The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[The Grene Knyght]

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

love the flag btw!

Thanks! Although I still need to change the aspect ratio and size of my stars...
I like yours too
Starry Plough buddies...

Huh. I kind of like this.

It's certainly more descriptive and catch all (considering the dozens of variations otherwise).

LGBTQ+ has certainly become unwieldy once you get past the '+', but I'm somewhat wary of 'GSM'

And more often, much more often, almost always, while the class factor is highlighted it's used the stereotype "white middle-class women" - that's like subtly suggesting that all white women are middle-class.
So the result have been a terrible defeat, since 53% white women actually voted for Trump: many, most, of those were rich women, but there were even working class white women, especially in the Rust Belt.

That's another problem I have with intersectionalism.
Not mentioning the further problems arising when within intersectionality are included even "exotic" factors unrelated with women like "anti-speciesism" and "pro-veganism": those are philosophies that are totally unrelated with equality between all human beings, and are, I think, actually weakening the whole meaning of the message.

Intersectional feminism is bs.

Care to explain further?
If you're just agreeing with Chessmistress, I think she was offering a critique, not a condemnation, as you do (but correct me if I'm wrong, either of you). I'm open to hearing criticism of any movement or idea I subscribe to, but if you're gonna argue its outright "bs", rather than something that is or can be in some circles flawed, you're gonna have to offer something more substantive...

Here's something most of the feminists here suck at: actually responding to queries about their posts. Though it could be just not understanding how the thread works. You can go to 'first unread post' or even search for your nick to see what people have been talking about in response to things you've written. My suspicion is that it's a way of avoiding being accountable but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Am I included in this
I hope not, and I don't think I am, but ya never know...

Thread bans all X are Y statements...
All carrots are vegetables
All People need vegtables
All Nationstates Threads are replaced/forgotten
All NS Threads are kinda pointless
Therefore by the logical fallacy of lunacy:
All NS Threads are worth less than a carrot
(Especially ones with a number after them)
If this is flaming, trolling, whatever...well...hope in the internet lost. (as if I had any)
PS If it wasnt for the no all x are y thing, I wouldn't have even posted anything on this thread

What is this even in response too?

[Forsher]

She lost to a celebrity... but had more votes than said celebrity. What evidence do you base that claim on?

Sorry, I meant to say "I think That backfired amazingly". It was more opinion than factual. I think it alienated people.

On what grounds?

I don't think it helped... at least not in terms of winning... but that's not the same as "backfired". I don't think there is much reason to expect celebrities (incl. those from sports) to actually sway people politically either... because I look at things like the recent US elections, the various National voting sportsmen that said they'd change the flag... and while Trump started off as a celebrity, he has been a John Key wannabe* in that he has made politics into what makes you a celebrity... a politician becoming celebrity rather than celebrity with Views (see also: To Play the King).

*Key's much more popular... despite having entered politics with the moniker "the smiling assassin" for firing buckets of people.

[Mattopilos]

Sorry, I meant to say "I think That backfired amazingly". It was more opinion than factual. I think it alienated people.

On what grounds?

I don't think it helped... at least not in terms of winning... but that's not the same as "backfired". I don't think there is much reason to expect celebrities (incl. those from sports) to actually sway people politically either... because I look at things like the recent US elections, the various National voting sportsmen that said they'd change the flag...

That is what I mean. Obviously it is exaggerating to say it 'backfired', but it certainly didn't help on any large scale.

[Forsher]

On what grounds?

I don't think it helped... at least not in terms of winning... but that's not the same as "backfired". I don't think there is much reason to expect celebrities (incl. those from sports) to actually sway people politically either... because I look at things like the recent US elections, the various National voting sportsmen that said they'd change the flag...

That is what I mean. Obviously it is exaggerating to say it 'backfired', but it certainly didn't help on any large scale.

prologue: I have edited the post somewhat (I try to avoid this but I shouldn't have clicked submit).

main action:

Then that is as far as your statement should go.

epilogue:

Although, possibly, you could say it backfired if you argue celebrities are what made the scale of the popular vote disparity what it is (several million)... and this therefore created the EC as very contemporary locus of controversy and that this led Republicans/Trump voters to en masse change their views and become fans of the EC (which had long been considered a weakness for Clinton, and, possibly Democrats more widely). But you didn't say that or something like that.

