Feminism in decline

[Chessmistress]

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.

You continue to use deception: you wasn't talking about the past / about the first wave, you was talking about a guy who is posting here EXACTLY TODAY.
And you wrote that TODAY one can be against LGBT and being a feminist.
WRONG.
Who NOWADAYS is against LGBT, especially against lesbians and bisexual women, is anti-feminist.
I suspect you're not a feminist, nor even a real anarchist.

[Grave_n_idle]

We're not "Providing excuses" for them.

Blatantly untrue.

If you're saying that the reason that someone rapes someone else is that a THIRD party earlier somehow confused them by wanting to be seduced - that is the very definition of 'providing excuses'.

You stop excusing rape, and I'll stop telling you not to make excuses for rape.

[Chessmistress]

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.

Now is 2015, we are talking about now, 2015.
And about LGBT Rights
There's no such thing as a feminist in 2015 who is against the rights of lesbians and bisexual women.

[Des-Bal]

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.

You're being silly for three reasons.

1. "Nobody has ever and nobody would ever allow their previous relationships to color the way they handled future relationships." This is the only possible claim to back your dismissal. It is obviously not true.

2. You seem to work with the assumption that if anything at all has informed the way a person behaves they are in no way responsible for their actions. This is truly absurd. If your parents teach you that the earth must be cleaned to preserve the pure white race and you start killing minorities we don't absolve you, we don't justify what you did but we likewise don't pretend that what your parents did wasn't idiotic or that it didn't contribute to what you did.

3. Nobody is saying that men have sex with women who say no. This is the original point that led us down this rabbit hole. Nobody is saying that. The problem is you are totally and wholly incapable of for even a moment considering the ramifications of women saying "no" to mean "yes" for even a moment.


I am pretty sure we're on the same page and you're just being contrary so here is the only part of this post you have to respond to.


"It is bad to use 'mild resistance' to communicate consent"

Agree, disagree, Neutral.

[Des-Bal]

Blatantly untrue.

If you're saying that the reason that someone rapes someone else is that a THIRD party earlier somehow confused them by wanting to be seduced - that is the very definition of 'providing excuses'.

You stop excusing rape, and I'll stop telling you not to make excuses for rape.

What do you think an excuse is?

[Ostroeuropa]

We're not "Providing excuses" for them.

Blatantly untrue.

If you're saying that the reason that someone rapes someone else is that a THIRD party earlier somehow confused them by wanting to be seduced - that is the very definition of 'providing excuses'.

You stop excusing rape, and I'll stop telling you not to make excuses for rape.

I'm saying it's a factor that could lead to it yes.
I'm not excusing rape. I note you ignore the part of the post where I point out you sound just like a tough on crime conservative.
Because that's what you're doing.

Stop blaming peoples crimes on poverty or oppression, they're thugs! Stop excusing theft and murder you librul.

Here, i'll quote the whole post again so people can see what you're ignoring.

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.

Do you think that tough on crime conservatives are right too?
Or is this somehow different? How is it different?

I think your problem is that you're an absolutist, so you don't understand the notion of still holding someone accountable for their actions while recognizing factors that led to those actions.
I also think you hold this position in order to feel smug and morally superior to others rather than out of rational deduction, or you wouldn't hold a view that i'm pretty fucking sure contradicts your general view on crime.
This is because you've up and decided that defending women and black people from criticism is the right thing to do, rather than, you know.
Being egalitarian.
That's why you hold two wildly contradictory viewpoints. To get your righteous defender feelz.

I don't "Pity" criminals who do what they do because they are poor. I recognize poverty is a factor in crime and that it should be reduced.
I don't "Pity" rapists either. But I recognize that there are factors leading up to their crime that involve other people. Not the victim.
(Though I do pity those in the prison system, considering that it seems to me to be a pointless waste of everyones time and to inflict unnecessary suffering. I'd prefer reforming it.)
And therefore I don't excuse either of them. They should be arrested, they should be tried, they should be convicted, and they should be reformed.
Recognizing the factors and influences that led to their downfall is fucking essential in reforming them.
Just up and declaring them defective will not work for fucks sake.

You're a faux-egalitarian.

[Natapoc]

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

You continue to use deception: you wasn't talking about the past / about the first wave, you was talking about a guy who is posting here EXACTLY TODAY.
And you wrote that TODAY one can be against LGBT and being a feminist.
WRONG.
Who NOWADAYS is against LGBT, especially against lesbians and bisexual women, is anti-feminist.
I suspect you're not a feminist, nor even a real anarchist.

