The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Haktiva]

I'd highlight how arrogant and ridiculous the whole we have it worse shtick is but it doesn't seem like anyone's taking you seriously.

Males still have privileges over women = women have it worse (on the whole, not always) = Feminism is seriously needed.
Every feminist take these words seriously, male privilege is a thing, so it's not a matter of taking me seriously.

So I take it you would like MGTOW then since the main idea is avoiding women or at least putting them as a very low priority for a man's life and hence leaving them to their own devices?

[Chessmistress]

Males still have privileges over women = women have it worse (on the whole, not always) = Feminism is seriously needed.
Every feminist take these words seriously, male privilege is a thing, so it's not a matter of taking me seriously.

So I take it you would like MGTOW then since the main idea is avoiding women or at least putting them as a very low priority for a man's life and hence leaving them to their own devices?

Avoiding women, harassing women online, putting out horrible stereotypes against women, using pornography degrading women: that's misogynistic, that's hate speech.
Putting women at a very low priority for a man's life is instead absolutely fair: also, that would end a lot of issues that women suffer due certain behaviors.
I already said that within the so-called manosphere I consider PUAs the absolutely worst, and instead MGTOW is the lesser problem.

[Des-Bal]

Being for women's rights is not being sexist!
From our OP


Do you see something about males' issues?

But that's not sexism, women still have it worse, on the whole, due male privilege within patriarchy.

I see equality. Ignoring "equality" when the balance of power is in your favor is specifically not pursuing equality it's sexism. Patriarchy is bullshit.

[Haktiva]

So I take it you would like MGTOW then since the main idea is avoiding women or at least putting them as a very low priority for a man's life and hence leaving them to their own devices?

Avoiding women, harassing women online, putting out horrible stereotypes against women, using pornography degrading women: that's misogynistic, that's hate speech.
Putting women at a very low priority for a man's life is instead absolutely fair: also, that would end a lot of issues that women suffer due certain behaviors.
I already said that within the so-called manosphere I consider PUAs the absolutely worst, and instead MGTOW is the lesser problem.

I fail to see how harassing people online is a problem and have never seen it myself. Telling horrible jokes? It's a guy space so that's to be expected and I thoroughly enjoy it. And I'm more into hentai myself.

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

[Trollgaard]

Self identification as a feminist is falling off because of all the crazy bullshit. The manosphere is a direct response to feminism and shares the flaws of feminism, it is not a good thing. Feminism has less and less to do with equality and by your own admission it's an inherently sexist movement.

The manosphere came about due to the replacement of traditional virtues of masculinity with neo-masculinity. Although feminism had a part in that, it was not the only part.

'
What on earth is neo-masculinity?

[Haktiva]

The manosphere came about due to the replacement of traditional virtues of masculinity with neo-masculinity. Although feminism had a part in that, it was not the only part.

'
What on earth is neo-masculinity?

tradcon bullshit mixed with PUA drivel to get men and women back to the nuclear family model which is still somehow clinging to life despite the fact that it's unfeasible with the current system of laws, economic, social attitudes and risks.

[Trollgaard]

'
What on earth is neo-masculinity?

tradcon bullshit mixed with PUA drivel to get men and women back to the nuclear family model which is still somehow clinging to life despite the fact that it's unfeasible with the current system of laws, economic, social attitudes and risks.

PUA? what?

[Haktiva]

tradcon bullshit mixed with PUA drivel to get men and women back to the nuclear family model which is still somehow clinging to life despite the fact that it's unfeasible with the current system of laws, economic, social attitudes and risks.

PUA? what?

Pick Up Artists. From a MGTOW perspective, these guys try to game the system in order to validate themselves through getting laid. They go for the whole "Alpha Male" tripe in an attempt to impress women so they will get female attention. They're relay not that much different than women who use guys for favors. They're the kind of guys who shame other men for not being "manly enough" and validate their existence through women.

[Trollgaard]

PUA? what?

