The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Swith Witherward]

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

Do you mind toning down the "all X are Y" ranting? How many times do we have to tell you that "feminism" isn't one singular movement? Not all feminists embrace the same thing. Not all feminists share the same history, social-economic class, or experiences. When one feminist writes an article, it is based on her research and experiences. Other feminists will disagree based upon theirs.

[Mattopilos]

Pretty much this. And the fact is, I have simply taken the fact that the term feminism has become very, very, subjective, and will push whatever they think it is - whether it is for just women, men and women, or more than that. I couldn't care less being labelled a feminist or an egalitarian, as long as I know where I stand on the issues. Would it be better to split the movement into two as feminism and MRA? I don't know, because clearly they both have disagreements themselves, and both have some off as misogynist or misandrist. The movements are less organized than it looks in that sense, and they themselves cannot agree on what their views are. Would it be better as one group? I also don't know. All I know is that I have my views, and people have theirs on the issue of women's and men's rights.

Neutraligon presents a false narrative in which feminits and MRAs are equal in voice. The fact is that most mainstream media ewith possibly the exception of Fox News--I do not count Breitbart or Rebel Media as mainstream--support feminism without hesitation, attacking on its behalf anyone who disputes its popular claims. A handful of public voices such as Bill Maher support Christina Hoff Sommers and more liberal feminists, but overwhelmingly the rest support mainstream 3rd Wave intersectional feminism. The same is true of most universities. Feminism has won huge swathes of influence as an ally of liberalism in the culture wars.

Anyone who has criticized feminist initiatives publicly can expect to be humiliated and attacked as an immoral person on Al-Jazeera, The Young Turks, Huffington Post, the Guardian, Salon, NBC, the CBC, the BBC, and other popular sources.

The United Nations has invited famous feminists to talk to them to support hte notion of rape culture and online harassment. The Prime Minister of Canada, and the President of the United States and Vice-President supported feminist definitions of harassment and rape culture even over those of more liberal feminists.

So whose voice exactly is marginalized here? Neutraligon pretends that this is an equal problem, an equal effort, but it has become entirely unbalanced, and efforts on the part of men's rights activists which have tried to say "we support equality, but we disagree with how we are represented" have been time and time again denounced as being no different from the worst kinds of misogyny.

So when she pretends this is the same and that it is an equal problem, she's not presenting a truthful picture, and I've been trying to talk to her and her allies about this for quite some time. Yet she acts as though she's on some moral pedestal. As far as I can tell, all she wants to do is make sure girls in areas where there is a lack of educational opportunity are taught math. That's great, but that's about another issue, not the issue I am raising. If she has any generosity of spirit she can recognize that

NOTHING!!!! NOTHING!

Of what I have been saying is against that. There has been nothing that I have said that is meant to get in the way of peple getting fair opportunities of education. However if she wants to make some deal with the devil to get that and throw men under the bus to do it, I will not tolerate her suggesting she is on the side of the angels and I'm just giving up. Not in the face of the kind of lies her post perpetuate.

I know. I have suggesting attacking the narrative that has been presented and getting a more equal view out there. Media is shit for both sides when it wants to be. I am anti-liberalism, I can assure you, so the idea of making equality about women, and not about the other side, disgust me as much as it does you. And let's be fair here - MRAs can have some VERY sexist views, and some (not all) have condoned rape and the likes. They have bad guys as much as feminists do. But yes, they have been hand-waved due to the stigma that surrounds the word (I am a communist, I think I know how that feels).

Men are privileged in many areas, we can agree upon. I think that men are underrepresented in various areas as well. Maybe She needs to understand one does not need an 'all or nothing' approach to the problems of equality, or that people that disagree with one thing don't have to be all or nothing as well. Would that be what you are trying to say?

[New Edom]

Neutraligon presents a false narrative in which feminits and MRAs are equal in voice. The fact is that most mainstream media ewith possibly the exception of Fox News--I do not count Breitbart or Rebel Media as mainstream--support feminism without hesitation, attacking on its behalf anyone who disputes its popular claims. A handful of public voices such as Bill Maher support Christina Hoff Sommers and more liberal feminists, but overwhelmingly the rest support mainstream 3rd Wave intersectional feminism. The same is true of most universities. Feminism has won huge swathes of influence as an ally of liberalism in the culture wars.

