The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Philjia]

[


Pornography is a from of rape because the "sex" is coercied through economical blackmail, it isn't very different from prostitution though prostitution is even worse.
Pornography encourages men to view and treat women as sexual objects.
Most pornography encourage violence against women.

For those listening at home - remember that increased access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in sexual violence, and people who watch porn have more gender egalitarian attitudes than those who don't.

Does that account for the puritanically religious?

[Galloism]

For those listening at home - remember that increased access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in sexual violence, and people who watch porn have more gender egalitarian attitudes than those who don't.

Does that account for the puritanically religious?

That may be part of the effect on the latter, but not the former.

[Chestaan]

Feminism as a mode of equality is good. It should run along the lines of egalitarianism. That's why traditional feminism was so intimately tied with other civil rights groups. Frederick Douglass was an avid member of the women's rights movement and abolition was widely favored in feminist circles. To campaign for the equality of only one group isn't campaigning for equality at all. This has been understood since the beginning. The problem with the modern feminist movement is that it's selfish. Specifically, postmodernist philosophies concerning the subject. These questions about the purity of the movement are not built on nothing. Men and women feel alienized by the elititst tone of leaders who have taken feminism off of its origins and into a rabbit hole of victimization and demonization.

What we have to acknowledge is that feminism isn't just an ideology, it's a movement, a tangible organization made up of tangible people. Actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter what you define it as, the influence of the movement of its namesake makes it into whatever it really is regardless, and the truth is that this modern ideology is anything but about equality. It takes mundane issues and blows them out of proportion, breeds hatred of men through fallacious dogma, is woefully inconsistent on most social issues, embraces sexist notions that shield women like fragile beings while raging against social norms, derails other issues to make them about themselves, shames dissenters into submission, fails to recognize that it is woefully out of touch with what the average woman actually wants and lives like and then completely ignores the situations where they are legitimately needed.

Long story short: a feminist in America will complain about male privelage, surpress other civil rights issues in pursuit of their own agenda, and rant against an invisible patriarchy. A feminist in Saudi Arabia will smuggle school books to young girls on the risk of being covered in acid and decapitated for not being with her husband. Why does it seem like the modern feminist movement is more concerned with the former than the latter?

The world does need feminism, but in certain areas and on certain issues. The world needs selfless feminism. It just seems like it's lost its way once it had to change gears and find a new topic of discussion.

Contrary to popular belief, there are actually feminists who acknowledge that modern feminism in the west to too focused on the west, and in particular on the white middle-class.
Also, on your first point, I guess you don't know about intersectional feminism which, if a majority of feminists don't already identify as this, its certainly a significant amount and growing rapidly.

The problem I find with many intersectionalists is that they will do anything and everything to deny that straight white men are a group/part of a group that needs to be considered. We often see the phrase cis-het-white-male being bandied around, but never rich-cis-het white-male. Outside of the socialist and most anarchist leaning feminists the plight of the working class is almost completely ignored. Now I know you are a leftist so this is not a criticism of you, but many intersectionalists fail to acknowledge economic conditions when discussing privilege and that is a fatal mistake for any analysis.

[The Grene Knyght]

Contrary to popular belief, there are actually feminists who acknowledge that modern feminism in the west to too focused on the west, and in particular on the white middle-class.
Also, on your first point, I guess you don't know about intersectional feminism which, if a majority of feminists don't already identify as this, its certainly a significant amount and growing rapidly.

The problem I find with many intersectionalists is that they will do anything and everything to deny that straight white men are a group/part of a group that needs to be considered. We often see the phrase cis-het-white-male being bandied around, but never rich-cis-het white-male. Outside of the socialist and most anarchist leaning feminists the plight of the working class is almost completely ignored. Now I know you are a leftist so this is not a criticism of you, but many intersectionalists fail to acknowledge economic conditions when discussing privilege and that is a fatal mistake for any analysis.

I agree, and its a criticism I've made multiple times on this thread

[New Edom]

Does that account for the puritanically religious?

That may be part of the effect on the latter, but not the former.

Pornography, pornography. You encourage violence against women.

Or do you?

