The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Radfems Inc]

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.

Why is that insane?

At one point we had a society that was egalitarian in nature, when mankind was mostly hunter/gatherers. Once agriculture took root (ha - I made a funny) and systems of government began being put in play, men quickly began to dominate and oppress women. Men have already shown that they are capable of taking a seemingly egalitarian situation and turn it into sexist oppression. The only safe thing to do, to protect women, is to institute quotas of female politicians or bar men from government completely.

I'd prefer the latter, given their track record and all, but the former's ok, provided the quota was say... 80% female at minimum. This would give men a voice in government, but not be able to take over and dominate as they have done in the past.

[Crysuko]

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.

Why is that insane?

At one point we had a society that was egalitarian in nature, when mankind was mostly hunter/gatherers. Once agriculture took root (ha - I made a funny) and systems of government began being put in play, men quickly began to dominate and oppress women. Men have already shown that they are capable of taking a seemingly egalitarian situation and turn it into sexist oppression. The only safe thing to do, to protect women, is to institute quotas of female politicians or bar men from government completely.

I'd prefer the latter, given their track record and all, but the former's ok, provided the quota was say... 80% female at minimum. This would give men a voice in government, but not be able to take over and dominate as they have done in the past.

you're basically using political and historical Jargon to bash men

[Liberonscien]

I'll make my own gender based ideology...

What would it be about?

[Chessmistress]

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.

What a mess.
There's nothing bad in heterosexuality and PIV.
I'm not against PIV, not at all.
But heteronormativity and PIV-centric narrative are harmful to women.
Because PIV is the preferred way to have sex for just only 25% women.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

At one point we had a society that was egalitarian in nature, when mankind was mostly hunter/gatherers.

Hunter/Gatherer society was not 100% egalitarian: men had "masculine" tasks like hunting, and women had "feminine" tasks like gathering and raising children.

Once agriculture took root (ha - I made a funny) and systems of government began being put in play, men quickly began to dominate and oppress women. Men have already shown that they are capable of taking a seemingly egalitarian situation and turn it into sexist oppression.

Partially agreed: male dominated government has oppressed women: but previous oppression is not an excuse for reverse oppression.

The only safe thing to do, to protect women, is to institute quotas of female politicians or bar men from government completely.

I'd prefer the latter, given their track record and all, but the former's ok, provided the quota was say... 80% female at minimum. This would give men a voice in government, but not be able to take over and dominate as they have done in the past.

Ummmmm.... quota's are a bad idea. Meritocracy is a more equal method, and barring men from government is literally reverse oppression, which you have let to actually justify.

[Radfems Inc]

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.

There's no reason that the response to oppression should be "MOAR OPPRESSION".

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...

Economics, mostly. Womyn have lower economic outlook than men, and typically turn to porn out of desperation. If your choices are "be penetrated by an ugly guy that looks like someone spawned from an unholy union of Hulk Hogan and Nancy Pelosi" or starve to death, that is not a meaningful choice.

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?

Because their education began molding them into a victim from the start.

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 would like to introduce you to the concept of "cunningulus". It's really quite the up and coming thing. I'll let you google it.

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.

Where they have PIV sex, which is rape, you mean.

Yeah, I don't support relationships where the man rapes his partner.

[Radfems Inc]

Why is that insane?

At one point we had a society that was egalitarian in nature, when mankind was mostly hunter/gatherers. Once agriculture took root (ha - I made a funny) and systems of government began being put in play, men quickly began to dominate and oppress women. Men have already shown that they are capable of taking a seemingly egalitarian situation and turn it into sexist oppression. The only safe thing to do, to protect women, is to institute quotas of female politicians or bar men from government completely.

I'd prefer the latter, given their track record and all, but the former's ok, provided the quota was say... 80% female at minimum. This would give men a voice in government, but not be able to take over and dominate as they have done in the past.

you're basically using political and historical Jargon to bash men

On the contrary - one should respect men's capability to take over things, but also view it with a certain wariness.

If we were going to infiltrate and take over an alien society via political subterfuge, it would probably behoove us to send mostly men to do the job, with a female overseer to make sure it gets done.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

There's no reason that the response to oppression should be "MOAR OPPRESSION".

