The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Aelex]

I was only talking about sex and sexuality. Radfems seem to want the victorian era back when it comes to sex and sexuality.

That doesn't apply to all rights and situations of every kind - just sexuality.

Funny thing being that the Victorian Era was basically a continuous orgy in France to the point that it's believed that up to 1/6 people had either syphilis or any other S.T.D at this time.

[Aelex]

You didn't get the point: the point is that only women should ask.

You know that this point is not simply ludicrous but down-right inane, right?

[Chessmistress]

You didn't get the point: the point is that only women should ask.

You know that this point is not simply ludicrous but down-right inane, right?

Have you read the link I provided?

[New Edom]

Trading Yes Means Ues, female sexuality is celebrated in it, but solely as a vision of liberation from patriarchy. It's not so much about prudishness and being protected so much as being about power.



Thank you. Once again, it seems like we are the only people in the thread who have read this and understand it. It is not really as rare as people might like to think.


Galloism you also said indistinguishable and refereed to commitment. So my response was to that. And it may be irrelevant to you but I am not just addressing you. If these factors are unimportant to you that's find. To others however it is part of a deliberate intent to undermine culture.

I was only talking about sex and sexuality. Radfems seem to want the victorian era back when it comes to sex and sexuality.

That doesn't apply to all rights and situations of every kind - just sexuality.

[Italios]

I applaud you for following the rules and bringing your previous articles and points into this, I really do. Not enough people in NS do this, they just call people names and try and bluff whenever they're proved wrong.

However, I still do want your source for the whole 9/10 feminists are bigoted thing. An article, statistic, anything really.

viewtopic.php?p=26093479#p26093479

Wherein an argument is laid out as to why being a feminist makes you a bigot. (It's not an endless loop. don't worry. that link leads to two links, and that's it.) I'd say read the second one first, actually.

Okay, thanks for the links. I see you've provided quotes from feminists, not that I know if they they are from NS or elsewhere, but thanks anyway. I still disagree with you on the whole the movement itself is sexist, thing though. The way I see it, the movement was created not to oppress or endorse sexism for men but for gender equality. The "9/10" feminists who are bigoted are not feminists in my eyes. They are raving lunatics who don't actually understand the values feminism was created on. They have ruined the group's name and soiled its reputation because they think that only they are right. And yes, I agree that a feminist can be bigoted. I just don't see how one could say all, nearly all, or the group itself if sexist. If that is true, then the same could really be said for the MRM, for the few lone wolves who still believe men > women. Both groups have bad parts. And it's sad that a few trolls have to ruin the whole group. Each to his own, though.

[Aelex]

You know that this point is not simply ludicrous but down-right inane, right?

Have you read the link I provided?

Yeah. And? Saying that only women should ask for sex isn't searching to reach equality. It's searching to change oppression from one side to another.

[Italios]

You know that this point is not simply ludicrous but down-right inane, right?

Have you read the link I provided?

No one will want to read your links if they just lead to some propagandist ranting about how only women's opinions count, only women are smart, and only women can be part of the feminist movement, and only women can ask for sex....

[New Edom]

You didn't get the point: the point is that only women should ask.

Well that's fucking absurd, because it leaves us with the same really stupid situation we have now, except in reverse.

I agree with you. But we cannot underestimate the power of a book and it's related ideas that have influenced lawmaking so much. The President and Vice President of the United Statesm, certain members of the Senate, members of the EU parliament, a till recent Prime Minister of Australia, thm embers of the governments of France, Iceland and Sweden support these ideas. It's a real problem.

[Ostroeuropa]

viewtopic.php?p=26093479#p26093479

Wherein an argument is laid out as to why being a feminist makes you a bigot. (It's not an endless loop. don't worry. that link leads to two links, and that's it.) I'd say read the second one first, actually.

