The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Kelinfort]

The current state of this thread is, I think, a nice demonstration of why engaging with Chessmistress isn't directly productive (though it could be indirectly productive).

About four hours ago, I pointed out that she wasn't a reliable source (and was clearly wrong about Germany introducing women-only subway cars). She replied promptly to say she wasn't a liar. About three hours ago, I expanded on that statement to point out that one of the previous times I had called her out for being egregiously wrong about a matter of simple objective fact (in that case, the context of a quote from Elizabeth Cady Stanton), she continued to blithely repeat her original incorrect claim.

Since then, she's posted at least seven more times in this thread after my last post... and if you read carefully, you'll note that she nowhere actually acknowledges being wrong about either simple fact. Germany doesn't have women-only subway cars, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton was writing in her diary about anthropological theory, not speaking at a temperance meeting about alcoholism.

She doesn't respond to me, either and I doubt timing her posts will make her do it.

[Kelinfort]

MGTOW are, I would say, basically the equivalent of political lesbians in terms of their relationship to the MRM / feminism. There are a number of key differences, pretty much all of which lie in favor of MGTOW.

• Both have a negative view of heterosexual relationships, but political lesbians also had an idealized and unrealistic view of lesbian relationships. This implies that political lesbians are intrinsically anti-male sexists, while MGTOW may very well simply have a pessimistic outlook about human relationships in general.
• Political lesbianism relied on an inaccurate overestimate of the fluidity of human sexuality; MGTOW are simply doing what many men have done over the course of history (avoided relationships with women). Voluntary male celibacy is old, even if the reasons for MGTOW are new.
• Political lesbianism was about female separatism; MGTOW are not about male separatism.
• Political lesbianism was a group activity organized through a political movement; MGTOW do so on an individual basis, and it's not clear that more than a fraction of those fitting the definition of MGTOW are even aware of the label's existence.
• Political lesbians wanted it both ways: They wanted love, sex, marriage, children, etc and to check out of heterosexual relationships entirely. MGTOW ambitions are much narrower in scope: They're checking out of heterosexual relationships, and they're done. Bye.
• There are many more MGTOW than there were political lesbians, even at the height of political lesbians.
• There are no liberal arguments against MGTOW. Political lesbians can and were accused of being intrinsically sexist, of leading lesbian and bisexual women into doomed relationships, of spreading inaccurate and harmful propaganda about lesbianism and human sexuality in general, et cetera; MGTOW is simply the modern equivalent for the label "confirmed bachelor," and the only arguments offered against them have been inherently illiberal (e.g., arguing that men are obligated to offer themselves into the marriage market).

An addendum to the above:

There are women going their own way. Except that the existence of these women is no longer of any political import. Feminists already won the right for women to go their own way without stigmatization. (The label spinster and old maid have lost the frightening weight they held for women of prior generations; and those groups really weren't often hated as much as pitied.)

MGTOW are controversial. How dare they voluntarily take themselves out of the relationship market completely? How dare they not become providers? How dare they hoard their income for themselves?

We have people calling MGTOW misogynist as a group. It's really quite frightful if you think about what really defines MGTOW - not misogynist rhetoric, but a decision that for them, personally, heterosexual relationships are simply not worthwhile.

Any separatist movement simultaneously amuses me and scares the shit out of me. How long until each closes themselves away from each other just because they don't like their political views?

[New Edom]

Chessmistress talked about allies earlier. What the heck is an ally? I used to think ally meant "we stand together". According to some on the Left it seems to mean "supporters of our cause". Ally should mean "we stand together." But when it is talked about by feminist leaders today, it just means "Support us or you'll be up against the wall when the Revolution comes," apparently. Who needs that? Can we have the old feminism back, please? If it is out there, can it start talking more loudly, please? Can it actually put forward some real leadership that is listened to? Or will it be content to let the lunatics run amok? If so, why should any of it be supported?

Chessmistress is anything but a typical feminist. Or even a typical radical feminist. She does not speak for even 95% of us. Even I, as a radical feminist, almost never agree with her.

That is one small aspect of what I said, and in that particular it relates to something typically said by a number of feminists from blogs to public speakers to regular writers for liberal feminist friendly online news. She is not exceptional in the way she uses the word.

