The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Galloism]

Indeed. It's a nice broad brush to tar anyone with that dares question feminism's current movement.

"Well, they're criticizing us, so they MUST be anti-egalitarian. Never mind we actually reversed India's rape law to make it sexist again, and have used squirmy definitions to erase male victims of rape and DV for decades. It must be because they hate equality!"

You don't even have to criticize them to be painted with the tar brush.

All you have to do is say you're not a feminist and then you're automatically forbidden from being allowed to be for equality.

Honestly, it's one of the reasons I stopped identifying as a feminist. I've seen far too many feminist friendly policies that were designed and crafted to be unequal. That were designed to be sexist.

I've been helping male victims of DV and rape, and I get death threats (no, I will not share my other online persona) because I dare to help men against abusive wives. I get death threats because I dare to treat male rape victims with respect and try to help them work through their issues. I work my fingers to the bone answering email day after day after day trying to prevent these men from killing themselves - and I don't always succeed. But invariably, I get emails threatening me with death because I dare help the men who have nowhere to turn.

You know what? I stopped identifying with feminists because I'm in favor of equality, and a lot of feminists are vehemently opposed to it - especially radical feminists.

[Galloism]

Thing is, if you use the textbook definition of feminism, then radical feminists are not feminists.

The people that everyone accepts as feminist - IE, Mary Koss being a key example - are no longer feminists. Your conclusion is one giant No True Scotsman.

A person can be a feminist without being a consistent feminist. One can be a feminist and be wrong. One can be a feminist and say something outrageous sometimes. One can be a feminist and still hold some really backwards views that sometimes conflict with feminism.

I doubt anyone "does" their ideology perfectly all the time perfectly. Humans are more complex then that.

And yet, you will not a find a single feminist organization that criticizes Mary Koss for her definition, despite that definition being used to marginalize and suppress male victims of rape for decades. I'd be surprised if you find a feminist organization that criticizes the Duluth model - which has been key in suppressing and marginalizing male victims of DV for decades.

I mean, if you do, fucking amazing. I want to see it.

There's a bit of a biblical example "you can know a tree by its fruits". Feminism's fruits have been conflicted between "fine" and "rotten" at best. What does this say about the movement, when the movement, as a whole, empowers rapists and domestic abusers provided they have the proper genitalia?

[Natapoc]

Not at all, it's a result of logical reasoning which is most simple to arrive at. Simply take the definition of feminism and the definition of egalitarianism. You will see that any negation of feminism also negates egalitarianism.

The world runs not off of definitions but off of realities. If a definition supports reality I am more than happy to take that definition but as of right now feminism seems not to be living up to its definition in certain areas, namely when it comes to how it deals with rape and domestic violence.

If we simply worked off of definitions, then the Soviet Union must've been a worker's paradise since it was communist; same with China. Definitions can clash with reality and when this happens the definition must be discarded, because we certainly cannot discard reality.

There is a reason the soviet union did not call itself communist. It called itself the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." They wanted to bypass the capitalist stage of marxism and proceed directly to a Lenin inspired form of socialism in the hopes of one day reaching communism.

Cuba attempted to follow the same model with some Latin American inspired flair from Che thrown in. They did not claim to have achieved communism because they knew anyone could point to the definition and call them liar if they did.

You are right that dictionary definitions are not always perfect but in these cases you are wrong.

[Valystria]

The moderates have had decades and decades to reclaim the positions of power. They haven't gotten anywhere.

I'd say it's problematic that you'd be willing to support a feminism led by moderates. The core problem of feminism remains. It's that the path to equality is not by measuring if women's rights are equal with men's rights. That structurally excludes everyone who isn't a woman.

Here's the thing - moderate feminists have done good things. Liberal feminists worked hard to make statutory rape laws gender neutral. Radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral. Feminists in India now cite the making of statutory rape laws gender neutral was a mistake.

I'm pretty cool with liberal feminists.

However, they don't seem to be the ones creating policy these days.

I find it difficult to believe these very sexist feminists who hold virtually every position of power held by feminists are all somehow a minority.