It's kind of an interesting question. The difference between the religious perspective, generally, and the feminist one is that generally Christians for instance who are against pornography are against it because generally encourages sex for the sake of sex, and therefore undermines the idea of sex within marriage alone. I can respect that; that's like a vegetarian saying they don't like watching commercials that focus on meat eating. I have no issue with someone saying "that is not part of my way of life". I also believe that when it comes to things like this, this is more about market forces than it is about anything else. I would personally argue that a religious person needs to then question whether openly allowing it and encouraging that the performers have a lot more control over what content is produced reduces the ugly human exploitation angle that can exist and makes it basically a job. Then it can become simply a matter of human consumption and religious people can certainly freely campaign against it as a kind of moral version of a health issue. I'm all for the free marketplace of ideas.

However feminists take on a difference stance that I personally find hard to follow. Here's a quote from one site, vaw.net:

"Commercial pornography in the United States is at the same time increasingly more normalized and more denigrating to women. There is understandable interest in the question about the connection between pornography and sexual violence. Rather than asking "does pornography cause rape?" we would be better served by investigating whether pornography is ever a factor that contributes to rape. In other words, Is pornography implicated in sexual violence in this culture?

There are limits to what research can tell us about the complex interactions of mass media and human behavior. But from both laboratory research and the narratives of men and women, it is not controversial to argue that pornography can: (1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers."

Maybe I'm stupid, but what the hell does any of that actually mean in practice? To what extent is this true? What kind of pornography (bearing in mind all the forms it can take) affects this? If someone watches say one of those POV videos of a woman masturbating does it have the same effect as someone depicting an orgy? HOW does it work? I've yet to see one feminist actualy explain it.

Like let's say we're talking about the average teenaged guy, he starts looking at porn online, let's make it fairly generic, and then what happens? Does this mean that he's likely to suddenly start thinking he doesn't need someone's agreement in order to have sex? Does it mean that he is more likely then to force someone? If so, why? How does that happen?

This report in Psychology Today makes the case that it is hard to define what is meant, and I agree. Questions are asked like how is violence determined? What percentage depicts literal violence? How is violence defined?

What I'm curious about is this: how many studies exactly have been done of pornography and its effect on violence or other negative social impacts, and what do they generally reveal? What are the names of these studies? Is there a general database? I'm about to get busy for the day but I am curious.

[Tahar Joblis]

Contrary to popular belief, there are actually feminists who acknowledge that modern feminism in the west to too focused on the west, and in particular on the white middle-class.
Also, on your first point, I guess you don't know about intersectional feminism which, if a majority of feminists don't already identify as this, its certainly a significant amount and growing rapidly.

The problem I find with many intersectionalists is that they will do anything and everything to deny that straight white men are a group/part of a group that needs to be considered. We often see the phrase cis-het-white-male being bandied around, but never rich-cis-het white-male. Outside of the socialist and most anarchist leaning feminists the plight of the working class is almost completely ignored. Now I know you are a leftist so this is not a criticism of you, but many intersectionalists fail to acknowledge economic conditions when discussing privilege and that is a fatal mistake for any analysis.

The biggest problem with many "intersectionalists" is the more general problem of "problematic."

For the most part, "intersectionalism" is part of a school of practice devoted to declaring things "problematic" without actually solving them. It has more to do with providing excuses to avoid engaging with arguments and refrain from affirming any general principles than it has to do with constructive social reform.

Recognizing that there are sometimes interaction effects between, say, sex and race is theoretically what intersectionalism ought to be about, but mostly, looking at those interaction effects carefully and systematically is the province of people who look carefully at data, very few of whom use the world "intersectionalist" to describe what they are doing. People who use the world "intersectionalist" to describe themselves, on the other hand, mostly just make narrative claims of incommensurability while ignoring real interaction effects.

There are a lot of interesting interaction race x sex effects in dating and marriage in the United States. In some cases, there's a sort of generic effect - like "white" generally makes you more appealing, while "black" generally makes you less appealing - but there are interaction effects. Asian-Americans don't have a main effect so much as an intersectional effect - the Asian / male interaction term is negative, the Asian / female interaction term is positive. White women divorce more, white men divorce less.

Do you know who pays attention to this stuff carefully? Mostly not "intersectional" feminists. They're busy playing games with labels to try and build appropriately combo-oppressed identities for themselves and their allies and combo-oppressor identities for their critics.

When I see or hear "intersectional feminist," I think to myself "ok, that means someone who's hip to one of the latest fashionable buzzwords in feminism." I don't think to myself "this person actually understands how race x class x sex x (etc) categories sometimes do (and sometimes do not) show unanticipated ways of interaction," which is what, in theory, the word is about.

