Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

[Ovisterra]

Just because someone claims to be a feminist doesn't mean they are one.

Ah, "no true feminist". The classic reaction.

It's not a no true scotsman. If they don't meet the definition, they're not one.

"I'm an American"
"Do you have American ancestry? Have you ever lived there?"
"Nope to both."
"So you're not American"
"LOLZ NO TRUE SCOTSMAN"

[Choronzon]

Just because someone claims to be a feminist doesn't mean they are one.

Ah, "no true feminist". The classic reaction.

A far more logical reaction than pretending like one person with extreme views represents a large portion of a group.

[Galloism]

Four sided triangles said male rape was impossible because of the patriarchy, and he claimed to be a feminist. He also linked to other feminists who espoused the same views.


Of course, the other feminists here berated him for it, and justifiably so. However, I cannot make the claim that ive never heard a feminist say that.

I never heard FST say it, but I don't doubt that he may have. FST was, however, quite unique in many ways and it would be absurd to pretend even for a second that his views represented mainstream feminist thought, or even that they represented a large minority of feminists.

I never said it was a majority. I was merely remarking that some portion of feminist literature and adherents do actually believe such things. Therefore, I cannot say that "I've never heard a feminist" say such things.

[Galloism]

Ah, "no true feminist". The classic reaction.

It's not a no true scotsman. If they don't meet the definition, they're not one.

"I'm an American"
"Do you have American ancestry? Have you ever lived there?"
"Nope to both."
"So you're not American"
"LOLZ NO TRUE SCOTSMAN"

Nope. He was a person who claimed to be a feminist, linked to literature that claims to be feminist written by people commonly accepted to be feminist.

Claiming they are not feminist because they have a view you don't agree with is the very example of a no true Scotsman.

[Ranmaverse]

As far as I'm concerned, Feminists have lost their roots. They're only hypocrites.

[Ovisterra]

Nope. He was a person who claimed to be a feminist, linked to literature that claims to be feminist written by people commonly accepted to be feminist.

Claiming they are not feminist because they have a view you don't agree with is the very example of a no true Scotsman.

Jeez. Did you even read my post? I'm not claiming he's a feminist because I think his views are crazy, but because he doesn't meet the definition of a feminist.

I don't see why this is so hard.

"He's an atheist."
"Why, does he not believe in a god?"
"No, he believes in a god alright."
"So he's not a atheist."
"YOU'RE JUST DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HIM. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN".

Stop abusing the poor fallacy by bringing it up when it doesn't apply. What did it ever do to you?

[Galloism]

As far as I'm concerned, Feminists have lost their roots. They're only hypocrites.

I wouldn't say that.

Academic feminism is a terribly great thing, asking for equal pay, equal representation in government, equality under law, shared parental responsibilities, shared custody in divorce, etc.

Unfortunately, political feminism is another animal and typically only attempts to lobby for any of the above when the status quo is unfair to women. It very rarely says anything about the status quo that is unfair to men (such as male rape victims not being rape victims in a lot of places, only sexual assault victims, a lesser crime).

[Choronzon]

And sex-negative feminism is an abomination.

[New Sapienta]

Ah, "no true feminist". The classic reaction.

It's not a no true scotsman. If they don't meet the definition, they're not one.

"I'm an American"
"Do you have American ancestry? Have you ever lived there?"
"Nope to both."
"So you're not American"
"LOLZ NO TRUE SCOTSMAN"

You do it all the time with Communism.

And claim No Tures Sxcots with Christians.

[Galloism]

Nope. He was a person who claimed to be a feminist, linked to literature that claims to be feminist written by people commonly accepted to be feminist.

Claiming they are not feminist because they have a view you don't agree with is the very example of a no true Scotsman.

Jeez. Did you even read my post? I'm not claiming he's a feminist because I think his views are crazy, but because he doesn't meet the definition of a feminist.

I don't see why this is so hard.

"He's an atheist."
"Why, does he not believe in a god?"
"No, he believes in a god alright."
"So he's not a atheist."
"YOU'RE JUST DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HIM. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN".

Stop abusing the poor fallacy by bringing it up when it doesn't apply. What did it ever do to you?

Which is only true if you narrow the definition of feminism to exclude scores of people commonly accepted as feminist. Ergo, I must first accept that your definition, which is not commonly accepted as accurate.

It is not required to be egalitarian to be accepted as part of the feminist movement. It is only required that you fight for the rights of women.

Your definition of feminism would be like defining Scottish people as drunks and, when faced with a person of Scottish descent who was not one, claiming he does not fit your definition of Scottish. Ergo, "no true Scotsman".

[Galloism]

And sex-negative feminism is an abomination.

Agreed (also puzzling). It's also distinctly part of the feminist movement (hence why it's called sex negative feminism).

[Choronzon]

And sex-negative feminism is an abomination.

Agreed (also puzzling). It's also distinctly part of the feminist movement (hence why it's called sex negative feminism).

I wouldn't deny that it is, I've just never actually met one- even within the Women's Studies department at my old university- which is why I'm convinced they're such a small minority that barely warrants talking about, and why I'm extremely impatient when the ignorant try and tar all feminism with that brush.

Oh sure, I've read their blogs, their articles, and their diatribes on the internet, but that doesn't actually count as meeting one.

This woman is the bane of my existence.

[CVT Temp]

Agreed (also puzzling). It's also distinctly part of the feminist movement (hence why it's called sex negative feminism).

