The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Costa Fierro]

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

No you cannot. A rape involves forced physical intercourse. What you linked is clearly abuse of some sort, but it's not rape.

[Des-Bal]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I think it's a fairly inexpert attempt to tie an unpopular ideology to a popular ideology.

[The Grene Knyght]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I think it's a fairly inexpert attempt to tie an unpopular ideology to a popular ideology.

Thats a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. While I'll acknowledge there may be some legitimate criticisms of this mode of analysis, I think at least examining the oppression of women from a marxist perspective has advantages.

[Frenline Delpha]

I think it's a fairly inexpert attempt to tie an unpopular ideology to a popular ideology.

Thats a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. While I'll acknowledge there may be some legitimate criticisms of this mode of analysis, I think at least examining the oppression of women from a marxist perspective has advantages.

So glad I was on the toilet because I shit myself laughing.

[The Grene Knyght]

Thats a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. While I'll acknowledge there may be some legitimate criticisms of this mode of analysis, I think at least examining the oppression of women from a marxist perspective has advantages.

So glad I was on the toilet because I shit myself laughing.

What an insightful comment

[Des-Bal]

Thats a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. While I'll acknowledge there may be some legitimate criticisms of this mode of analysis, I think at least examining the oppression of women from a marxist perspective has advantages.

I don't think that particular mode of analysis warrants complexity, in fact I think that getting into a complex discussion about it distracts from the very simple reality. The ultimate purpose of revolutionary x is to shop around tired, broken, and discredited ideas that have died a thousand deaths in the crucible of real world practice in the hopes you stumble across a someone who is gullible, desperate, and dissatisfied enough to accept them.

[Balkenreich]

I think it's a fairly inexpert attempt to tie an unpopular ideology to a popular ideology.

Thats a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. While I'll acknowledge there may be some legitimate criticisms of this mode of analysis, I think at least examining the oppression of women from a marxist perspective has advantages.

So, when are you going to advocate for reparations for Women for some....10,000 years worth of (literally) fucking over?

[The Grene Knyght]

Thats a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it. While I'll acknowledge there may be some legitimate criticisms of this mode of analysis, I think at least examining the oppression of women from a marxist perspective has advantages.

So, when are you going to advocate for reparations for Women for some....10,000 years worth of (literally) fucking over?

I'm.... honestly not sure what you're trying to say here...?

[Balkenreich]

So, when are you going to advocate for reparations for Women for some....10,000 years worth of (literally) fucking over?

I'm.... honestly not sure what you're trying to say here...?

Well, after all, you examine history from the marxist mindset of being Men vs women, instead of the usual Rich vs Poor, Bourgeoisie vs proletariat.

So it would make sense for marxist-feminists to advocate for something like that.

Unless like most feminists, simply putting women on their own special pedestal and calling "equality"l will suffice.

which one is it to you?

[Settrah]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I think grouping all of life's struggles together, and boiling it all down to one single source, and expecting the removal of that source to ensure liberation for literally every issue grouped is not only overly reductionist and overly simplistic, but irrationally idealistic to the point of nativity.

[The Grene Knyght]

I'm.... honestly not sure what you're trying to say here...?

Well, after all, you examine history from the marxist mindset of being Men vs women, instead of the usual Rich vs Poor, Bourgeoisie vs proletariat.

So it would make sense for marxist-feminists to advocate for something like that.

Unless like most feminists, simply putting women on their own special pedestal and calling "equality"l will suffice.

which one is it to you?

I'd see it more as society verses women than anything else. There certainly are examples of women upholding the patriarchy and men trying to subvert it...

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I think grouping all of life's struggles together, and boiling it all down to one single source, and expecting the removal of that source to ensure liberation for literally every issue grouped is not only overly reductionist and overly simplistic, but irrationally idealistic to the point of nativity.

Thats a fair criticism, but I'd argue that the destruction of capitalism is only only one necessary step for the liberation of women. But there are revolutionary feminists who can be naive and idealistic in the way you're talking about.

[Frenline Delpha]

Well, after all, you examine history from the marxist mindset of being Men vs women, instead of the usual Rich vs Poor, Bourgeoisie vs proletariat.

So it would make sense for marxist-feminists to advocate for something like that.

Unless like most feminists, simply putting women on their own special pedestal and calling "equality"l will suffice.

which one is it to you?

I'd see it more as society verses women than anything else. There certainly are examples of women upholding the patriarchy and men trying to subvert it...

I think grouping all of life's struggles together, and boiling it all down to one single source, and expecting the removal of that source to ensure liberation for literally every issue grouped is not only overly reductionist and overly simplistic, but irrationally idealistic to the point of nativity.

Thats a fair criticism, but I'd argue that the destruction of capitalism is only only one necessary step for the liberation of women. But there are revolutionary feminists who can be naive and idealistic in the way you're talking about.

So, your irony sensor is on the fritz, I see.

[The Grene Knyght]

I'd see it more as society verses women than anything else. There certainly are examples of women upholding the patriarchy and men trying to subvert it...


