Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Kaboomlandia]

But I don't think he's a woman.

In other words, you think transgender people don't exist.

They do so exist!

[The Lone Alliance]

Queer theory will be rejected due to the fact that, despite what you believe, people aren't brainwashed that easily.

Forcing boring shit in schools isn't going to convince people anything, just like how most anti-drug programs in school barely have a real effect.

Besides, prostitution is never going anywhere, it's the second oldest profession for a reason.

Queer theory is not about brainwashing.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/artic ... -education
Prostitution will go away, as result of the empowerment of women.

If you believe you can control what people think and believe then you are attempting brainwashing.

Some women consider prostitution to be empowering, therefore as long as a slim minority of women refuse to buy into your theory, and they will, you'll never eliminate prostitution, furthermore, I can predict that some men would collectively reject 'empowered' radfem women, we can already see that in real life with those "Men going their own way" type of movements. So in absence of wanting a relationship with an empowered women, men are more likely to turn to prostitution.

I heard that foreign brides are on the rise in Europe also but I'm not sure if that's related or just a side effect of Globalism.

You seem to act like you know my gender and sexual orientation.
So relationships between women require one woman to be an insufferable know it all?

Who said I know all?
But I'm pretty intuitive...

You believe in Queer theory something that was created by a bunch of ivory tower people who never leave their colleges.

Whomever invented queer theory should be dragged out into the street and shot.

[New Edom]

Well, I think part of the issues I take with your explanations--which I believe are being presented in the best of good faith by the way--is that while for instance you make points about derailing, bad examples of feminsm, and ignorance, that I would say this in response to that:

1. That the conversations I have been trying to take part in were about the general subject of abuse, often related to public information and so on--which tended to state domestic and sexual abuse as though they are entirely a problem suffered by girls and women inflicted by men and boys. So is me pointing out "it happens to males and by females too' derailing or is it actually trying to make the conversation fair?

Because I'll tell you how I feel about that to be blunt: I feel deeply outcast from such a conversation. I feel as though my own suffering is not part of the general social question, as though I would have to be schooled in non-abuse and as though my own desire for safety is just handwaved.

I keep hearing about people like you and your friends who talk about how they never tolerate the idea of abuse towards anyone. That's great--except I want to see public conversations that are the same. Is that too much to ask? Are you telling me NOT to be worried or offended when I see how one sided these public conversations are?

I don't get the impression that is what you are saying, but you seem to not see that there are no real public discussions in feminist circles I have ever seen that take into account female on female or female on male abuse.

2. The examples of ignorance and poor sources: in a way I don't care. Public statements by feminist leaders and activists that people take exception to and that other feminists brush aside or handwave by saying 'most feminists are good' is not good enough. Coupled with my concerns above, it contributes to my view that feminism is for women and men who support women.

Again--that's fair enough if that IS the case, but the problem is that all but the most radical of radical feminists essentially say that feminism is good for everybody.

.. and here we land upon an issue I can't actually argue.
You shouldn't have to carefully phrase your experience/s in order to have them validated & receive support.
.. and yet I feel like that's probably the 'trick' to acceptance & not getting some kind of backlash.
A lot will depend on the specific group involved and what the context is, but there does tend to be a knack to avoiding proverbial raised hackles.
(Obviously some groups will be awful regardless, but then their support generally isn't the best anyway.)
So yeah, that's a problem.

I don't believe it would be derailing, particularly if you're coming at it from the perspective of "Hey, I'm feeling like you're disregarding my experiences and pretending others like me don't exist".
The issue of 'erasure', whether explicit or implicit, is a pretty serious one when it comes to the likes of sexual assault etc.
(.. to be honest, my default suggestion would be to try that approach of "When you [thing], it makes me feel [thing] because [reasons]. Could you [suggestion for alternative]?" and hope that works.
For two reasons: That it's non-confrontational, & that language like that tends to work well in 'social justice' and feminist circles because of the personal empathetic nature and the concept of 'lived experience'.)
[Whether it actually works or not will vary based on relative paranoia of the group, which is unfortunately caused by some people shit-stirring in the past.]
{See also: Reasons why feminist & social justice-y types can come off as aggressive or blunt or rude. It's out of encountering so many people that refuse to listen in any way that their patience is just gone and they lapse into assuming ill intent and dropping civility. Bad habit.}