Dworken and MacKinnon were probably some of the most important people in the second wave, and they were both pretty much ant-sex (not anti-porn, actually anti-sex). Dworken was totally celibate. I don't remember what MacKinnon was.

Anyway, this FST guy sounds like he read Valerie Solanas but took it literally instead of as a satire.

[CVT Temp]

I wouldn't deny that it is, I've just never actually met one- even within the Women's Studies department at my old university.

Oh sure, I've read their blogs, their articles, and their diatribes on the internet, but that doesn't actually count as meeting one.

This woman is the bane of my existence.

I've seen far worse than her. Even the relatively popular Twisty Faster of "I Blame the Patriarchy" is worse.

[Choronzon]

I wouldn't deny that it is, I've just never actually met one- even within the Women's Studies department at my old university.

Oh sure, I've read their blogs, their articles, and their diatribes on the internet, but that doesn't actually count as meeting one.

This woman is the bane of my existence.

I've seen far worse than her. Even the relatively popular Twisty Faster of "I Blame the Patriarchy" is worse.

I read an article from her once in a bio-ethics class where she argued that in vitro fertilization should be illegal because if it was made legal men would no longer need women, and so they would just find decent breeding stock and social relations as we know it would end.

Because, you know, no couple has ever existed where the man did not want kids, and no relationship has ever started without reproduction as the primary goal.

[CVT Temp]

I read an article from her once in a bio-ethics class where she argued that in vitro fertilization should be illegal because if it was made legal men would no longer need women, and so they would just find decent breeding stock and social relations as we know it would end.

Because, you know, no couple has ever existed where the man did not want kids, and no relationship has ever started without reproduction as the primary goal.

I saw one where she basically argued that all forms of sex except cunnilingus count as rape, because penetration of any orifice is violation since patriarchy violates female consent. Also, the forms of sex that she happens to be most against are those most likely to be engaged in by gay men, so it's possible that she has some latent homophobia.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I read an article from her once in a bio-ethics class where she argued that in vitro fertilization should be illegal because if it was made legal men would no longer need women, and so they would just find decent breeding stock and social relations as we know it would end.

Because, you know, no couple has ever existed where the man did not want kids, and no relationship has ever started without reproduction as the primary goal.

I saw one where she basically argued that all forms of sex except cunnilingus count as rape, because penetration of any orifice is violation since patriarchy violates female consent. Also, the forms of sex that she happens to be most against are those most likely to be engaged in by gay men, so it's possible that she has some latent homophobia.

I'm pretty sure we can just safely set her in the "bigot" category and hope that she didn't influence too many people.

[CVT Temp]

I'm pretty sure we can just safely set her in the "bigot" category and hope that she didn't influence too many people.

The sad thing is that the much nicer and much more rational community on Feministe is sometimes influenced by her bullshit.

[Saint Jade IV]

Maybe it's more the puerile nature of the posters that has angered women? Maybe it's the suggestion that the violence against women protested against in these campaigns is at all comparable to the violence suffered by men?

Not suggesting that one is worse than the other, but the causes, the perpetrators, and the circumstances in which the two kinds arise are totally removed from each other. The reasons for the rise in violence against men and the types of violence that men are typically the victim of are so different to that experienced by women that campaigns like "White Ribbon Day" and "Reclaim the Night" have no meaning and no power to actually impact on that violence.

However, campaigns targeting the root cause, which is usually a defence of aspersions cast on the masculinity of a man, leading them to prove it by beating the shit out of the one doing the casting, are more likely to have an impact.

I do find it fascinating that we laugh at the idea of anti-rape campaigns targeted at perpetrators, yet many of the anti-violence against men campaigns I've seen do just that.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm pretty sure we can just safely set her in the "bigot" category and hope that she didn't influence too many people.

The sad thing is that the much nicer and much more rational community on Feministe is sometimes influenced by her bullshit.

Hence why I don't identify, or accept the label of, any group of individuals who don't have a clearly defined set of universal goals and ethics.

Since such groups basically don't exist, it means I'm free to thumb my nose at most extreme ideologies, because I don't have to try and explain why my "faction" is better/bigger/more 1337 than their "faction".

[AiliailiA]

I think the solution is to catch the people vandalizing the posters and prosecute them for vandalism. This will protect everyone's right to use posters to express their opinions, regardless of subject matter.

Prosecute for vandalism? I don't see a poster as sufficiently valuable "property" to bother with that. Maybe if it's posted on private property, or the space it's posted on is leased, but otherwise you have the bizarre outcome that putting one poster over another is "vandalism".

[AiliailiA]

I do find it fascinating that we laugh at the idea of anti-rape campaigns targeted at perpetrators

Do we?

[Saint Jade IV]

I do find it fascinating that we laugh at the idea of anti-rape campaigns targeted at perpetrators

Do we?

I've never ever seen an anti-rape campaign targeted at a perpetrator. I've seen plenty targeted at victims. And every time it's suggested people either laugh incredulously, or cry like little bitches about how we are calling ALL the menz ebul rapists.

[CVT Temp]

I never got why "Don't rape people." is such a hard concept for some people to understand.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I never got why "Don't rape people." is such a hard concept for some people to understand.

Define rape.

Then define consent.

Then explain how consent works with alcohol.

Then explain why humans can choose to engage in sex while inebriated and not be guilty of rape.