The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Xanama]

I just wanna participate >->

[Valystria]

I just wanna participate >->

In what?

[Xanama]

I just wanna participate >->

In what?

This thread

[Valystria]

In what?

This thread

You are currently participating.

[Hirota]

I don't think even chess would believe women are incapable of being paedophiles.

She's struggled with the concept women can be rapists. It took Gallo taking it to moderation to get an apology.

But yes, women absolutely can become paedophiles and because of the bias in society there is no checking or scrutiny of them, certainly not to the same level as men. Here is 13 pages of female teachers who have been caught - over 200 teachers, most in the last 10 years.

Now admittedly, it's reasonable to point out most teachers are women, so it makes sense that even a small proportion of them have to be bad eggs and you can easily get to that number.

[Jochistan]

Stop calling men males. You call women women so drop the double standard.

Weird how it's apparently okay for women to treat other women as sex objects? You only focus on men doing it.

And ha ha ha, you overlooked sex robots may be made to look like men. Still sexually objectifying women in that case? I guess so. Gay porn apparently does too since you want it to ban it as much as you want to ban all sex bots.

You don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. Being authoritarian and banning everything you deem objectificationizing isn't going to help.

I already said, multiple times, that sex toys for women are objectification of men's bodies.
But since men apparently don't care, why I should care?
Many women decided we have a right to not be sexually objectified, and that's why sex robots will be banned.
Men decided, apparently, they don't have a right to not be sexually objectified. That's why sex toys for women will be always legal

So basically, when anyone complains about something "misrepresenting" them, it's our duty to change it because a small group of them think it's bad.

[USS Monitor]

So much double standard and hypocrisy here that it almost look like Chess is in fact secretly training to be, Dieu nous en préserve, a politician...

Anyway, firstly, men do care about being objectified. It's just you who don't care about our objections. But I guess you're too mysandrist to even question your own assumptions...

Now that is a completely unbased and entirely wrong assumption. No one is more anti-SJW than me. But nobody I know cares about those things, and neither do I. It just seems so silly and trivial to actually argue about.

I feel a little insulted now honestly.

Apparently Ostro cares.

Personally, I think we should just keep the sex toys on the market and if people don't like them, then they don't have to go to a sex shop. Objectification isn't sufficient reason to ban something. Just point out the problem, don't buy the item, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic.

[USS Monitor]

Then why does every other feminist here hate her?

There are problems with the feminism that dominates, but she's not it.

Yeah, she is. How can she not be it when she's a reflection of establishment feminism? These are the sort of feminists who are often found teaching gender studies at universities. If you can find Chessmistress feminists teaching gender studies, why is it not possible for that sort of feminist to express their genuine opinions in a feminism thread?

And no, not every feminist hates Chessmistress. Natapoc is very similar to Chessmistress and in some aspects more extreme. Are you willing to suggest Natapoc is also a "false flag"? And if not, why Chessmistress and not Natapoc?

I find Chessmistress far more suspicious than Natapoc, and I think Chess raises more red flags for other people as well. It's not just a question of how extreme their views are, but also the way those views are presented. Chess is much more stereotypical, formulaic, and repetitive. She'll post the same (or almost the same) spiel multiple times, she relies much more heavily on quoted material, and her replies to other posters are less responsive to the posts she quotes. When Natapoc replies to someone, the reply is directly related to the post she's replying to. Even when she's wrong, she still stays on topic. Chess just looks for any excuse to get up on her soapbox and preach about what she wants to preach about, even if it's not closely related to what other people are saying. Chess also sticks to a much narrower range of topics to post about. Natapoc might have some strong opinions about gender issues, but feminist topics didn't dominate her posting history to the same extent.

And then there are the names. I have no idea what the name "Natapoc" means. "Chessmistress" implies someone who is here to play games.

[The Alexanderians]

Yeah, she is. How can she not be it when she's a reflection of establishment feminism? These are the sort of feminists who are often found teaching gender studies at universities. If you can find Chessmistress feminists teaching gender studies, why is it not possible for that sort of feminist to express their genuine opinions in a feminism thread?

And no, not every feminist hates Chessmistress. Natapoc is very similar to Chessmistress and in some aspects more extreme. Are you willing to suggest Natapoc is also a "false flag"? And if not, why Chessmistress and not Natapoc?

I find Chessmistress far more suspicious than Natapoc, and I think Chess raises more red flags for other people as well. It's not just a question of how extreme their views are, but also the way those views are presented. Chess is much more stereotypical, formulaic, and repetitive. She'll post the same (or almost the same) spiel multiple times, she relies much more heavily on quoted material, and her replies to other posters are less responsive to the posts she quotes. When Natapoc replies to someone, the reply is directly related to the post she's replying to. Even when she's wrong, she still stays on topic. Chess just looks for any excuse to get up on her soapbox and preach about what she wants to preach about, even if it's not closely related to what other people are saying. Chess also sticks to a much narrower range of topics to post about. Natapoc might have some strong opinions about gender issues, but feminist topics didn't dominate her posting history to the same extent.