In regards to the question of public discussions:
Nope, not too much to ask at all.
The concern is warranted (& frankly I think a measure of anger would be warranted).
Is there an example of what you're referring to, just so I have an idea?
(I mean, I can only really speak for myself & those I know. So for that comparatively small group, I know inclusive language is important.
Gender neutrality seems the way to go. If genders are not specified, the issue of a 'male abuser, female victim' bias being explicit is at least excluded.
Whether it's still present as an implicit bias is another matter.)
Part of the issue may be that some people might avoid public discussions on purpose specifically because they don't want others coming in just to stir up trouble or derail conversation.
Perhaps it's also a case of where you're looking for these discussions?
(Prominent speakers are also not always the most reliable indicators of general opinion. There's a tendency for the systems in place to elevate a certain type of person/activist to such positions, and that's something generally criticised when it comes to intersectionality.
& then there's cherry-picking from the media in regards to who gets attention on top of that.)

In regards to the perception of feminism being 'for women and those that support women'..
I think that may be a fair assessment in some regards, but that there is a significant portion that subscribe to intersectionality and 'social justice' for whom the support of all genders is important.
(The general idea being that fair treatment and understanding is something to which everyone willing to accept those ideals is entitled to, or.. something in that conceptual area anyway.)
I mean, I've only seen like.. extreme fringe weirdos advocate for things like 'abolishing the male gender' (wow that was a fucking weird one) or insisting on.. well, the kind of thing Chess has been saying.
Unfortunately talking about things is frequently slow to propagate and often encounters opposition.
(Anyone any better ideas? I tend to believe that reaching out to those one knows personally and gently trying to promote understanding and cooperation is generally the best plan.)

The conversational technique you suggested is something that I actually did try and which did not work. So my example of where this kind of thing has typically come up for me is in this context:

Over the last several years, conversations have been held publicly about the atmosphere surrounding consent, including but not limited to objectification, street harassment, yes means yes no means no, affirmative/enthusiastic consent, modesty debates, entitlement, etc. In such conversations it almost inevitably tends to run to this general trend: we need to accept women's right to consent and not consent and encourage women to be confident and feel safe; we need to teach men not to rape and not to support rape culture.

I think it is reasonable that I object to this narrative. However I've generally found that it rarely matters HOW I go about objecting or introducing other ways of talking about it--many people accept that narrative and act as though they believe that any disagreement with it means that you don't care about women's rights.

What I would like for instance to have is public discussion about consent that accepts that women have agency. This doesn't have to mean 'she was asking for it'. What it does mean is that women are quite capable of assuming all men want sex all the time and therefore it is less necessary to establish consent with them.

I'm less concerned about extreme fringe groups than I am about mainstream people who go with currently held assumptions that are unhelpful for me and others who don't fit the common mainstream narrative. I'm tired of hearing blanket platitude statements like "we need to teach men/boys not to rape"; "we need to stop teaching our girls modesty", "we need to ban bossy". While these people may not represent the mainstream, it cannot be denied that they are highly influential people who guide policy.

[The Alexanderians]

Are you really comparing buying medical treatment with prostitution?
Really?
Mary Honeyball about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 64025.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mary-ho ... 49359.html

I'm using her articles because frankly I'm quite bored by the fact that people here continue to think I'm weird and extremist: these thoughts are mainstream in Europe.

I don't think feminism is about entertainment of males through exploitation of women.

If a prostitute enjoys her work, does it solely for herself, and is paid nicely, why would you restrict that?

FYI, it's called an analogy.

Well to be fair I'd want it restricted in the form of regulation, especially in regards to disease and taxing.

[Chessmistress]

Care to explain why you believe in queer theory, then? Why do you believe identities are fluid if you believe transwomen aren't really female?

