we are at evaluating ourselves. OF COURSE women don't evaluate their situation properly, that's a given. With all the cognitive biases there are, it's impossible.

That's right. Women need men to tell them what to think!

We are very objective.

[Four-sided Triangles]

trolololol

Nonsense, unless you're claiming that human beings are typically good at objective self-evaluation.

[Yewhohohopia]

trolololol

Nonsense, unless you're claiming that human beings are typically good at objective self-evaluation.

I don't think "bitches be crazy, men need to step in and make up their minds, because they are stalwarts of rationality" is a very good line of argument.

[Farnhamia]

As for you saying that I'm claiming to know women better than they know themselves, well that's obvious. Psychology shows us that we are terrible at self-evaluation. Other people are MUCH better at evaluating us than we are at evaluating ourselves. OF COURSE women don't evaluate their situation properly, that's a given. With all the cognitive biases there are, it's impossible.

That's right. Women need men to tell them what to think!

I think he means we need men to tell us what we are thinking and why. And the reverse is also true, men need us to tell them what they're thinking and why. Which is kind of ironic, since he usually rejects other people's analyses of his thinking.

[Four-sided Triangles]

That's right. Women need men to tell them what to think!

Not necessarily. However, women AND MEN are not very good at self-evaluation. Perhaps both genders should externalize the overall evaluation process to the opposite gender.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I don't think "bitches be crazy, men need to step in and make up their minds, because they are stalwarts of rationality" is a very good line of argument.

Because I totally said that men are stalwarts of rationality and that women are idiots.

[Natapoc]

Okay my friend, I've concluded, after some very late night eating: You're not a feminist at all.

The reason is that your arguments are all the same ones that prop up the patriarchy. You give all the classic arguments that have always been used as an excuse for subjugation of women.

Now I'm not saying you are a bad person. I'm saying you grew up in a deeply sexist culture and interlized the fundamental beliefs of the patriarchy. You feel bad about that and so you try to use a mismatch of radical feminist and lesbian separatist arguments to justify your sexist beliefs.

But I can't ignore that you think females are biologically inferior .

"base instinct" or "that which is natural" has been associated strongly with anti rational concepts since Aristotle. What you may not realize is "natural" and "base instinct" have always been associated in our culture with women.

This is why people view women as not rational and why women tend to be less represented in scientific fields which require logic (women are not immune from identifying with patriarchy and believing in the myth that they are inherently more emotional then men and not as logical as men)

Hatred of sex has always been a feature of patriarchy.

You also perpetuate damaging gender myths that help rationalize rape. You're idea that "maleness" is the cause of sexual aggression is not new.

That's the excuse of every rapist: "It's not my fault, I needed sex! It's just the way I am!" When their real intent was domination and control. Not sex or love or anything like that.

You are demonizing a behavior which you should rightfully demonize but then you claim that this behavior is innate in all males. Following your logic we should assume that rape is natural and inevitable instead of the result of patriarchy and objectification.

Again by insisting that males "can't help" but objectify women you give men an excuse. It MIGHT be acceptable if you had serious scientific evidence. But you don't. You have a study that shows that female body parts, in isolation, light up the "tool" part of the brain in males who have been taught since infancy to objectify women.

Duh? Stop teaching men to objectify women! Don't accept that it's natural when you don't have sufficient evidence to do so.

Your view that women are always victim and male always aggressor (by nature) is standard patriarchy. Watch almost any Hollywood movie and you'll learn that women can't take care of themselves but instead need a strong man who is rare and unlike most men who are bad and evil and want to hurt her! (myth of the need for a male hero to rescue her)

Your hatred of "instinct (especially sexual instinct)" is classic patriarchy also. Patriarchy feels the need to suppress sexual instincts in order to stay in control. This is why sexuality was so highly controlled in the most patriarchal cultures (yes male sexuality too!)