Okay, thanks for the links. I see you've provided quotes from feminists, not that I know if they they are from NS or elsewhere, but thanks anyway. I still disagree with you on the whole the movement itself is sexist, thing though. The way I see it, the movement was created not to oppress or endorse sexism for men but for gender equality. The "9/10" feminists who are bigoted are not feminists in my eyes. They are raving lunatics who don't actually understand the values feminism was created on. They have ruined the group's name and soiled its reputation because they think that only they are right. And yes, I agree that a feminist can be bigoted. I just don't see how one could say all, nearly all, or the group itself if sexist. If that is true, then the same could really be said for the MRM, for the few lone wolves who still believe men > women. Both groups have bad parts. And it's sad that a few trolls have to ruin the whole group. Each to his own, though.

You've fundamentally missed the point.

The MRM hasn't oppressed women. The existence of those lone wolves is a non-factor.

The feminist movement, on the other hand, has deliberately suppressed research on domestic violence victims, and that's just ONE of the things it's done.

You are being the random person holding a nazi flag rambling about autobahns.

By you saying it's an equality movement, you are ignoring and whitewashing it's history of oppressing men. It isn't an equality movement. It's a hate movement, and it always has been.
That it's delivered some benefits to it's in-group is neither here nor there.

Actually read the second post. Then read the first and understand it's a translation of the shit feminists constantly say, done in a way to make you understand why the movement is oppressing in general, even ignoring the specific acts of oppression it has caused.

You are like some person claiming the united states doesn't have systemic racism when you claim feminism is an equality movement.

Dude, that makes you a bigot too, you know that right?

This shit you just said about "Not real feminists?"
That's whitewashing your movements history.

You're fine with taking the good shit, but not the bad?

Even though very often it was done by the same people, often from the same research and studies and such. It's whitewashing. It makes you a sexist to engage in it.

As for those quotes of feminists?

You just did one of them.
If you'd read the post, you wouldn't have responded this way.

Because you didn't read the translation of what you just did and why it's sexist to do it.

[Liberonscien]

I was just talking about sex and sexuality, so your second, third, and fourth points are completely irrelevant. Only the first point and the last paragraph are relevant, so I will address those.

Radical feminists suffer serious delusions when it comes to women and their abilities. I don't think the "All PIV is rape" is common even among radfems, and even the "women must always initiate" camp is pretty rare, although the "any overture should be illegal harassment" crowd is pretty large, which leads to pretty much the same (stupid) result. This is not significantly different than conservative mores of public behavior, where if you do not follow a prescribed specific slow-as-fuck process to 'woo' your woman, then it's horrible.

Radical lesbian is a fringe movement, even among radfems. Leaving them aside, I'm not sure the motivations are significantly different between traditional conservatives and radfem conservatives. They both seek to repress and render sexuality invisible. The only large difference is that conservatives also seek to suppress and render invisible homosexuality in addition to heterosexuality.

"All PIV is rape" it's absolutely uncommon, but the thought that every intercourse not expressely asked by the woman is somewhat coercion (even if not exactly rape) it's quite common.
New Edom have read "Yes-means-yes" book, and he's aware that the book and the derived law is not especially meant against rape (because it's effective just only against some kinds of rape) but much more meant to change attitudes.
In the book Valenti and Friedman pushed for a new model, where women actively ask for sex - the subtle idea behind yes-means-yes is making sex for enough males enough uncomfortable (due they have to ask for every single step, and check for ongoing consent) that sooner or later women will start to ask for sex.

http://www.scarleteen.com/article/gende ... t_proposal

So you want females to be the only one that can initiate sex?

[Aelex]

I agree with you. But we cannot underestimate the power of a book and it's related ideas that have influenced lawmaking so much. The President and Vice President of the United Statesm, certain members of the Senate, members of the EU parliament, a till recent Prime Minister of Australia, thm embers of the governments of France, Iceland and Sweden support these ideas. It's a real problem.

I dunno for the U.S, Australia, Iceland or Sweden; but I can tell you that feminist in France are most of the time either despised (which is a bad thing) or ignored (which is also bad) but, to be fair, they are most of the time doing such batshittery that it would be hard for us to take them seriously anyway.