Pick Up Artists. From a MGTOW perspective, these guys try to game the system in order to validate themselves through getting laid. They go for the whole "Alpha Male" tripe in an attempt to impress women so they will get female attention. They're relay not that much different than women who use guys for favors. They're the kind of guys who shame other men for not being "manly enough" and validate their existence through women.

MGTOW...what does that mean?

Some guys are naturally like that. A lot times you can tell when someone is putting on an act.

[New Edom]

Pick Up Artists. From a MGTOW perspective, these guys try to game the system in order to validate themselves through getting laid. They go for the whole "Alpha Male" tripe in an attempt to impress women so they will get female attention. They're relay not that much different than women who use guys for favors. They're the kind of guys who shame other men for not being "manly enough" and validate their existence through women.

MGTOW...what does that mean?

Some guys are naturally like that. A lot times you can tell when someone is putting on an act.

It means men going their own way.

There is a stage that they go through where they're bitter against the general social system for it's exploitation of ordinary men. After that it's really about making your own choices, living the kind of life you want to lead, learning not to hope for others' approval, that kind of thing. There's a rejection of the traditional conservative position as being a sort of con to turn you into a pawn for business/government and popular social order, same on the other hand for liberalism and its allies such as feminism.

[Dragonir]

So much pc

[Fartsniffage]

So much pc

Much laptop


WOW

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

[Diopolis]

The manosphere came about due to the replacement of traditional virtues of masculinity with neo-masculinity. Although feminism had a part in that, it was not the only part.

'
What on earth is neo-masculinity?

Neo-masculinity is the replacement of the traditional ideal of masculinity with a different, probably worse model. Where the traditional ideal would have men be all about their families, God-fearing, and hard working, neo-masculinity fears commitment(thus leading to promiscuity), bucks religiosity, and spends exorbitantly where the traditional ideal is frugal. Where the traditional ideal of masculinity teaches respect for women and gentlemanly conduct, neo-masculinity embraces the PUA subculture, objectifying women and treating even simple politeness as a tool to get sex.

[New Edom]

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.

Until very recently, the only critics of feminism acknowledged were all considered anti feminist, therefore misogynist, and were painted as conservative. People like Christina Hoff Sommers and Wendy MacElroy, Katie Roiphe and so on were dismissed by feminist leaders from the sisterhood, Warren Farrell was a rape apologist, etc. Generally within most liberal and moderate circles feminists could do whatever they wanted to. Then they began introducing legislation that censored speech, broadly accused nearly all men of rape advocacy and began to try to introduce ideas that would require people to be re-educated in feminist ideals, and people who had formerly just wanted to be left alone began to come out in opposition. They're just not used to being opposed on a purely practical level.

None of this would have happened if they'd accepted the idea that they are an advocacy movement, not the definitive voice of equality, but I think the slogans were too tempting to put down. Now they are reaping the result.

[Tahar Joblis]

MGTOW...what does that mean?

Some guys are naturally like that. A lot times you can tell when someone is putting on an act.

It means men going their own way.

There is a stage that they go through where they're bitter against the general social system for it's exploitation of ordinary men. After that it's really about making your own choices, living the kind of life you want to lead, learning not to hope for others' approval, that kind of thing. There's a rejection of the traditional conservative position as being a sort of con to turn you into a pawn for business/government and popular social order, same on the other hand for liberalism and its allies such as feminism.

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).

[Tahar Joblis]

It means men going their own way.

There is a stage that they go through where they're bitter against the general social system for it's exploitation of ordinary men. After that it's really about making your own choices, living the kind of life you want to lead, learning not to hope for others' approval, that kind of thing. There's a rejection of the traditional conservative position as being a sort of con to turn you into a pawn for business/government and popular social order, same on the other hand for liberalism and its allies such as feminism.

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.

[Haktiva]

It means men going their own way.

There is a stage that they go through where they're bitter against the general social system for it's exploitation of ordinary men. After that it's really about making your own choices, living the kind of life you want to lead, learning not to hope for others' approval, that kind of thing. There's a rejection of the traditional conservative position as being a sort of con to turn you into a pawn for business/government and popular social order, same on the other hand for liberalism and its allies such as feminism.