I present you with the Republican politicians compared with the average Republican voter.

Same on that. I'm somewhat okay with the non-sexist ones (although I wonder why they would remain feminists), but then again they hold no sway over policy. If they hold no sway over policy but remain supporters of feminism it amounts to supporting feminism in its current form which is likely more unhelpful than helpful.

As for the Republican comparison... I'm not so sure the average Republican voter differs all that much from the average Republican politician. You'll get a few outliers here and there like gay people voting Republican, but for the most part I suspect you'll find a general agreement between the voters and the party. Similarly the moderates are the outliers in the feminist movement. So yes, it may be an okay comparison, as in there's a Republican voter minority that doesn't decide policy, same as how there's a moderate feminist minority who doesn't decide policy.

You don't even have to criticize them to be painted with the tar brush.

All you have to do is say you're not a feminist and then you're automatically forbidden from being allowed to be for equality.

Honestly, it's one of the reasons I stopped identifying as a feminist. I've seen far too many feminist friendly policies that were designed and crafted to be unequal. That were designed to be sexist.

I've been helping male victims of DV and rape, and I get death threats (no, I will not share my other online persona) because I dare to help men against abusive wives. I get death threats because I dare to treat male rape victims with respect and try to help them work through their issues. I work my fingers to the bone answering email day after day after day trying to prevent these men from killing themselves - and I don't always succeed. But invariably, I get emails threatening me with death because I dare help the men who have nowhere to turn.

You know what? I stopped identifying with feminists because I'm in favor of equality, and a lot of feminists are vehemently opposed to it - especially radical feminists.

Fair enough.

Thing is, if you use the textbook definition of feminism, then radical feminists are not feminists.

The people that everyone accepts as feminist - IE, Mary Koss being a key example - are no longer feminists. Your conclusion is one giant No True Scotsman.

A person can be a feminist without being a consistent feminist. One can be a feminist and be wrong. One can be a feminist and say something outrageous sometimes. One can be a feminist and still hold some really backwards views that sometimes conflict with feminism.

I doubt anyone "does" their ideology perfectly all the time perfectly. Humans are more complex then that.

It's not about doing the ideology properly. It's about not being ideological.

Feminists "doing the ideology properly" is what has led to so much sexism from it. If they stopped being ideological about it and examined various issues in a non-gendered way there goes the reason to put women first, and there goes any justification for feminism once we finally focus on how all sexes and genders are affected by issues.

[Cat Rangoon]

You don't even have to criticize them to be painted with the tar brush.

All you have to do is say you're not a feminist and then you're automatically forbidden from being allowed to be for equality.

Honestly, it's one of the reasons I stopped identifying as a feminist. I've seen far too many feminist friendly policies that were designed and crafted to be unequal. That were designed to be sexist.

I've been helping male victims of DV and rape, and I get death threats (no, I will not share my other online persona) because I dare to help men against abusive wives. I get death threats because I dare to treat male rape victims with respect and try to help them work through their issues. I work my fingers to the bone answering email day after day after day trying to prevent these men from killing themselves - and I don't always succeed. But invariably, I get emails threatening me with death because I dare help the men who have nowhere to turn.

You know what? I stopped identifying with feminists because I'm in favor of equality, and a lot of feminists are vehemently opposed to it - especially radical feminists.

It is not uncommon, for what I've read, for men who have been abused (by women or other men) and dare to talk about it to receive abuse. Particularly online. It is quite sad.

[Highfort]

The world runs not off of definitions but off of realities. If a definition supports reality I am more than happy to take that definition but as of right now feminism seems not to be living up to its definition in certain areas, namely when it comes to how it deals with rape and domestic violence.

If we simply worked off of definitions, then the Soviet Union must've been a worker's paradise since it was communist; same with China. Definitions can clash with reality and when this happens the definition must be discarded, because we certainly cannot discard reality.

There is a reason the soviet union did not call itself communist. It called itself the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." They wanted to bypass the capitalist stage of marxism and proceed directly to a Lenin inspired form of socialism in the hopes of one day reaching communism.