I don't care what you suspect about me.

Feminism has the same definition today as it's always had. I think you may be confused about what "first wave" "second wave", "third wave" means.

The only criteria required to be a feminist is: "a person who supports feminism." and feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

I know you want to restrict feminists to people who only agree with you on everything but that's just not the way it works. You are not the gate keeper for feminism and neither am I.

I have friends who think you can't be a feminist unless you are vegan because female animals reproductive processes are exploited. The entire animal agriculture industry is primarily about exploiting the female reproductive process of animals without consent and thus anyone who is not vegan participates in the rape of animals.

But I disagree, non vegans can be feminists (despite promoting systematic exploitation of women of other species), just as racists can be feminists and anti lgbt people can be feminists.

[Chessmistress]

But I disagree, non vegans can be feminists (despite promoting systematic exploitation of women of other species), just as racists can be feminists and anti lgbt people can be feminists.

"Women of other species"???
Are you really comparing women to female animals???

Racists can be feminists???

Anti-lesbians and anti-bisexual women can be feminists???

EDIT:

The entire animal agriculture industry is primarily about exploiting the female reproductive process of animals without consent and thus anyone who is not vegan participates in the rape of animals.

FEMALE ANIMALS CANNOT EXPRESS CONSENT!!!
WHAT YOU'RE BLABBERING???
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "RAPE" WITHIN ANIMALS!!!

[Grave_n_idle]

1. "Nobody has ever and nobody would ever allow their previous relationships to color the way they handled future relationships." This is the only possible claim to back your dismissal. It is obviously not true.

We're not talking about 'colour' here. This isn't shade.

We're talking about rape.

We're talking about one person actually forcing another person into a sex act without their consent.

So a cute phrase about letting "previous relationships to color the way they handled future relationships" is nonsensical and irrelevant.

2. You seem to work with the assumption that if anything at all has informed the way a person behaves they are in no way responsible for their actions. This is truly absurd.

It is truly absurd, but I'm not the one making the claim.

You have joined Ostro in arguing that a rapist doesn't have total responsibility for his actions, because we are supposed to accept that men are too stupid to separate two different events with two different people.

3. Nobody is saying that men have sex with women who say no. This is the original point that led us down this rabbit hole. Nobody is saying that.

That's untrue - people ARE saying that. You are, in fact - and I'll use direct quotes to illustrate: you're saying that "experience would color his future views on what constitutes consent." You are saying that a rapist will later fuck an unwilling woman because he has been 'confused' by another woman wanting to be seduced.

You're saying exactly that men " have sex with women who say no" - and you're blaming other women for it, instead of the rapist.

The problem is you are totally and wholly incapable of for even a moment considering the ramifications of women saying "no" to mean "yes" for even a moment.

There are no ramifications unless you believe that men are so utterly stupid that they can't separate two different instances from one another, or so utterly morally bankrupt that they are just looking for an excuse to rape.

I chose to believe that men are neither utterly stupid, nor utterly bankrupt - so I don't accept the 'excuse'.

I am pretty sure we're on the same page and you're just being contrary so here is the only part of this post you have to respond to.

We are on the same page if you've finally realised that saying a guy will fuck a girl who is saying no because an earlier girl wanted to be seduced - is making excuses for rapists.

[Natapoc]

But I disagree, non vegans can be feminists (despite promoting systematic exploitation of women of other species), just as racists can be feminists and anti lgbt people can be feminists.

"Women of other species"???
Are you really comparing women to animals???

Racists can be feminists???

Anti-lesbians and anti-bisexual women can be feminists???

Humans are animals. Yes. Male humans are humans and animals. Female humans are humans and animals. Do you accept evolution? If so then you have no basis to distinguish the suffering of one female animal with another.

[Des-Bal]

Snip

You responded to exactly the wrong parts, I'll give you another chance.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's why you hold two wildly contradictory viewpoints. To get your righteous defender feelz.

You're a faux-egalitarian.

See, this is what it all boils down to - you're not actually debating rape or why it happens - you're making personal arguments against me, and the excuses you make for rapists are just coincidental.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Women of other species"???
Are you really comparing women to animals???

Racists can be feminists???

Anti-lesbians and anti-bisexual women can be feminists???

Humans are animals. Yes. Male humans are humans and animals. Female humans are humans and animals. Do you accept evolution? If so then you have no basis to distinguish the suffering of one female animal with another.

... Sapience?
Don't get me wrong, I support animal welfare and some limited rights even.
But Sapience is a pretty big one.