[GabrieIa]

Intersectional feminism is bs.

Care to explain further?
If you're just agreeing with Chessmistress, I think she was offering a critique, not a condemnation, as you do (but correct me if I'm wrong, either of you). I'm open to hearing criticism of any movement or idea I subscribe to, but if you're gonna argue its outright "bs", rather than something that is or can be in some circles flawed, you're gonna have to offer something more substantive...

Well for one it is not feminism anymore. It worries about all "minorities". When more traditional forms of feminism focus on women. This is where the term Social Justice Warriors come from. That is an easier saying of Intersectional Feminist. SJWs praise such things as Black Lives Matter and the Third Wave Feminism as well as the trans rights movement. Which in my opinion is not all that great. The parts about the Trans Bathroom Issue and pronouns like Ze and the sorts. He or she is all anyone needs.

[Mattopilos]

That is what I mean. Obviously it is exaggerating to say it 'backfired', but it certainly didn't help on any large scale.

prologue: I have edited the post somewhat (I try to avoid this but I shouldn't have clicked submit).

main action:

Then that is as far as your statement should go.

epilogue:

Although, possibly, you could say it backfired if you argue celebrities are what made the scale of the popular vote disparity what it is (several million)... and this therefore created the EC as very contemporary locus of controversy and that this led Republicans/Trump voters to en masse change their views and become fans of the EC (which had long been considered a weakness for Clinton, and, possibly Democrats more widely). But you didn't say that or something like that.

Eh, I am not in the loop with American politics enough to make such specific remarks about the inner workings of the system, hence the more broad and to-the-point remark.

[Forsher]

prologue: I have edited the post somewhat (I try to avoid this but I shouldn't have clicked submit).

main action:

Then that is as far as your statement should go.

epilogue:

Although, possibly, you could say it backfired if you argue celebrities are what made the scale of the popular vote disparity what it is (several million)... and this therefore created the EC as very contemporary locus of controversy and that this led Republicans/Trump voters to en masse change their views and become fans of the EC (which had long been considered a weakness for Clinton, and, possibly Democrats more widely). But you didn't say that or something like that.

Eh, I am not in the loop with American politics enough to make such specific remarks about the inner workings of the system, hence the more broad and to-the-point remark.

You have probably noticed people say "in my opinion" and then someone comes along and says "your opinion is wrong" and then the first person goes "it's an opinion, so it's not wrong" and then everyone jumps in and says "opinions can be wrong"... Point is, if you have an opinion, it's totally fine (in fact, the intellectually honest thing) to prefix it with "I'm not sure, but I think..." (which is close to what you did the second time, and sort of what happens if we add all your posts together).

(And here I am editing again.)

Sort of the point is to write an argument that results in agreement or "‘The worst of it is,’ he says, slipping the rolled-up tie into
his pocket, ‘you made a pretty good argument back then. Not one I’d agree with, but one I’d be obliged to think about if I was trying to refute it. You’re obviously a smart man.’" From Luther The Calling (Neil Cross)... about child trafficking to the black market adoption market with reference to Romania and the EU.

Not that I must always be right, of course. But I am.

[Mattopilos]

Eh, I am not in the loop with American politics enough to make such specific remarks about the inner workings of the system, hence the more broad and to-the-point remark.

You have probably noticed people say "in my opinion" and then someone comes along and says "your opinion is wrong" and then the first person goes "it's an opinion, so it's not wrong" and then everyone jumps in and says "opinions can be wrong"... Point is, if you have an opinion, it's totally fine (in fact, the intellectually honest thing) to prefix it with "I'm not sure, but I think..." (which is close to what you did the second time, and sort of what happens if we add all your posts together).

Not that I must always be right, of course. But I am.