Cuba attempted to follow the same model with some Latin American inspired flair from Che thrown in. They did not claim to have achieved communism because they knew anyone could point to the definition and call them liar if they did.

You are right that dictionary definitions are not always perfect but in these cases you are wrong.

Really? Because the Soviet Union was run by a single party - the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union. So any pretense that the Soviet Union is not communist is fucking bullshit. Not to mention, even taking the fact that the Soviet Union isn't technically communist, their party should've been working toward communism since it called itself communist.

Yet the CPSU maintained an iron grip on the USSR for ages and acted neither democratically nor in a manner consistent with a worker-controlled state until perestroika took over in the 80s.

[Galloism]

There is a reason the soviet union did not call itself communist. It called itself the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." They wanted to bypass the capitalist stage of marxism and proceed directly to a Lenin inspired form of socialism in the hopes of one day reaching communism.

Cuba attempted to follow the same model with some Latin American inspired flair from Che thrown in. They did not claim to have achieved communism because they knew anyone could point to the definition and call them liar if they did.

You are right that dictionary definitions are not always perfect but in these cases you are wrong.

Really? Because the Soviet Union was run by a single party - the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union. So any pretense that the Soviet Union is not communist is fucking bullshit. Not to mention, even taking the fact that the Soviet Union isn't technically communist, their party should've been working toward communism since it called itself communist.

Yet the CPSU maintained an iron grip on the USSR for ages and acted neither democratically nor in a manner consistent with a worker-controlled state until perestroika took over in the 80s.

I think you forgot that they're not true communists. Communists want a worker-controlled state.

If you oppose the soviet communist party, it must be because you want completely unrestrained capitalism.

There's no problem with these two statements.

[Valystria]

Really? Because the Soviet Union was run by a single party - the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union. So any pretense that the Soviet Union is not communist is fucking bullshit. Not to mention, even taking the fact that the Soviet Union isn't technically communist, their party should've been working toward communism since it called itself communist.

Yet the CPSU maintained an iron grip on the USSR for ages and acted neither democratically nor in a manner consistent with a worker-controlled state until perestroika took over in the 80s.

I think you forgot that they're not true communists. Communists want a worker-controlled state.

If you oppose the soviet communist party, it must be because you want completely unrestrained capitalism.

Isn't that exactly what the Soviet Communists said...?

A lot like how "if you oppose feminism, it must be because you HATE EQUALITY."

[Galloism]

I think you forgot that they're not true communists. Communists want a worker-controlled state.

If you oppose the soviet communist party, it must be because you want completely unrestrained capitalism.

Isn't exactly what the Soviet Communists said...?

Probably.

[Natapoc]

A person can be a feminist without being a consistent feminist. One can be a feminist and be wrong. One can be a feminist and say something outrageous sometimes. One can be a feminist and still hold some really backwards views that sometimes conflict with feminism.

I doubt anyone "does" their ideology perfectly all the time perfectly. Humans are more complex then that.

And yet, you will not a find a single feminist organization that criticizes Mary Koss for her definition, despite that definition being used to marginalize and suppress male victims of rape for decades. I'd be surprised if you find a feminist organization that criticizes the Duluth model - which has been key in suppressing and marginalizing male victims of DV for decades.

I mean, if you do, fucking amazing. I want to see it.

There's a bit of a biblical example "you can know a tree by its fruits". Feminism's fruits have been conflicted between "fine" and "rotten" at best. What does this say about the movement, when the movement, as a whole, empowers rapists and domestic abusers provided they have the proper genitalia?

I don't really care all that much about Mary Koss. I'm sure she's a nice lady when she's not trying to minimize the experience of male rape survivors. She sounds like a passionate feminist who is mostly on the right track but with whom I have a couple fundamental disagreements with.

She seems to be an old feminist professor has almost no power except to her students. She's not the reason men are being raped and she's not the reason male rape is not taken seriously. Wasting our time arguing with women who mostly agree with us already is not the way to move forward.