And for the E.U parliament, well, it's not like it would surprise me. They're already run by the lobby and acting against European's people interests most of the time so that they choose to pass shit just to be sure they get the votes of extremists wouldn't be such an unbelievable thing.

[Chessmistress]

Have you read the link I provided?

No one will want to read your links if they just lead to some propagandist ranting about how only women's opinions count, only women are smart, and only women can be part of the feminist movement, and only women can ask for sex....

The idea that only women should (not can) ask for sex is the idea pushed in the nice article I linked, and there's nothing hateful in such article
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/gende ... t_proposal

A little excerpt

The black hole in that scenario is her desire.

Nowhere do we really see a strong, undeniable sexual desire, deep, dizzy sexual pleasure, or earnest and equal sexual satisfaction on her part. It makes no appearance in a sexual script many would posit as an ideal initiation. We heard her say yes, but we never once saw her beg the question herself. We saw her yes as the answer to someone else’s desire, rather than as an affirmation of her own. Her yes is uncertain, but sexual desire – whether we choose to act on it or not – is wholly certain, unmistakable and persistent.

If I'd have told you that same story and swapped the roles, you might have felt like you were reading speculative fiction. If she were feeling sexually frustrated – if we thought it just as common and given that she feels strong urges for sex -- if things weren't moving fast enough for her, if he was the reluctant or slow-moving partner, if she was the one initiating, she was getting off, he was the one who felt okay about it because at least it didn't hurt... what planet does THAT happen on? If I had told you I thought that this was a crap first-time scenario overall, you might have felt surprised.

We, as a culture, still tend to consider a woman’s yes to a man’s sexual invitation revolutionary. That’s unsurprising, of course. This is a world where women still frequently are not asked for consent, are frequently raped or become engaged in sex through coercion, still engage in sex with partners out of feelings of duty or obligation, usually have our sexuality depicted in grossly inaccurate ways by men and other women alike and where independent female sexual desire and earnest sexual enjoyment is not only often disbelieved, in some circles, it’s even “scientifically” contested. And for many women, just finding a partner -- the first time at bat, no less -- who fully seeks and supports her consent, and accepts any nonconsent, is indeed huge and often personally revolutionary. We, validly, consider such women lucky.

But consent -- our mere yes – is ground zero. While there are a lot of positives in a script like this one – and basics which many women young and old still do not have or cannot count on -- many of those positives are but a band-aid on a wound: a best-case scenario in substandard conditions, making the most we can out of an incomplete set of materials. They're a half-assed paint-by-numbers version of Van Gogh's Starry Night where they forgot to include a pot of yellow paint.

Consent is absolutely foundational for any kind of healthy sexuality. But our sexual revolution can only begin not only after every woman is at yes, with every invitation, but after – be it to man, woman or someone else entirely, and spoken by anyone – that yes is less one person’s answer to another’s request and more an expression or validation of any person’s own or shared desire.

[Ostroeuropa]

Italios, an example quote for the whitewashing.