See, this is why I think you are a Poe. The only Factbook page you boast has quotes that believe in male inferiority and female supremacy. Indeed, the region you hail from indulges in the same notions. And, while useful in the bedroom, these ideas are completely lacking in substance and further prove that you are no believer in equality. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You advocate for queer theory where you like it, but cannot accept transgender people. You say you're for equality, but the truth is completely the opposite. If you truly hold these opinions, then I suggest you reevaluate your positions, because they read as an incoherent mixture of radical feminism, female supremacy, and gender equality. I can't understand it.

Don't construe any of this to think I hold animosity towards you. If you do sincerely hold these positions, I just ask that you listen to some of the people on here.

Thank you for the chance to explain things.
I think you just proved you're a smart guy, when instead it seems to me that other people just wasted their time in useless personal attacks.
I believe Queer theory is right, but not in the sense that identities are just only "fluid" but in the sense that identities doesn't and shouldn't exist: this is the main difference between a liberal "feminist" and a gender abolitionist. It seems to me that liberal "feminists" just hope to use Queer theory to fight against discrimination and stereotypes (and that's good) but they're afraid to go too far. Gender abolitionists seek the abolition of the whole concept of gender and that doesn't means "fluid identities" but "no identities".
In an ideal future no one should identify as man or woman but just only as "human being", and the set of genitalia they have should be totally irrelevant.
As you can clearly understand this is not the case of transexuals: they are, in many ways, the exact opposite of a deletion of the whole concept of gender.
Indeed I prefer the expression "Queer politics" (like the title of the book of Sheila Jeffreys) than "Queer theory": "Queer theory" seems more a word for a tool for promoting acceptance of different identities than a powerful weapon for a total erasure of gender.

My factbook is not about female supremacy, is about female independency and anti pornography - just take the first quotes

“A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual” - Gloria Steinem - American feminist, journalist, and social and political activist.

“A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” - Gloria Steinem

"Men are irrelevant. Women are happy or unhappy, fulfilled or unfulfilled, and it has nothing to do with men" - Fay Weldon - English author, essayist and playwright: in her works she typically portrays contemporary women who find themselves trapped in oppressive situations caused by the patriarchal structure of British society.

"It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion" - Harriet Harman, from "The Family Way".

There is just only a quote that can be attribuited to female supremacy, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and also threatening quote from the Radical Feminist Mary Daly.
I added these quotes later, and I never said I'm an angel...
I don't like BDSM in RW - indeed I don't was the founder of the region - the original region is http://www.nationstates.net/region=womenempire
It was founded not by me but by danielaland, we leaved it because it becomed founderless and then invaded by TBR.
I discussed with the original founder about a region dedicated to Radical Feminism, she said it was interesting but for a game she tought it was more suitable and palatable a female supremacist region. So, why not? That's just a game, a region not necessarly is representative of your ideas: I don't think users in nazi regions within NS are nazis, nor users in extreme islamists regions are extreme islamists, also, and that's maybe the more interesting comparison, I don't think that users who have a factbook where they wrote the king have an harem are male supremacists.
Also, do not forget, never, that

"Why is it that men can be bastards and women must wear pearls and smile?" - Lynn Hecht Schafran

I like to play evil
There are differences between roleplay and political ideals in real world, you know'
Also, due the fact a region is shared with other people, is not representative of the individual.
My delegate is less radical feminist than me, another one is almost totally uninterested about real feminism, another one is maybe even more "extreme" than me, but we are a little community.
Persons are complex beings - in example: I think Marine le Pen is more charming than Hillary Clinton - maybe you suspect I'm a nazi, after such declaration?

After I gived that explanation I have a final quote.

“Ignorance is not bad faith. But persistence in ignorance is.” - Joanna Russ

If you believe you can control what people think and believe then you are attempting brainwashing.

Some women consider prostitution to be empowering, therefore as long as a slim minority of women refuse to buy into your theory, and they will, you'll never eliminate prostitution, furthermore, I can predict that some men would collectively reject 'empowered' radfem women, we can already see that in real life with those "Men going their own way" type of movements. So in absence of wanting a relationship with an empowered women, men are more likely to turn to prostitution.