[Aelex]

she sees bigotry everywhere except within?

Ain't this a disney song? (´･ω･`)

[Chessmistress]

Chessmistress is anything but a typical feminist. Or even a typical radical feminist. She does not speak for even 95% of us. Even I, as a radical feminist, almost never agree with her.

Question: do you agree there's patriarchy and male privilege?
Male privilege = women have it worse (on the whole) = feminism is needed.
Do you agree wiith that?

I don't know what is a "typical" feminist: there are too many kinds of feminism around the world.
For the standards of some European nations, yes, I'm a typical Radical Feminist.

I don't think I'm always right: this thread is meant to confronting different visions about how the goals of feminism (that are common to all kinds of feminism) should be pursued. If other feminists disagree with me, they should explain why, not being silent.

She doesn't respond to me, either and I doubt timing her posts will make her do it.

???
I always answered to you: you're my preferred anti-feminist, the only anti-feminist in my list of friends...

[Aelex]

Question: do you agree there's patriarchy and male privilege?
Male privilege = women have it worse (on the whole) = feminism is needed.
Do you agree wiith that?

You're starting with a wrong base. It should be :
The society is making difference between the genders => Men are disavantaged in some situations and Women in other => Let's change the society so the said situations don't disavantage anyone anymore.

Rather than :
People have an advantage I don't have => I don't like it => Let's take this advantage from this people and give more to me.

[Chessmistress]

Question: do you agree there's patriarchy and male privilege?
Male privilege = women have it worse (on the whole) = feminism is needed.
Do you agree wiith that?

You're starting with a wrong base. It should be :
The society is making difference between the genders => Men are disavantaged in some situations and Women in other => Let's change the society so the said situations don't disavantage anyone anymore.

Rather than :
People have an advantage I don't have => I don't like it => Let's take this advantage from this people and give more to me.

This is your assumption, and it's partially true: men have issues too.
But fact is:
Women have it worse (on the whole).
Men's issues are not just only less, but also caused by the patriarchy itself.
That's why Feminism is needed, otherwise it would be nonsensical and even damaging - indeed, assuming "Men are disavantaged in some situations and Women in other" and assuming that these disadvantages are roughly comparable (as you seems suggesting) then we wouldn't live in a patriarchy but in a society that would need just only to fix some issues pertaining women and some other issues pertaining men - then, assuming such situation (and I don't think it's true, I think there's still patriarchy) Feminism would be substantially a little oppressive for males, since Feminism advocates just only for women's rights and women's empowerment: advocating rights and empowerment for just only a gender in an already roughly balanced situation (as you describe) would be unfair.
But Feminism is not unfair, because situation is not "roughly balanced and still need just only some fixes" as you suggest, but it's still severely unbalanced: patriarchy, indeed.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

But Feminism is not unfair, because situation is not "roughly balanced and still need just only some fixes" as you suggest, but it's still severely unbalanced: patriarchy, indeed.

Can you demonstrate that, without resorting to false statistics as you have in the past?

[Aelex]

This is your assumption, and it's partially true: men have issues too.
But fact is:
Women have it worse (on the whole).
Men's issues are not just only less, but also caused by the patriarchy itself.
That's why Feminism is needed, otherwise it would be nonsensical and even damaging - indeed, assuming "Men are disavantaged in some situations and Women in other" and assuming that these disadvantages are roughly comparable (as you seems suggesting) then we wouldn't live in a patriarchy but in a society that would need just only to fix some issues pertaining women and some other issues pertaining men - then, assuming such situation (and I don't think it's true, I think there's still patriarchy) Feminism would be substantiallya little oppressive for males, since Feminism advocates just only for women's rights and women's empowerment: advocating rights and empowerment for just only a gender in an already roughly balanced situation (as you describe) would be unfair.
But Feminism is not unfair, because situation is not "roughly balanced and still need just only some fixes" as you suggest, but it's still severely unbalanced: patriarchy, indeed.