And then there are the names. I have no idea what the name "Natapoc" means. "Chessmistress" implies someone who is here to play games.

Natapoc's a girl? The poc in their name might mean "person of color".

[Val Halla]

Now that is a completely unbased and entirely wrong assumption. No one is more anti-SJW than me. But nobody I know cares about those things, and neither do I. It just seems so silly and trivial to actually argue about.

I feel a little insulted now honestly.

Apparently Ostro cares.

Personally, I think we should just keep the sex toys on the market and if people don't like them, then they don't have to go to a sex shop. Objectification isn't sufficient reason to ban something. Just point out the problem, don't buy the item, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic.

It's not like men and women aren't objectified in TV ads.

[USS Monitor]

In what?

This thread

Welcome aboard. Watch your step. The decks are slippery when wet.

[USS Monitor]

I find Chessmistress far more suspicious than Natapoc, and I think Chess raises more red flags for other people as well. It's not just a question of how extreme their views are, but also the way those views are presented. Chess is much more stereotypical, formulaic, and repetitive. She'll post the same (or almost the same) spiel multiple times, she relies much more heavily on quoted material, and her replies to other posters are less responsive to the posts she quotes. When Natapoc replies to someone, the reply is directly related to the post she's replying to. Even when she's wrong, she still stays on topic. Chess just looks for any excuse to get up on her soapbox and preach about what she wants to preach about, even if it's not closely related to what other people are saying. Chess also sticks to a much narrower range of topics to post about. Natapoc might have some strong opinions about gender issues, but feminist topics didn't dominate her posting history to the same extent.

And then there are the names. I have no idea what the name "Natapoc" means. "Chessmistress" implies someone who is here to play games.

Natapoc's a girl?

I was under that impression for some reason, but I could be wrong. I used to sometimes get Natapoc confused with Nadkor.

[Ostroeuropa]

Now that is a completely unbased and entirely wrong assumption. No one is more anti-SJW than me. But nobody I know cares about those things, and neither do I. It just seems so silly and trivial to actually argue about.

I feel a little insulted now honestly.

Apparently Ostro cares.

Personally, I think we should just keep the sex toys on the market and if people don't like them, then they don't have to go to a sex shop. Objectification isn't sufficient reason to ban something. Just point out the problem, don't buy the item, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic.

It isn't a good reason to ban something, you're right. I also think that quote is broken btw.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/upsho ... girls.html

All types of disadvantaged starts harm boys more than girls. Girls have more social mobility than boys as a result.

That sound you hear is the death knell of the feminist movement.

[Gravlen]

I don't think even chess would believe women are incapable of being paedophiles.

She's struggled with the concept women can be rapists. It took Gallo taking it to moderation to get an apology.

But yes, women absolutely can become paedophiles and because of the bias in society there is no checking or scrutiny of them, certainly not to the same level as men. Here is 13 pages of female teachers who have been caught - over 200 teachers, most in the last 10 years.

Now admittedly, it's reasonable to point out most teachers are women, so it makes sense that even a small proportion of them have to be bad eggs and you can easily get to that number.

Two minor points: You're talking about child molesters, not pedophiles. Your list includes people accused, and by its nature not a trustworthy list of people who've been caught.

It is true that some women are pedophiles. It is also true that some women are child molesters. Neither is limited by gender.

[CTALNH]

Yolo tag

[Gravlen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/upshot/a-disadvantaged-start-hurts-boys-more-than-girls.html

All types of disadvantaged starts harm boys more than girls. Girls have more social mobility than boys as a result.

That sound you hear is the death knell of the feminist movement.

Interesting article. You seem to completely misunderstand it though, based on your conclusion, but it's interesting. Not very revolutionary perhaps. I mean, it's not news to me that it would be beneficial (for everyone) if boys weren't pressured into outdated gender roles and being taught to not express emotions, if there were more male teachers, and if fathers were more active in the raising of their children.

[Chessmistress]

Yeah, she is. How can she not be it when she's a reflection of establishment feminism? These are the sort of feminists who are often found teaching gender studies at universities. If you can find Chessmistress feminists teaching gender studies, why is it not possible for that sort of feminist to express their genuine opinions in a feminism thread?

And no, not every feminist hates Chessmistress. Natapoc is very similar to Chessmistress and in some aspects more extreme. Are you willing to suggest Natapoc is also a "false flag"? And if not, why Chessmistress and not Natapoc?

