The limits of choice

[New Grestin]

I felt I should make the distinction to ensure that people couldn't pull the "generalization" card, but I agree.

Except now, instead of bra burnings, we get Big Sister and the uber-feminists coming to take away women's freedom in the name of stopping "oppression".

I mean, none of chessmisstress' ideas would be particularly out of place in the original lesbian feminist circles. If anything, they're anachronistic in the modern day.

It's funny how, not matter how many threads Chess has started and been involved in, that the discussion always goes to how fucking weird and authoritarian her brand of feminism is.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

I mean, none of chessmisstress' ideas would be particularly out of place in the original lesbian feminist circles. If anything, they're anachronistic in the modern day.

It's funny how, not matter how many threads Chess has started and been involved in, that the discussion always goes to how fucking weird and authoritarian her brand of feminism is.

Lol. It's just so surreal, it invites meta discussion. What, are we gonna be the eightieth and eighty first people to explain why that's an obviously terrible idea?

[Wallenburg]

I mean, none of chessmisstress' ideas would be particularly out of place in the original lesbian feminist circles. If anything, they're anachronistic in the modern day.

It's funny how, not matter how many threads Chess has started and been involved in, that the discussion always goes to how fucking weird and authoritarian her brand of feminism is.

Perhaps she should declare a new ideology?

[New Grestin]

It's funny how, not matter how many threads Chess has started and been involved in, that the discussion always goes to how fucking weird and authoritarian her brand of feminism is.

Perhaps she should declare a new ideology?

Chessmistressim: Because choice is a tool of the Patriarchy

[Liberonscien]

It's funny how, not matter how many threads Chess has started and been involved in, that the discussion always goes to how fucking weird and authoritarian her brand of feminism is.

Lol. It's just so surreal, it invites meta discussion. What, are we gonna be the eightieth and eighty first people to explain why that's an obviously terrible idea?

I love it when things go meta.
...
I kinda want to go through her posts and make a little book out of them.

[Rhyfelnydd]

I mean, I really am not a fan of breast implants myself, find them pretty unattractive, personally. But...really? some sort of remove the rights of women to do what they want as a way of improving their rights..? If I misunderstand, be free to let me know because I really do not get this, and it appears like you are implying women cannot think for themselves.

[Chessmistress]

I wonder; Does she think the only way we'll be equal is by taking away everybody's rights?

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm under the impression that she secretly wants things like cosmetic surgeries and stuff, but can't afford it. So if she can't have it, no one else can.

This isn't about feminism. This is about being spiteful.

Wrong impression.
The idea is not mine, is by Clare Chambers, aprofessor teaching Feminism at university of Cambridge, UK.

One positive thing I can say about Chess: her... unique logic never ceases to amaze.

See above, it's Clare Chambers' logic too, and also quite common within European Radical Feminism.

Long hair and skirts do not hurt health.
Some women are capable of breaking out of cultural pressure.
Some other women aren't capable of breaking out of cultural pressure.
I think that as long as cultural pressure doesn't enforce unhealthy "choices" then there aren't problems, but there ARE problems when the "choices" enforced by cultural pressure are harmful, unhealthy.
We must keep care of all women, helping them to overcome such cultural pressure.
I'm NOT sure about a "ban", I'm NOT sure it would work well, maybe it wouldn't.
But I'm absolutely sure a massive awareness campaign about such matter can do just only good.

Here's a question I'm curious about your answer to...

What's the difference between an individual wanting something socially desirable and taking steps to get it, and an individual being pressured to acquire something socially desirable? How can someone prove that they aren't being pressured to get implants?

It's almost impossible to prove such difference, and that's exactly why I partially disagree with professor Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of the State in order to limit unhealthy choices enforced by the male-dominated (patriarchal) culture. But since we cannot be sure how much and how many of these unhealthy choices are totally enforced by the patriarchy, I think that an awareness campaign and a taxation on such unhealthy practices would be better, more fair.

I call BS. How do you rationalize taking away women's rights for the sake of liberation? It's utterly ridiculous!

Awareness campaigns + taxation on unhealthy practices = / = take away women's rights.

[New Aerios]

Awareness campaigns + taxation on unhealthy practices = / = take away women's rights.

Well, I'd argue that taxation does take away rights, in that it supposes people do not have a right to their own property.

Regardless, a tax on breast implants would pretty much exclusively affect women, so you're not really doing much good for feminism here...

[Chessmistress]

Awareness campaigns + taxation on unhealthy practices = / = take away women's rights.

Well, I'd argue that taxation does take away rights, in that it supposes people do not have a right to their own property.

Regardless, a tax on breast implants would pretty much exclusively affect women, so you're not really doing much good for feminism here...