Anyone who has criticized feminist initiatives publicly can expect to be humiliated and attacked as an immoral person on Al-Jazeera, The Young Turks, Huffington Post, the Guardian, Salon, NBC, the CBC, the BBC, and other popular sources.

The United Nations has invited famous feminists to talk to them to support hte notion of rape culture and online harassment. The Prime Minister of Canada, and the President of the United States and Vice-President supported feminist definitions of harassment and rape culture even over those of more liberal feminists.

So whose voice exactly is marginalized here? Neutraligon pretends that this is an equal problem, an equal effort, but it has become entirely unbalanced, and efforts on the part of men's rights activists which have tried to say "we support equality, but we disagree with how we are represented" have been time and time again denounced as being no different from the worst kinds of misogyny.

So when she pretends this is the same and that it is an equal problem, she's not presenting a truthful picture, and I've been trying to talk to her and her allies about this for quite some time. Yet she acts as though she's on some moral pedestal. As far as I can tell, all she wants to do is make sure girls in areas where there is a lack of educational opportunity are taught math. That's great, but that's about another issue, not the issue I am raising. If she has any generosity of spirit she can recognize that

NOTHING!!!! NOTHING!

Of what I have been saying is against that. There has been nothing that I have said that is meant to get in the way of peple getting fair opportunities of education. However if she wants to make some deal with the devil to get that and throw men under the bus to do it, I will not tolerate her suggesting she is on the side of the angels and I'm just giving up. Not in the face of the kind of lies her post perpetuate.

I know. I have suggesting attacking the narrative that has been presented and getting a more equal view out there. Media is shit for both sides when it wants to be. I am anti-liberalism, I can assure you, so the idea of making equality about women, and not about the other side, disgust me as much as it does you. And let's be fair here - MRAs can have some VERY sexist views, and some (not all) have condoned rape and the likes. They have bad guys as much as feminists do. But yes, they have been hand-waved due to the stigma that surrounds the word (I am a communist, I think I know how that feels).

Men are privileged in many areas, we can agree upon. I think that men are underrepresented in various areas as well. Maybe She needs to understand one does not need an 'all or nothing' approach to the problems of equality, or that people that disagree with one thing don't have to be all or nothing as well. Would that be what you are trying to say?

That's part of it. I'm also trying to say that feminists in general need to accept hat their narrative is actually very influential and that they can maybe affort to hear out other views without having knee jerk reactions all the time.

However I'm also exhausted with trying to say really simple things dozens of ways. I'm tired of being pressured to pay lip service to an ideology that leaves my own concerns at the door all the time.

[New Edom]

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

Do you mind toning down the "all X are Y" ranting? How many times do we have to tell you that "feminism" isn't one singular movement? Not all feminists embrace the same thing. Not all feminists share the same history, social-economic class, or experiences. When one feminist writes an article, it is based on her research and experiences. Other feminists will disagree based upon theirs.

For the most part, your movement overwhelmingly has no problem with saying "most men are x or y." For all the supposed uniqueness of different views, most feminists agree that patriarchy theory is real and that men need to give up more, shut up more and do more for women whiel women just need more encouragement. And men's own unique experiences are put on the wayside becuae of patriarchy theory, aren't they.

es, NOW you are here posting suddenly, because someone no doubt posted how offended they were by my post. Yet you were apparently fine with several writers in here posting about the standard feminist party line, and NOW you say it doesn't represent everyone?

[Des-Bal]

I think its difficult for men who care about mens issues to feel like part of a movement where it seems like a large number of the people baring its name don't respect their issues and stuff.
It's why i'm an MRA. I think we need to split the movements.

I think that in response to a group of people doing something stupid and ineffective you decided to do something stupid and ineffective in a different direction.

[Mattopilos]

I think its difficult for men who care about mens issues to feel like part of a movement where it seems like a large number of the people baring its name don't respect their issues and stuff.
It's why i'm an MRA. I think we need to split the movements.

I think that in response to a group of people doing something stupid and ineffective you decided to do something stupid and ineffective in a different direction.

Newton's 3rd law springs to mind.

[New Edom]

I think that in response to a group of people doing something stupid and ineffective you decided to do something stupid and ineffective in a different direction.

Newton's 3rd law springs to mind.