I find Chessmistress far more suspicious than Natapoc, and I think Chess raises more red flags for other people as well. It's not just a question of how extreme their views are, but also the way those views are presented. Chess is much more stereotypical, formulaic, and repetitive. She'll post the same (or almost the same) spiel multiple times, she relies much more heavily on quoted material, and her replies to other posters are less responsive to the posts she quotes. When Natapoc replies to someone, the reply is directly related to the post she's replying to. Even when she's wrong, she still stays on topic. Chess just looks for any excuse to get up on her soapbox and preach about what she wants to preach about, even if it's not closely related to what other people are saying. Chess also sticks to a much narrower range of topics to post about. Natapoc might have some strong opinions about gender issues, but feminist topics didn't dominate her posting history to the same extent.

And then there are the names. I have no idea what the name "Natapoc" means. "Chessmistress" implies someone who is here to play games.

And then there are the names.
"Chessmistress" implies someone who is here to play games. And this is a videogame...
"USS Monitor"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor
could implies someone who is a warmonger and anti-feminist, because USS Monitor was a deadly weapon, and Feminism is against war....

Really, this is the dumbest explanation I've ever see.

I can suggest you less dumber explanations:
Chessmistress rules an invader region, and Feminism is against violence.
Chessmistress rules a bloody matriarchal region, and this is not Feminism.

But, as you can see, the same reasoning applies even to yourself...

[Kelinfort]

NS Feminism: The Eternal Summer

[Val Halla]

NS Feminism: The Eternal Summer

-ERFism is the worst thing since unsliced bread imo

[Hirota]

Two minor points: You're talking about child molesters, not pedophiles. Your list includes people accused, and by its nature not a trustworthy list of people who've been caught.

It is true that some women are pedophiles. It is also true that some women are child molesters. Neither is limited by gender.

I appreciate the clarification - I should have seen that not all of them are convicted. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said accused or convicted sex offenders.

[Kelinfort]

NS Feminism: The Eternal Summer

-ERFism is the worst thing since unsliced bread imo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliced_br ... iced_bread

[United Marxist Nations]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/upshot/a-disadvantaged-start-hurts-boys-more-than-girls.html

All types of disadvantaged starts harm boys more than girls. Girls have more social mobility than boys as a result.

That sound you hear is the death knell of the feminist movement.

IIRC, in the US, men are nearly four times more likely to commit suicide as well.

[Chessmistress]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/upshot/a-disadvantaged-start-hurts-boys-more-than-girls.html

All types of disadvantaged starts harm boys more than girls. Girls have more social mobility than boys as a result.

That sound you hear is the death knell of the feminist movement.

From our OP

However, this is a Feminist thread. Our mission is to support feminism and promote women's rights; it is a place to educate, uplift and nurture the younger generations. We aren't here to debate whether or not male rape happens. The topic of male rape isn't taboo, but there is a thread for it here.

That's about rape, but I think it should applies to all issues.
Male rape, though it exists, is NOT a Feminist issue, as per words of our OP, and I agree with her.
Males' issues are NOT Feminist issues, Feminism is about women's rights and women's empowerment (check our OP, again).

Personally, I think we should just keep the sex toys on the market and if people don't like them, then they don't have to go to a sex shop. Objectification isn't sufficient reason to ban something. Just point out the problem, don't buy the item, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic.

"Just point out the problem, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic"

Are you really suggesting that males willingly to buy sex robots would listen to Feminists worried by the fact that's objectification and it fuels sexism and gender stereotypes?

[Galloism]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/upshot/a-disadvantaged-start-hurts-boys-more-than-girls.html

All types of disadvantaged starts harm boys more than girls. Girls have more social mobility than boys as a result.

That sound you hear is the death knell of the feminist movement.

From our OP

However, this is a Feminist thread. Our mission is to support feminism and promote women's rights; it is a place to educate, uplift and nurture the younger generations. We aren't here to debate whether or not male rape happens. The topic of male rape isn't taboo, but there is a thread for it here.

That's about rape, but I think it should applies to all issues.
Male rape, though it exists, is NOT a Feminist issue, as per words of our OP, and I agree with her.
Males' issues are NOT Feminist issues, Feminism is about women's rights and women's empowerment (check our OP, again).

Personally, I think we should just keep the sex toys on the market and if people don't like them, then they don't have to go to a sex shop. Objectification isn't sufficient reason to ban something. Just point out the problem, don't buy the item, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic.

"Just point out the problem, and let the Free Market Fairy work her magic"

Are you really suggesting that males willingly to buy sex robots would listen to Feminists worried by the fact that's objectification and it fuels sexism and gender stereotypes?

I'd say given that feminists have been purely silent on such objectification routinely engaged in by women of men via dildos, vibrators, and such we should recognize the hypocrisy for what it is and flat out ignore them if they start hollering about sex robots.