[Mattopilos]

-snip-

I agree on how you explain intersectionality, but not exactly on how you explain intersectional feminists. Yes, there are those that use it for show and that is all, but that is inherent in all groups. Also, It is quite the claim to assume that they only theorize when they do kinda form groups and said groups interact when it comes to movements for women and black rights etc. This is the experience I have happened to have with them, at least. Obviously people might run into people who claim to be 'intersectional' but have no idea what that means but it sounds nice.

[Tahar Joblis]

-snip-

I agree on how you explain intersectionality, but not exactly on how you explain intersectional feminists. Yes, there are those that use it for show and that is all, but that is inherent in all groups. Also, It is quite the claim to assume that they only theorize when they do kinda form groups and said groups interact when it comes to movements for women and black rights etc. This is the experience I have happened to have with them, at least. Obviously people might run into people who claim to be 'intersectional' but have no idea what that means but it sounds nice.

After you take out the ones who don't even understand what the buzzword they're using really means, intersectional feminists are still no more interested in actual interaction effects between group identities across separate axes than feminists are in actual gender equality.

Mostly, it's a myopic version of it. At best, they're interested in synergy effects, where when you cross two "oppressed" categories and get a more-than-double-oppressed category, or two "privileged" categories and get a more-than-double-privileged category... but they don't have any idea of how to actually recognize that, because they don't think quantitatively. Independent effects are routinely confused for interaction effects and the simplistic dichotomy between "privileged" and "oppressed" categories falls apart; and anti-synergistic effects are typically not recognized.

Here's an example of something you are unlikely to hear any "intersectionalist feminist" mention: Black women receive slightly lighter sentences for the same crime, relative to white men. "Black woman" is supposed to be an "oppressed / oppressed" category intersection, "white man" is supposed to be a "privileged / privileged" category intersection. It doesn't fit with their grand narrative of oppression and privilege. But that's not really all that impressive, since the black-white effect is pretty close in size to the male-female effect, so balancing to a small advantage for black women over white men is pretty ordinary addition of effects.

The true intersectionality comes later. It turns out that women's sentencing advantage comes partially from significant interaction effects. Women - but not men - get off lighter if they are parents. Women - but not men - get off lighter if they have an accomplice. These categorical intersections that mostly aren't standard "intersectionalist" identities, although a few are - like "fat vs thin." Fat women are treated more like men by juries and judges.

Appearance - attractiveness, height, etc - has a complicated effect on employability. It's much stronger, overall, for men, because women are dealing with competing effects. Women and men alike both discriminate in the same way when it comes to men - against short men and against unattractive men. Women and men discriminate differently when it comes to women, so the effects partially cancel.

Height in particular has a much stronger effect on men's career trajectories - and life trajectories. You're not going to hear about this from intersectional feminists.

Anti-GSM violence has a much bigger effect on anyone perceived as male than anyone perceived as female. You're not going to hear about that from intersectional feminists.

Black women are doing much better in the educational system than black men. You're not going to hear about that from intersectional feminists.

What you're going to hear is a lot of garbage about "lived experience," arguments by anecdote, category labels of questionable meaningfulness, falsely dichotomous narratives, and a complete lack of the sort of basic probabilistic understanding requisite to understand what independence is and what interaction effects are. You're also going to hear a lot of bullshit about how X person doesn't know what they're talking about because they're a member of too many intersecting privileged groups, and how various general effects should be ignored because it's not specific to this combination of identities.

[Chessmistress]

Anti-GSM violence has a much bigger effect on anyone perceived as male than anyone perceived as female. You're not going to hear about that from intersectional feminists.

What is "Anti-GSM"?

[Chestaan]

The problem I find with many intersectionalists is that they will do anything and everything to deny that straight white men are a group/part of a group that needs to be considered. We often see the phrase cis-het-white-male being bandied around, but never rich-cis-het white-male. Outside of the socialist and most anarchist leaning feminists the plight of the working class is almost completely ignored. Now I know you are a leftist so this is not a criticism of you, but many intersectionalists fail to acknowledge economic conditions when discussing privilege and that is a fatal mistake for any analysis.

I agree, and its a criticism I've made multiple times on this thread

love the flag btw!

[Mattopilos]

-snip-

I agree with most of this. Again, I kinda do hear the example case. I just happen not to be on tumblr or other radfem hotspots.