Yeah, I will make it more noticeable when I mean it to be an opinion. I kinda assumed people knew it was an opinion until someone claims it to be fact, but maybe that is just me.

[The Grene Knyght]

Care to explain further?
If you're just agreeing with Chessmistress, I think she was offering a critique, not a condemnation, as you do (but correct me if I'm wrong, either of you). I'm open to hearing criticism of any movement or idea I subscribe to, but if you're gonna argue its outright "bs", rather than something that is or can be in some circles flawed, you're gonna have to offer something more substantive...

Well for one it is not feminism anymore. It worries about all "minorities". When more traditional forms of feminism focus on women. This is where the term Social Justice Warriors come from. That is an easier saying of Intersectional Feminist. SJWs praise such things as Black Lives Matter and the Third Wave Feminism as well as the trans rights movement. Which in my opinion is not all that great. The parts about the Trans Bathroom Issue and pronouns like Ze and the sorts. He or she is all anyone needs.

I don't think it draws the focus away from women, it just acknowledges that patriarchy isn't the only tool of oppression in our society, and thus some women are more oppressed than others.
Also, why are you, as a trans third-wave feminist, against people who support trans people and third-wave feminism?

[Forsher]

You have probably noticed people say "in my opinion" and then someone comes along and says "your opinion is wrong" and then the first person goes "it's an opinion, so it's not wrong" and then everyone jumps in and says "opinions can be wrong"... Point is, if you have an opinion, it's totally fine (in fact, the intellectually honest thing) to prefix it with "I'm not sure, but I think..." (which is close to what you did the second time, and sort of what happens if we add all your posts together).

Not that I must always be right, of course. But I am.

Yeah, I will make it more noticeable when I mean it to be an opinion. I kinda assumed people knew it was an opinion until someone claims it to be fact, but maybe that is just me.

That is probably reasonable. I'm a bit "someone is wrong on the internet" syndromy so...

Also, I edited that post too. And, if you ask me (I am also self referential and reverential), I made it a much more interesting post.

[Mattopilos]

Care to explain further?
If you're just agreeing with Chessmistress, I think she was offering a critique, not a condemnation, as you do (but correct me if I'm wrong, either of you). I'm open to hearing criticism of any movement or idea I subscribe to, but if you're gonna argue its outright "bs", rather than something that is or can be in some circles flawed, you're gonna have to offer something more substantive...

Well for one it is not feminism anymore. It worries about all "minorities". When more traditional forms of feminism focus on women. This is where the term Social Justice Warriors come from. That is an easier saying of Intersectional Feminist. SJWs praise such things as Black Lives Matter and the Third Wave Feminism as well as the trans rights movement. Which in my opinion is not all that great. The parts about the Trans Bathroom Issue and pronouns like Ze and the sorts. He or she is all anyone needs.

Worrying about minorities means it cannot be feminism? riiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt. Also, Feminism is more about equality than JUST women. Please don't be one of those feminists that claim women are the only oppressed group. Not need to fling the liberal and alt-right buzzword "SJW" here.
RED text: ... Are you fucking serious? Really? What makes you not support a group of people who are also oppressed? For someone against radical TERFs, that is quite the TERF-like view.

[Wallenburg]

As I have been talking about in a private conversation with a fellow GA forumgoer, RL > NS. Sure, there are plenty of frequent posters, but if something occupies their time in real life, there's absolutely no reason to expect that person to get back to you on each individual conversation.

To be fair I can count how many times Chessmistress has blanked me making decent points on at least three hands New Edom is however being a little broad saying all feminists do this

Oh, I don't deny that Chess has a history of abandoning discussion when she is in a corner, and then returning weeks later as if the discussion had never happened. That sort of behavior hardly falls under RL getting in the way of NS.

[GabrieIa]

Well for one it is not feminism anymore. It worries about all "minorities". When more traditional forms of feminism focus on women. This is where the term Social Justice Warriors come from. That is an easier saying of Intersectional Feminist. SJWs praise such things as Black Lives Matter and the Third Wave Feminism as well as the trans rights movement. Which in my opinion is not all that great. The parts about the Trans Bathroom Issue and pronouns like Ze and the sorts. He or she is all anyone needs.