Des-Bal's post is unhelpful and untrue. Some egalitarians completely attack MRAs without offering better solutions. If it was possible to address issues like:
- male suicide rates
- male issues in education
- male abuse by both male and female persons
- male relationship issues
- males dealing with changes in career availablity
- male focused issues about violence
- male focused issues about poverty
- all the above affected by race

then I'd be interested, otherwise men need to form their own groups. Since when they do feminists are immediately hostile unless they are feminist groups with male focused issues as a sideline, yeah. It's going to be hostile.

[Mattopilos]

-snip-

My point is more that some of the actions MRAs do are purely retaliation against feminists, and vice-versa. I am not painting any of them as 'good' or 'bad' here.

[Des-Bal]

My point is more that some of the actions MRAs do are purely retaliation against feminists, and vice-versa. I am not painting any of them as 'good' or 'bad' here.

They're bad. They're bad in the same way feminists are bad, possibly worse because they're a reactionary movement. A movement that treats resolving gender inequality holistically is what's necessary. Modelling yourself after a shitty movement in the hopes that you'll balance them out is just stupid.

[New Edom]

-snip-

My point is more that some of the actions MRAs do are purely retaliation against feminists, and vice-versa. I am not painting any of them as 'good' or 'bad' here.

Some of them yes, but what do you expect when they are under constant attack and are smeared in the media merely for voicing concerns and are lied about? The answer to this is to get feminists (in general) to stop lying about men's rights activists.

[Old Tyrannia]

I am sick and tired of this. The next time feminists appeal for men to help them or support them, they can go to hell. I'm tired of you people not being able to come to consensus on what your story is. I'm tired of the lies and hypocrisy. This post has crossed a line for me completely. I know you can get away with it with people who don't care about history, so probably this will go on, but this is just too much. Enough.

New Edom: *** Warned for flaming. ***

[Jello Biafra]

Yes, it's a problem - to the same degree that it's a problem when anyone else supports harmful traditional narratives. Feminism can't legitimately be singled out as contributing more to the problem than any other group or ideology that does so.

Well, no, it can't.

The problem is that feminism bills itself as the grand solution to sex, relationships, and everything under this sun when it comes to men-women relationships. So it is an easier target than, say, people who believe Vatican II is invalid for doctrine in the Catholic Church.

Christianity, coincidentally, is a low-hanging fruit for the same reasons feminism is.

Oh, I see. This is certainly an issue where feminism can do better, so criticizing feminism on those grounds makes sense. It was just the "blame feminism for all of society's ills" type of reasoning that I was bothered by.

[Jello Biafra]

Yes, it's a problem - to the same degree that it's a problem when anyone else supports harmful traditional narratives. Feminism can't legitimately be singled out as contributing more to the problem than any other group or ideology that does so.

1. Feminism specifically bills itself as existing to address harmful traditional narratives.

And on this issue feminism can do better. You're right about that.

2. If you're arguing that someone stumbling upon a beating and then jumping in themselves is exactly as reprehensible as the fucking animals who were already there then I'd have to wonder what defense you think you're raising.

Are you saying the ones who started the fight are the bigger problem? If so, the analogy applies to the traditional narrative, as it was there first.

[Jello Biafra]

No, it's entirely relevant. The myth was already present in the culture. If feminism weren't talking about the myth, it would still be present in the culture to almost the same degree, if not entirely to the same degree. Your logic is backwards; you're putting the cart before the horse.

You're assuming that 'men want it' is the key issue. It's an important issue, butit's not the only issue. The main issue is actually that men's issues in general are not considered important and are belieed to eclipse womens needs.

If you mean within feminism then I agree - feminism places women's needs above the needs of men, which is a problem when there are men's issues that are really pressing. If you mean within society in general, I don't agree.

Being an ally to feminists most often means that men are expected to suppor twomen in the sphere of feminism. Discussion of men's needs--which has been attempted many times--is generally rejected on the part of feminists.

Yes, this is true.

[Jello Biafra]

You're assuming that 'men want it' is the key issue. It's an important issue, butit's not the only issue. The main issue is actually that men's issues in general are not considered important and are belieed to eclipse womens needs.

Being an ally to feminists most often means that men are expected to suppor twomen in the sphere of feminism. Discussion of men's needs--which has been attempted many times--is generally rejected on the part of feminists.