"Well ok sure, feminist researchers routinely erased in the past and still erase mens issues, routinely overstate how bad women have it, and send death threats and bomb scares on occasion to people who acknowledge womens perpetration of sexual and domestic violence against men, but you know. I mean. That's traditionalism causing that. What do you mean, you think we're all infected with a festering and rotten core of traditionalism? That's absurd. We're opposed to traditionalism we see in society through our lens created in the 19th century or thereabouts when traditionalism clashed with modern values of equality and we looked around and said, by jove, look! These gender roles are unfair to women! And shut the fuck up about your problems shitlords, man up, here's a white feather. But just look at how unfair all these roles are to women. And look! That man hates women so much he's a faggot! I mean, the men aren't talking about being hurt or victimized, and the women are, clearly, clearly, this is indicative of some serious hatred of women, I mean, I feel so little about mens problems by comparison, society agrees with me, and that is a realistic assessment, so we shall take that as our premise, and work from there. The founding principles of our ideology are sound. Those people knew what they were talking about. Sure, we've had to, just like traditionalists, be dragged kicking and fucking screaming into not being bigots to one demographic after another in a constant progression of people getting sick of our shit, but this time, this time it's different. No, I don't think our movement has contributed to women being hostile and beligerant when men complain about being treated unfairly or not wanting to do something because of sexism, reinforcing stoicism and such for decades and institutionalizing an adamant refusal to address mens issues. Why do you ask? I just don't get why you seem to think our entire movement is based on sexism. The feminist movement is about things like getting domestic violence shelters for women, those were good feminists who did that research and campaigning. The feminists who suppressed research on domestic violence against men during their skewed and agenda driven research on domestic violence on women, and enacted threats and violence on domestic violence shelter founders, those are different people, obviously. We want to be able to claim the benefits while whitewashing our movements history, and if you don't let us ignore the massive harm we've caused and continue to cause, you're hateful."

And another you fell afoul of.

"Yeh but that's just a minority who do the revenge thing and they suck, they don't understand. I'm therefore dismissing you informing me that my worldview is used to justify explicit discrimination and contempt for your gender. I am not interested in actually addressing the issue and discussing what causes these people to behave this way, nor in considering that it is possible the actions of """"Moderate"""" feminists cause or encourage this kind of thing. I am merely going to say the problem of open expression of contempt and hatred that a demographic experiences is a small one caused by a minority, is unimportant, and dismiss it. There is no way to be a moderate and routine user of dehumanizing rhetoric and bigoted frameworks I agree, but that's why it's a good thing feminism certainly isn't rife with those!"

[Chessmistress]

I agree with you. But we cannot underestimate the power of a book and it's related ideas that have influenced lawmaking so much. The President and Vice President of the United Statesm, certain members of the Senate, members of the EU parliament, a till recent Prime Minister of Australia, thm embers of the governments of France, Iceland and Sweden support these ideas. It's a real problem.

I dunno for the U.S, Australia, Iceland or Sweden; but I can tell you that feminist in France are most of the time either despised (which is a bad thing) or ignored (which is also bad) but, to be fair, they are most of the time doing such batshittery that it would be hard for us to take them seriously anyway.

And for the E.U parliament, well, it's not like it would surprise me. They're already run by the lobby and acting against European's people interests most of the time so that they choose to pass shit just to be sure they get the votes of extremists wouldn't be such an unbelievable thing.

Last time I checked in France purchasers of sex were fined while letting free the prostitutes.
It's not exactly like the criminalisation of the Swedish Model, but it's quite closer.
I'm wrong?

[Galloism]

Well, since Chess has steadfastly refused to answer regarding Koss, despite being given multiple opportunities, the defense of Mary Koss regarding her sexist support of female rapists must have surrendered the field.

I hereby declare Mary Koss a sexist rape supporter, and all who follow her teachings inherently suspect of same.

[Cesatar]

Well, since Chess has steadfastly refused to answer regarding Koss, despite being given multiple opportunities, the defense of Mary Koss regarding her sexist support of female rapists must have surrendered the field.

I hereby declare Mary Koss a sexist rape supporter, and all who follow her teachings inherently suspect of same.

You could have avoided this, Chess. But then again, somehow I doubt that. Finally going to say anything, perhaps?

[Aelex]

Last time I checked in France purchasers of sex were fined while letting free the prostitutes.
It's not exactly like the criminalisation of the Swedish Model, but it's quite closer.
I'm wrong?

Actually you are but only to some point. Here, both purchaser of sex and prostitutes can be fined. Purchaser for purchasing sex and prostitutes for "Racolage" (if they get caught with their client) or "Racolage Passif" if they just "Faisaient le trottoir" (hooked I guess). But you should note that prostitutes were actually against this and that some members of L.R more or less hinted that they might decriminalize it again if Sarko (or if God is merciful Jupé) manage to win the Presidential in 2017.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, since Chess has steadfastly refused to answer regarding Koss, despite being given multiple opportunities, the defense of Mary Koss regarding her sexist support of female rapists must have surrendered the field.