I don't think it draws the focus away from women, it just acknowledges that patriarchy isn't the only tool of oppression in our society, and thus some women are more oppressed than others.
Also, why are you, as a trans third-wave feminist, against people who support trans people and third-wave feminism?

Ok, Radical Feminism is not Third Wave Feminism. I agree with trans rights but not to the point of preferred pronouns and bathroom issue.

Well for one it is not feminism anymore. It worries about all "minorities". When more traditional forms of feminism focus on women. This is where the term Social Justice Warriors come from. That is an easier saying of Intersectional Feminist. SJWs praise such things as Black Lives Matter and the Third Wave Feminism as well as the trans rights movement. Which in my opinion is not all that great. The parts about the Trans Bathroom Issue and pronouns like Ze and the sorts. He or she is all anyone needs.

Worrying about minorities means it cannot be feminism? riiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt. Also, Feminism is more about equality than JUST women. Please don't be one of those feminists that claim women are the only oppressed group. Not need to fling the liberal and alt-right buzzword "SJW" here.
RED text: ... Are you fucking serious? Really? What makes you not support a group of people who are also oppressed? For someone against radical TERFs, that is quite the TERF-like view.

Radical TERFs are different from more moderate ones. Because i support them but it is not a femist issue.
All in all feminist issue in my opinion do not include non male issues.

[GabrieIa]

To be fair I can count how many times Chessmistress has blanked me making decent points on at least three hands New Edom is however being a little broad saying all feminists do this

Oh, I don't deny that Chess has a history of abandoning discussion when she is in a corner, and then returning weeks later as if the discussion had never happened. That sort of behavior hardly falls under RL getting in the way of NS.

If you talk to her in a more personal manor, then you would understand. I have and understand that.

[The Grene Knyght]

I don't think it draws the focus away from women, it just acknowledges that patriarchy isn't the only tool of oppression in our society, and thus some women are more oppressed than others.
Also, why are you, as a trans third-wave feminist, against people who support trans people and third-wave feminism?

Ok, Radical Feminism is not Third Wave Feminism. I agree with trans rights but not to the point of preferred pronouns and bathroom issue.

Worrying about minorities means it cannot be feminism? riiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt. Also, Feminism is more about equality than JUST women. Please don't be one of those feminists that claim women are the only oppressed group. Not need to fling the liberal and alt-right buzzword "SJW" here.
RED text: ... Are you fucking serious? Really? What makes you not support a group of people who are also oppressed? For someone against radical TERFs, that is quite the TERF-like view.

Radical TERFs are different from more moderate ones. Because i support them but it is not a femist issue.
All in all feminist issue in my opinion do not include non male issues.

But how can you support women's issues if you don't support women in every issue that affects them?
For example, not all women are affected by racism-motivated sexism, but if you ignore the large number who are, how are you tackling sexism in a meaningful way?

[GabrieIa]

Ok, Radical Feminism is not Third Wave Feminism. I agree with trans rights but not to the point of preferred pronouns and bathroom issue.


Radical TERFs are different from more moderate ones. Because i support them but it is not a femist issue.
All in all feminist issue in my opinion do not include non male issues.

But how can you support women's issues if you don't support women in every issue that affects them?
For example, not all women are affected by racism-motivated sexism, but if you ignore the large number who are, how are you tackling sexism in a meaningful way?

So what i get from you is that Male Black Issues are Feminist issues. Am i right? I want women of color, women of sex workers, women of disabilities to have a better life. All of the previously said fall under that, but disabled males dont.

[New Edom]

As I have been talking about in a private conversation with a fellow GA forumgoer, RL > NS. Sure, there are plenty of frequent posters, but if something occupies their time in real life, there's absolutely no reason to expect that person to get back to you on each individual conversation.

To be fair I can count how many times Chessmistress has blanked me making decent points on at least three hands New Edom is however being a little broad saying all feminists do this

I said 'most' because it's true. If someone actually makes a thoughtful response post backed up by research it is often ignored. Then they'll come back and post some other thing. The busy in real life thing is a feeble excuse--if you're too busy to have a real discussion, then don't start one.