Feminism is about women's empowerment.
Women socially pressured to modify our bodies in order to please males within a male-dominated society is not good, nor it is power, nor it is a real choice.
Creating a counter social pressure, and discouraging women from such male-pleasing unhealthy practices, we would act favoring women's empowerment.
The goal would be: women don't need anymore to modify our bodies in order to please males, social perception of women changes = women's empowerment.

[Val Halla]

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm under the impression that she secretly wants things like cosmetic surgeries and stuff, but can't afford it. So if she can't have it, no one else can.

This isn't about feminism. This is about being spiteful.

Wrong impression.
The idea is not mine, is by Clare Chambers, aprofessor teaching Feminism at university of Cambridge, UK.

One positive thing I can say about Chess: her... unique logic never ceases to amaze.

See above, it's Clare Chambers' logic too, and also quite common within European Radical Feminism.

Here's a question I'm curious about your answer to...

What's the difference between an individual wanting something socially desirable and taking steps to get it, and an individual being pressured to acquire something socially desirable? How can someone prove that they aren't being pressured to get implants?

It's almost impossible to prove such difference, and that's exactly why I partially disagree with professor Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of the State in order to limit unhealthy choices enforced by the male-dominated (patriarchal) culture. But since we cannot be sure how much and how many of these unhealthy choices are totally enforced by the patriarchy, I think that an awareness campaign and a taxation on such unhealthy practices would be better, more fair.

I call BS. How do you rationalize taking away women's rights for the sake of liberation? It's utterly ridiculous!

Awareness campaigns + taxation on unhealthy practices = / = take away women's rights.

Stop waving around the fact that somebody you agree with is a professor. It means jack shit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, I'd argue that taxation does take away rights, in that it supposes people do not have a right to their own property.

Regardless, a tax on breast implants would pretty much exclusively affect women, so you're not really doing much good for feminism here...

Feminism is about women's empowerment.
Women socially pressured to modify our bodies in order to please males within a male-dominated society is not good, nor it is power, nor it is a real choice.
Creating a counter social pressure, and discouraging women from such male-pleasing unhealthy practices, we would act favoring women's empowerment.
The goal would be: women don't need anymore to modify our bodies in order to please males, social perception of women changes = women's empowerment.

I'm not sure you have talked with women.

At least in America women hate other women who get breast implants because they call them "fake". And even men are not really sold on fake boobs.

So I am not sure how the fuck is it different in your country or in Europe, but down here breast implants are pretty much frowned upon by the culture itself.

[Chessmistress]

Wrong impression.
The idea is not mine, is by Clare Chambers, aprofessor teaching Feminism at university of Cambridge, UK.



See above, it's Clare Chambers' logic too, and also quite common within European Radical Feminism.



It's almost impossible to prove such difference, and that's exactly why I partially disagree with professor Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of the State in order to limit unhealthy choices enforced by the male-dominated (patriarchal) culture. But since we cannot be sure how much and how many of these unhealthy choices are totally enforced by the patriarchy, I think that an awareness campaign and a taxation on such unhealthy practices would be better, more fair.



Awareness campaigns + taxation on unhealthy practices = / = take away women's rights.

Stop waving around the fact that somebody you agree with is a professor. It means jack shit.

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

[Aelex]

Feminism is about women's empowerment.
Women socially pressured to modify our bodies in order to please males within a male-dominated society is not good, nor it is power, nor it is a real choice.
Creating a counter social pressure, and discouraging women from such male-pleasing unhealthy practices, we would act favoring women's empowerment.
The goal would be: women don't need anymore to modify our bodies in order to please males, social perception of women changes = women's empowerment.

Yeah. Definitly post-october bolchevism parallels to make here.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Stop waving around the fact that somebody you agree with is a professor. It means jack shit.

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

Nietzsche also taught at the most prestigious universities, and Kant.

That doesn't mean they weren't wrong on some of their ideas. So knock it the fuck off with the whole "oh but she knows feminism far more than everyone here!"; she doesn't.

She is a philosophy professor who is focused on feminist issues, not a feminist who happens to be a philosopher.

[Lordieth]

Stop waving around the fact that somebody you agree with is a professor. It means jack shit.

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

Argument from authority. Says more about the poor judgement of the university of Cambridge than her credibility as a feminist scholar.

I wouldn't argue that it isn't feminism, but perhaps you should rightly say that this is radical feminism, and absolutely not moderate feminism. I think that's what people take issue with, that you use your flavour of feminism like an umbrella for the entire movement.