Thats a fair criticism, but I'd argue that the destruction of capitalism is only only one necessary step for the liberation of women. But there are revolutionary feminists who can be naive and idealistic in the way you're talking about.

So, your irony sensor is on the fritz, I see.

its 2am. my entire brain is on the fritz.

[Wallenburg]

Why do you think I bothered to respond to your post?

You don't want the honest answer to that question

Nice bait.

Saying that you met an MRA is generalizing MRAs now?

Seriously? You get snide at me for not reading and then try and pull this shit?

What shit have I pulled? I pointed out that they made no generalizations about MRAs, and you quoted "I met a MRA in real life today" as a refutation of my statement.

They might have asked the MRA if they were an MRA.

Who on earth does this the first time of meeting someone? I'm putting this firmly in the implausible category.

The MRA might have said so without being asked.

Whats better than one implausible scenario. Two!

MRAs--and people in general--do it on NationStates every day. I hardly see how it is implausible that some random asshat or another might think their political views so important that they choose to share them with total strangers.

Again, you are unfairly and unreasonably assuming that Heid's identification of this individual was without basis.

Far more reasonable than your imaginary fairy tales.

The self-projection is strong in this post.

But instead of trying to suggest fiction, why don't you let Heid explain. Maybe there is a perfectly sensible explaination.

This has been the entire point of my response to you. Instead of letting Heid explain, you tried to suggest your own fiction and pretend that was what Heid had said.

Is it really that difficult to believe that this individual may have actually wanted to attack their friend?

That claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I went and had some cheap meatball pasta for dinner this evening. Are you going to claim that it didn't happen and that I just imagined it unless I provide solid evidence of me eating the pasta?

Burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, which in this instance is Heid.

So you expect Heid to wear a body camera all day if they want to use their personal experiences in a conversation with you?

Why is it that you assume Heid only imagined it?

I don't - thats why burden of proof.

Oh, please, your hands are fucking crimson, don't pretend you didn't do it. You have been making assumptions about Heid's post left and right. If you had not, I would have no interest in replying to you at all.

they imagined they "wanted to attack my friend"

---

Furthermore, you also assume that Heid applied the MRA label to this person based on a stereotype, and that this individual could not possibly be an MRA simply living up to this stereotype by coincidence.

How about you let Heid explain.

That's awfully hypocritical of you, considering that's what I've been trying to say the entire fucking time. How about you sit back and actually let Heid explain?

Do people with greasy hair and beanies not exist?

Yawn.

By your logic, I should assume that you believe they don't exist. That's just hilarious.

You aren't approaching their post with even an iota of good faith.

Yes because you always approach posts in good faith right?

Nice ad hominem. Try again.

You automatically assume everything about the situation to totally discredit the poster,

Lie.

Don't bullshit, and I won't call you out on it. Me pointing out your behavior and criticizing it does not equate to lying.

despite having no evidence to support your assumptions.

Plenty of evidence, you're just ignoring it.

First, you have no evidence. You weren't with Heid. You don't know exactly who they met or who they were with. You don't know shit beyond what they said. Second, you just contradicted yourself. You claim that you make no assumptions, and then you say that you have evidence to support assumptions you said you did not make. So, by my best understanding, you know you are lying, and aren't even doing a good job at covering it up. That, or you changed your mind entirely mid-post.

When Heid says something that could even remotely be interpreted as a possible jab at MRAs,

It's not remote. you pretend that is the only possible meaning behind the post.

What the fuck? I'm not the one claiming Heid's post to be an attack on MRAs, buddy. I don't know what posts you have been reading, but they aren't mine.

When the poster EXPLICITLY indicates a desire to avoid stereotyping MRAs negatively, you effectively say they are lying.

And I'm sure they can set the record straight themselves without you sticking your nose in where it doesn't help.

More hypocrisy. You attacked Heid, "sticking your nose in where it doesn't help", and I responded to call you out on it, and tell you to let Heid "et the record straight themselves". How about you follow your own advice?

You are molding Heid's words to best convenience your desire to attack Heid, regardless of the truth or their actual opinions.

And they have the right of reply without you making assumptions of your own.

Again, you are not following your own advice. Here's a tip: don't demand higher standards of behavior from whomever you are talking to than those you apply to yourself.

I made no assumption.

Lie.

How about you quote me where I made an assumption about Heid's experience?

You automatically assumed the worst, ignoring multiple avenues for far more reasonable interpretation of Heid's post.

Again a lie.

Is that all you can come up with? "Nuh-uh!"? It's getting very redundant. I've pointed out in detail how you have extrapolated upon the information provided by Heid in an attempt to totally misrepresent their post. In this statement, you are not refuting me or in any way reducing the strength of my argument. You are just refusing to address me with rhetoric beyond "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

It's printed right here.

HIlarious you want to refer to what is written when you've demonstrated no interest in reading up to now.

More self-projection. I have read each of your posts carefully and objectively. My point stands.

Heid spoke vaguely about an encounter with someone they identified as an MRA.

With no information on how they identified them as an MRA other than descriptions about their demeanour and dress.

