Feminism in decline

[Haktiva]

they should protect themselves

What do you think the efforts of feminism have been for? That's women protecting themselves.

through BDG, to be fair.

[Chessmistress]

Two affirmations really conflicting each other.
Cognitive dissonance, much?

Why would it be Cognitive dissonance?

If one believes that females are on average more intelligent than males than they may very well be anti feminist on the grounds that equality would simply bring society down to the level of men. People who believe that men are biologically inferior to women are often anti feminist.

If one believe that women are on average more intelligent than males than she cannot also say that feminism - a movement created by women and for women - is a flawed ideology. Otherwise that would be very conflicting with the first affirmation, that women are more intelligent: very intelligent people aren't likely to create a flawed ideology.

I'm just curious: examples of declared anti-feminists believing men are biologically inferior to women? I never find something similar, it would be interesting to see it.

[Des-Bal]

If one believe that women are on average more intelligent than males cannot say that feminism - a movement created by women and for women - is a flawed ideology.
Examples of declared anti-feminists believing men are biologically inferior to women? I never find something similar, it would be interesting to see it.

So anything created by people smarter than males is necessarily completely and utterly flawless? You have a very high opinion of males.

[Chessmistress]

If one believe that women are on average more intelligent than males cannot say that feminism - a movement created by women and for women - is a flawed ideology.
Examples of declared anti-feminists believing men are biologically inferior to women? I never find something similar, it would be interesting to see it.

So anything created by people smarter than males is necessarily completely and utterly flawless? You have a very high opinion of males.

There's no such thing as "people smarter than males". There are some males smarter than some women, and some women smarter than some males.
Though women are reported being a little more intelligent, on average (but the difference is not important nor significant)

http://www.onlymyhealth.com/women-more- ... 1342554630

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012 ... irst-time/

[Fartsniffage]

What do you think the efforts of feminism have been for? That's women protecting themselves.

through BDG, to be fair.

BDG?

[Des-Bal]

There's no such thing as "people smarter than males". There are some males smarter than some women, and some women smarter than some males.
Though women are reported being a little more intelligent, on average (but the difference is not important nor significant)

http://www.onlymyhealth.com/women-more- ... 1342554630

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012 ... irst-time/

Right, someone said feminism was flawed but women were smarter than men which called cognative dissonance because women made feminism. The only way that makes sense is if being smarter than "men" makes you infallilable. This means that anyone smarter than the average man is correct without fail one hundred percent of the time.

[Llamalandia]

[citation needed]

I'm saying that to you and to the article. The article waves its hands and says that "polling data shows X" but doesn't actually point to any of it, which is highly questionable.

I guess in few years misogynists will have to say "goodbye" to the "famous" "New Zealand Model" about prostitution.
New generation of feminists will never tolerate anymore such things.
New generation of males in New Zealand will learn that women's bodies are not for sell.

IN part though, this is why people don't like many feminists. The movement is about controlling women; there is only a few select ways to be a "good feminist". IF you decide to not work and stay at home instead you are a "Bad Feminist", if you want to engage in free enterprise of your own volition via prostitution, well that is somehow "demeaning to women" and again makes you "a bad feminist".

Don't get me wrong, human trafficking and literally forced prostitution is morally wrong, no question about it. I think we can however oppose that while at the same time supporting those who freely engage in "the world's oldest profession".

Plus, it kinda undermines the whole "my body, my choice" arguemnt to ban prostitution does it not? I mean, should we likewise ban say, surrogate mothers?

[Chessmistress]

There's no such thing as "people smarter than males". There are some males smarter than some women, and some women smarter than some males.
Though women are reported being a little more intelligent, on average (but the difference is not important nor significant)

http://www.onlymyhealth.com/women-more- ... 1342554630

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012 ... irst-time/

Right, someone said feminism was flawed but women were smarter than men which called cognative dissonance because women made feminism. The only way that makes sense is if being smarter than "men" makes you infallilable. This means that anyone smarter than the average man is correct without fail one hundred percent of the time.

Feminism isn't flawed.
Women aren't flawed.
Men aren't flawed.
Toxic masculinity is flawed, deeply flawed.

[Des-Bal]

Feminism isn't flawed.
Women aren't flawed.
Men aren't flawed.
Toxic masculinity is flawed, deeply flawed.

Have you ever talked to a chatterbot? Often instead of trying to follow a conversation they just pick out a few words of what you just said and try to respond to those totally without context and a clear lack of understanding. Feels sort of like this except less cool because you probably aren't learning from this.

[Chessmistress]

I guess in few years misogynists will have to say "goodbye" to the "famous" "New Zealand Model" about prostitution.
New generation of feminists will never tolerate anymore such things.
New generation of males in New Zealand will learn that women's bodies are not for sell.

IN part though, this is why people don't like many feminists. The movement is about controlling women; there is only a few select ways to be a "good feminist". IF you decide to not work and stay at home instead you are a "Bad Feminist", if you want to engage in free enterprise of your own volition via prostitution, well that is somehow "demeaning to women" and again makes you "a bad feminist".