Why men's issues should be important to a movement that is meant for women?
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/12/ ... -misogyny/

Weiss and I almost agree on one thing: the claim that “feminism is just the belief that women are equal to men.”

The reason why is because while in most cases making women equal to men will mean raising women up to be equal to men, there are some issues where it is necessary to raise men up in order to be equal to women. This means it's necessary to talk about men's issues some of the time.

[Jello Biafra]

Anyway, slightly different subject.

Any newspaper that has the "nutter" (to quote Matto) Jessica Valenti on their payroll should be considered Nutter by proxy. Still, it's that old pay gap chestnut again.

http://archive.is/n22HW#selection-1119.0-1119.161

It appears this is based upon a paper back in May 11th by the Hay Group, which puts in in their headline as "Put simply a man and a woman doing the same job in the same function and company, get paid almost exactly the same."

Few things:

1) No shit. It's what MRA's, anti-feminists and non-aligned rational people alike have been saying all along. However, when previously when questioning the 77% narrative they've decided its easier to smear as misogynist rather than actually engage.

2) Well done Guardian for finally working out something most of the intelligent human race knew for a long time. Anyone want to place bets on how long it takes for the rest of the third wave feminist orthodoxy to shift the goalposts and claim thats what they meant all along?

3) It appears to be arguing for artificial quotas for management or high-paid roles. Commendable in theory, but if it is going to lead to sub-par managers leading companies to potential ruin, it is likely to cause more harm than good to the cause of gender equality. If it takes 60 years to establish equality in high income jobs that is regrettable, but it should be more important to do it right, rather than in a sloppy rush.

The funny thing about this is that whenever feminists talk about social pressures keeping women out of jobs they get accused of moving the goalposts.

[New Edom]

Well, no, it can't.

The problem is that feminism bills itself as the grand solution to sex, relationships, and everything under this sun when it comes to men-women relationships. So it is an easier target than, say, people who believe Vatican II is invalid for doctrine in the Catholic Church.

Christianity, coincidentally, is a low-hanging fruit for the same reasons feminism is.

Oh, I see. This is certainly an issue where feminism can do better, so criticizing feminism on those grounds makes sense. It was just the "blame feminism for all of society's ills" type of reasoning that I was bothered by.

That is, frustratingly, what people often SAY about the critics of feminism, even when that's blatantly not the case, as though it's either wonderfully perfect or worthless because there are legitimate criticisms.

[New Edom]

Anyway, slightly different subject.

Any newspaper that has the "nutter" (to quote Matto) Jessica Valenti on their payroll should be considered Nutter by proxy. Still, it's that old pay gap chestnut again.

http://archive.is/n22HW#selection-1119.0-1119.161

It appears this is based upon a paper back in May 11th by the Hay Group, which puts in in their headline as "Put simply a man and a woman doing the same job in the same function and company, get paid almost exactly the same."

Few things:

1) No shit. It's what MRA's, anti-feminists and non-aligned rational people alike have been saying all along. However, when previously when questioning the 77% narrative they've decided its easier to smear as misogynist rather than actually engage.

2) Well done Guardian for finally working out something most of the intelligent human race knew for a long time. Anyone want to place bets on how long it takes for the rest of the third wave feminist orthodoxy to shift the goalposts and claim thats what they meant all along?

3) It appears to be arguing for artificial quotas for management or high-paid roles. Commendable in theory, but if it is going to lead to sub-par managers leading companies to potential ruin, it is likely to cause more harm than good to the cause of gender equality. If it takes 60 years to establish equality in high income jobs that is regrettable, but it should be more important to do it right, rather than in a sloppy rush.

The funny thing about this is that whenever feminists talk about social pressures keeping women out of jobs they get accused of moving the goalposts.

Well it depends on how they are discussing it and who responds.

When feminists say "we'd like women or girls who might go into sciences or business but are shy of it to be encouraged" many of us are fine with that, and I would even applaud that.

When feminists say "we'd like women or girls to feel encouraged to go more into science and business, and they would but MEN need to step aside for them" I am dubious, especially when the focus of studies and journalists' articles is entirely on how men hold women back. Because there's little attempt to explore reasons other than how microaggressions hold women back. These discusions often degenerate into why somehow Wonder woman's costume keeps girls from wanting to be scientists, and that's not only annoying but is often really just a means of controlling what people think. I have no issue at all with women and girls just being encouraged to go into careers.

