The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Mattopilos]

Anyways, would be good to get back onto the topic of feminism.

I've seen similar on sites like XKCD, and other boards that have a more Progressive(?) bent in the forums. "Male as default" is pretty common, however, and does give some lenience when someone auto-assumes male. I'd say the worst part is the lack of introspection after having been notified that they're assuming negative=male=negative. That's not progress, at best it is stasis.

I may be in the minority here but I don't really assume "male as default". I assume "person as default".

My apologies to the cats and boats of NS.

I guess that makes sense. I hate the comment after that though, because people seriously use that kind of idea to be reductive on the issue of gender. Obviously you are joking, of course.

[Costa Fierro]

Hmm, seems a little vague a term on its own.

Not really. It's basically the government enshrining the prevention of discrimination or rendering discrimination based on x physical characteristic or other defining characteristic illegal. For example, statutory equality would mean that legally employers are required by law to pay men and women equal wages (which already happens).

[Giovenith]

I've seen similar on sites like XKCD, and other boards that have a more Progressive(?) bent in the forums. "Male as default" is pretty common, however, and does give some lenience when someone auto-assumes male. I'd say the worst part is the lack of introspection after having been notified that they're assuming negative=male=negative. That's not progress, at best it is stasis.

I may be in the minority here but I don't really assume "male as default". I assume "person as default".

My apologies to the cats and boats of NS.

Did you just assume my state of existence?

[Chessmistress]

There's an huge difference between equality under the law and real, substantive, equality...

[Giovenith]

There's an huge difference between equality under the law and real, substantive, equality...

You keep saying that, we keep ripping it apart, and you know while tentatively tiptoing in here that we're just going to rip it apart again. Nobody is interested in your thinly disguised special privileges and your poorly thought excuses for why women are weaklings who need them so damn bad. They're bad ideas and parroting them over and over isn't going to change that they're bad.

Did you reply to Gallo's post yet?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There's an huge difference between equality under the law and real, substantive, equality...

You keep saying that, we keep ripping it apart, and you know while tentatively tiptoing in here that we're just going to rip it apart again. Nobody is interested in your thinly disguised special privileges and your poorly thought excuses for why women are weaklings who need them so damn bad. They're bad ideas and parroting them over and over isn't going to change that they're bad.

Did you reply to Gallo's post yet?

I would say that is not the only problem.

To achieve what Chess wants I'd say it'd take a cultural revolution. Which isn't about to happen, not even with the law.

[Chessmistress]

There's an huge difference between equality under the law and real, substantive, equality...

You keep saying that, we keep ripping it apart, and you know while tentatively tiptoing in here that we're just going to rip it apart again. Nobody is interested in your thinly disguised special privileges and your poorly thought excuses for why women are weaklings who need them so damn bad. They're bad ideas and parroting them over and over isn't going to change that they're bad.

Did you reply to Gallo's post yet?

What post?
I don't check this thread since at least 5 days, probably more.

[Nioya]

Chess mistress said I should post these questions I have for her to this thread so she can answer

Why would you say you describe yourself as a radical feminist as opposed to simply a feminist?

You say you have a strong sense of justice. Is this true? What other ideas do you have where your strong sense of justice comes into play?

You say you are "moderately TERF". Could you tell me what your views on the trans issue exactly?

Could you tell me about gender abolitionism? Do you really think it's possible?
And if you do, do you plan on having children? Will you teach these idea to your children?

If you support the death penalty for rapists, do you support the death penalty for other serious offenders?

Could you tell me about your ideas about population control? Is it common for feminists to believe in population control?

How would you get rid of heteronormativity? What would a society without heteronormativity look like?

What is it about pornography that you object to? Is it the principal of the act or do you think it is often exploitative to women?

You say you advocate "on going verbal consent". How has that played out in your own relationships?

[Ostroeuropa]

http://i.imgur.com/aSfuNVN.jpg

I thought this poster was interesting and it got me thinking. I thought i'd post it and see what people come up with.

The 3rd item suggests that the far-right has been offering some gender equality measures in opposition to feminism for quite a while, and also interesting to see from their perspective what the major issues facing women were at the time. (Assuming "Sex Warfare" refers to feminism. If anyone has an alternate explanation, let me know.)
I dunno. There's a lot to think about the poster and its place in history of our politics and stuff, so I thought i'd post it.

You could argue they were merely telling lies to gain votes, and that's possible.

[Philjia]

http://i.imgur.com/aSfuNVN.jpg

I thought this poster was interesting and it got me thinking. I thought i'd post it and see what people come up with.

The 3rd item suggests that the far-right has been offering some gender equality measures in opposition to feminism for quite a while, and also interesting to see from their perspective what the major issues facing women were at the time. (Assuming "Sex Warfare" refers to feminism. If anyone has an alternate explanation, let me know.)
I dunno. There's a lot to think about the poster and its place in history of our politics and stuff, so I thought i'd post it.