YOU FINALLY SAID SOMETHING RIGHT!!!!
Now actually act on your statement and stop suggesting "MOAR OPPRESSION!!!!11!1!11!!1!111!111" in all of your posts.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

I know this might well be parody...But it might not be, and it's a disservice to the historical record I don't feel comfortable leaving alone.
Allow me to simply refer my rebuttal of the last sentence to the reigns and leadership of Margaret Thatcher (rather widely criticized for a lack of 'social enlightenment'), Joan of Arc (military leader), Cleopatra (perfectly capable of ordering military conquests and confrontations), Maria Theresa (socially unenlightened even by the relatively less socially enlightened morals of the time, and rather infamous for ordering and being widely cheered for her ability to order men into conflict (the Silesian Obsession)), Queen Catherine the Great (militarily expanded Russia by conquest), Queen Elizabeth the Great (again, wars and 'unenlightened' social policy), Tomyris (literally drank from Cyrus skull), Queen Victoria (the British Empire wasn't exactly well-known for its peaceful and enlightened treatment of natives), Mary Queen of Scots (military leader of an insurrection), and I could certainly go on but I'm sure this is going to fall on deaf or deliberately obtuse ears so I won't bother...

[Kisinger]

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.


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.

What a mess.
There's nothing bad in heterosexuality and PIV.
I'm not against PIV, not at all.
But heteronormativity and PIV-centric narrative are harmful to women.
Because PIV is the preferred way to have sex for just only 25% women.

Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

[Crysuko]

you're basically using political and historical Jargon to bash men

On the contrary - one should respect men's capability to take over things, but also view it with a certain wariness.

If we were going to infiltrate and take over an alien society via political subterfuge, it would probably behoove us to send mostly men to do the job, with a female overseer to make sure it gets done.

Look, you can speculate about quotas until the cows come home, but resorting to ranting and raving on the internet will just have you pigeonholed into the "politcal minded nutcase" category and going public with it will have much the same result

[Radfems Inc]

At one point we had a society that was egalitarian in nature, when mankind was mostly hunter/gatherers.

Hunter/Gatherer society was not 100% egalitarian: men had "masculine" tasks like hunting, and women had "feminine" tasks like gathering and raising children.

I mean, this is somewhat true, but there wasn't a de-facto "men are the boss" type of setup in the village.

Once agriculture took root (ha - I made a funny) and systems of government began being put in play, men quickly began to dominate and oppress women. Men have already shown that they are capable of taking a seemingly egalitarian situation and turn it into sexist oppression.

Partially agreed: male dominated government has oppressed women: but previous oppression is not an excuse for reverse oppression.

I still contest that this is considered reverse oppression.

The only safe thing to do, to protect women, is to institute quotas of female politicians or bar men from government completely.

I'd prefer the latter, given their track record and all, but the former's ok, provided the quota was say... 80% female at minimum. This would give men a voice in government, but not be able to take over and dominate as they have done in the past.

Ummmmm.... quota's are a bad idea. Meritocracy is a more equal method, and barring men from government is literally reverse oppression, which you have let to actually justify.

Why is banning men from government reverse oppression?

Is refusing to give a gun to a violent ex-con oppression?

[Valyrian Freeholds]

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.

Why is that insane?

At one point we had a society that was egalitarian in nature, when mankind was mostly hunter/gatherers. Once agriculture took root (ha - I made a funny) and systems of government began being put in play, men quickly began to dominate and oppress women. Men have already shown that they are capable of taking a seemingly egalitarian situation and turn it into sexist oppression. The only safe thing to do, to protect women, is to institute quotas of female politicians or bar men from government completely.

I'd prefer the latter, given their track record and all, but the former's ok, provided the quota was say... 80% female at minimum. This would give men a voice in government, but not be able to take over and dominate as they have done in the past.

No,no,no women are entitled to fucking nothing. The purpose of equality should be to give all races and genders an equal education by the state, NOT talking about who is "More Oppressed", if you're white, you should be enslaved to a black person, because that's retarded TRUE equality

[Crysuko]

Hunter/Gatherer society was not 100% egalitarian: men had "masculine" tasks like hunting, and women had "feminine" tasks like gathering and raising children.

I mean, this is somewhat true, but there wasn't a de-facto "men are the boss" type of setup in the village.

Partially agreed: male dominated government has oppressed women: but previous oppression is not an excuse for reverse oppression.

I still contest that this is considered reverse oppression.

Ummmmm.... quota's are a bad idea. Meritocracy is a more equal method, and barring men from government is literally reverse oppression, which you have let to actually justify.

Why is banning men from government reverse oppression?

Is refusing to give a gun to a violent ex-con oppression?

why is oppressing someone oppression?