She's just one person, her views matter no more or less than yours or mine. I don't see why you make a big deal of her.

[Highfort]

I think you forgot that they're not true communists. Communists want a worker-controlled state.

If you oppose the soviet communist party, it must be because you want completely unrestrained capitalism.

As a former follower of Trotsky (and a bit of a fan, still), I take offense to that second statement.

But yeah, shades of "If you're not with us you're against us" appear to be showing up in posts claiming feminism and egalitarianism are a package deal and you can't have one without the other.

I'll take my communism without Stalinism, thank you very much.

[Valystria]

And yet, you will not a find a single feminist organization that criticizes Mary Koss for her definition, despite that definition being used to marginalize and suppress male victims of rape for decades. I'd be surprised if you find a feminist organization that criticizes the Duluth model - which has been key in suppressing and marginalizing male victims of DV for decades.

I mean, if you do, fucking amazing. I want to see it.

There's a bit of a biblical example "you can know a tree by its fruits". Feminism's fruits have been conflicted between "fine" and "rotten" at best. What does this say about the movement, when the movement, as a whole, empowers rapists and domestic abusers provided they have the proper genitalia?

I don't really care all that much about Mary Koss. I'm sure she's a nice lady when she's not trying to minimize the experience of male rape survivors. She sounds like a passionate feminist who is mostly on the right track but with whom I have a couple fundamental disagreements with.

She seems to be an old feminist professor has almost no power except to her students. She's not the reason men are being raped and she's not the reason male rape is not taken seriously. Wasting our time arguing with women who mostly agree with us already is not the way to move forward.

She's just one person, her views matter no more or less than yours or mine. I don't see why you make a big deal of her.

This is like saying Hitler was a nice person when he wasn't busy hating Jews. Which is probably true, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a terrible person like Mary Koss.

We measure a person by their actions and deeds, not by their passion.

[Cat Rangoon]

I think you forgot that they're not true communists. Communists want a worker-controlled state.

If you oppose the soviet communist party, it must be because you want completely unrestrained capitalism.

As a former follower of Trotsky (and a bit of a fan, still), I take offense to that second statement.

But yeah, shades of "If you're not with us you're against us" appear to be showing up in posts claiming feminism and egalitarianism are a package deal and you can't have one without the other.

I'll take my communism without Stalinism, thank you very much.

Is there no room there for a moderate stance? xD

[Natapoc]

There is a reason the soviet union did not call itself communist. It called itself the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." They wanted to bypass the capitalist stage of marxism and proceed directly to a Lenin inspired form of socialism in the hopes of one day reaching communism.

Cuba attempted to follow the same model with some Latin American inspired flair from Che thrown in. They did not claim to have achieved communism because they knew anyone could point to the definition and call them liar if they did.

You are right that dictionary definitions are not always perfect but in these cases you are wrong.

Really? Because the Soviet Union was run by a single party - the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union. So any pretense that the Soviet Union is not communist is fucking bullshit. Not to mention, even taking the fact that the Soviet Union isn't technically communist, their party should've been working toward communism since it called itself communist.

Yet the CPSU maintained an iron grip on the USSR for ages and acted neither democratically nor in a manner consistent with a worker-controlled state until perestroika took over in the 80s.

Yes really.
They called themselves the communist party because they wanted to achieve communism by means of state socialism.

They never claimed to have achieved communism.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't really care all that much about Mary Koss. I'm sure she's a nice lady when she's not trying to minimize the experience of male rape survivors. She sounds like a passionate feminist who is mostly on the right track but with whom I have a couple fundamental disagreements with.

She seems to be an old feminist professor has almost no power except to her students. She's not the reason men are being raped and she's not the reason male rape is not taken seriously. Wasting our time arguing with women who mostly agree with us already is not the way to move forward.

She's just one person, her views matter no more or less than yours or mine. I don't see why you make a big deal of her.

This is like saying Hitler was a nice person when he wasn't busy hating Jews. Which is probably true, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a terrible person like Mary Koss.

We measure a person by their actions and deeds, not by their passion.

Hitler was a dog owner. Clearly a nice person.