[Mattopilos]

The problem I find with many intersectionalists is that they will do anything and everything to deny that straight white men are a group/part of a group that needs to be considered. We often see the phrase cis-het-white-male being bandied around, but never rich-cis-het white-male. Outside of the socialist and most anarchist leaning feminists the plight of the working class is almost completely ignored. Now I know you are a leftist so this is not a criticism of you, but many intersectionalists fail to acknowledge economic conditions when discussing privilege and that is a fatal mistake for any analysis.

That is probably why I have a better interpretation of them - I happen to be with a group of people that talk of both. Radfems have the issue of to narrow a focus, as do Marxist on the issue of conflict theory (talk about anything other than class struggle and get ready for "Now you are just being divisive!")

[The Black Forrest]

Anti-GSM violence has a much bigger effect on anyone perceived as male than anyone perceived as female. You're not going to hear about that from intersectional feminists.

What is "Anti-GSM"?

Errr? A mobile telephone system in Europe?

[GabrieIa]

What is "Anti-GSM"?

Errr? A mobile telephone system in Europe?

She is in Europe

[Costa Fierro]

The problem I find with many intersectionalists is that they will do anything and everything to deny that straight white men are a group/part of a group that needs to be considered. We often see the phrase cis-het-white-male being bandied around, but never rich-cis-het white-male. Outside of the socialist and most anarchist leaning feminists the plight of the working class is almost completely ignored. Now I know you are a leftist so this is not a criticism of you, but many intersectionalists fail to acknowledge economic conditions when discussing privilege and that is a fatal mistake for any analysis.

That is probably why I have a better interpretation of them - I happen to be with a group of people that talk of both. Radfems have the issue of to narrow a focus, as do Marxist on the issue of conflict theory (talk about anything other than class struggle and get ready for "Now you are just being divisive!")

I think it's because radical feminists focus too much on who is has power and who is oppressed rather than looking at the bigger picture because it stems from the introduction of the "revolution" into feminist discourse through radical feminists who were also subscribers to left-wing ideologies that promoted revolution or a dismantling of the established system.

[Mattopilos]

That is probably why I have a better interpretation of them - I happen to be with a group of people that talk of both. Radfems have the issue of to narrow a focus, as do Marxist on the issue of conflict theory (talk about anything other than class struggle and get ready for "Now you are just being divisive!")

I think it's because radical feminists focus too much on who is has power and who is oppressed rather than looking at the bigger picture because it stems from the introduction of the "revolution" into feminist discourse through radical feminists who were also subscribers to left-wing ideologies that promoted revolution or a dismantling of the established system.

I mean, I have manged to prod some to go "You realize that men are large victims of dom violence and rape, right?". Again, I am in anarchist groups, so I guess that is different. I think it is those more on the liberal side, from experience. It is prodding them towards equality from both sides, and yourself aiming for what you want from the movement. It has worked so far, and I have managed to steer convos on feminist pages to the issue of equality. I happen not to focus on prominent figures in feminism given I simply don't agree with them on many things. Again, they lean liberal, so not a fan.

[Giovenith]

[


Pornography is a from of rape because the "sex" is coercied through economical blackmail, it isn't very different from prostitution though prostitution is even worse.
Pornography encourages men to view and treat women as sexual objects.
Most pornography encourage violence against women.

For those listening at home - remember that increased access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in sexual violence, and people who watch porn have more gender egalitarian attitudes than those who don't.

We've studied this. It's science.


Chess, ignoring the data doesn't make it go away. I know you're aware of the science. We've discussed it, yet you continue to peddle scientifically discredited regressive talking points as if they have something to do with actual reality.

Because I'm an egotistical fuck:

Speaking of sex positive feminism!

"An interesting effect happens as people watch pornography. They become more egalitarian, and more supportive of women and men sharing roles and work, less accepting of gender-based discrimination. They also become more accepting of sexual diversity and less stigmatizing towards homosexuality. They become less religious, and may even experience more crises of faith. Enjoying porn leads to people changing their beliefs about sex and gender, and, in some cases, rejecting the dogmatically rigid sex/gender values they were taught in church. Our society is becoming less dogmatic about sex, more egalitarian, and more accepting of sexual diversity. Where our pain and struggles emerge from a conflict between these different sets of values, watching porn may in some cases lead to people being more accepting and less judgmental, both of themselves and others. This is why sex therapists are typically required to attend SARs (Sexual Attitude Reassessment seminars)  where they are exposed to porn and sexual diversity, and forced to confront and examine their beliefs about the “right” kind of sex."