[Wallenburg]

Oh, I don't deny that Chess has a history of abandoning discussion when she is in a corner, and then returning weeks later as if the discussion had never happened. That sort of behavior hardly falls under RL getting in the way of NS.

If you talk to her in a more personal manor, then you would understand. I have and understand that.

Perhaps I would, under certain circumstances, but I have never been to a manor, and have no idea where to find one in the US.

[GabrieIa]

If you talk to her in a more personal manor, then you would understand. I have and understand that.

Perhaps I would, under certain circumstances, but I have never been to a manor, and have no idea where to find one in the US.

I do it through discord. But that is me. I know some things about her that might make you understand what she goes through.

[GabrieIa]

To be fair I can count how many times Chessmistress has blanked me making decent points on at least three hands New Edom is however being a little broad saying all feminists do this

I said 'most' because it's true. If someone actually makes a thoughtful response post backed up by research it is often ignored. Then they'll come back and post some other thing. The busy in real life thing is a feeble excuse--if you're too busy to have a real discussion, then don't start one.

Its called being an adult with kids

[New Edom]

I said 'most' because it's true. If someone actually makes a thoughtful response post backed up by research it is often ignored. Then they'll come back and post some other thing. The busy in real life thing is a feeble excuse--if you're too busy to have a real discussion, then don't start one.

Its called being an adult with kids

A lot of people are busy. I'm busy. If you are too busy to engage in actual discussion, then your posts making declarations about how women should govern are ironic, since you're too busy with kids to discuss politics.

[GabrieIa]

Its called being an adult with kids

A lot of people are busy. I'm busy. If you are too busy to engage in actual discussion, then your posts making declarations about how women should govern are ironic, since you're too busy with kids to discuss politics.

Are you a man? I am asking the question, not trying to make you seem like the bad guy. If so then you would not understand, if you are the stay at home dad that you would understand better. If you are not then i dont know if you would understand these things. She has other things besides kids.

[New Edom]

A lot of people are busy. I'm busy. If you are too busy to engage in actual discussion, then your posts making declarations about how women should govern are ironic, since you're too busy with kids to discuss politics.

Are you a man? I am asking the question, not trying to make you seem like the bad guy. If so then you would not understand, if you are the stay at home dad that you would understand better. If you are not then i dont know if you would understand these things. She has other things besides kids.

I'm a man. I've been a stay at home dad before though I am not now.

But that's not the point. The point is that she, and now you, and others seem to frequently gloss over points that are made in response to claims you have made which are clearly intended to state why people should support particular feminist policies or ideological approaches to policy making. Why waste our time?

[Galloism]

Are you a man? I am asking the question, not trying to make you seem like the bad guy. If so then you would not understand, if you are the stay at home dad that you would understand better. If you are not then i dont know if you would understand these things. She has other things besides kids.

I'm a man. I've been a stay at home dad before though I am not now.

But that's not the point. The point is that she, and now you, and others seem to frequently gloss over points that are made in response to claims you have made which are clearly intended to state why people should support particular feminist policies or ideological approaches to policy making. Why waste our time?

For me, personally, it's containment.

People might take their absolutely insane anti-science sexist views as being somehow related to reality if we weren't around to debunk them.

[GabrieIa]

Are you a man? I am asking the question, not trying to make you seem like the bad guy. If so then you would not understand, if you are the stay at home dad that you would understand better. If you are not then i dont know if you would understand these things. She has other things besides kids.

I'm a man. I've been a stay at home dad before though I am not now.

But that's not the point. The point is that she, and now you, and others seem to frequently gloss over points that are made in response to claims you have made which are clearly intended to state why people should support particular feminist policies or ideological approaches to policy making. Why waste our time?

You are wasting your own time by doing so. I know some things are bs, with feminism. Want me to list any? So dont tell us that we waste you time, if you do not want your time to be wasted then why did you 'attack' (cant think of a better word or a synonym for it) us?