[Ostroeuropa]

Really? Because the Soviet Union was run by a single party - the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union. So any pretense that the Soviet Union is not communist is fucking bullshit. Not to mention, even taking the fact that the Soviet Union isn't technically communist, their party should've been working toward communism since it called itself communist.

Yet the CPSU maintained an iron grip on the USSR for ages and acted neither democratically nor in a manner consistent with a worker-controlled state until perestroika took over in the 80s.

Yes really.
They called themselves the communist party because they wanted to achieve communism by means of state socialism.

They never claimed to have achieved communism.

Feminists don't claim to have achieved equality either.
They merely use feminism to get there.

[Valystria]

Yes really.
They called themselves the communist party because they wanted to achieve communism by means of state socialism.

They never claimed to have achieved communism.

Feminists don't claim to have achieved equality either.
They merely use feminism to get there.

Promoting inequality and misinformation doesn't seem to be helping.

But then again, state socialism didn't help with getting us to communism either.

[Natapoc]

This is like saying Hitler was a nice person when he wasn't busy hating Jews. Which is probably true, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a terrible person like Mary Koss.

We measure a person by their actions and deeds, not by their passion.

Hitler was a dog owner. Clearly a nice person.

When Mary Koss starts putting men in ovens you two may have a point. Until then this is an unnecessary and ridiculous way to Godwin a thread.

[Galloism]

And yet, you will not a find a single feminist organization that criticizes Mary Koss for her definition, despite that definition being used to marginalize and suppress male victims of rape for decades. I'd be surprised if you find a feminist organization that criticizes the Duluth model - which has been key in suppressing and marginalizing male victims of DV for decades.

I mean, if you do, fucking amazing. I want to see it.

There's a bit of a biblical example "you can know a tree by its fruits". Feminism's fruits have been conflicted between "fine" and "rotten" at best. What does this say about the movement, when the movement, as a whole, empowers rapists and domestic abusers provided they have the proper genitalia?

I don't really care all that much about Mary Koss. I'm sure she's a nice lady when she's not trying to minimize the experience of male rape survivors. She sounds like a passionate feminist who is mostly on the right track but with whom I have a couple fundamental disagreements with.

She seems to be an old feminist professor has almost no power except to her students. She's not the reason men are being raped and she's not the reason male rape is not taken seriously. Wasting our time arguing with women who mostly agree with us already is not the way to move forward.

Mary Koss, PhD, is a Regents’ Professor in the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health at the University of Arizona. She is co-editor a two book series for the American Psychological Association, Violence Against Women and Children (2011). She published the first national study on acquaintance rape in 1987 and developed the most frequently used survey to measure unwanted sexual experiences. She consults nationally and internationally on sexual assault. She was the principal investigator of the RESTORE Program; the first restorative justice program for sex crimes among adults that was quantitatively evaluated. Her current projects include developing risk assessment and therapeutic approaches for those found responsible for campus sexual misconduct and a primary prevention program focusing on alcohol serving establishments. She is a member of the working group to develop a Best Practices manual for the assessment of campus climate and a second group to develop and advocate for innovation in collegiate response to sexual misconduct within OCR and VAWA guidelines. She has been selected by the American Public Health Association and the US Departments of Justice and Education to serve on the CDC Think Tank to create a comprehensive approach to sexual violence prevention as part of Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. She was the 8th recipient of the Visionary Award from End Violence Against Women International, the law enforcement training and technical assistance organization. In 2013 the Mary P. Koss Profile in Courage Award was created by the One in Four USA Organization to honor her career contributions to using science to heighten awareness of rape.

https://publichealth.arizona.edu/directory/mary-koss

I think it is no coincidence that the CDC's definition of rape follows Mary Koss's sexist definition very closely.

She's part of the think tank on how to address sexual violence - while trying to suppress reporting of sexual violence (provided the perpetrator has the right genitalia).

She's just one person, her views matter no more or less than yours or mine. I don't see why you make a big deal of her.