I hereby declare Mary Koss a sexist rape supporter, and all who follow her teachings inherently suspect of same.

So basically every feminist who hasn't been cornered by MRAs pointing out facts then and demanding to know why they seemingly want to cover shit up then, since they seem to constantly share around the statistics that utilize Kosses bullshit and are either too lazy, bigoted, zealous, or stupid to actually check the studies and point out it isn't true.

You've seen them do it. Waffle about how woman-on-man rape is bad but isn't frequent.
They think they are moderate when they do this because they acknowledge it's possible.

That's my point about why none of them seem to understand the moderates are the problem too. It's like you pointed out earlier, the radicals in their movement massively influence the actions of those moderates and their rhetoric, campaigning etc.

It's like I keep saying. The only feminists who aren't bigots, are basically MRAs in addition to being feminists. It never comes from WITHIN their movement that this shit has to get fixed and their members have to be educated.

Even if, and I consider this a massive outside bet at this point, the feminists who MRAs have managed to educate out of being lunatic misandrists unaware of their own bigotry, even if they manage to take over the rest of the feminist movement, that STILL won't change what feminism is and always was. It'll just mean the MRAs managed to fix it and make it actually live up to it's claims.

You are bordering on agreeing with me that feminists are inherently suspect.

[Italios]

Okay, thanks for the links. I see you've provided quotes from feminists, not that I know if they they are from NS or elsewhere, but thanks anyway. I still disagree with you on the whole the movement itself is sexist, thing though. The way I see it, the movement was created not to oppress or endorse sexism for men but for gender equality. The "9/10" feminists who are bigoted are not feminists in my eyes. They are raving lunatics who don't actually understand the values feminism was created on. They have ruined the group's name and soiled its reputation because they think that only they are right. And yes, I agree that a feminist can be bigoted. I just don't see how one could say all, nearly all, or the group itself if sexist. If that is true, then the same could really be said for the MRM, for the few lone wolves who still believe men > women. Both groups have bad parts. And it's sad that a few trolls have to ruin the whole group. Each to his own, though.

You've fundamentally missed the point.

The MRM hasn't oppressed women. The existence of those lone wolves is a non-factor.

The feminist movement, on the other hand, has deliberately suppressed research on domestic violence victims, and that's just ONE of the things it's done.

You are being the random person holding a nazi flag rambling about autobahns.

By you saying it's an equality movement, you are ignoring and whitewashing it's history of oppressing men. It isn't an equality movement. It's a hate movement, and it always has been.
That it's delivered some benefits to it's in-group is neither here nor there.

Actually read the second post. Then read the first and understand it's a translation of the shit feminists constantly say, done in a way to make you understand why the movement is oppressing in general, even ignoring the specific acts of oppression it has caused.

You are like some person claiming the united states doesn't have systemic racism when you claim feminism is an equality movement.

Dude, that makes you a bigot too, you know that right?

This shit you just said about "Not real feminists?"
That's whitewashing your movements history.

You're fine with taking the good shit, but not the bad?

Even though very often it was done by the same people, often from the same research and studies and such. It's whitewashing. It makes you a sexist to engage in it.

As for those quotes of feminists?

You just did one of them.
If you'd read the post, you wouldn't have responded this way.

Because you didn't read the translation of what you just did and why it's sexist to do it.

Sorry for late reply, I lost my reply when the page reloaded and had to redo it:

Yes, I read both your links. I replied exactly as I felt. Thanks for asking, but in the future, if I reply to someone, just assume I've read what I said.