Don't get me wrong, human trafficking and literally forced prostitution is morally wrong, no question about it. I think we can however oppose that while at the same time supporting those who freely engage in "the world's oldest profession".

Plus, it kinda undermines the whole "my body, my choice" arguemnt to ban prostitution does it not? I mean, should we likewise ban say, surrogate mothers?

Nordic Model respect "my body, my choice" argument: prostitutes are free, purchasers of sex are criminalised. It hurts just only males buying women, not the victims.
Almost all women don't like prostitution.
The greater majority of women don't like pornography.
Laws should be made for the majority, while resepcting the minority: that's why Nordic Model doesn't hurt prostitutes, exactly because some (very few) of them could even like their job.

[Natapoc]

Feminism isn't flawed.
Women aren't flawed.
Men aren't flawed.
Toxic masculinity is flawed, deeply flawed.

Have you ever talked to a chatterbot? Often instead of trying to follow a conversation they just pick out a few words of what you just said and try to respond to those totally without context and a clear lack of understanding. Feels sort of like this except less cool because you probably aren't learning from this.

Oh! Someone should write a misandrist bot. I would if I had time: It would be funny.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Have you ever talked to a chatterbot? Often instead of trying to follow a conversation they just pick out a few words of what you just said and try to respond to those totally without context and a clear lack of understanding. Feels sort of like this except less cool because you probably aren't learning from this.

Oh! Someone should write a misandrist bot. I would if I had time: It would be funny.

Why waste the time when one can just read some of Chessmistress' statements?

[Chessmistress]

Oh! Someone should write a misandrist bot. I would if I had time: It would be funny.

Why waste the time when one can just read some of Chessmistress' statements?

I never write something misandrist in OOC. Never. I respect males.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I never write something misandrist in OOC. Never. I respect males.

Wow, thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[Des-Bal]

I respect males.

So I think I'm going to get some use out of this quote.

[Norstal]

Why waste the time when one can just read some of Chessmistress' statements?

I never write something misandrist in OOC. Never. I respect males.

You respect men the same way white supremacists respect Jews for controlling the world.

i can agree to a point. men defining masculinity on their own terms free from tradcon or feminist influence would be an interesting thing to see.

We'll never let that happen, you know?
Men defining masculinity on their own terms would likely result in an asocial and unhealthy way of life for men, and it would also be very dangerous for women and for the entire society.

[Natapoc]

Why waste the time when one can just read some of Chessmistress' statements?

I never write something misandrist in OOC. Never. I respect males.

Are you implying that your posts in feminist threads in the general forums are primarily IC? In other words, are you admitting here to role playing a "radical feminist" persona?

[Grave_n_idle]

You did:

"It's not womens fault that women get raped.

It's partially some womens fault that some other women get raped."

It's right there in black and white. Did you forget this is a forum, not two people talking in a bar? Your words last longer than the time it takes to say them.

You know how society is evil and teaches men to be rapists? Imagine for a moment that women were part of society, in this hypothetical world if a woman communicated consent to her fella by "mildly resisting" that experience would color his future views on what constitutes consent. She would in effect be in part responsible for his poor understanding of consent and if that led to an incident later down the line you could see how her actions had a part in it. I understand it's difficult but you need to try and imagine that women are people and can be held accountable for their actions and members of society a radical concept I know.

Wow. You do talk rubbish.

Nowhere did I separate women from society, and the only people that seem to be treating women as less than people seem to be Ostro and, now, you - who seem to be arguing that one women telling you she doesn't want to fuck right now somehow justifies fucking another woman at another time.

[Ostroeuropa]

I never write something misandrist in OOC. Never. I respect males.

Are you implying that your posts in feminist threads in the general forums are primarily IC? In other words, are you admitting here to role playing a "radical feminist" persona?

She has a matriarchist region. It's not cut and dry really.

I've been in regions with authoritarian roleplay, anarchist roleplay, pony roleplay, Imperialist roleplay...

But I'm not in favor of a horde of anarchistic ponies invading other countries and telling everybody what to do.

I wouldn't use Chessmistresses region or what she may roleplay as as an argument. I'd use her posts on the forums as one.


By the way natapoc, earlier you seemed shocked that I consider you disingenuous and a liar.
I figure you may want to know what kind of posts make me think that, on the extremely off chance you aren't being disingenuous on purpose, so you can look at your behavior and maybe change it.

It's ones like Russel quoted here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=342956&p=25120386#p25120386
Note that Russels post explains precisely why this was disingenuous.

That's kind of why I get along with chessmistress better. She's fairly straightforward and open with her beliefs and bigotry.
You aren't. You try and hide it, and you distort other peoples posts.

This post of yours to chessmistress is you pulling the same type of shit again. It's a habit with you.
THAT is why I consider you disingenuous and a liar.

[Chessmistress]

I never write something misandrist in OOC. Never. I respect males.

Are you implying that your posts in feminist threads in the general forums are primarily IC? In other words, are you admitting here to role playing a "radical feminist" persona?

No, you're strawmanning me.
I never wrote something misandrist in feminist threads.
Sometimes you seems to me the one who is role playing a "radical feminist" persona, even a very flawed roleplay sometimes, like when you say a feminist can be against LGBT!