Feminism, as you describe it, is indeed oppressive for men since it doesn't want to reach equality (a least not at short term) but want to give more power to women to the detriment of men. Now, please let's not go into the whole "I'm more oppressed than you" because it's honestly stupid and rather false.

On another hand, if you want to resolve the problem that you call Patriarchy, then you should try to resolve it's causes and not it's consequences which mean that you should insist on education to further the advance of your cause (aka it's eradication) rather than on making minor gains, because, if I remember what you sayed correctly, you implyed that as soon as the "Patriarchy" would fall, every problem it created would just resolve all by itself.
So, if you just want to gain advantages for the women, you're by your own standarts a betrayer to feminism since instead of making it advance you're slowing it's progress by antagonizing people you could easily educate and make more receptive to your messages for useless advantages you would have eventually won.

[Kelinfort]

Chessmistress is anything but a typical feminist. Or even a typical radical feminist. She does not speak for even 95% of us. Even I, as a radical feminist, almost never agree with her.

Question: do you agree there's patriarchy and male privilege?
Male privilege = women have it worse (on the whole) = feminism is needed.
Do you agree wiith that?

I don't know what is a "typical" feminist: there are too many kinds of feminism around the world.
For the standards of some European nations, yes, I'm a typical Radical Feminist.

I don't think I'm always right: this thread is meant to confronting different visions about how the goals of feminism (that are common to all kinds of feminism) should be pursued. If other feminists disagree with me, they should explain why, not being silent.

She doesn't respond to me, either and I doubt timing her posts will make her do it.

???
I always answered to you: you're my preferred anti-feminist, the only anti-feminist in my list of friends...

I'm not an anti-feminist. I am opposed to your form of feminism, as it's merely traditionalism cloaked in the old ideals of womanhood and purity. When you remove female agency from their decisions and autonomy, it's obvious you want other women to conform to your standards of feminism.

But, I digress. You haven't responded to my posts multiple times. That's fine, I don't respond to every post I read or people send to me. I was just telling Tahar that outlining this is just a waste of time. My original post I referenced was the fact my female partner enjoys consuming different types of pornographic material and questioning why you believe women cannot or do not enjoy and indulge their sexual needs.

I find it funny people on here just love to accuse me of various things depending on their beliefs. You accuse me of being an anti-feminist, Ostro accuses me of being gynocentric, etc. I support aspects of feminism and the MRM, but I prefer my actions and my behaviour determines my identity, not a term.

[Chessmistress]

Feminism, as you describe it, is indeed oppressive for men since it doesn't want to reach equality (a least not at short term) but want to give more power to women to the detriment of men. Now, please let's not go into the whole "I'm more oppressed than you" because it's honestly stupid and rather false.

On another hand, if you want to resolve the problem that you call Patriarchy, then you should try to resolve it's causes and not it's consequences which mean that you should insist on education to further the advance of your cause (aka it's eradication) rather than on making minor gains, because, if I remember what you sayed correctly, you implyed that as soon as the "Patriarchy" would fall, every problem it created would just resolve all by itself.
So, if you just want to gain advantages for the women, you're by your own standarts a betrayer to feminism since instead of making it advance you're slowing it's progress by antagonizing people you could easily educate and make more receptive to your messages for useless advantages you would have eventually won.

Feminism is not oppressive and I'm not a betrayer of feminism.
Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to men - empowering women, patriarchy will fall, because patriarchy is essentially the subjugation of women to males.
Patriarchy is an essential conceppt for feminism: there wouldn't be feminism without patriarchy.
If you do not believe in the existence of patriarchy, I think that basically you cannot understand what feminism is.

There's a saying that feminists create more MGTOWs than anything else. It's a good system as far as I'm concerned.

That's funny, because on such point we basically agree.
I think that feminism had greatly improved the lifes of women, but there's something true about your thought: more and more true equality will be approached, more and more males, losing their privileges, will feel hurted and will be MGTOW. However they'll remain, always, an irrelevant minority that personally I doubt it will be ever noticed by women.

[Aelex]

Feminism is not oppressive and I'm not a betrayer of feminism.
Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to men - empowering women, patriarchy will fall, because patriarchy is essentially the subjugation of women to males.
Patriarchy is an essential conceppt for feminism: there wouldn't be feminism without patriarchy.
If you do not believe in the existence of patriarchy, I think that basically you cannot understand what feminism is.