I could go on and on but i'll conclude:

To be a feminist you actually need to be working for or advocating gender equality. You admit that you are not. At the same time you are actively advancing causes that are contrary to feminism and harming the cause of gender equality.

My comments here are not to make you feel bad. I know that you've internalized gender myths because you grew up in a sexist culture; Not because you have some desire to oppress women.

But you're in luck! The problem is all in your head. It's not your testosterone producing genitals that are the problem. It's the fact that you've internalized sexist stereotypes from birth and you really don't understand women. But that's okay because you can learn and change and grow. I'm not judging you. I'm not saying you are bad. Actually you probably have greater empathy then most because you're actively thinking about this instead of just accepting patriarchy overtly.

Your nature is not the problem. You said you feel the need to make up for being born male. There is nothing at all wrong with being male. You can't control what you're born as and even if you could there would be nothing wrong with choosing male or female.

Advocating that no one ever has sex is patriarchal? Advocating that people be evaluated as individuals rather than according to their demographics is patriarchal?

And no, I do think that testosterone is the reason for the increased amount of sex, aggression, and sexual aggression in males. I don't think it's all cultural. All culture serves to do is to leash that testosterone. There's only one way to really deal with the problem permanently. If I wasn't such a pathetic coward, I'd have it done myself.

Maybe in the future, once we've externalized reproduction completely, we can engineer all new infants to be born sterile and genderless.

And sorry, but no. The attitude that sex is inherently immoral and that no one should ever have sex is not identical to the beliefs that prop up rape culture.

I recommend http://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html ... d=IASF0001 (be sure to pick the right one for your size. You may be able to find a cheaper one on ebay. Be sure to sterilize it first if you do.)

Cheap, Bloodless, and does not damage the skin. Thus no real risk of infection.

Also, if you read what I wrote you'll see that your idea of sex alone being immoral is not the primary reason why I'm saying you're not a feminist. Read what I wrote again.

[Yewhohohopia]

That's right. Women need men to tell them what to think!

Not necessarily. However, women AND MEN are not very good at self-evaluation. Perhaps both genders should externalize the overall evaluation process to the opposite gender.

No that will just lead to arguments solveable only in a romantically comedic fashion.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I recommend http://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html ... d=IASF0001

Cheap, Bloodless, and does not damage the skin.

Also, if you read what I wrote you'll see that your idea of sex alone being immoral is not the primary reason why I'm saying you're not a feminist. Read what I wrote again.

Here's some links for you:

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... porter-if/
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/

[Ashmoria]

That's right. Women need men to tell them what to think!

Not necessarily. However, women AND MEN are not very good at self-evaluation. Perhaps both genders should externalize the overall evaluation process to the opposite gender.

the way that works in actual feminism is that someone proposes an idea like this, fully develops it and explains it to others. those others try to fully understand the point being made then apply it to their own lives to see if its true for them or not.

over the decades this particular point you are making has been mostly rejected except for situations where sexual contact really is problematical.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Why is everyone trying to spin this as me wanting men to be in control of everything? Did you not see the post wherein I pretty much implied that all men should be castrated?

[Natapoc]

Why is everyone trying to spin this as me wanting men to be in control of everything? Did you not see the post wherein I pretty much implied that all men should be castrated?

Castration of rival or subordinate males has been a fundamental part of patriarchy ever since men learned to castrate animals to dominate as a form of controlling animal sexuality reinforcing their views on sexuality as something that can and should be controlled for their benefit.

Most heterosexual women like men both sexually and in other ways and hope that men keep their genitals, if that's alright?

[Natapoc]

I recommend http://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html ... d=IASF0001

Cheap, Bloodless, and does not damage the skin.

Also, if you read what I wrote you'll see that your idea of sex alone being immoral is not the primary reason why I'm saying you're not a feminist. Read what I wrote again.

Here's some links for you:

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... porter-if/
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/

Yes I read that some time ago on NSG. There was a thread about it. I'm aware of the arguments and agree with many but not all.