I don't mind concern about why there are not so many women who are CEOs of companies. But again, as above, it tends to degenerate into things like "men interrupt women too much" rather than exploring other reasons.

I also notice that there are few discussions of women wanting to be toolpushers on oil rigs or crab fishermen--it's all about high status jobs, not just demanding or respected or well paying jobs. So when people complain about the wage gap, this is rarely taken into account, and can come across as implying that you should get the same entry level pay for being a waitress or daycare worker as you do for working on an oil rig in the North Sea.

So when many of us acccuse feminists of moving the goalposts, it is because there is suspicion of feminists simply aiming for control of culture when as far as most men can tell women have a lot more opportunities and seem ungrateful for what has been achieved.

BTW--I wish that leftists would grasp this notion: grateful doesn't mean that you cannot ask for more or have new expectations--it just means that you appreciate the integrity of someone who gave you something. Feminists often come across as though men are jerks who just want to hold onto privileges for no reason. So many conversations begin in bad faith.

[Galloism]

Which proves the influence third rate feminism has as a force for rape apologism.

No. Third wave feminism adopted the myth because it was already present in the culture. There's no reason to assume the boys in the "Why Rape is Funny" video in Galloism's signature (who told the guy who'd been raped by his teacher that he was lucky) were feminists.

I will personally assure you that feminists are in no way better on this subject than the average population. I won't go to claiming their worse, if only because average is so very bad, but it's a rather extreme claim that feminists are less sexist than the average person given what we've seen and documented from feminists in regards to these types of issues.

[Chessmistress]

No. Third wave feminism adopted the myth because it was already present in the culture. There's no reason to assume the boys in the "Why Rape is Funny" video in Galloism's signature (who told the guy who'd been raped by his teacher that he was lucky) were feminists.

I will personally assure you that feminists are in no way better on this subject than the average population. I won't go to claiming their worse, if only because average is so very bad, but it's a rather extreme claim that feminists are less sexist than the average person given what we've seen and documented from feminists in regards to these types of issues.

Why Feminists should be better on this subject than the average population, since Feminism is meant to improve women's rights and women's lifes, and have never been meant to deal with men's issues?
Logic matters.

[Galloism]

As said, such "traditional narrative" it's very likely to be very inflated, exaggerated, but also to have a biological basis: differences in mating strategies between sexes can be observed in all the mammals.
I think that saying that "all men always want it" it's wrong, but I don't think it would be totally wrong to suppose, given the reality of differences in mating strategies, that most (not all) men are hardwired to a default "yes" while most (not all) women are hardwired to a default "no". Hence why the requests of Indian and Israelian Feminists make sense, when we also take in account the unbalancement of power within a patriarchal society.

Wow. Way to directly encourage rape. You actually did it.

That's amazing. I guess you're done tiptoeing around your rape support and ready to say "go ahead and fuck em even when goddamn unconscious. Most men are in a default state of consent anyway".

Nice to get it out in the open and quit all this dancing around.

As I was driving home yesterday from the airport (a very long way), I realized that some of you might be thinking I am being extremely hyperbolic. I assure you that I am not.

By way of explaining what I mean - that Chessmistress is deliberately encouraging rape - allow me to posit you a hypothetical person that probably actually exists.

This person is a young woman. We'll say 20. She reads the feminist thread and takes Chessmistress as an authority on feminism and gender relations because she claims to be the one true feminist. Let's say this woman is very naive and takes her posts at face value instead of recognizing them for the giant mountain of bullshit that they are.

Tonight, she goes to a party. It's saturday night after all. She's in college, and that party has lots of alcohol and drugs because, hey, it's one of those kinds of parties.

She sees this guy. He's 21. She's loved him since she started college a year ago, but he's never really paid attention to her. He's so drugged out of his mind he thinks he's a piano. Or he's so drunk he's passed out or nearly so. Or some combination thereof. She wants to have sex with him. She loves him, but she pauses for a moment. He's really out of it.

So she thinks back to what Chessmistress said:

I don't think it would be totally wrong to suppose, given the reality of differences in mating strategies, that most (not all) men are hardwired to a default "yes"

Now, if she accepts what Chessmistress said, does it matter if he's high out of his mind or drunken unconscious? He's probably got a default "yes", so if he's passed out drunk or completely out of his mind doesn't matter. He's not saying "no", so the default "yes" rules the day.

