The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Kisinger]

And let me guess, no transwomen allowed.

Let me remind you about transwomen (I'm assuming you mean MtF transition). They are patriarchal invaders trying to invade our female space.

Transwomen don't grow up with the patriarchal oppression that womyn-born-womyn have. They miss that during those critical formative years. They also engage in violent oppression of womyn born womyn when excluded from events that are designed specifically for those womyn.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... -festival/

Ah yes because men who have been bullied for wanting to be different who want to become women so say they fit totally haven't been oppressed nope, not at all.

[Radfems Inc]

Exactly. We need to use such stereotypes as a weapon in our arsenal to overthrow the patriarchy. Until we have a 100% female government and women in control of the major corporations in the world, we will never have equality. We should do so by any means necessary.

Woah slowdown there SCUM reader. That's not equality

Oh it most certainly is.

See, men have been in charge of society for at least the last 5,000 years, dating to 3,100 BCE. It is now womyn's turn to be in charge for at least 5,000 years. That's substantive equality.

Wiki

After that point, we'll revisit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The vaginal juices are drying super fast as I read this. Oh!

Ahhh yes. Clearly I am invading womenhood in as an agent of the patriarchy to oppress my fellow women. Good thinking! This nonsense, ladies and gentlemen, is why you shouldn't take drugs.

Hey, when have you ever read anything being spewed forth by Radfems that makes a lick of sense?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Ahhh yes. Clearly I am invading womenhood in as an agent of the patriarchy to oppress my fellow women. Good thinking! This nonsense, ladies and gentlemen, is why you shouldn't take drugs.

Hey, when have you ever read anything being spewed forth by Radfems that makes a lick of sense?

Never. But that literally read like the paranoid ravings of a cocaine addict.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Hey, when have you ever read anything being spewed forth by Radfems that makes a lick of sense?

Never. But that literally read like the paranoid ravings of a cocaine addict.

For all we know, that may very well be it.

[Chessmistress]

Ahhh yes. Clearly I am invading womenhood in as an agent of the patriarchy to oppress my fellow women. Good thinking! This nonsense, ladies and gentlemen, is why you shouldn't take drugs.

Hey, when have you ever read anything being spewed forth by Radfems that makes a lick of sense?

Do you really think it's a real Radical Feminist?
I don't think so.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Hey, when have you ever read anything being spewed forth by Radfems that makes a lick of sense?

Do you really think it's a real Radical Feminist?
I don't think so.

Hey, you're proof enough that stranger things happen.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Woah slowdown there SCUM reader. That's not equality

Oh it most certainly is.

See, men have been in charge of society for at least the last 5,000 years, dating to 3,100 BCE. It is now womyn's turn to be in charge for at least 5,000 years. That's substantive equality.

Wiki

After that point, we'll revisit.

Reverse oppression doesn't make up for previous oppression. Wronging people for wrongs done in the past doesn't fix anything: it just retards actual, true progress. Rather than following your nonsensical tit-for-tat revenge narrative, striving for a truly equal and accepting society would be a much better idea.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Hey, when have you ever read anything being spewed forth by Radfems that makes a lick of sense?

Do you really think it's a real Radical Feminist?
I don't think so.

Considering the fact that I could imagine you literallt saying everything she has said, I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

[Aelex]

Keep in mind, she wasn't saying that gay men were oppressing women with their porn because they're sexually interested in women. Being sexually interested in women IS oppression, but that's not what she was talking about.

In gay porn, usually there is one gay man dominating another by penetrating him. Since penetration is domination, gay porn reinforces the male conquerer/female conquered typology. It's just that, in the case of male porn, the recipient of the conquered and penetrated victim is played by a guy. However, he still plays the typically female role and therefore it's oppressive to women and reinforces the notion of male conqueror/female victim being a normal and accepted thing.

And that's supposedly a logical answer? Because you just sank even more further than her into the deep sea of insanity.

So being interested in women is oppression? And how in the world is that so?

And please, a man who masturbate by using a dildo or who practice sodomy isn't "playing the female role". He is just experiencing with his own sexuality. You should really stop to link everything with the female condition because it's just plain silly.

[Radfems Inc]

Because women can't meaningfully consent to sex due to the overwhelming effects of the patriarchy.

So if they can't consent to sex, then how are they able to consent to anything meaningfully?

Womyn can consent to lots of things meaningfully when not forced to do them by patriarchal oppression. For instance, if she chooses to have Lasagna or a steak, neither options of forced upon them by the patriarchy, so this is a meaningful consenting decision.

However, if a woman tried to decide to act in porn, especially PIV porn, this is a symptom of patriarchal oppression, and we can't say that she can meaningfully consent to what she is being forced to do.