No, with no information on how they identified them as an MRA at all. The description of their behavior and clothing was separate from the MRA identification. You assumed that, since they were in the same post, they must go hand-in-hand, and that Heid assumed they were an MRA solely at a glance.

You filled in the blanks and even ignored provided statements to justify an absurd attack on Heid.

Except there was some information. Another lie.

Some information about what? And how about you stop calling me a liar, hmm?

How about we both let Heid clarify for themselves without you trying (and failing) to pull the whole white knight routine.

White knight? Wow, you really haven't paid any attention, have you? But if you are actually willing to pull back your ridiculous assumptions about Heid's post and let them actually speak before you slander them, I am all for that. I have been doing that since they posted, after all.

[Costa Fierro]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I don't see how capitalism's "destruction" can liberate women, unless we're making the assumption that somehow women do not benefit from capitalism, which isn't so much an ideology but a loose definition of a free market (or roughly semi-free) economic system, or that somehow it can be wielded against a specific gender group.

Not only this, but gender roles are more influenced by society rather than by the economic system. Women in the Soviet Union are no more "liberated" than they were beforehand or afterwards and the same goes for other socialist or communist states. Romania for example banned abortion, although that wasn't specifically something related to communism or socialism but rather than an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The fact is that unless society changes, progress cannot be made. Society changed to the extent that women at the turn of the 20th century had few, if any rights, and by the end of the century, they had a large number of rights through changes in society and a transition away from what many call "traditional values". And this being the capitalist West, for the most part, made these changes without the need for violent revolution or an abandonment of the system from which women could benefit from too.

The problem with this is that you also stated that you were approaching this from a Marxist perspective. What makes this perspective more viable than the perspectives of a Trotksyist or a Leninist or a Maoist or any other variant of communism/socialism? More importantly, how do you tie social views stemming from religious texts and economic systems together?

[Wallenburg]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

Given that radical feminism is a liability to not only the feminist umbrella but to society in general, and a Marxist take on feminism would be inherently radical, I would have to say that I would consider revolutionary/Marxist feminism just as dangerous and unhelpful, if not more so, as an ideology.

[Charmera]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

I don't get what's so inherently "oppressive" about a free market system and democracy, and the ideas under the umbrella of capitalism.
Like, I guess employers can be problematic if they abuse the workforce, by that's typically why we have some elements of government control and regulation in capitalistic societies.

[Gravlen]

[
Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

I don't think you can.

You think wrong.

That article says that he was charged with "first degree criminal sexual conduct" which isn't a crime in washington.

It is, however, a crime in Minnesota. It's Washington county, not Washington state.

I think was probably charged with first degree sexual misconduct with a minor but he was almost certainly not charged with the crime "Rape" or "Rape of a Child."

He was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, which is the rape statute of Minnesota.

So while you cannot rape a child over the internet you can totally get in trouble for sexually engaging a child over the internet which should totally not be news.

This guy proves you wrong, as he raped a child over the internet, causing her physical injury in a sex act despite being hundreds of miles away.

[Minzerland II]

I don't think you can.

You think wrong.

How does one rape someone through a computer monitor?

[Alvecia]

You think wrong.

How does one rape someone through a computer monitor?

Presumably through coercion.

I mean, I don't know the legality of it, but if I forced you to fuck yourself at gunpoint, I'd consider that rape.
Similarly if you force someone to fuck themselves through a computer monitor, I'd consider that rape as well.

[Minzerland II]

How does one rape someone through a computer monitor?

Presumably through coercion.

I mean, I don't know the legality of it, but if I forced you to fuck yourself at gunpoint, I'd consider that rape.
Similarly if you force someone to fuck themselves through a computer monitor, I'd consider that rape as well.

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

[Alvecia]

Presumably through coercion.

I mean, I don't know the legality of it, but if I forced you to fuck yourself at gunpoint, I'd consider that rape.
Similarly if you force someone to fuck themselves through a computer monitor, I'd consider that rape as well.

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

That's why I clarified that I'm unsure as to exact legal definitions involved here. But functionally, doing it personally or forcing them to do it to themselves don't seem much, if at all, different, so I find it reasonable to assume that they'd have the same or similar legal status.

[Hirota]

Presumably through coercion.

I mean, I don't know the legality of it, but if I forced you to fuck yourself at gunpoint, I'd consider that rape.
Similarly if you force someone to fuck themselves through a computer monitor, I'd consider that rape as well.

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

As we know a child is unable to consent, so I'm not sure this would happen if it was two adults.

[Hirota]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.

It's the final form of co-opted feminism.

[Minzerland II]

Eh. Isn't rape a forced action of penetration against the anus, vagina or otherwise without the consent of the victim, being initiated by the perpetrator?

I mean, I'm having trouble grasping this...

That's why I clarified that I'm unsure as to exact legal definitions involved here. But functionally, doing it personally or forcing them to do it to themselves don't seem much, if at all, different, so I find it reasonable to assume that they'd have the same or similar legal status.

Terminology, I believe, is very important. tbh, I don't care about their legal definition, I care about the standardised definition a tad bit more. Couldn't the same be said for manslaughter and murder?