[Des-Bal]

Wow. You do talk rubbish.

Nowhere did I separate women from society, and the only people that seem to be treating women as less than people seem to be Ostro and, now, you - who seem to be arguing that one women telling you she doesn't want to fuck right now somehow justifies fucking another woman at another time.

It might seem that way because you aren't reading carefully or making connections to ideas. Teaching men "no often means yes" is bad. That is what you are doing when you say "no" to mean "yes." Nobody is justifying anything. Don't say "no" when you mean "yes" is the point that you are dodging like a collections agent.

[Natapoc]

Are you implying that your posts in feminist threads in the general forums are primarily IC? In other words, are you admitting here to role playing a "radical feminist" persona?

No, you're strawmanning me.
I never wrote something misandrist in feminist threads.
Sometimes you seems to me the one who is role playing a "radical feminist" persona, even a very flawed roleplay sometimes, like when you say a feminist can be against LGBT!

Yes words have meanings. I can't pretend that all feminists have always been pro LGBT. I wish that were the case.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you implying that your posts in feminist threads in the general forums are primarily IC? In other words, are you admitting here to role playing a "radical feminist" persona?

No, you're strawmanning me.
I never wrote something misandrist in feminist threads.
Sometimes you seems to me the one who is role playing a "radical feminist" persona, even a very flawed roleplay sometimes, like when you say a feminist can be against LGBT!

Feminists can be against LGBT persons. Redstockings is one historical example. Some feminists are against all men, and thus gay men and presumably transpersons of both varities, though not lesbians.
That's before you get into TERFs.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wow. You do talk rubbish.

Nowhere did I separate women from society, and the only people that seem to be treating women as less than people seem to be Ostro and, now, you - who seem to be arguing that one women telling you she doesn't want to fuck right now somehow justifies fucking another woman at another time.

It might seem that way because you aren't reading carefully or making connections to ideas. Teaching men "no often means yes" is bad. That is what you are doing when you say "no" to mean "yes." Nobody is justifying anything. Don't say "no" when you mean "yes" is the point that you are dodging like a collections agent.

You just made two entirely conflicting statements.

You're claiming that a woman saying 'no' when she wants to be seduced is teaching men 'no often means yes' (assuming that men are so simple minded they can't possibly work out that two different events with two different people are not the same).

You're also claiming that 'nobody is justifying anything' - but, of course, you are making excuses for rapists - by suggesting that they are so stupid they are incapable of working on a simple assumption that no always means no, and that it's therefore not their fault when they end up raping someone.

The point isn't "Don't say "no" when you mean "yes"" - the point is "don't rape anyone". If you're not SURE if it's rape - then it's rape. If you're not sure if her 'no' means 'seduce me' or no', don't fuck her till you do.

Stop making excuses for rapists.

[Ostroeuropa]

It might seem that way because you aren't reading carefully or making connections to ideas. Teaching men "no often means yes" is bad. That is what you are doing when you say "no" to mean "yes." Nobody is justifying anything. Don't say "no" when you mean "yes" is the point that you are dodging like a collections agent.

You just made two entirely conflicting statements.

You're claiming that a woman saying 'no' when she wants to be seduced is teaching men 'no often means yes' (assuming that men are so simple minded they can't possibly work out that two different events with two different people are not the same).

You're also claiming that 'nobody is justifying anything' - but, of course, you are making excuses for rapists - by suggesting that they are so stupid they are incapable of working on a simple assumption that no always means no, and that it's therefore not their fault when they end up raping someone.

The point isn't "Don't say "no" when you mean "yes"" - the point is "don't rape anyone". If you're not SURE if it's rape - then it's rape. If you're not sure if her 'no' means 'seduce me' or no', don't fuck her till you do.

Stop making excuses for rapists.

This is the kind of really stupid demonization and vilification that prevents work actually being done on minimizing rape.

You do not give a shit about rape victims, you do not give a shit about minimizing rape, you just want to show everyone how much you hate rapists.

We're not "Providing excuses" for them. We're looking for the possible factors that led to this behavior in order to try and reduce the incidences of it.

You sound just like a tough on crime conservative. Stop talking about poverty, you're providing excuses for thugs. No, I don't want to consider the situation with nuance, i'm too busy having a tough on crime boner.

It's ridiculous that you can do that and think you have the moral highground, calling everyone sexists for suggesting that maybe there is a way to reduce rape.

And the thing that brought you to this right wing mentality is feminism and your inability to handle any criticism of women or their behavior. It's sad.

What's fucking crazy about this mindset of yours is it only produces three results:

1. Nobody can talk about strategies to minimize rape without people like you crying bloody murder. (Teaching confidence classes in schools reduces the rates dramatically according to some studies.)

2. People see someone they consider a nice person being accused of rape and they reject it out of hand because they aren't a moustache twirling villain.

3. People see someone innocent accused of rape and immediately jump to the conclusion that they are the spawn of satan.

In terms of actually productive mindsets, yours is fucking terrible. All it does is allow you to feel smug. That's pretty selfish, and it's not really a surprise that this brand of rhetoric has dominated in the west really, especially with white middle class feminism sweeping the media.