You could argue they were merely telling lies to gain votes, and that's possible.

I'd hazard that they had a fairly traditional view of the role of women in society, but that would have been common at the time. The things wrong with fascism are manifold, but sexism is not an intrinsic one.

[The States of Balloon]

There's an huge difference between equality under the law and real, substantive, equality...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-G0bkl8MQ

[Philjia]

There's an huge difference between equality under the law and real, substantive, equality...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-G0bkl8MQ

People viewed as equal by the law may not be treated equally by society. Adding regressive, oppressive, discriminatory laws to the statute books is not the answer, however, and anyone who disagrees is part of the problem.

[New Edom]

http://i.imgur.com/aSfuNVN.jpg

I thought this poster was interesting and it got me thinking. I thought i'd post it and see what people come up with.

The 3rd item suggests that the far-right has been offering some gender equality measures in opposition to feminism for quite a while, and also interesting to see from their perspective what the major issues facing women were at the time. (Assuming "Sex Warfare" refers to feminism. If anyone has an alternate explanation, let me know.)
I dunno. There's a lot to think about the poster and its place in history of our politics and stuff, so I thought i'd post it.

You could argue they were merely telling lies to gain votes, and that's possible.

I'd hazard that they had a fairly traditional view of the role of women in society, but that would have been common at the time. The things wrong with fascism are manifold, but sexism is not an intrinsic one.

That seems to have varied, but I think Ostro's point is that anyone can propose ideals like equality and fairness and yet be potentially dangerous in how they seek to apply it.

[GabrieIa]

Can a TERF please explain to me why you exclude Trans Women from feminism? I dont see why you do, for one it goes against any and all definitions of feminism. When trans women, like myself, are excluded from the Radical Feminist grouping. I dont see why you would exclude me from it. I dont mind if you hate me, but why not just accept me instead of excluding me.

[Des-Bal]

So an aspect of rape culture I don't think's been addressed in this thread is the way rape is used for rhetorical purposes.

Why is lynching a necessary evil? To protect white women from being raped by those savage blacks.
Why does Germany need to take a hard line against immigrants? To protect german women from being raped by those savage muslims.
Why do we need to restrict transgender bathroom usage? To protect cisgender women from being raped by those savage perverts.

It's a fairly specific argument that I haven't heard a name for, we have to do X to Y or else they'll rape our women. It exploits our popular appreciation for rape as an unimaginably evil act and our reluctance to get involved in a discussion about it.

[Costa Fierro]

So an aspect of rape culture I don't think's been addressed in this thread is the way rape is used for rhetorical purposes.

Why is lynching a necessary evil? To protect white women from being raped by those savage blacks.
Why does Germany need to take a hard line against immigrants? To protect german women from being raped by those savage muslims.
Why do we need to restrict transgender bathroom usage? To protect cisgender women from being raped by those savage perverts.

It's a fairly specific argument that I haven't heard a name for, we have to do X to Y or else they'll rape our women. It exploits our popular appreciation for rape as an unimaginably evil act and our reluctance to get involved in a discussion about it.

There's also an element of race to it. These sorts of attitudes are fairly prevalent in white nationalist political organizations which, although based in some grain of truth (i.e the Cologne attacks), are wildly overblown to promote agendas that target certain ethnic demographics as being worthy of mistreatment and putting white women on a pedestal and portraying them as the only women worthy of protection.

It's also interesting to note that the rape culture theory doesn't really go into depth about how women can protect themselves if sexual assault or rape happens. The whole theory rests upon women being victims and women continuing to become victims in order to further their agenda. The idea that women can and should protect themselves and actively do so is shouted down because of the victim complex the feminists who believe in it perpetrate. To them, women having their lives ruined forever serves as a drum to beat until governments give into whatever ridiculous demands they have. That is sickening.

[The Grene Knyght]

http://i.imgur.com/aSfuNVN.jpg

I thought this poster was interesting and it got me thinking. I thought i'd post it and see what people come up with.

The 3rd item suggests that the far-right has been offering some gender equality measures in opposition to feminism for quite a while, and also interesting to see from their perspective what the major issues facing women were at the time. (Assuming "Sex Warfare" refers to feminism. If anyone has an alternate explanation, let me know.)
I dunno. There's a lot to think about the poster and its place in history of our politics and stuff, so I thought i'd post it.

You could argue they were merely telling lies to gain votes, and that's possible.

Actions speak louder than words...
Unless these people were advocating for an offshoot of fascism that promotes feminist ideas (which I find unlikely, since they were trying to get people to join the Blackshirts), this is just the same thing fascists always do - try to hijack one popular movement in order to deceive people into voting for / joining them.

