The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[United Marxist Nations]

Can I please get an answer about Marxism and the USSR being "patriarchal"?

[Conserative Morality]

Nope.
Homosexuality is a western contruct, you said. That was the point.
Wrong: Homosexuality is a PATRIARCHAL construct.

Wow.

You really have no conception of the history of perception of sexuality, do you?

[New Edom]

Chess is just trying to make her discriminatory opinion that heterosexual males are the bane of this earth and must be banned from doing anything. Wait, but I though that feminism is for equal rights. I guess not.

Feminism is for equal rights for women and men. Chess just isn't a good standard-bearer.

Is it really though? I don't mean the basic hype that people like Justin Trudeau, Emma Watson and others like them propose, but the actual actions of feminism generally?

Consider this: in the previous incarnation of this thread, men and women tried to ask questions about issues that have been prominent in the news about feminism over the last few years, and in nearly every case feminists who were NOT radical replied with a disdainful "I'm too busy to be concerned about that that, I'm just proud to be an independent woman." That would be great except that the issues in question are about more than mere political activism.
A good example is the "Yes Means Yes" laws urged by radical feminists and accepted by legislators and the President of the United States. This law in California which may be pushed elsewhere accepts the existence of Rape Culture. Rape Culture Theory very clearly in every book, theory, lecture about it makes men entirely responsible for sexual misconduct and women merely victims. So sure, it's about equality for men and women--if you accept that principle. if not, then it becomes a battle between misogynist and feminist, apparently. So if as a feminist you disagree with the radical position, that's fair enough, but then you must see why Chessmistress and her comrades are seen as typical feminists.

[Conserative Morality]

Consider this: in the previous incarnation of this thread, men and women tried to ask questions about issues that have been prominent in the news about feminism over the last few years, and in nearly every case feminists who were NOT radical replied with a disdainful "I'm too busy to be concerned about that that, I'm just proud to be an independent woman." That would be great except that the issues in question are about more than mere political activism.
A good example is the "Yes Means Yes" laws urged by radical feminists and accepted by legislators and the President of the United States. This law in California which may be pushed elsewhere accepts the existence of Rape Culture. Rape Culture Theory very clearly in every book, theory, lecture about it makes men entirely responsible for sexual misconduct and women merely victims.

I don't think you understand rape culture. You need to reread those books and theories, or find a less insane author.

Also, yes means yes laws are urged by more than just radfems. It's perfectly sensible.

So sure, it's about equality for men and women--if you accept that principle. if not, then it becomes a battle between misogynist and feminist, apparently. So if as a feminist you disagree with the radical position, that's fair enough, but then you must see why Chessmistress and her comrades are seen as typical feminists.

I don't follow.

[Des-Bal]

Also, yes means yes laws are urged by more than just radfems. It's perfectly sensible.

Only if you hate the very idea of due process and believe that by default everyone is guilty.

[The Grey Wolf]

Can I please get an answer about Marxism and the USSR being "patriarchal"?

I'm not sure about the USSR politically, but culturally, Russia was heavily patriarchal from what I understand.

[Conserative Morality]

Only if you hate the very idea of due process and believe that by default everyone is guilty.

The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.

Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.

Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault to have valid complaints.

It's not changing any part of the process of criminal prosecution. It's reinforcing the standards required to be confirmed by all parties involved.

[New Edom]

Consider this: in the previous incarnation of this thread, men and women tried to ask questions about issues that have been prominent in the news about feminism over the last few years, and in nearly every case feminists who were NOT radical replied with a disdainful "I'm too busy to be concerned about that that, I'm just proud to be an independent woman." That would be great except that the issues in question are about more than mere political activism.
A good example is the "Yes Means Yes" laws urged by radical feminists and accepted by legislators and the President of the United States. This law in California which may be pushed elsewhere accepts the existence of Rape Culture. Rape Culture Theory very clearly in every book, theory, lecture about it makes men entirely responsible for sexual misconduct and women merely victims.

I don't think you understand rape culture. You need to reread those books and theories, or find a less insane author.

Also, yes means yes laws are urged by more than just radfems. It's perfectly sensible.

So sure, it's about equality for men and women--if you accept that principle. if not, then it becomes a battle between misogynist and feminist, apparently. So if as a feminist you disagree with the radical position, that's fair enough, but then you must see why Chessmistress and her comrades are seen as typical feminists.

I don't follow.

I have read the books. I rarely base any opinions on articles or blogs. And to give her credit, neither does Chessmistress, she just uses them because they're popular. Hence my concerns.