Also, when it comes to rape, evidence points to porn being harmless at worst and beneficial at best. To get a tl;dr version, here is a chart comparing the availability of porn relative to the amount of rape:

(Image)

More porn = Less rape


So comparing all this with the RadFem arguments that essentially amount to little more than sophistry about their own personal perceptions about the implications and symbolism of porn presented as if it were hard truth, is it much of a mystery who I'm siding with?

But please Chess, don't let me keep you from the customary reaction to such minor details...

[Mattopilos]

-snip-

Conclusion:

porn = Good

Watch porn for equality! :^D

[New Edom]

For those listening at home - remember that increased access to pornography is correlated with a reduction in sexual violence, and people who watch porn have more gender egalitarian attitudes than those who don't.

We've studied this. It's science.


Chess, ignoring the data doesn't make it go away. I know you're aware of the science. We've discussed it, yet you continue to peddle scientifically discredited regressive talking points as if they have something to do with actual reality.

Because I'm an egotistical fuck:

Speaking of sex positive feminism!

"An interesting effect happens as people watch pornography. They become more egalitarian, and more supportive of women and men sharing roles and work, less accepting of gender-based discrimination. They also become more accepting of sexual diversity and less stigmatizing towards homosexuality. They become less religious, and may even experience more crises of faith. Enjoying porn leads to people changing their beliefs about sex and gender, and, in some cases, rejecting the dogmatically rigid sex/gender values they were taught in church. Our society is becoming less dogmatic about sex, more egalitarian, and more accepting of sexual diversity. Where our pain and struggles emerge from a conflict between these different sets of values, watching porn may in some cases lead to people being more accepting and less judgmental, both of themselves and others. This is why sex therapists are typically required to attend SARs (Sexual Attitude Reassessment seminars)  where they are exposed to porn and sexual diversity, and forced to confront and examine their beliefs about the “right” kind of sex."

Also, when it comes to rape, evidence points to porn being harmless at worst and beneficial at best. To get a tl;dr version, here is a chart comparing the availability of porn relative to the amount of rape:

(Image)

More porn = Less rape


So comparing all this with the RadFem arguments that essentially amount to little more than sophistry about their own personal perceptions about the implications and symbolism of porn presented as if it were hard truth, is it much of a mystery who I'm siding with?

But please Chess, don't let me keep you from the customary reaction to such minor details...

I'm glad you brought this up. Sadly though in Canada we have a national study on pornography being done because it's such a huge problem apparently. Boys as young as 12, it is reported, are able to view porn now.

What i notice none of the anti=porn people are able to explain is what exactly happens that leads someone to totally disrespect women and have unrealistic expectations from pornography. Because that's the crux of it, right, that its's inherently bad, not merely circumstantially. Like radical feminists and other anti porn crusaders are not against it whilie wanting the performers to get paid more for instance.

[Mattopilos]

Because I'm an egotistical fuck:






But please Chess, don't let me keep you from the customary reaction to such minor details...

I'm glad you brought this up. Sadly though in Canada we have a national study on pornography being done because it's such a huge problem apparently. Boys as young as 12, it is reported, are able to view porn now.

What i notice none of the anti=porn people are able to explain is what exactly happens that leads someone to totally disrespect women and have unrealistic expectations from pornography. Because that's the crux of it, right, that its's inherently bad, not merely circumstantially. Like radical feminists and other anti porn crusaders are not against it whilie wanting the performers to get paid more for instance.

Most seem to act as though it is a moral issue - that it is the cause of unrealistic standards for women, and that in turn men will try and force said unrealistic standards on women around them. I find that utterly absurd. Why would they try and do that if they know that what they are seeing is not a real event? What makes them think that is how women want to be treated? The answer is simple: It doesn't. Never have I treated women worse after watching porn, ever. The only reason I can see people doing so is if they are under the impression the porn world is real and translatable to the world around them, and you would have to be VERY ignorant to think such a thing.

[Greater USA]

I don't get this specific focus on feminism. We all have the right to make our own decisions. Last I checked, both men and women are able to do whatever they want in today's age. Astronaut, lawyer, doctor. Hell, even the military is letting women fight in combat roles. Where's the severe inequality that everyone keeps talking about? And with "rape culture." Rape is always going to be a heinous crime. People who harass women are grade-A dicks and deserve to be called out for their immature behavior. But I honestly feel as if we are going way, way, way too far in terms of political correctness, to the point where perfectly fine behavior is deemed "sexist." This whole "mansplaining" business is a perfect example of this! Not all men who point out their experiences to women are the sexist jerks they are played out to be. And going after talent in the workplace or on a movie set is a hell of a lot more important than trying to fill some sort of gender quota.