She then rapes him, and he will then be mocked by society at large for it.

Words have consequences.

Chessmistress, stop supporting rape. It's disgusting.

[Galloism]

I will personally assure you that feminists are in no way better on this subject than the average population. I won't go to claiming their worse, if only because average is so very bad, but it's a rather extreme claim that feminists are less sexist than the average person given what we've seen and documented from feminists in regards to these types of issues.

Why Feminists should be better on this subject than the average population, since Feminism is meant to improve women's rights and women's lifes, and have never been meant to deal with men's issues?
Logic matters.

You can say that, but then you can give up any ethical authority for feminism. It does nothing with regard to sexism, and is nothing more than a political devotion serving the interest of its constituents.

You know, like the conservative block.

[Chessmistress]

You can say that, but then you can give up any ethical authority for feminism. It does nothing with regard to sexism, and is nothing more than a political devotion serving the interest of its constituents.

You know, like the conservative block.

It does a lot for women, and that's the mission of Feminism.
Feminism definition, from our OP:
"The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality to men"
My definition is:
"The advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to men"

[New Edom]

I will personally assure you that feminists are in no way better on this subject than the average population. I won't go to claiming their worse, if only because average is so very bad, but it's a rather extreme claim that feminists are less sexist than the average person given what we've seen and documented from feminists in regards to these types of issues.

Why Feminists should be better on this subject than the average population, since Feminism is meant to improve women's rights and women's lifes, and have never been meant to deal with men's issues?
Logic matters.

I'll give you three reasons.

1. Feminism would not be as successful as it is without the cooperation of men. If men were to refuse to cooperate even in twenty years' time, women would find themselves in a hard place, because men ten to take on the more dangerous jobs which are far more vital to maintaining civilization than the majority of the jobs that women not only do now but aspire to. Without garbage being collected, plumbing being repaired, food being grown and shipped, fuel being processed, metal and plastic products being produced, there is no modern civilization. And let's include the military in that--women form a small percentage of the military forces of most of the civilized world, after more than 50 years of women moving into regular armed forces.

2. If what feminists want is for men to share a vision of an equal future, then they need to sell this concept. Even if you accept your view of it, that men need to surrender elemnts of their power for egalitarianism to take place, there has to be room in that vision for the good this will do for men. Lack of discussion of this is therefore a problem. This comes down to 'why shoud I?' for men.

3.Failing to respond to this effectively is creating a backlash. One could argue that MRAs are basically feminist protestants. Most MRAs began as at least accepting or tolerant of feminism, and became increasingly frustrated with it. What MRAs want is actually not such a big deal. It doesn't have to be done through a feminist lens for it to be friendly towards feminism, and indeed if left alone most would probably be pretty harmless.

You could liken this to the rise of protestantism. Ironically the Roman Catholic authorities later began to enact the very reforms that people like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox and others had insisted on, but it was too late and too much blood had been spilled. Why not take a page from history and try to see that the concerns of some men and women are not an attack on women's rights but a concern with fairness and at least discuss them reasonably?

[Chessmistress]

As I was driving home yesterday from the airport (a very long way), I realized that some of you might be thinking I am being extremely hyperbolic. I assure you that I am not.

By way of explaining what I mean - that Chessmistress is deliberately encouraging rape - allow me to posit you a hypothetical person that probably actually exists.

This person is a young woman. We'll say 20. She reads the feminist thread and takes Chessmistress as an authority on feminism and gender relations because she claims to be the one true feminist. Let's say this woman is very naive and takes her posts at face value instead of recognizing them for the giant mountain of bullshit that they are.

Tonight, she goes to a party. It's saturday night after all. She's in college, and that party has lots of alcohol and drugs because, hey, it's one of those kinds of parties.

She sees this guy. He's 21. She's loved him since she started college a year ago, but he's never really paid attention to her. He's so drugged out of his mind he thinks he's a piano. Or he's so drunk he's passed out or nearly so. Or some combination thereof. She wants to have sex with him. She loves him, but she pauses for a moment. He's really out of it.

I stopped here.
She loves him and she wish have sex with him for the very first time when he's out-of-mind?
Really?
Unrealistic.

What kind of car were you driving?