I heard that foreign brides are on the rise in Europe also but I'm not sure if that's related or just a side effect of Globalism.

So, that's the real answer?
"Men going their own way"?
I'm not against celibacy for males! I couldn't care less!
As long as they do not insult and harass women online...

[New Edom]

I think it is unfortunate that moderates, liberals and many liberal feminists seem so surprised that feminists who have views similar to Chessmistress can exist. Of course everyone online that you don't know for sure is a real identity could be fake, but that's not the point. The point is that for some the IDEA of such a person is what is strange.

Consider this though--there have been extreme views stated by well known femnists, and these views or quotes are often handwaved or considered to be a moment of passion expressed. This makes sense though when you think about it. In popular media, it's still far more okay for a woman to hit a man than for a man to hit a woman. It's still more acceptable to sympathetically depict a grown woman seducing a male teenager than vice versa. So really--that's all that this skepticism is to me, is a continued belief that women are generally more moral and kind than men, and that women have to do something really extreme to be considered to have behaved badly.

It should not be too much to ask that we should all be held accountable for our misdeeds and that we should all be treated fairly. However it doesn't move us closer towards that when some people are not only presumed to be harmless but when they act in non harmless ways that skepticism should dominate people's thinking about those people. Let's be fair.

[Chessmistress]

I think it is unfortunate that moderates, liberals and many liberal feminists seem so surprised that feminists who have views similar to Chessmistress can exist. Of course everyone online that you don't know for sure is a real identity could be fake, but that's not the point. The point is that for some the IDEA of such a person is what is strange.

It seems to me that some of them are just hiding their heads under the sand, like on ostrich, at least regarding some matters.
I.e. criminalisation of purchasing of sex is a feminist theme, pretty mainstream in Europe, and we are winning.

So really--that's all that this skepticism is to me, is a continued belief that women are generally more moral and kind than men, and that women have to do something really extreme to be considered to have behaved badly.

I really think that nowadays, on the whole, generally, women are more moral and kind than men.
But that's not biological: it's just due the fact males are taught to be dominant and violent.
That's why there's Convention of Istanbul, protecting women from men and not viceversa.
That's why the special commission, GREVIO, will be composed just only by women, all feminists, some of them radical feminists.
Members of GREVIO will be elected tomorrow, May, 4, 2015.

[Lumeau]

I really think that nowadays, on the whole, generally, women are more moral and kind than men.
But that's not biological: it's just due the fact males are taught to be dominant and violent.

I really need to introduce you to some women I've known in my life. It's almost like people of both genders are capable of being shitty!

Also, I hope you enjoy the social problems criminalizing prostitution will bring. It's not going to stop trafficking or forcing women into servitude. It's outlawed almost everywhere here in the US yet that policy hasn't made women, or people in general, any safer. If you want to tackle the problem, focus more resources on addressing trafficking than on the act itself. In the one state where it is legal, Nevada, brothels are strictly regulated by the state government and many of the women working in them make an absolute killing.

[Waideland]

Women are just bet'er than me. That's why the girls down at the club are always naked, because they are free of sin, and thus have nothing to be ashamed of.

[Chessmistress]

I really think that nowadays, on the whole, generally, women are more moral and kind than men.
But that's not biological: it's just due the fact males are taught to be dominant and violent.

I really need to introduce you to some women I've known in my life. It's almost like people of both genders are capable of being shitty!

Also, I hope you enjoy the social problems criminalizing prostitution will bring. It's not going to stop trafficking or forcing women into servitude. It's outlawed almost everywhere here in the US yet that policy hasn't made women, or people in general, any safer. If you want to tackle the problem, focus more resources on addressing trafficking than on the act itself. In the one state where it is legal, Nevada, brothels are strictly regulated by the state government and many of the women working in them make an absolute killing.