No. The patriarchy, such as it is, makes you a dominant person able to meaningfully consent to sex or not. It is therefore not oppression for women to be attracted to you, but it is a symptom of the patriarchy in such women that they are attracted to you. They are the victims in your counter-scenario.

Ah yes I'm the dominant one! Oh vey! I'm totally not the one who makes less money, work in a disadvantaged sector of industry, and I don't take the lead role in sex!

So... Any physical attraction a female has regardless of sex automatically makes them the victim?

No, I didn't say that at all.

Attraction to MEN is a symptom of patriarchal oppression. The only free choice is to be attracted to other women or not attracted to anyone at all.

In any case, that's a symptom not the root. They were a victim long before any such attraction took place. As soon as their patriarchally dominated education began, they became victimized.

Generally, I don't mind what people do in their own homes, but I would be opposed to pornography depicting the typical penetrator/penetrated conqueror/victim role. Such pornography still reinforces patriarchal notions that sex is about penetration.

Well let's see.... Sex is penetration which means, I'm assuming, you advocate for the banning of porn because it portrays penetration(sex is purely penetration regardless of how you look at it)?

Sex is not purely penetration. Where the hell do you get that? There are a million ways to have sex that don't involve a dominant penetrating oppressor taking a victim via penetration.

My views are not unusual. Note:

snip some bs piv bull crap

Oh I understand now, you just don't support sex between a man and a female you could of just stated it outright instead of quoting from a crappy source in general that shows more bias than Fox News.

I don't know what you mean. Fox News is just another viewpoint. It's not one I share, but I don't know why you think it's biased.

[Kisinger]

I use to come here to see what Chessmistress would post that day and how it was so easily torn up now, I come here to see Ost, and Chessmistress post... And point out flaws in arguments starting now....

[Valyrian Freeholds]

Woah slowdown there SCUM reader. That's not equality

Oh it most certainly is.

See, men have been in charge of society for at least the last 5,000 years, dating to 3,100 BCE. It is now womyn's turn to be in charge for at least 5,000 years. That's substantive equality.

Wiki

After that point, we'll revisit.

Substansive equality is a pile of shit. It's called not getting worked up over the past. Can you really say you are personally affected by the plight of the women of Assyria that happened thousands of years ago? Does their suffering mean your deserve something?

[Chessmistress]

Do you really think it's a real Radical Feminist?
I don't think so.

Considering the fact that I could imagine you literallt saying everything she has said, I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

No, I never said such things in such terms!
I never wrote nor even tought about a government composed by 100% women, nor even about other things.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Considering the fact that I could imagine you literallt saying everything she has said, I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

No, I never said such things in such terms!
I never wrote nor even tought about a government composed by 100% women, nor even about other things.

You've said some equally outlandish things in the past. Your choice of words is certainly different, but that doesnt change the substance of anything you've said.

[Radfems Inc]

Oh it most certainly is.

See, men have been in charge of society for at least the last 5,000 years, dating to 3,100 BCE. It is now womyn's turn to be in charge for at least 5,000 years. That's substantive equality.

Wiki

After that point, we'll revisit.

Reverse oppression doesn't make up for previous oppression. Wronging people for wrongs done in the past doesn't fix anything: it just retards actual, true progress. Rather than following your nonsensical tit-for-tat revenge narrative, striving for a truly equal and accepting society would be a much better idea.

Who said it was about revenge?

It's about substantive equality. I'm not saying womyn should oppress men and make them stay home in the kitchen for the next 5,000 years, just that it's the turn of womyn to be in charge. We can then compare the two periods to see how womyn fare compared with men. I rather suspect we would be in for 5,000 years of peace and social enlightenment.

[Crysuko]

Woah slowdown there SCUM reader. That's not equality

Oh it most certainly is.

See, men have been in charge of society for at least the last 5,000 years, dating to 3,100 BCE. It is now womyn's turn to be in charge for at least 5,000 years. That's substantive equality.

Wiki

After that point, we'll revisit.

are you fffffffffffffffffffreaking kidding me. Equality isn't about people taking turns to oppress each other. What it is about, is people being equal.

And you misspelled women.
And there is a distinct lack of evidence of an organised patriarchy existing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Considering the fact that I could imagine you literallt saying everything she has said, I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

No, I never said such things in such terms!
I never wrote nor even tought about a government composed by 100% women, nor even about other things.

Actually, you've said equally inane things in your posts. That right there is exactly how you come off to others, as insanity incarnate.

[Crysuko]

Considering the fact that I could imagine you literallt saying everything she has said, I wouldn't be talking if I were you.

No, I never said such things in such terms!
I never wrote nor even tought about a government composed by 100% women, nor even about other things.