[Liberonscien]

What a mess.
There's nothing bad in heterosexuality and PIV.
I'm not against PIV, not at all.
But heteronormativity and PIV-centric narrative are harmful to women.
Because PIV is the preferred way to have sex for just only 25% women.

Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

PIV?

[Kisinger]

I would like to introduce you to the concept of "cunningulus". It's really quite the up and coming thing. I'll let you google it.

I know what it is, you obviously don't understand that the tongue penetrates....

Where they have PIV sex, which is rape, you mean.

Yeah, I don't support relationships where the man rapes his partner.

Yeah.... Your opinion is null and void by this point....




The rest of your opinions aren't worthy of a response....

[Radfems Inc]

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.

I know this might well be parody...But it might not be, and it's a disservice to the historical record I don't feel comfortable leaving alone.
Allow me to simply refer my rebuttal of the last sentence to the reigns and leadership of Margaret Thatcher (rather widely criticized for a lack of 'social enlightenment'), Joan of Arc (military leader), Cleopatra (perfectly capable of ordering military conquests and confrontations), Maria Theresa (socially unenlightened even by the relatively less socially enlightened morals of the time, and rather infamous for ordering and being widely cheered for her ability to order men into conflict (the Silesian Obsession)), Queen Catherine the Great (militarily expanded Russia by conquest), Queen Elizabeth the Great (again, wars and 'unenlightened' social policy), Tomyris (literally drank from Cyrus skull), Queen Victoria (the British Empire wasn't exactly well-known for its peaceful and enlightened treatment of natives), Mary Queen of Scots (military leader of an insurrection), and I could certainly go on but I'm sure this is going to fall on deaf or deliberately obtuse ears so I won't bother...

Misandrist mantists already addressed this line of reasoning:

I have this note from Queen Victoria addressed to you. There's another one from Mary Queen of Scots, and a third from Margaret Thatcher.

You seem to be confused. I'm not advocating placing a female figurehead in charge of a patriarchal nation. Anyone (male or female) in charge of an otherwise patriarchal nation will enact patriarchal customs. This is their job.

I'm advocating abolishing patriarchy in favor of matriarchy.

Putting a female figurehead on a patriarchal nation does not make it into an equal nation, just as putting a fake horsehead on deer does not make it a horse.

[Crysuko]

Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

PIV?

Benis in virginia

[Kisinger]

Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

PIV?

Penis in Vagina

[Radfems Inc]

why is oppressing someone oppression?

No, why is a ban from government oppression.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Hunter/Gatherer society was not 100% egalitarian: men had "masculine" tasks like hunting, and women had "feminine" tasks like gathering and raising children.

I mean, this is somewhat true, but there wasn't a de-facto "men are the boss" type of setup in the village.

But, considering your insistence that PIV sex is rape, and gender roles in any form are oppression, it's not "egalitarian as you have claimed.

Partially agreed: male dominated government has oppressed women: but previous oppression is not an excuse for reverse oppression.

I still contest that this is considered reverse oppression.

Barring people from office is literal oppression: you cannot contest the definition of a word.

Ummmmm.... quota's are a bad idea. Meritocracy is a more equal method, and barring men from government is literally reverse oppression, which you have let to actually justify.

Why is banning men from government reverse oppression?

Is refusing to give a gun to a violent ex-con oppression?

Banning men from government is nothing like giving a violent ex-con a gun. Your generalizing men. Not all men are sexist monsters. I'd argue that now a days most of them are well-intentioned, good people. But you'll never get that, because your locked in a world where retaliatory oppression is a good idea.

[Crysuko]

why is oppressing someone oppression?

No, why is a ban from government oppression.

If i'm not mistaken, deliberately disenfranchising people is a cornerstone of oppression

[Radfems Inc]

No, why is a ban from government oppression.

If i'm not mistaken, deliberately disenfranchising people is a cornerstone of oppression

I wasn't planning on taking the away the right to vote, just run for high office.

Do keep up.

[Crysuko]

If i'm not mistaken, deliberately disenfranchising people is a cornerstone of oppression

I wasn't planning on taking the away the right to vote, just run for high office.

Do keep up.

oh, that's alright then.

no it bloody isn't. taking rights away from people on a mass scale is oppression plain and simple.

[Kisinger]

If i'm not mistaken, deliberately disenfranchising people is a cornerstone of oppression

I wasn't planning on taking the away the right to vote, just run for high office.

Do keep up.

Yeah that's still oppression... Because they can't vote for someone who doesn't properly represents their views...