That's right, people from both genders are capable of being bad.
But, since males are taught to be dominant and violent, and as long as they'll be taught so, there's a difference in order of magnitudo.
Otherwise why the hell ALL feminists, including the so-called "liberals", should ask for a re-thinking of masculinity?
We share common goals, and I'm pretty sure that most of them will do the right thing at the right moment: even the almost universal support for yes-means-yes law proves that, I think.
Affirmative ongoing consent was proposed for the first time in Sweden, in 2005, by "F!", a radical feminist party.
Some "feminists", like Wendy McElroy and Hoff Sommers, still harshly oppose it. But most "liberal" feminists have enthusiastically embraced the concept: that's the proof, I think, that when the moment of truth will come about other matters, most of them will do the right choice.

[Geanna]

Keep in mind "mainstream" doesn't automatically mean "right". Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong simply because the majority share in it.

But democracy work so: it's the majority that decides.

Actually, that's ochlocracy - Democracy tends to try and not out-source the minority. Tries to at least.

But I'm tired that persons keeping positions that I consider anti-women (like supporting prostitution and pornography) continue to write I'm not a feminist: I think they're the anti-women and anti-feminist ones.

Forgive me if I don't understand your thought process - considering I know plenty of women who love porn. [Can't comment on the prostitution bit however]
That and considering at least the majority of actresses do so voluntarily, hell there's even a fetish for couples to make porn videos and post themselves online. To assume pornography is strictly a 'Man's thing' seems a bit narrow-minded to me. Of course, what do I know - I'm just a potato.

[Chessmistress]

But democracy work so: it's the majority that decides.

Actually, that's ochlocracy - Democracy tends to try and not out-source the minority. Tries to at least.

But I'm tired that persons keeping positions that I consider anti-women (like supporting prostitution and pornography) continue to write I'm not a feminist: I think they're the anti-women and anti-feminist ones.

Forgive me if I don't understand your thought process - considering I know plenty of women who love porn. [Can't comment on the prostitution bit however]
That and considering at least the majority of actresses do so voluntarily, hell there's even a fetish for couples to make porn videos and post themselves online. To assume pornography is strictly a 'Man's thing' seems a bit narrow-minded to me. Of course, what do I know - I'm just a potato.

I prefer action than philosophy.
I notice you're Irish.
Purchasing of sex will be criminalised from June, 1, 2015, in Northern Ireland.
Do you agree or you oppose it?

[Geanna]

If a woman (or anyone) freely chooses to sell sexual services to another, not out of poverty, obligation, or reluctance, how are they being exploited? We need to minimise poverty and increase Human trafficking enforcement to end exploitative prostitution. But we needn't restrict it for those who are willing. For instance:

-Dita Von Teese

Like prohibition, excluding consenting individuals from the market only leads to horrible side effects, such as increased human trafficking and rape.

---

So why are you trans exclusionary? Too "masculine" for you?

Indeed, laws in Europe legalise prostitution, and criminalise the purchaser.
That's not against women, that's against exploiters.
Trans-exclusionary doesn't means "to be against transexuals", exactly like Radical Feminism doesn't means "to be against men". It means I think they cannot be feminists but just only allies, due the fact they don't share the totality of experiences of women. A transexual is born with male privilege, and even if he rejects it, he cannot be pregnant, and so on. Also, with some of their behaviors, they actually reinforce gender stereotypes. Also, without offense, regarding some transexuals, I don't think that someone who is unwilling to fully transition to woman should be label himself "woman": I respect him, like I respect men, like I respect all human beings. But I don't think he's a woman.

-Player 2 has entered the game

It means I think they cannot be feminists but just only allies, due the fact they don't share the totality of experiences of women.

Bahahaha - Oh my god, hun. I'm sure this'll be interesting - just an ally huh? I'd be careful throwing around statements like that, they've a tendency to come 360 and hit ya back in the face.

A transexual is born with male privilege, and even if he rejects it, he cannot be pregnant, and so on.

I think you misunderstand the term transexual

Also, with some of their behaviors, they actually reinforce gender stereotypes.

Wow - I'm the most tomboyish dyke you're going to find, try again. Fuck high heels, I'd rather work on an engine. Wear a pair of combat boots with a skirt. That has to be an amazing view of yours.