[Aelex]

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

So if I find you a link of a doctor who say that abortion are harmful for women's health or another who tell that vaccins cause Autism, you'll blindly think they are true since they are doctor teaching in MEDICAL UNIVERSITY who sayed so?
C'mon, you're smarter than to think that a simple appeal to (a doubtful qui plus est) authority would be enough for us to accept the logic of your argument!

And for the last part, a equality court especially meant for women ain't an equality court.

[Val Halla]

Stop waving around the fact that somebody you agree with is a professor. It means jack shit.

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

Never said it wasn't feminism. I am saying, however, just because she agrees with you, doesn't make your opinion fact.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

Argument from authority. Says more about the poor judgement of the university of Cambridge than her credibility as a feminist scholar.

I wouldn't argue that it isn't feminism, but perhaps you should rightly say that this is radical feminism, and absolutely not moderate feminism.

Actually, it says more about how much a person can put weight into an institution.

Just because my brother is a Texas' Christian University's Chemistry Ph.D. it doesn't mean his degree is more significant in what it teaches than a Chemistry Ph.D. from the University of Texas, for instance.

Yea, sure, Cambridge is hiring a feminist scholar who has pretty radical ideas that, pragmatically, would be a disaster. That means nothing to me that she is from Cambridge.

[Chessmistress]

As long as people continue to trying to patronise me saying "this is no feminism" I'll continue to highlight that the idea comes from a professor (Radical Feminist) teaching Feminism in the university of Cambridge, the most important university in UK.
She know Feminism far more than everyone here, including me.
Still, my idea is a little different than her.
Her last book is against marriage: even on such point I disagree, just a little, with her - I think that with proper protections against femicide/domestic violence/psychological and emotional abuses/economical blackmails, and also a little more rights, many women can be quite happy within a marriage.
I found instead very interesting her idea about "Equality Courts", especially meant for women and to overcome gender inequality.

So if I find you a link of a doctor who say that abortion are harmful for women's health or another who tell that vaccins cause Autism, you'll blindly think they are true since they are doctor teaching in MEDICAL UNIVERSITY who sayed so?
C'mon, you're smarter than to think that a simple appeal to (a doubtful qui plus est) authority would be enough for us to accept the logic of your argument!

And for the last part, a equality court especially meant for women ain't an equality court.

I'm highlighting Clare Chambers not for making you accepting my argument: I'm highlighting Clare Chambers in order to reject the wrong idea "that isn't feminism".
My solution is a little different from Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of State to limit the "choices". I propose awareness campaigns + taxation, it's far softer.

She is a philosophy professor who is focused on feminist issues, not a feminist who happens to be a philosopher.

Wrong.
As you was wrong even when you wrote she doesn't propose a ban - a ban is exactly what she propose

There are grounds for prohibiting actions that are done in response to unjust social norms that bring about significant harm.

Dr Clare Chambers

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/impact/f ... -of-choice

What do you think means "prohibiting"???

You have still to answer to that.

It's useless that you try to reframe things:
Clare Chambers teach FEMINISM as part of her Philosophy course
Clare Chambers propose to PROHIBIT (BAN) breast implants.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So if I find you a link of a doctor who say that abortion are harmful for women's health or another who tell that vaccins cause Autism, you'll blindly think they are true since they are doctor teaching in MEDICAL UNIVERSITY who sayed so?
C'mon, you're smarter than to think that a simple appeal to (a doubtful qui plus est) authority would be enough for us to accept the logic of your argument!

And for the last part, a equality court especially meant for women ain't an equality court.

I'm highlighting Clare Chambers not for making you accepting my argument: I'm highlighting Clare Chambers in order to reject the wrong idea "that isn't feminism".
My solution is a little different from Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of State to limit the "choices". I propose awareness campaigns + taxation, it's far softer.

She is a philosophy professor who is focused on feminist issues, not a feminist who happens to be a philosopher.

Wrong.
As you was wrong even when you wrote she doesn't propose a ban - a ban is exactly what she propose

There are grounds for prohibiting actions that are done in response to unjust social norms that bring about significant harm.

Dr Clare Chambers

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/impact/f ... -of-choice

What do you think means "prohibiting"???

You have still to answer to that.

It's useless that you try to reframe things:
Clare Chambers teach FEMINISM as part of her Philosophy course
Clare Chambers propose to PROHIBIT (BAN) breast implants.

First of all, I am not wrong. It is right there on the fucking site you sent me. Now, I am either to believe you haven't paid attention to your own source, or that you are lying. I hope it's not the latter because I don't like calling people liars without motive.

As for answering to your shit claim about "prohibiting" I already did, the fact that you didn't see it isn't my problem. Now you have to go back and look for it, for not paying attention.