PS: Clinton didn't lose this election because of sexism. She lost because people distrusted her because of dishonesty, endless scandals, and an email controversy to boot where she endangered classified secrets. She lost because she didn't properly secure the compound in Libya even though she could have. She lost because of bad messaging. I'm not proud that Donald J. Trump is POTUS-elect (while I voted for him, he is a pompous ass), but we need to set the record straight here.

[Giovenith]

I don't get this specific focus on feminism. We all have the right to make our own decisions. Last I checked, both men and women are able to do whatever they want in today's age. Astronaut, lawyer, doctor. Hell, even the military is letting women fight in combat roles. Where's the severe inequality that everyone keeps talking about? And with "rape culture." Rape is always going to be a heinous crime. People who harass women are grade-A dicks and deserve to be called out for their immature behavior. But I honestly feel as if we are going way, way, way too far in terms of political correctness, to the point where perfectly fine behavior is deemed "sexist." This whole "mansplaining" business is a perfect example of this! Not all men who point out their experiences to women are the sexist jerks they are played out to be. And going after talent in the workplace or on a movie set is a hell of a lot more important than trying to fill some sort of gender quota.

PS: Clinton didn't lose this election because of sexism. She lost because people distrusted her because of dishonesty, endless scandals, and an email controversy to boot where she endangered classified secrets. She lost because she didn't properly secure the compound in Libya even though she could have. She lost because of bad messaging. I'm not proud that Donald J. Trump is POTUS-elect (while I voted for him, he is a pompous ass), but we need to set the record straight here.

We should keep a scoreboard for all the people who come in this thread without reading thinking that they're prepared to take on legions of "SJWs."

That's about 4 this thread now, I think.

[Mattopilos]

I don't get this specific focus on feminism. We all have the right to make our own decisions. Last I checked, both men and women are able to do whatever they want in today's age.



Astronaut, lawyer, doctor. Hell, even the military is letting women fight in combat roles. Where's the severe inequality that everyone keeps talking about?

Close, but not exactly. Much better than in the early 20th century, for sure, and definitely better than in most non-Western countries. Equal opportunity still needs some work, but is getting there.

And with "rape culture." Rape is always going to be a heinous crime. People who harass women are grade-A dicks and deserve to be called out for their immature behavior. But I honestly feel as if we are going way, way, way too far in terms of political correctness, to the point where perfectly fine behavior is deemed "sexist."

I agree. It has become a buzzword in some cases to mean "Something I don't agree with that happens to deal with the opposite gender". Refuting them is usually pretty easy, because it is clear it makes no sense to use it unless there is actual sexism.

This whole "mansplaining" business is a perfect example of this! Not all men who point out their experiences to women are the sexist jerks they are played out to be. And going after talent in the workplace or on a movie set is a hell of a lot more important than trying to fill some sort of gender quota.

I think it is less "Pointing out their experiences" as it is "I am right because I gave an explanation that is not yours and I am a man". It actually does occur quite a bit. As I said above, however, people need to stop using it in the sense of trying to hand-wave actual arguments. Many words are being used as Armour for their flimsy or non-existent arguments. Few will disagree with this.

PS: Clinton didn't lose this election because of sexism. She lost because people distrusted her because of dishonesty, endless scandals, and an email controversy to boot where she endangered classified secrets. She lost because she didn't properly secure the compound in Libya even though she could have. She lost because of bad messaging. I'm not proud that Donald J. Trump is POTUS-elect (while I voted for him, he is a pompous ass), but we need to set the record straight here.

Yeah, it was very much a pissing contest. She lost in the Rust belt because she used idpol, but not intersectionality - she ignored the working class, especially the white working class. It was her own damn fault there, not to mention the DNC for thinking she was ever a good choice to run.

[Hirota]

Anti-GSM violence has a much bigger effect on anyone perceived as male than anyone perceived as female. You're not going to hear about that from intersectional feminists.

What is "Anti-GSM"?

GSM in this context means "Gender and/or Sexual Minority." It's a variation on LGBT.

[Giovenith]

What is "Anti-GSM"?

GSM in this context means "Gender and/or Sexual Minority." It's a variation on LGBT.

Huh. I kind of like this.