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).

Most of us start of with what we call "Red Pill Rage" which is the bitterness and anger towards women and society we feel when we come to such a realization. Some guys take longer to get through it if they ever get through it at all, but eventually most of us calm the fuck down and we start looking at ourselves and individual men, and work towards making ourselves happy regardless of what society thinks.

There's no call for political action or marches in the street or demanding rights from others. We realize we don't need permission form anyone to be happy and we don't care who we offend. Go to any MGTOW zone and you will never see anything politically correct unless it's mocked.

One thing that gets thrown around is that the whole Women Against Feminism thing only popped up because of MGTOW since a lot of women still want to get married, and men checking out puts quite a damper on those dreams, hell, male scarcity is what creates a patriarchy since the men don't have to compete for women and the women can't be as selective as they can when the male population is about equal.

[New Edom]

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.

Interesting perspective, and you are right. There is likely to be some time before being a guy who doesn't feel like getting married or hooking up is not stigmatized in some way. There've only been a few bachelor Presidents of the United States, Prime Ministers in Commonwealth nations and so on. And you are right, women--rightly so I think--have won the right to not be hooked up as well.

I think that unfortunately people have gotten so used to congratulating women about everything (being a mother is the toughest job in the world! Yeah right) that anyone criticizing female behaviour of any kind is called a misogynist, even if what is being said is simply talking about negative things that women do--whether it is women in particular or simply recognizing that women can have negative tendencies. I remember saying at a dinner table (and causing a friendly argument) in response to "being a mom is the toughest job in the world " "No it isn't. There are way tougher jobs--being a navy pilot, working on a crab fishing boat, being a miner, being a diving tech on an oil rig, being a heart surgeon, a field medic--well you get the idea. Being a parent is important, but it's not the hardest job in the world."However this having happened, no one's head fell off, no one was ill, people just moved on. There was some shock at first, but my point is that the moms at the table were just used to being flattered all the time.

So in a way it's even worse if people say "when women do xyz, it's just crappy behaviour." Even worse still if you say "there's no excuse for crappy behaviour even if you are supposedly fighting for a human rights issue."

[New Edom]

On a slightly different note, I was thinking about when I used to be a supporter of feminism. This was in the early 2000s, and I was thinking of a "Vicar of Dibley" episode where they were talking about how ten years before, female vicars were scarce, now they had become common. And you see, I used to support it when it was as much about celebrating milestones and recognizing how Western civilization could be adaptable and thoughtful. I was thinking about this as I was watching an episode tonight, and how I had really liked that show and how I had very much supported the idea of female clergy.

So what happened?

Somewhere along the line it was like a time warp happened. You look at something as weird and goofy as "Ban Bossy" and then back at "Vicar of Dibley" and can't help but think "What happened to the idea of brave pioneers challenging gender norms?" There's been a wave over the last four years especially of people demanding that challenges that we didn't even know existed be removed. Ban Bossy comes to mind because I look again at "Vicar of Dibley" and see a character who is a leader who transforms her community, often challenging traditions and arguing with people, taking a strong moral stand, leading by example--and the show was hugely popular. And now when we probably have more female candidates for higher office than ever, we have this tone of bitterness, this sneering at the very society that agreed that we needed to give them a chance to begin with. There's a strain in feminism that has come to shove aside all the history of supporting equal right and takes the tone of people back in the 70s when people laughed openly at the idea of a female president of the United States, as though there have been no real achievements in the interim and as though we live in a society that openly hates women.

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?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

[Haktiva]

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.

much to my amusement

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

much to my amusement

*shrugs*

Like, she's alone in every debate I've ever seen her in.

[Haktiva]

much to my amusement

*shrugs*

Like, she's alone in every debate I've ever seen her in.

she sees bigotry everywhere except within?

[Morrow den]

*shrugs*

Like, she's alone in every debate I've ever seen her in.

she sees bigotry everywhere except within?

I would have to agree. Also Deep like the ocean.