Rape Culture is part of Patriarchy Theory, would you agree with that? That it in essence stems from interpretations of history, psychology, sociology through the lens of Patriarchy Theory?

[Des-Bal]

It's not changing any part of the process of criminal prosecution. It's reinforcing the standards required to be confirmed by all parties involved.

No it's criminalizing the vast majority of sexual encounters-thereby delegitimizing actual rape- and placing the burden of proof on the accused. At the same time schools are being encouraged to do adopt non-adversarial models which do not allow the accused to face their accuser or to adequately defend themselves against allegations and in many cases unable to present evidence at all. The result of the found guilty is also pretty fucking serious, they are inevitably expelled and barred from campus and it is permanently noted that they were found guilty of sexual assault. It is absolute bullshit.

[Conserative Morality]

No it's criminalizing the vast majority of sexual encounters

Yeah no, you're claiming the vast majority of sexual encounters are the equivalent of date rape.

-thereby delegitimizing actual rape- and placing the burden of proof on the accused.

Why? Because the person needs to get a positive reaction to go ahead? Shit, if I hit you in the face, and I claim that you wanted me to do it so we could box, that would be legitimate to do, and legitimate to question; the accuser must prove that they didn't say 'yes', not that the accused must prove they didn't say 'no'. It's got nothing to do with changing 'burden of proof'.

At the same time schools are being encouraged to do adopt non-adversarial models which do not allow the accused to face their accuser or to adequately defend themselves against allegations and in many cases unable to present evidence at all. The result of the found guilty is also pretty fucking serious, they are inevitably expelled and barred from campus and it is permanently noted that they were found guilty of sexual assault. It is absolute bullshit.

Unis have seemed to be practicing very sketchy processes in response, but I'm talking about State and Federal government.

[Conserative Morality]

I have read the books. I rarely base any opinions on articles or blogs. And to give her credit, neither does Chessmistress, she just uses them because they're popular. Hence my concerns.

Rape Culture is part of Patriarchy Theory, would you agree with that? That it in essence stems from interpretations of history, psychology, sociology through the lens of Patriarchy Theory?

I would agree with that, but I would also say that patriarchy theory is overused by some, but still part of a broader trend in many human societies.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah no, you're claiming the vast majority of sexual encounters are the equivalent of date rape.

Why? Because the person needs to get a positive reaction to go ahead? Shit, if I hit you in the face, and I claim that you wanted me to do it so we could box, that would be legitimate to do, and legitimate to question; the accuser must prove that they didn't say 'yes', not that the accused must prove they didn't say 'no'. It's got nothing to do with changing 'burden of proof'.
Unis have seemed to be practicing very sketchy processes in response, but I'm talking about State and Federal government.

By Yes means Yes? They absolutely are. The most common way people communicate consent is by doing nothing which doesn't satisfy the affirmative consent policies.

Assuming that we're somewhere where mutual combat is a thing that can happen under the law that's still a shitty example given that mutual combat would be an affirmative defense and would as a matter of law shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

The white house shat on universities that used the adversarial system, this is the direction they are being told to go.

[New Edom]

I have read the books. I rarely base any opinions on articles or blogs. And to give her credit, neither does Chessmistress, she just uses them because they're popular. Hence my concerns.

Rape Culture is part of Patriarchy Theory, would you agree with that? That it in essence stems from interpretations of history, psychology, sociology through the lens of Patriarchy Theory?

I would agree with that, but I would also say that patriarchy theory is overused by some, but still part of a broader trend in many human societies.

The problem that I see with this is that where some might say 'patriarchal' to mean 'men used to dominate political and commercial spheres of life' others see it as a source of deliberate oppression of women. The popular narrative has presented this consistently so that a masculine culture is simply bad, and a feminine one is simply good. I have yet to see any attempt at presenting anything else.

Try this for instance: try talking about a version of Rape Culture where sexual abuse of boys or girls by women is part of the subject matter and see how well that goes.

Why else is the focus for men on re-educating them to 'not rape' and 'be better allies' and the focus for women is to empower them?

So if this is the moral basis for pursuing changes in the law, is it that surprising that people of a more liberal persuasion find it very suspicious and don't want to support it? And again, I have yet to see any feminist news releases of any kind, whether via interviews, media content about the law or legislation, writings by social psychologists or you name it that says otherwise. If Feminist leaders cannot bring themselves to explain what they think should happen if women are involved in wrong doing of any kind, then the movement when it comes to this Rape Culture idea is not focused on justice but on retribution. You said it yourself, and you are right. And I don't see the trend stopping any time soon. The very idea of Patriarchy Theory hinges on the notion that there is NOTHING good about any past or present society until a vision of female liberation is achieved.