Also, that's not what that phrase means. I know you are not fluent in English, but to even get the context that she is advocating for a ban out of that sentence is insulting.

[Deuxtete]

So if I find you a link of a doctor who say that abortion are harmful for women's health or another who tell that vaccins cause Autism, you'll blindly think they are true since they are doctor teaching in MEDICAL UNIVERSITY who sayed so?
C'mon, you're smarter than to think that a simple appeal to (a doubtful qui plus est) authority would be enough for us to accept the logic of your argument!

And for the last part, a equality court especially meant for women ain't an equality court.

I'm highlighting Clare Chambers not for making you accepting my argument: I'm highlighting Clare Chambers in order to reject the wrong idea "that isn't feminism".
My solution is a little different from Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of State to limit the "choices". I propose awareness campaigns + taxation, it's far softer.

She is a philosophy professor who is focused on feminist issues, not a feminist who happens to be a philosopher.

Wrong.
As you was wrong even when you wrote she doesn't propose a ban - a ban is exactly what she propose

There are grounds for prohibiting actions that are done in response to unjust social norms that bring about significant harm.

Dr Clare Chambers

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/impact/f ... -of-choice

What do you think means "prohibiting"???

You have still to answer to that.

It's useless that you try to reframe things:
Clare Chambers teach FEMINISM as part of her Philosophy course
Clare Chambers propose to PROHIBIT (BAN) breast implants.

Doesn't make it a feminist ideal just because a feminist proposed it.
I have a feminist acquaintance who strongly approves of my pickle and cheese sandwiches...are my pickle and cheese sandwiches now a feminist ideal sandwich?

[Socialist Tera]

Posters are stawmanning chessmistress. Read this, if you want to understand her position: http://www.extrememediastudies.org/extr ... _super.pdf

[Chessmistress]

I'm highlighting Clare Chambers not for making you accepting my argument: I'm highlighting Clare Chambers in order to reject the wrong idea "that isn't feminism".
My solution is a little different from Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of State to limit the "choices". I propose awareness campaigns + taxation, it's far softer.



Wrong.
As you was wrong even when you wrote she doesn't propose a ban - a ban is exactly what she propose



https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/impact/f ... -of-choice

What do you think means "prohibiting"???

You have still to answer to that.

It's useless that you try to reframe things:
Clare Chambers teach FEMINISM as part of her Philosophy course
Clare Chambers propose to PROHIBIT (BAN) breast implants.

First of all, I am not wrong. It is right there on the fucking site you sent me. Now, I am either to believe you haven't paid attention to your own source, or that you are lying. I hope it's not the latter because I don't like calling people liars without motive.

As for answering to your shit claim about "prohibiting" I already did, the fact that you didn't see it isn't my problem. Now you have to go back and look for it, for not paying attention.

I have read the book.
The quote is directly taken from the book...

More
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6520 ... nd-justice

The book presents radical proposals for state action to promote sexual and cultural justice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm highlighting Clare Chambers not for making you accepting my argument: I'm highlighting Clare Chambers in order to reject the wrong idea "that isn't feminism".
My solution is a little different from Clare Chambers: she propose to use the force of State to limit the "choices". I propose awareness campaigns + taxation, it's far softer.



Wrong.
As you was wrong even when you wrote she doesn't propose a ban - a ban is exactly what she propose



https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/impact/f ... -of-choice

What do you think means "prohibiting"???

You have still to answer to that.

It's useless that you try to reframe things:
Clare Chambers teach FEMINISM as part of her Philosophy course
Clare Chambers propose to PROHIBIT (BAN) breast implants.

Doesn't make it a feminist ideal just because a feminist proposed it.
I have a feminist acquaintance who strongly approves of my pickle and cheese sandwiches...are my pickle and cheese sandwiches now a feminist ideal sandwich?

She doesn't even argue that we NEED to ban breast implants.

I read the introduction to her book, and Chessmistress is outright strawmanning her. Now, I will admit I disagree with Chambers about her ideas of liberalism (although I have a left-libertarian bend) but that's because I think she is looking at liberalism from a pretty narrow light.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

First of all, I am not wrong. It is right there on the fucking site you sent me. Now, I am either to believe you haven't paid attention to your own source, or that you are lying. I hope it's not the latter because I don't like calling people liars without motive.

As for answering to your shit claim about "prohibiting" I already did, the fact that you didn't see it isn't my problem. Now you have to go back and look for it, for not paying attention.

I have read the book.
The quote is directly taken from the book...

More
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6520 ... nd-justice

The book presents radical proposals for state action to promote sexual and cultural justice.

No you haven't, otherwise you'd know what the purpose of her book actually was instead of strawmanning her so blatantly like you have.