Also, without offense, regarding some transexuals, I don't think that someone who is unwilling to fully transition to woman should be label himself "woman": I respect him, like I respect men, like I respect all human beings. But I don't think he's a woman.

So without fully transitioning, they're not a woman? Really? Here, hop off that soap box for me will ya? I need to burn it before someone else decides to use it. You respect them, and then turn around and contradict yourself - with apparently a horrible lack of knowledge regarding the Transgender movement, and in frank - you've insulted part of the LBGT community and slapped yourself and your beliefs in the face.

[Geanna]

Actually, that's ochlocracy - Democracy tends to try and not out-source the minority. Tries to at least.



Forgive me if I don't understand your thought process - considering I know plenty of women who love porn. [Can't comment on the prostitution bit however]
That and considering at least the majority of actresses do so voluntarily, hell there's even a fetish for couples to make porn videos and post themselves online. To assume pornography is strictly a 'Man's thing' seems a bit narrow-minded to me. Of course, what do I know - I'm just a potato.

I prefer action than philosophy.
I notice you're Irish.
Purchasing of sex will be criminalised from June, 1, 2015, in Northern Ireland.
Do you agree or you oppose it?

Nice redirect there, diggin' around for leverage are we? come now - you can play a better game than that. There's a time for action, and there's a time not to - though I'm confused as to how that's even remotely relevant here. If you feel the need to elaborate, by all means.

Indeed I'm Irish, Northern Ireland is not in Ireland, and I don't concern myself with the politics of the Isles. However, to humour you - though it's an obviously rigged question, I'd agree to it [though I know nothing of it because again, I don't concern myself with the Isle's politics] - but I also understand why some serve themselves into prostitution voluntarily. In which case, your question is as well, rather irrelevant.

[Chessmistress]

Nice redirect there, diggin' around for leverage are we? come now - you can play a better game than that. There's a time for action, and there's a time not to - though I'm confused as to how that's even remotely relevant here. If you feel the need to elaborate, by all means.

Indeed I'm Irish, Northern Ireland is not in Ireland, and I don't concern myself with the politics of the Isles. However, to humour you - though it's an obviously rigged question, I'd agree to it [though I know nothing of it because again, I don't concern myself with the Isle's politics] - but I also understand why some serve themselves into prostitution voluntarily. In which case, your question is as well, rather irrelevant.

It's extremely relevant, it's just the only thing that's relevant.
The factual support when the moment of truth comes.
As said, I'm far more interested about facts and actions than about philosophy.
So, tell me: maybe do you think that prostitution is not a real choice for the greater majority of women (you just said so) when instead pornography is a real choice for most women?
That distinction would be interesting.

[Geanna]

Nice redirect there, diggin' around for leverage are we? come now - you can play a better game than that. There's a time for action, and there's a time not to - though I'm confused as to how that's even remotely relevant here. If you feel the need to elaborate, by all means.

Indeed I'm Irish, Northern Ireland is not in Ireland, and I don't concern myself with the politics of the Isles. However, to humour you - though it's an obviously rigged question, I'd agree to it [though I know nothing of it because again, I don't concern myself with the Isle's politics] - but I also understand why some serve themselves into prostitution voluntarily. In which case, your question is as well, rather irrelevant.

It's extremely relevant, it's just the only thing that's relevant.
The factual support when the moment of truth comes.
As said, I'm far more interest about facts and actions than about philosophy.

Apparently not, because I'm staring at an empty bowl here, and well - the village is starving. For someone so interested in facts and actions, you sure are being quite a bit abstract so either you have no argument at the current time, or you're half-assing your debate.

[Chessmistress]

It's extremely relevant, it's just the only thing that's relevant.
The factual support when the moment of truth comes.
As said, I'm far more interest about facts and actions than about philosophy.

Apparently not, because I'm staring at an empty bowl here, and well - the village is starving. For someone so interested in facts and actions, you sure are being quite a bit abstract so either you have no argument at the current time, or you're half-assing your debate.

No, I was just only editing the post.
Please, check my previous post again.