Can a TERF please explain to me why you exclude Trans Women from feminism? I dont see why you do, for one it goes against any and all definitions of feminism. When trans women, like myself, are excluded from the Radical Feminist grouping. I dont see why you would exclude me from it. I dont mind if you hate me, but why not just accept me instead of excluding me.

We only really have the one TERF that regularly posts here. And you're not likely to get a response from her. Maybe she'll prove me wrong though (@Chessmistress)

So an aspect of rape culture I don't think's been addressed in this thread is the way rape is used for rhetorical purposes.

Why is lynching a necessary evil? To protect white women from being raped by those savage blacks.
Why does Germany need to take a hard line against immigrants? To protect german women from being raped by those savage muslims.
Why do we need to restrict transgender bathroom usage? To protect cisgender women from being raped by those savage perverts.

It's a fairly specific argument that I haven't heard a name for, we have to do X to Y or else they'll rape our women. It exploits our popular appreciation for rape as an unimaginably evil act and our reluctance to get involved in a discussion about it.

There's also an element of race to it. These sorts of attitudes are fairly prevalent in white nationalist political organizations which, although based in some grain of truth (i.e the Cologne attacks), are wildly overblown to promote agendas that target certain ethnic demographics as being worthy of mistreatment and putting white women on a pedestal and portraying them as the only women worthy of protection.

It's also interesting to note that the rape culture theory doesn't really go into depth about how women can protect themselves if sexual assault or rape happens. The whole theory rests upon women being victims and women continuing to become victims in order to further their agenda. The idea that women can and should protect themselves and actively do so is shouted down because of the victim complex the feminists who believe in it perpetrate. To them, women having their lives ruined forever serves as a drum to beat until governments give into whatever ridiculous demands they have. That is sickening.

Thats not my experience at all in how feminists a address these issues. Usually what they argue is that you shouldn't have to protect yourself, because we as a society should be doing more to address the issue. But that doesn't mean that feminists are saying that you shouldn't learn how to protect yourselves. In fact I see people talking all the time about what weapons to use (usually pepper spray, tasers, that sort of thing, but I've seen other, more interesting ones like how to make a blackjack etc), how to use them (remember, folks, hold your keys between your thumb and forefinger, not between your knuckles, and slash for the face), the best way to take down a man while unarmed (the most impressive one was a detailed explanation of how to rip off a mans scrotum barehanded).
In short, what feminists, in my experience, argue is that if your policy for dealing with rape is only geared towards making women defend themselves, or making themselves not "targets" (get them to wear short skirts etc), that advocates rape culture. But teaching women to defend themselves is a practical measure advocated by many feminists when used alongside more meaningful methods that deal with the problem itself.

[Gravlen]

I posted a response to you on this page, did you miss it?

I wrote a response, I don't know what happened to it.

Anyway: some things women do that undermine consent are things which are only seen as okay because they are women. Touching people, making sexual remarks etc are rarely discussed in feminist circles in the same light as similar actions by men are. So for instance if a woman starts talking openly about her sexuality in a flirtatious way on a show or in a movie, it is empowering according to how many feminist reviewers talk about it. If she and other women ogle a man and objectify him, that's okay. It's not okay if men do it according to them. It's a double standard.

Flashback, I know, but I've been away so please indulge me.

First, thank you for your response

Second, how does any of this "undermine consent"? What does that even mean? Is my consent worth more or less if I've ever made a public sexual remark? What exactly does the fact that I've touched other people mean for my consent to sexual acts (or lack thereof)? What bearing does it have on my consent to engage in sexual acts with other people? If I say 'yes' to sex, how is that agreement undermined by anything I've said or done before?

[Philjia]

Can a TERF please explain to me why you exclude Trans Women from feminism? I dont see why you do, for one it goes against any and all definitions of feminism. When trans women, like myself, are excluded from the Radical Feminist grouping. I dont see why you would exclude me from it. I dont mind if you hate me, but why not just accept me instead of excluding me.

Because they're social authoritarians who don't want so-called men infiltrating their special tree house.

[Chessmistress]

Can a TERF please explain to me why you exclude Trans Women from feminism? I dont see why you do, for one it goes against any and all definitions of feminism. When trans women, like myself, are excluded from the Radical Feminist grouping. I dont see why you would exclude me from it. I dont mind if you hate me, but why not just accept me instead of excluding me.

I can explain my personal position, and is absolutely unrelated with hatred (as you should already know).
Within Feminism positions about trans people greatly varies, from those who think that everybody who simply identify as "woman" is a woman (including a man with a beard and muscles) to those who thinks that even after a full transition a person still lack a lot of important experiences (and also most times some biological features, like menstruations, pregnancy) that still prevent such person from the full experience of oppression as a woman.