[Conserative Morality]

By Yes means Yes? They absolutely are. The most common way people communicate consent is by doing nothing which doesn't satisfy the affirmative consent policies.

Are you serious?

Am I talking to a legitimate rapist right now?

[Conserative Morality]

The problem that I see with this is that where some might say 'patriarchal' to mean 'men used to dominate political and commercial spheres of life' others see it as a source of deliberate oppression of women. The popular narrative has presented this consistently so that a masculine culture is simply bad, and a feminine one is simply good. I have yet to see any attempt at presenting anything else.

Try this for instance: try talking about a version of Rape Culture where sexual abuse of boys or girls by women is part of the subject matter and see how well that goes.

Why else is the focus for men on re-educating them to 'not rape' and 'be better allies' and the focus for women is to empower them?

So if this is the moral basis for pursuing changes in the law, is it that surprising that people of a more liberal persuasion find it very suspicious and don't want to support it? And again, I have yet to see any feminist news releases of any kind, whether via interviews, media content about the law or legislation, writings by social psychologists or you name it that says otherwise. If Feminist leaders cannot bring themselves to explain what they think should happen if women are involved in wrong doing of any kind, then the movement when it comes to this Rape Culture idea is not focused on justice but on retribution. You said it yourself, and you are right. And I don't see the trend stopping any time soon. The very idea of Patriarchy Theory hinges on the notion that there is NOTHING good about any past or present society until a vision of female liberation is achieved.

I think you're taking a small, loud, and actually not all that academic subset of feminism for your views on these concepts, and that's really not a good place to get them from.

Also, there aren't really any major feminist leaders. There's more infighting there than in leftist circles, or Classical era Iudean resistance movements. No one agrees with one another and everyone accuses everyone else of not being a feminist.

[Des-Bal]

The problem that I see with this is that where some might say 'patriarchal' to mean 'men used to dominate political and commercial spheres of life' others see it as a source of deliberate oppression of women. The popular narrative has presented this consistently so that a masculine culture is simply bad, and a feminine one is simply good. I have yet to see any attempt at presenting anything else.

Try this for instance: try talking about a version of Rape Culture where sexual abuse of boys or girls by women is part of the subject matter and see how well that goes.

Why else is the focus for men on re-educating them to 'not rape' and 'be better allies' and the focus for women is to empower them?

So if this is the moral basis for pursuing changes in the law, is it that surprising that people of a more liberal persuasion find it very suspicious and don't want to support it? And again, I have yet to see any feminist news releases of any kind, whether via interviews, media content about the law or legislation, writings by social psychologists or you name it that says otherwise. If Feminist leaders cannot bring themselves to explain what they think should happen if women are involved in wrong doing of any kind, then the movement when it comes to this Rape Culture idea is not focused on justice but on retribution. You said it yourself, and you are right. And I don't see the trend stopping any time soon. The very idea of Patriarchy Theory hinges on the notion that there is NOTHING good about any past or present society until a vision of female liberation is achieved.

The idea of a patriarchal rape culture is particularly egreigous given that when the term was coined it was particularly associated with the way male prison rape is essentially condoned. The conception of gender politics that assumes men can only be perpetrators and women can only be victims completely ignores the way society actually works.

[Des-Bal]

I think you're taking a small, loud, and actually not all that academic subset of feminism for your views on these concepts, and that's really not a good place to get them from.

Also, there aren't really any major feminist leaders. There's more infighting there than in leftist circles, or Classical era Iudean resistance movements. No one agrees with one another and everyone accuses everyone else of not being a feminist.

Of course not, feminism is just a form of energy and is totally unaccountable as a whole for the actions of those who support it.

[Conserative Morality]

Of course not, feminism is just a form of energy and is totally unaccountable as a whole for the actions of those who support it.

You'll notice that I don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, or all paint all of my political opponents as racist, misogynistic rapists. I don't blame all capitalists for the actions of Pinochet, and I don't credit the Civil Rights Movement with the assassination of Malcolm X.

[Conserative Morality]

To clarify for New Edom:

When I use the term 'patriarchy', I use it as it was taught in my sociology classes - patriarchy is the term used for systems that concentrate power in the hands of men over women. This does not mean it's good for men. This does not mean men are bad. On the flip side, women are not the only ones who suffer under a patriarchial society. Women can and very often do participate in the repression and cruelty inherent in such a patriarchal system. There is no evidence a matriarchy would be any better.

We cool?