Feminism as you portrait it is oppressive, and your very interpretation of what you're portraying is a betrayal to it's notion.
Also, I love the "equality to men" part. If you want to put the women to the same level as men, why trying to strip them of some of their right? Ain't that counter-productive?
Plus, what you're advocating is basically reversing the role and remplacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy.
I think that's where is our major point of discord as for me, as an egalitarian, I see this as just trying to change the dominator to another one without solving the problem itself.

[Swith Witherward]

My apologies for the lack of participation. Our Internet and phone service was disrupted due to severe weather. They have no idea when service will be restored.

[Chessmistress]

Feminism is not oppressive and I'm not a betrayer of feminism.
Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to men - empowering women, patriarchy will fall, because patriarchy is essentially the subjugation of women to males.
Patriarchy is an essential conceppt for feminism: there wouldn't be feminism without patriarchy.
If you do not believe in the existence of patriarchy, I think that basically you cannot understand what feminism is.

Feminism as you portrait it is oppressive, and your very interpretation of what you're portraying is a betrayal to it's notion.
Also, I love the "equality to men" part. If you want to put the women to the same level as men, why trying to strip them of some of their right? Ain't that counter-productive?
Plus, what you're advocating is basically reversing the role and remplacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy.
I think that's where is our major point of discord as for me, as an egalitarian, I see this as just trying to change the dominator to another one without solving the problem itself.

Absolutely not: Feminism isn't about taking away rights from men. It's about empowering women, and by so males will lose their privileges.
Tell me a right Feminism have taked away from males, or a right that Feminism is trying to take away from males. You can't, there's no such thing.

[Haktiva]

she sees bigotry everywhere except within?

Ain't this a disney song? (´･ω･`)

you caught it!

[Haktiva]

Feminism as you portrait it is oppressive, and your very interpretation of what you're portraying is a betrayal to it's notion.
Also, I love the "equality to men" part. If you want to put the women to the same level as men, why trying to strip them of some of their right? Ain't that counter-productive?
Plus, what you're advocating is basically reversing the role and remplacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy.
I think that's where is our major point of discord as for me, as an egalitarian, I see this as just trying to change the dominator to another one without solving the problem itself.

Absolutely not: Feminism isn't about taking away rights from men. It's about empowering women, and by so males will lose their privileges.
Tell me a right Feminism have taked away from males, or a right that Feminism is trying to take away from males. You can't, there's no such thing.

They usually just advocate for women's rights and privileges at the expense of men. They also seem to be keen on blocking men's reproductive rights and such, but really they're just a type of gynocentrist pretty similar to tradcons just colored pink.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminism as you portrait it is oppressive, and your very interpretation of what you're portraying is a betrayal to it's notion.
Also, I love the "equality to men" part. If you want to put the women to the same level as men, why trying to strip them of some of their right? Ain't that counter-productive?
Plus, what you're advocating is basically reversing the role and remplacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy.
I think that's where is our major point of discord as for me, as an egalitarian, I see this as just trying to change the dominator to another one without solving the problem itself.

Absolutely not: Feminism isn't about taking away rights from men. It's about empowering women, and by so males will lose their privileges.
Tell me a right Feminism have taked away from males, or a right that Feminism is trying to take away from males. You can't, there's no such thing.

Feminists seem to be pretty organized when it comes to preventing men gaining rights though.

[Chessmistress]

Absolutely not: Feminism isn't about taking away rights from men. It's about empowering women, and by so males will lose their privileges.
Tell me a right Feminism have taked away from males, or a right that Feminism is trying to take away from males. You can't, there's no such thing.

They usually just advocate for women's rights and privileges at the expense of men. They also seem to be keen on blocking men's reproductive rights and such, but really they're just a type of gynocentrist pretty similar to tradcons just colored pink.

Feminists trying to stop men's reproductive rights? What? That never happened.
What are the "privileges at the expense of men" we have obtained? Just an example, because I don't even, really.
And the privileges we are supposed to advocate? In example?