[Natapoc]

Humans are animals. Yes. Male humans are humans and animals. Female humans are humans and animals. Do you accept evolution? If so then you have no basis to distinguish the suffering of one female animal with another.

... Sapience?
Don't get me wrong, I support animal welfare and some limited rights even.
But Sapience is a pretty big one.

Sapience just means wisdom. It's not something that can be measured very well and it's certainly not one of the criteria used to determine if an act is exploitative or not.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's why you hold two wildly contradictory viewpoints. To get your righteous defender feelz.

You're a faux-egalitarian.

See, this is what it all boils down to - you're not actually debating rape or why it happens - you're making personal arguments against me, and the excuses you make for rapists are just coincidental.

I'm perfectly prepared to debate rape and why it happens. The problem is, everytime I bring up a point about YOU are the one who makes personal arguments against ME for it.

You completely ignored the rest of the post where I made arguments. You've entirely refused to acknowledge des bals arguments.
You've ignored that nobody is excusing rapists. (That's another personal attack by the way.)

After a few pages of you doing this, despite having no rational basis to do so and no discernable argument, i've decided that the reason you're doing this is because you like to feel superior to others, and aren't actually interested in what policy choices would lead to reduced rape, you're just interested in feeling good.

This, by the way, on a societal level?
The fact people like you exist and that your view is polluting the discourse and having a chilling effect?
That leads to rapes too. It's a factor on a societal level.

[Natapoc]

See, this is what it all boils down to - you're not actually debating rape or why it happens - you're making personal arguments against me, and the excuses you make for rapists are just coincidental.

I'm perfectly prepared to debate rape and why it happens. The problem is, everytime I bring up a point about YOU are the one who makes personal arguments against ME for it.

You completely ignored the rest of the post where I made arguments. You've entirely refused to acknowledge des bals arguments.
You've ignored that nobody is excusing rapists. (That's another personal attack by the way.)

After a few pages of you doing this, despite having no rational basis to do so and no discernable argument, i've decided that the reason you're doing this is because you like to feel superior to others, and aren't actually interested in what policy choices would lead to reduced rape, you're just interested in feeling good.

This, by the way, on a societal level?
The fact people like you exist and that your view is polluting the discourse?
That leads to rapes too. It's a factor on a societal level.

You know what leads to rape? Rapists!
That's all.
Nothing more.

[Des-Bal]

I'm perfectly prepared to debate rape and why it happens. The problem is, everytime I bring up a point about YOU are the one who makes personal arguments against ME for it.

You completely ignored the rest of the post where I made arguments. You've entirely refused to acknowledge des bals arguments.
You've ignored that nobody is excusing rapists. (That's another personal attack by the way.)

After a few pages of you doing this, despite having no rational basis to do so and no discernable argument, i've decided that the reason you're doing this is because you like to feel superior to others, and aren't actually interested in what policy choices would lead to reduced rape, you're just interested in feeling good.

This, by the way, on a societal level?
The fact people like you exist and that your view is polluting the discourse?
That leads to rapes too. It's a factor on a societal level.

I'm not going to argue with Grave_n_Idle until he actually disagrees with me but it seems interesting that he's taken such a hard stance against rape culture being real.

[Des-Bal]

You know what leads to rape? Rapists!
That's all.
Nothing more.

So rape culture is bullshit, great.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm perfectly prepared to debate rape and why it happens. The problem is, everytime I bring up a point about YOU are the one who makes personal arguments against ME for it.

You completely ignored the rest of the post where I made arguments. You've entirely refused to acknowledge des bals arguments.
You've ignored that nobody is excusing rapists. (That's another personal attack by the way.)

After a few pages of you doing this, despite having no rational basis to do so and no discernable argument, i've decided that the reason you're doing this is because you like to feel superior to others, and aren't actually interested in what policy choices would lead to reduced rape, you're just interested in feeling good.

This, by the way, on a societal level?
The fact people like you exist and that your view is polluting the discourse?
That leads to rapes too. It's a factor on a societal level.

You know what leads to rape? Rapists!
That's all.
Nothing more.

You know what leads to crime? Criminals!
That's all.
Nothing more.

You sound like a tough on crime conservative. You DO realize that right?

[Chessmistress]

"Women of other species"???
Are you really comparing women to animals???

Racists can be feminists???

Anti-lesbians and anti-bisexual women can be feminists???

Humans are animals. Yes. Male humans are humans and animals. Female humans are humans and animals. Do you accept evolution? If so then you have no basis to distinguish the suffering of one female animal with another.