[Geanna]

So, tell me: maybe do you think that prostitution is not a real choice when instead pornography is a real choice for women?
That distinction would be interesting.

I knew this one would come - the distinction would be interesting to you because either A) You're going to try and ploy a manipulative argument by trying to relate to me, or hoping I'll agree to your ideas and thus solidify them. Which frankly, I'm quite insulted you'd peg me for a sheep - any manipulation I see you pull, I will mercilessly shut you down on so fast, the ship will sink before the sailor's sober. [Bad pun - sue me]

Or b) You're digging for some form of leverage in the hopes that you can try and flank my arguments in the future of the debate as a means to discredit me, and further your own argument. In which case, I'd sooner be talking to a wall at that point.

Moving the sex trafficking aside, since we all can agree on that being definitively bad. Some take up prostitution for money, food or some form of stability to survive - it's illegal already, least where I am. [Don't bother asking, I don't like sharpening spoons] - in that case, I can understand why some partake in it willingly, do I agree with it? Of course not. So that's rather a bullshit question, but hey - I'll let you run the bull for right now, just to see what cards you'll play.

Furthermore, Pornography is pornography, photos, videos, media of [hopefully] consenting adults - both men and women, of all sexual orientations who are in it either for the money, the hedonistic pleasure [Said kink previously mentioned], or perhaps the fame. A lot of people love sex, it is after-all apart of human experience [taking exception to Ace people, because one's will to have or not is perfectly fine [Especially since, if you're like me - I could live without it and just snuggle]] - It'd be a rather bullshit argument to ignorantly, and erroneously state that the porn industry is sexualizing women alone and ignore the fact that A) It involves and sexualizes men as well, and b) That's what it.is.for.

Whether or not people want to spend their private time at a laptop and wank is none of my business, and as long as all involved on a porn-set have consented, I frankly don't care and could waste my time doing something else I personally find more productive, and of interest to myself, like reading a book.

[Glorious KASSRD]

I really need to introduce you to some women I've known in my life. It's almost like people of both genders are capable of being shitty!

Also, I hope you enjoy the social problems criminalizing prostitution will bring. It's not going to stop trafficking or forcing women into servitude. It's outlawed almost everywhere here in the US yet that policy hasn't made women, or people in general, any safer. If you want to tackle the problem, focus more resources on addressing trafficking than on the act itself. In the one state where it is legal, Nevada, brothels are strictly regulated by the state government and many of the women working in them make an absolute killing.

That's right, people from both genders are capable of being bad.
But, since males are taught to be dominant and violent, and as long as they'll be taught so, there's a difference in order of magnitudo.
Otherwise why the hell ALL feminists, including the so-called "liberals", should ask for a re-thinking of masculinity?
We share common goals, and I'm pretty sure that most of them will do the right thing at the right moment: even the almost universal support for yes-means-yes law proves that, I think.
Affirmative ongoing consent was proposed for the first time in Sweden, in 2005, by "F!", a radical feminist party.
Some "feminists", like Wendy McElroy and Hoff Sommers, still harshly oppose it. But most "liberal" feminists have enthusiastically embraced the concept: that's the proof, I think, that when the moment of truth will come about other matters, most of them will do the right choice.

Where on earth is your proof for that? From my experience bullying/bad females are just as numerous and bad as male ones. In fact, they can be worse, because some people think that girls can't do any real harm.
And for the culture bit, how? Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seems nowadays boys/men are encouraged to use their brains and wits instead of strength by culture and society.

[Geanna]

That's right, people from both genders are capable of being bad.
But, since males are taught to be dominant and violent, and as long as they'll be taught so, there's a difference in order of magnitudo.
Otherwise why the hell ALL feminists, including the so-called "liberals", should ask for a re-thinking of masculinity?
We share common goals, and I'm pretty sure that most of them will do the right thing at the right moment: even the almost universal support for yes-means-yes law proves that, I think.
Affirmative ongoing consent was proposed for the first time in Sweden, in 2005, by "F!", a radical feminist party.
Some "feminists", like Wendy McElroy and Hoff Sommers, still harshly oppose it. But most "liberal" feminists have enthusiastically embraced the concept: that's the proof, I think, that when the moment of truth will come about other matters, most of them will do the right choice.