We may not see eye to eye on a lot of things but can we shake hands on the idea that a society run purely by one gender is a bad idea

[Radfems Inc]

Oh it most certainly is.

See, men have been in charge of society for at least the last 5,000 years, dating to 3,100 BCE. It is now womyn's turn to be in charge for at least 5,000 years. That's substantive equality.

Wiki

After that point, we'll revisit.

are you fffffffffffffffffffreaking kidding me. Equality isn't about people taking turns to oppress each other. What it is about, is people being equal.

And you misspelled women.
And there is a distinct lack of evidence of an organised patriarchy existing.

Who said the womyn in charge will oppress the men?

So far, we've only observed men, as a class, engage in gender oppression. There's no reason to automatically predict womyn, as a class, would do the same.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Reverse oppression doesn't make up for previous oppression. Wronging people for wrongs done in the past doesn't fix anything: it just retards actual, true progress. Rather than following your nonsensical tit-for-tat revenge narrative, striving for a truly equal and accepting society would be a much better idea.

Who said it was about revenge?

It's about substantive equality. I'm not saying womyn should oppress men and make them stay home in the kitchen for the next 5,000 years, just that it's the turn of womyn to be in charge. We can then compare the two periods to see how womyn fare compared with men. I rather suspect we would be in for 5,000 years of peace and social enlightenment.

Substantive equality is effectively a euphemism for revenge. You are literally suggesting men be barred from positions of power just because they held them in the past. Would you suggest white people be enslaved as a way of achieving "substantive equality" for blacks? No of course you wouldn't: because that would be insane. Suggesting all men be barred from positions of government is equally insane.

[Kisinger]

Womyn can consent to lots of things meaningfully when not forced to do them by patriarchal oppression. For instance, if she chooses to have Lasagna or a steak, neither options of forced upon them by the patriarchy, so this is a meaningful consenting decision.

However, if a woman tried to decide to act in porn, especially PIV porn, this is a symptom of patriarchal oppression, and we can't say that she can meaningfully consent to what she is being forced to do.

Funny, if the Patriarchy is so dominant then the women would not be able to make their own choices, she would not be able to consent to making the choice for her a man would do it for her. If you wanted to go down that route.

How is she forced? If anything she would be opposed to that because you know, slut shaming is kinda a big thing.... Not by men, by women so...

No, I didn't say that at all.

Attraction to MEN is a symptom of patriarchal oppression. The only free choice is to be attracted to other women or not attracted to anyone at all.

In any case, that's a symptom not the root. They were a victim long before any such attraction took place. As soon as their patriarchally dominated education began, they became victimized.

Mhm.... Yeah... How exactly are they the victim if they choose to listen to the education?

Sex is not purely penetration. Where the hell do you get that? There are a million ways to have sex that don't involve a dominant penetrating oppressor taking a victim via penetration.

Sex between a man and female is penetration, most sex is penetration, outside of maybe one or two other ways is penetration from both male and female. I'd go on further by what I meant but I'm not risking a warning.

I don't know what you mean. Fox News is just another viewpoint. It's not one I share, but I don't know why you think it's biased.

PIV is Penis in Vagina, therefore you don't support Heterosexual relationships where they have sex. Fox News does have a large bias and does not report the news factually to the reader instead purely from their standpoint and not what is actually happening, therefore it is biased just as the source is biased because it doesn't tell what it actually means instead attempts to spin the words to support their agenda.

[Crysuko]

are you fffffffffffffffffffreaking kidding me. Equality isn't about people taking turns to oppress each other. What it is about, is people being equal.

And you misspelled women.
And there is a distinct lack of evidence of an organised patriarchy existing.

Who said the womyn in charge will oppress the men?

So far, we've only observed men, as a class, engage in gender oppression. There's no reason to automatically predict womyn, as a class, would do the same.

don't be so pretentious, such a thing cannot and will not happen. Also, the actions of one demographic of men does not apply to all of them. And you continue the misspell women.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

are you fffffffffffffffffffreaking kidding me. Equality isn't about people taking turns to oppress each other. What it is about, is people being equal.

And you misspelled women.
And there is a distinct lack of evidence of an organised patriarchy existing.

Who said the womyn in charge will oppress the men?

So far, we've only observed men, as a class, engage in gender oppression. There's no reason to automatically predict womyn, as a class, would do the same.

Yes, yes, because we womyn are perfect human beings, incapable of oppressing and harming teh men. I mean, look at Aileen Wuornos and Lorena Bobbitt... \o/

[Kisinger]

No, I never said such things in such terms!
I never wrote nor even tought about a government composed by 100% women, nor even about other things.

Actually, you've said equally inane things in your posts. That right there is exactly how you come off to others, as insanity incarnate.

Pretty much how I look at you too Chess....