Because she has institutional power and has guided government policy in such a way as to suppress and minimize male victims of rape. And no one stopped her. No one questioned her. No one stood up to say "that's not right!"

[Cat Rangoon]

Hitler was a dog owner. Clearly a nice person.

When Mary Koss starts putting men in ovens you two may have a point. Until then this is an unnecessary and ridiculous way to Godwin a thread.

Words are just as valid as actions, and if they're hateful, even more. Koss doesn't need to put men in ovens. She does enough as it is by spreading a hateful rhetoric.

[Highfort]

Yes really.
They called themselves the communist party because they wanted to achieve communism by means of state socialism.

They never claimed to have achieved communism.

And you would accept that they were for achieving communism? Seriously?

All the famines, all the gulags, all the people who died of murder and sheer NEGLECT - yes they were definitely working toward the common, working definition of communism when they were doing that.

That's like if I founded an equal-rights society and then said "Yeah we're gonna achieve equal rights BUT FIRST we gotta butcher all the people who don't agree with us and then equal rights shall prevail throughout the land! Never mind that all those people who were killed were having their rights violated!"

Would you accept that that society was for equal rights? I would hope not, and that they would be rightly called out for their bullshit.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Swith Witherward is right. It's impossible to be a consistent egalitarian and against feminism since feminism is inherently egalitarian. Feminism, by definition, demands equality between women and men. The negation of this would be inequality between women and men which both feminism and egalitarianism would oppose.

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

How are there any positions of power in feminism? In case you're confused, it's not an organized movement. I'd like to think I identify as a feminist, yet I don't take orders from the feminist hivemind about conduct and nor do I sit down and read feminist literature to learn how to be a proper feminist. All I do is accept that women should have the right to work in any profession they want, earn as much as I do, be treated with the same respect that would be given to men and not have to tolerate sexual harassment. If you're opposed to feminism, it should logically follow that you're opposed to those things which is why you're being called anti-egalitarian. When you clarify that you support those things yet still oppose feminism, you sound absolutely bewildered about what feminism really is.

For the record, absolutely nobody is making you pay any attention to radfems. If you see them as representative of modern feminism, that's your choice and frankly it's the wrong choice. Nobody can help those who choose to be ignorant, and it does seem like you're pretty ignorant as to what feminism really is.

[Antioch States]

Feminazis in their natural habitat.

[Galloism]

I'm an egalitarian and very critical of feminism. As it stands, I cannot say I am for it, but I am not wholesale against it. I think if the moderates reclaim the positions of power hijacked by many radfems, it could very well become a movement I'd be proud to support.

But to imply that to be against feminism in its current form as a result of ideological issues would make one non-egalitarian is simply an example of ideological purity and an inability to accept compromise and work with others.

How are there any positions of power in feminism? In case you're confused, it's not an organized movement. I'd like to think I identify as a feminist, yet I don't take orders from the feminist hivemind about conduct and nor do I sit down and read feminist literature to learn how to be a proper feminist. All I do is accept that women should have the right to work in any profession they want, earn as much as I do, be treated with the same respect that would be given to men and not have to tolerate sexual harassment. If you're opposed to feminism, it should logically follow that you're opposed to those things which is why you're being called anti-egalitarian. When you clarify that you support those things yet still oppose feminism, you sound absolutely bewildered about what feminism really is.

For the record, absolutely nobody is making you pay any attention to radfems. If you see them as representative of modern feminism, that's your choice and frankly it's the wrong choice. Nobody can help those who choose to be ignorant, and it does seem like you're pretty ignorant as to what feminism really is.

I don't necessarily think radfems are representative of all feminists (in much the same way republican politicians are very poor representatives of the voters... hell, that's true of most democratic politicians too), but they are the ones who seem to be in positions of power doing very very bad things with the tacit approval of many feminists everywhere.

[Valystria]

Hitler was a dog owner. Clearly a nice person.

When Mary Koss starts putting men in ovens you two may have a point. Until then this is an unnecessary and ridiculous way to Godwin a thread.

Not any more unnecessary and ridiculous than brushing off the damage Mary Koss has done.