[Aelex]

Feminism as you portrait it is oppressive, and your very interpretation of what you're portraying is a betrayal to it's notion.
Also, I love the "equality to men" part. If you want to put the women to the same level as men, why trying to strip them of some of their right? Ain't that counter-productive?
Plus, what you're advocating is basically reversing the role and remplacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy.
I think that's where is our major point of discord as for me, as an egalitarian, I see this as just trying to change the dominator to another one without solving the problem itself.

Absolutely not: Feminism isn't about taking away rights from men. It's about empowering women, and by so males will lose their privileges.
Tell me a right Feminism have taked away from males, or a right that Feminism is trying to take away from males. You can't, there's no such thing.

If you want. You didn't answered my point about the stupidity of switching the oppressor's side from one gender to another thought.

[Chessmistress]

Feminists seem to be pretty organized when it comes to preventing men gaining rights though.

We don't advocate for the rights of the already privileged gender, that's natural.
That doesn't mean we oppose men's rights: we just don't care, as long as these "rights" aren't harmful to women, of course.
An example of Feminists preventing men gaining rights?

[Wallenburg]

Absolutely not: Feminism isn't about taking away rights from men. It's about empowering women, and by so males will lose their privileges.
Tell me a right Feminism have taked away from males, or a right that Feminism is trying to take away from males. You can't, there's no such thing.

Feminists seem to be pretty organized when it comes to preventing men gaining rights though.

[citation needed]

[Haktiva]

They usually just advocate for women's rights and privileges at the expense of men. They also seem to be keen on blocking men's reproductive rights and such, but really they're just a type of gynocentrist pretty similar to tradcons just colored pink.

Feminists trying to stop men's reproductive rights? What? That never happened.
What are the "privileges at the expense of men" we have obtained? Just an example, because I don't even, really.
And the privileges we are supposed to advocate? In example?

to be fair most of this is just gynocentrism we see in tradcons too, but feminists are just the liberal end of the spectrum.

usually it's in the form of getting their birth control paid for, the fact that most women just have to scream and guys will come to help, girls get affirmative action and gender quotas while guys don't, and pretty much any accusation of a woman being sexually assaulted will bring out a veritable lynchmob.

men don't get that on average, not nearly in comparison to women.

[Chessmistress]

If you want. You didn't answered my point about the stupidity of switching the oppressor's side from one gender to another thought.

I cannot answer because the very definition of Feminism prevent such switching: advocating for women's rights and women's empowerment on the ground of equality to males means such switching is impossible. Also, it wouldn't work at all if situation wouldn't be unbalanced against women.

[Haktiva]

Feminists seem to be pretty organized when it comes to preventing men gaining rights though.

We don't advocate for the rights of the already privileged gender, that's natural.
That doesn't mean we oppose men's rights: we just don't care, as long as these "rights" aren't harmful to women, of course.
An example of Feminists preventing men gaining rights?

still don't see how I'm privileged. care to enlighten me?

[Chessmistress]

to be fair most of this is just gynocentrism we see in tradcons too, but feminists are just the liberal end of the spectrum.

usually it's in the form of getting their birth control paid for, the fact that most women just have to scream and guys will come to help, girls get affirmative action and gender quotas while guys don't, and pretty much any accusation of a woman being sexually assaulted will bring out a veritable lynchmob.

men don't get that on average, not nearly in comparison to women.

It's not "their birth control": it's birth control of everyone, since childs are made by both men and women. A counter-example: even women buy condoms, for birth control and for their health, and even women have to pay for condoms.
Affirmative action and gender quotas are need to bring more women in places where women are far less than men: it's exactly the difference between "taking away rights" and "taking away privileges". Men have the right to run for the government, and to be elected, and to vote, and women have too. But in USA men are something like more than 80% (I don't remember the exact number - in UK it's actually 71%) and that's why gender quotas are need. A counter-example: in Sweden the idea of gender quotas for women within government have been substantially dropped, for a good reason: women are 45% of the Parliament, it's not totally fair, it should be around 50%, but it doesn't matter so much as long as both genders are at least 40%, some flexibility is not so bad, I think.
Just only 3% of rapists spend some time within a jail.