WHY THE HELL I SHOULD MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A FEMALE ANIMAL AND A MALE ANIMAL ???
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "PATRIARCHY" WITHIN ANIMALS!!!

Now I understand: you're not a Radical Feminist nor an anarchist.
You're a cultural feminist, a matriarchist, like my partner.
My partner is more funny: she's not animalist, but racist, and even really carnivore (she especially like lamb and horse meat).

[Natapoc]

You know what leads to rape? Rapists!
That's all.
Nothing more.

So rape culture is bullshit, great.

Rape culture is what we're reading in this thread from the non feminist side. You comfort rapists by telling them that it's the victims fault or someone elses fault. It's not. Rapists cause rape and rape culture let's them get away with it, normalizing it.

If it was not so immoral I'd make a "roleplay" account and talk about male rape the way you and others talk about rape against women. But I can't even bring myself to satirize your viewpoint because I would think myself a horrible person.

[Natapoc]

You're a cultural feminist, a matriarchist, like my partner.

Are you hitting on me? Sorry I'm married. No not to Des-Bal.

[Des-Bal]

Rape culture is what we're reading in this thread from the non feminist side. You comfort rapists by telling them that it's the victims fault or someone elses fault. It's not. Rapists cause rape and rape culture let's them get away with it, normalizing it.

If it was not so immoral I'd make a "roleplay" account and talk about male rape the way you and others talk about rape against women. But I can't even bring myself to satirize your viewpoint because I would think myself a horrible person.

You're being ridiculous. I'm not going to argue with you about this unless you're going to disagree with me.

"It is bad to use 'mild resistance' to communicate consent"

Agree, disagree, Neutral.

[Ostroeuropa]

So rape culture is bullshit, great.

Rape culture is what we're reading in this thread from the non feminist side. You comfort rapists by telling them that it's the victims fault or someone elses fault. It's not. Rapists cause rape and rape culture let's them get away with it, normalizing it.

If it was not so immoral I'd make a "roleplay" account and talk about male rape the way you and others talk about rape against women. But I can't even bring myself to satirize your viewpoint because I would think myself a horrible person.

Nobody has blamed the victim. Not once.
We're not saying it's someone elses fault either. We've explicitly denied that several times. You just don't seem capable of understanding that factors can lead to decisions, and that other people and their actions can be a factor in a rapist deciding to rape.

The "No means yes" phenomanae IS part of rape culture.

You can talk about male rape this way too. If men were going around feigning resistance, i'd say that had the effect of causing more rapists to happen.

If you aren't willing to look at the factors that lead to someone deciding to rape, you cannot reform that person. If you aren't willing to look at the factors that lead to someone deciding to rape, you cannot prevent more rapists.

This is really, really obvious shit.
The problem is that you've so thoroughly dehumanized rapists in your mind that you think re-humanizing them in order to understand what influenced their decision beyond "THEY R JUST EVULZ." is being on their side.
I suspect you've dehumanized them because of misandry on your part.

This is really, really fucking common with feminists and male perpetrators of crimes. It's why feminism is so fucking useless as an ideology.
It can't even solve womens issues, let alone mens.

Here's another few posts dealing with exactly this mentality from you people and your refusal to accept that perpetrators of crimes are people too and need to be understood in order to combat that crime. (Something you have in common with racists and tough on crimers, by the way.)

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=315559&p=22041120#p22041120
viewtopic.php?p=22041239#p22041239
viewtopic.php?p=22036155#p22036155
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=315559&p=22036835#p22036835

We made a topic about a man who was abandoned by society, and as a result lost his mind, and the effect that has on women and men.
You're just upset that it isn't wholly about the poor woman.

The whole "WELL HE'S JUST EVIL!" that the feminists pull is too fucking simplistic.
We will never sort this shit out if we carry on that kind of rhetoric.

He was a victim too. We need to find out what made him feel the need to act like this. He slipped through the cracks. Either he was an unmedicated mentally ill man, or perhaps he was crushed by social pressures placed on men, etc.
Helping men is how we stop these shootings. Helping women will not make men less desperate or insane.
How is that so difficult for people to understand.

This kind of misandry is fucking endemic to your movement. It cripples your ability to be useful to society. That post there is another example of feminism routinely being unable to fix womens problems, and just shouting at men for them.

[Natapoc]

This kind of misandry is fucking endemic to your movement. It cripples your ability to be useful to society. That post there is another example of feminism routinely being unable to fix womens problems, and just shouting at men for them.

I love how both you and ChessMistress think I'm a misandrist. Do you both also share an interest in equestrian fantasy based on my little pony?