A clarification for those who thinks that the first position cannot be problematic:
http://srcusyd.net.au/wp-content/upload ... 6Apr16.pdf

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... s6reg.html

Excerpt:

A male staffer for a Liberal MP attempted to identify himself as a woman as part of a sneaky factional deal to win a $12,000 executive position in a student election.

Alex Fitton, who works for New South Wales state MP Mark Taylor, vowed he was not a cisgender male in order to become joint general secretary of the University of Sydney Students' Representative Council on Wednesday night.

A cisgender male is a man whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. The SRC's affirmative action policy stipulates the coveted council position can be shared by two people, but only if one of them identifies as a woman or a non-cisgender male.

Mr Fitton and Mr Williams were elected by a margin of one vote, and if confirmed, each stands to pocket a $12,000 salary. Members of the crowd were heard to shout "yeah the boys" when the winners were announced.

A senior Liberal Party source familiar with Mr Fitton said the move, whether or not it ultimately succeeded, reflected an "immature culture" within the Young Liberals and "desperation" in the ailing centre-right faction of NSW.

"He ran for an affirmative action position by pretending to be a woman," the source said. "He is incredibly blokey. Plays AFL. They all call each other 'the boys'. It's got no basis at all in fact."

My position is that such person shouldn't be take seriously when he identifies as a woman:





My position is that Alex Fitton shouldn't call himself a woman, and he shouldn't be able take an affirmative action $12,000 executive position by pretending to be a woman.
My position is that's a very practical problem, not just simply a matter of using the correct pronouns.

My position is also that after a full transition a man isn't a man anymore, but she's a woman.
I know that they still lack the fuull experience of living (and being oppressed) as a woman, but I think that there should be a balance in approaching such issues.

My position is also that a male still transitioning to female is very often a better ally than the average heterosexual man.

[Chessmistress]

Can a TERF please explain to me why you exclude Trans Women from feminism? I dont see why you do, for one it goes against any and all definitions of feminism. When trans women, like myself, are excluded from the Radical Feminist grouping. I dont see why you would exclude me from it. I dont mind if you hate me, but why not just accept me instead of excluding me.

Because they're social authoritarians who don't want so-called men infiltrating their special tree house.

Nope.
It's mainly because I don't want that Alex Fitton is able to usurp an affirmative action $12,000 executive position, reserved to women and meant for women, by simply claiming that he's a woman.
See above.

[Philjia]

Because they're social authoritarians who don't want so-called men infiltrating their special tree house.

Nope.
It's mainly because I don't want that Alex Fitton is able to usurp an affirmative action $12,000 executive position, reserved to women and meant for women, by simply claiming that he's a woman.
See above.

That's fraud, which is quite different. I'm talking about people like Germaine Greer and her ilk, who do not regard trans people as women.

[Chessmistress]

Nope.
It's mainly because I don't want that Alex Fitton is able to usurp an affirmative action $12,000 executive position, reserved to women and meant for women, by simply claiming that he's a woman.
See above.

That's fraud, which is quite different. I'm talking about people like Germaine Greer and her ilk, who do not regard trans people as women.

Nope.
If you accept the idea that it's enough to "identify as a woman" for "being a woman" then that isn't "a fraud": that's simply the practical application of the idea, I love when extreme intersectionalists are confronted with the practical otucome of the full aplpication of their ideas.
I personally reject this extremist idea, just like I reject the other extreme side (those saying that even after a full transition a male would be still a male).

[GabrieIa]

Can a TERF please explain to me why you exclude Trans Women from feminism? I dont see why you do, for one it goes against any and all definitions of feminism. When trans women, like myself, are excluded from the Radical Feminist grouping. I dont see why you would exclude me from it. I dont mind if you hate me, but why not just accept me instead of excluding me.

We only really have the one TERF that regularly posts here. And you're not likely to get a response from her. Maybe she'll prove me wrong though (@Chessmistress)

As far as i know, you are wrong i have talked to her. So my question will go unanswered. She is moderate. Not Proudly TERF. I talked to her and she knows so i dont know what to do.

[Galloism]

Because they're social authoritarians who don't want so-called men infiltrating their special tree house.

Nope.
It's mainly because I don't want that Alex Fitton is able to usurp an affirmative action $12,000 executive position, reserved to women and meant for women, by simply claiming that he's a woman.
See above.

This reminds me of when the military made the claim that women didn't have to be included in the draft because they weren't allowed in combat. This argument succeeded in court, oddly.

However, it was using one sexist position to justify another. If you view sexism as something to be combatted, it should be combatted in all levels, ways, and directions.

Now, maybe they have a paid position of similar nature reserved for men, but I doubt it reflexively.