Also, you're not correctly defining bigot. Bigot, as defined by the dictionary:

noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Did I ever tell you to take your opinions and shove 'em up your arse? Did I ever accuse you of being just plain wrong? No. I simply stated I disagree with you. Tell me, now that you actually know what a bigot is, can you explain how I am one? I am not intolerant of what you said. I read it, I replied. I am not changing what I said so I fit your incorrect definition of a non-bigot. You stated your opinion, I stated mine. Tell me, if I am a "bigot" how are you not one? You did the same thing I did. You replied what you thought. So next time, don't u just,y call me something I'm not, especially if you're not defining it right. Thanks.


I'd also like to discuss my alleged whitewashing. Again, you misdefined it. I am not skating over the bad things some feminists did. I am not ignoring or turning a blind eye to it. I understand that some "feminists" are not doing the right thing. I understand that some are bigoted and/or sexist. By doing so, you cannot accuse me of whitewashing: I simply stated that I don't believe they should be called "feminists". They do not deserve that. Feminism should be the belief that women who don't have gender equality should get some. Not that the ones who do have it should become oppressive of men. What I'm trying to say - and you clearly don't understand it - is that the so-called feminists who are sexist, bigoted, and unaccepting of men joining the movement shouldn't be called something they're not.

[Italios]

Well, since Chess has steadfastly refused to answer regarding Koss, despite being given multiple opportunities, the defense of Mary Koss regarding her sexist support of female rapists must have surrendered the field.

I hereby declare Mary Koss a sexist rape supporter, and all who follow her teachings inherently suspect of same.

There's no need to declare it. Everybody already knows it and has known it ever since she started spouting her mania.

[Chessmistress]

Last time I checked in France purchasers of sex were fined while letting free the prostitutes.
It's not exactly like the criminalisation of the Swedish Model, but it's quite closer.
I'm wrong?

Actually you are but only to some point. Here, both purchaser of sex and prostitutes can be fined. Purchaser for purchasing sex and prostitutes for "Racolage" (if they get caught with their client) or "Racolage Passif" if they just "Faisaient le trottoir" (hooked I guess). But you should note that prostitutes were actually against this and that some members of L.R more or less hinted that they might decriminalize it again if Sarko (or if God is merciful Jupé) manage to win the Presidential in 2017.

Are you saying that in France the right is for decriminalising prostitution, more or less like the proposal of Amnesty International, when instead the socialists are for criminalisation of purchasers?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd also like to discuss my alleged whitewashing. Again, you misdefined it. I am not skating over the bad things some feminists did. I am not ignoring or turning a blind eye to it. I understand that some "feminists" are not doing the right thing. I understand that some are bigoted and/or sexist. By doing so, you cannot accuse me of whitewashing: I simply stated that I don't believe they should be called "feminists". They do not deserve that. Feminism should be the belief that women who don't have gender equality should get some. Not that the ones who do have it should become oppressive of men. What I'm trying to say - and you clearly don't understand it - is that the so-called feminists who are sexist, bigoted, and unaccepting of men joining the movement shouldn't be called something they're not.

If you read it, you didn't understand it.

As for the whitewashing, you're working from your conclusion and not evaluating the movement fairly. You're a presuppositionalist, like lots of feminists, so it's useless to talk to you. You have your conclusion that feminism = something good, and refuse to accept that this isn't the case.

If you're also an atheist or something, you should recognize that behavior your engaging in and why it's wrong.

[Val Halla]

Well, since Chess has steadfastly refused to answer regarding Koss, despite being given multiple opportunities, the defense of Mary Koss regarding her sexist support of female rapists must have surrendered the field.

I hereby declare Mary Koss a sexist rape supporter, and all who follow her teachings inherently suspect of same.

What about Bindel?

[Galloism]

Well, since Chess has steadfastly refused to answer regarding Koss, despite being given multiple opportunities, the defense of Mary Koss regarding her sexist support of female rapists must have surrendered the field.

I hereby declare Mary Koss a sexist rape supporter, and all who follow her teachings inherently suspect of same.

What about Bindel?

A transphobe.

[Val Halla]

What about Bindel?

A transphobe.

Is that it?