Where on earth is your proof for that? From my experience bullying/bad females are just as numerous and bad as male ones. In fact, they can be worse, because some people think that girls can't do any real harm.
And for the culture bit, how? Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seems nowadays boys/men are encouraged to use their brains and wits instead of strength by culture and society.

Clicky Clicky

Thus my misgivings with Rads - sadly people can hijack a movement and take it too far.

[Lumeau]

Where on earth is your proof for that? From my experience bullying/bad females are just as numerous and bad as male ones. In fact, they can be worse, because some people think that girls can't do any real harm.
And for the culture bit, how? Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seems nowadays boys/men are encouraged to use their brains and wits instead of strength by culture and society.

Clicky Clicky

Thus my misgivings with Rads - sadly people can hijack a movement and take it too far.

I was actually going to point out that Chessmistress is a radfem but you beat me to it.

I'm pro-equality, pro-LGBT, and pro-not-being-a-dick. Against bigoted agendas disguised as "progressive."

Also, that's one of my favorite comics.

[Geanna]

Clicky Clicky

Thus my misgivings with Rads - sadly people can hijack a movement and take it too far.

I was actually going to point out that Chessmistress is a radfem but you beat me to it.

I'm pro-equality, pro-LGBT, and pro-not-being-a-dick. Against bigoted agendas disguised as "progressive."

Also, that's one of my favorite comics.

Feminism makes a lot of sense, and I fully support it. Radical Feminism is a disgrace to the movement and gives it a bad rep - luckily they're a minority. Least actual feminists believe in actual equality, and try not to build themselves a box higher than everybody else, then demand special treatment.

Course, who am I? I'm just a grouchy, sardonic lesbian chick who drinks her days away and yells at Barcelona for getting their ass kicked, I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I'm a lowly feminist who's apparently anti-woman because I disagree and challenge Rads and their extremist rubbish. Heaven forbid we use logic and reason when forming opinions. Bollocks.

[Dumb Ideologies]

In other words, you think transgender people don't exist.

They do so exist!

It's okay. I don't think radical feminists are women either. Please stay out of female spaces, Chessmaster (named edited due to appropriation).

[Lumeau]

I was actually going to point out that Chessmistress is a radfem but you beat me to it.

I'm pro-equality, pro-LGBT, and pro-not-being-a-dick. Against bigoted agendas disguised as "progressive."

Also, that's one of my favorite comics.

Feminism makes a lot of sense, and I fully support it. Radical Feminism is a disgrace to the movement and gives it a bad rep - luckily they're a minority. Least actual feminists believe in actual equality, and try not to build themselves a box higher than everybody else, then demand special treatment.

Course, who am I? I'm just a grouchy, sardonic lesbian chick who drinks her days away and yells at Barcelona for getting their ass kicked, I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I'm a lowly feminist who's apparently anti-woman because I disagree and challenge Rads and their extremist rubbish. Heaven forbid we use logic and reason when forming opinions. Bollocks.

Agree...most people conflate feminism and radical feminism and there's definitely a difference between the two.

Also, supporting Barca is monumentally less stressful than supporting my club (Manchester City).

[Geanna]

Feminism makes a lot of sense, and I fully support it. Radical Feminism is a disgrace to the movement and gives it a bad rep - luckily they're a minority. Least actual feminists believe in actual equality, and try not to build themselves a box higher than everybody else, then demand special treatment.

Course, who am I? I'm just a grouchy, sardonic lesbian chick who drinks her days away and yells at Barcelona for getting their ass kicked, I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I'm a lowly feminist who's apparently anti-woman because I disagree and challenge Rads and their extremist rubbish. Heaven forbid we use logic and reason when forming opinions. Bollocks.

Agree...most people conflate feminism and radical feminism and there's definitely a difference between the two.

Also, supporting Barca is monumentally less stressful than supporting my club (Manchester City).

Shakes head and sympathetically hands you off a bottle of Guinness straight from the motherland.