[Nariterrr]

The idea of a patriarchal rape culture is particularly egreigous given that when the term was coined it was particularly associated with the way male prison rape is essentially condoned. The conception of gender politics that assumes men can only be perpetrators and women can only be victims completely ignores the way society actually works.

That drives home an important point, the man isn't always the perpetrator.

[New Edom]

The problem that I see with this is that where some might say 'patriarchal' to mean 'men used to dominate political and commercial spheres of life' others see it as a source of deliberate oppression of women. The popular narrative has presented this consistently so that a masculine culture is simply bad, and a feminine one is simply good. I have yet to see any attempt at presenting anything else.

Try this for instance: try talking about a version of Rape Culture where sexual abuse of boys or girls by women is part of the subject matter and see how well that goes.

Why else is the focus for men on re-educating them to 'not rape' and 'be better allies' and the focus for women is to empower them?

So if this is the moral basis for pursuing changes in the law, is it that surprising that people of a more liberal persuasion find it very suspicious and don't want to support it? And again, I have yet to see any feminist news releases of any kind, whether via interviews, media content about the law or legislation, writings by social psychologists or you name it that says otherwise. If Feminist leaders cannot bring themselves to explain what they think should happen if women are involved in wrong doing of any kind, then the movement when it comes to this Rape Culture idea is not focused on justice but on retribution. You said it yourself, and you are right. And I don't see the trend stopping any time soon. The very idea of Patriarchy Theory hinges on the notion that there is NOTHING good about any past or present society until a vision of female liberation is achieved.

I think you're taking a small, loud, and actually not all that academic subset of feminism for your views on these concepts, and that's really not a good place to get them from.

Also, there aren't really any major feminist leaders. There's more infighting there than in leftist circles, or Classical era Iudean resistance movements. No one agrees with one another and everyone accuses everyone else of not being a feminist.

This is typical feminist intellectual dishonesty. Those who are liberal, conservative, etc here,w ho actually like eing part of the tradition of liberal democracy, take heed. This person is implying that when no less persons than heads of state and heads of government support a radical feminist agenda, when their ideas are quoted in popular media, when their sock puppet Emma Watson is in the UN, when they dominate Ted talks on gender issues, that somehow they HATE NO LEADERS. So somehow this movement by what, pixie dust or magic, achieves legislative success it means that it just HAPPENED? Give me a break. Your supposed sadness over how vehement the radical movement can be before isn't holding up to any scrutiny.

[Des-Bal]

[
You'll notice that I don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, or all paint all of my political opponents as racist, misogynistic rapists. I don't blame all capitalists for the actions of Pinochet, and I don't credit the Civil Rights Movement with the assassination of Malcolm X.

Exactly how much shit can a movement turn out before it is no longer considered a good thing? The few bad eggs of the feminist movement seem to be the only ones doing anything and that's ignoring the fact that that it at it's core severely flawed.

[Conserative Morality]

This is typical feminist intellectual dishonesty. Those who are liberal, conservative, etc here,w ho actually like eing part of the tradition of liberal democracy, take heed. This person is implying that when no less persons than heads of state and heads of government support a radical feminist agenda, when their ideas are quoted in popular media, when their sock puppet Emma Watson is in the UN, when they dominate Ted talks on gender issues, that somehow they HATE NO LEADERS. So somehow this movement by what, pixie dust or magic, achieves legislative success it means that it just HAPPENED? Give me a break. Your supposed sadness over how vehement the radical movement can be before isn't holding up to any scrutiny.

Emma Watson is a pretty recent development insofar as feminist figureheads are concerned, although I suppose you could certainly count her as a strong voice and a leader.

[Kelinfort]

By Yes means Yes? They absolutely are. The most common way people communicate consent is by doing nothing which doesn't satisfy the affirmative consent policies.

Are you serious?

Am I talking to a legitimate rapist right now?

If absolutely nothing is the standard, can I just, you know, chloroform people? It falls pretty squarely within that definition.

[Conserative Morality]

Exactly how much shit can a movement turn out before it is no longer considered a good thing?

An infinite amount. Ideas are judged based on their merits, not their followers. Even assuming that a majority, a vast majority, 99% of feminists were sex-exclusionary trans-exclusionary lesbian separatist radfems, that would not mean that there's nothing worthwhile about feminism. 99% of America's founding fathers were, to some degree or another, shitheads by modern standards. Yet most people agree that they had some damn good ideas.

The few bad eggs of the feminist movement seem to be the only ones doing anything and that's ignoring the fact that that it at it's core severely flawed.

Equal rights for men and women is severely flawed?