The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Crysuko]

Would you like a list of all the questionable things feminists have said and done? I could make a slide show for you.

I'm not saying that feminists haven't done criticisable things, just that the last page and a half of posts haven't amounted to actual criticisms. Its just been a bunch of people cracking jokes about how bad it is.

so let's just forget about the part where the I punched holes in the wage gap lie, which you tried to sidestep, no, I am not letting you forget this

[Ostroeuropa]

How often have you found that such people actually read any feminist theory to any degree? To what extent have they read any feminist science fiction even?

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

Used to be legal to hit the husband too.
It's yet another example of the kind of lack of concern for mens perspective and wellbeing that saturates the movement.

[Sernarbia]

How often have you found that such people actually read any feminist theory to any degree? To what extent have they read any feminist science fiction even?

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

[Luminesa]

No, you.

When a person literally explains to you that they themselves are a rape victim and the actions you're defending prevents them from ever seeking justice, and your response is to backspace that entire explanation and cut it all down to a nebulous, unspecific assertion that you can just project whatever sort of meaning you want onto in order to avoid having to actually answer anything and instead rely on a self-righteous fail sassy act, feminism's reputation dies a little more.

If you can find me where I advocated him being prevented from seeking justice that'd be great. Might have forgotten to do that while writing your spiel about how evil I am.

So goodbye, so long, you are indeed most useful to the movement being "done here."

Oh, so now yo're one of those 'real feminists' here to lecture us about how we can best get equal rights? I guess that entails allowing antfeminists to dictate how we do things? Yeah, no thanks.

Asking “can you find X post for me” simply means at this point that you have no argument and you don’t want to argue, so you’re trying to backpedal and get someone else to correct you for your own mistakes.

[Crysuko]

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

what is it with you and strawmanning

[Sernarbia]

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

Used to be legal to hit the husband too.
It's yet another example of the kind of lack of concern for mens perspective and wellbeing that saturates the movement.

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

[Ostroeuropa]

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

Can you name any womens issue that is actually a womens issue and isn't asserted as one purely by denying men the same consideration afforded to women?

I can. I know of some issues like that.
Do you?

[Ors Might]

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

Based on your posts in this thread, you’re about as helpful to the cause of defeating “the patriarchy” as Trump is to the cause of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[The Grene Knyght]

It is indeed. And I'm no fan of mainstream liberal feminism. But for me, personally, and the type of feminism I support, the criticisms you mention existing today ""entrenching social inequality, trying to preserve certain gender roles") have been criticised by at least some since the movement's birth by political figures I quite admire, such as Emma Goldman.

True, there has been some criticism on that front.

It's been largely ignored, but there has been some. Karen DeCrow also had some choice criticisms along those lines.

For the uninitiated, Emma Goldman died in 1940. I don't have any super strong criticisms of Emma Goldman other than she was an anarchist and... no fucking thanks.

Well, say what you like, but she did have some interesting things to say about the early feminist movement. Somewhere in Anarchism and other essays for anyone interested, I forget the exact essay, but I'll have a look around for it.

I'm sure with a title like that, Gallo is rushing to read it /s

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

They certainly are not uneducated for sure. But being educated doesn't guarantee you're smart.

It just guarantees you know things. But knowledge is not the same as wisdom.

[New Edom]

How often have you found that such people actually read any feminist theory to any degree? To what extent have they read any feminist science fiction even?

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

Ah yes, okay. Those kids are kinda hilarious--though I can see them doing the same thing when they grow up unfortunately--but nice analogy.

I had listened to Camille Paglia talking about how what you described is a phenomenon in which very sheltered middle or upper middle class young women who are largely unaware of history or of the world beyond their lifestyle suddenly encounter new information and overreact to it. I think it's very similar to when people go to an altar call in church and suddenly are raging fanatics and lecture everyone around them about Jesus, while not having actually read the entirety of the Bible.


But what do you do when they grow up and lead organizations and establish credit with the media?

[Ostroeuropa]

Used to be legal to hit the husband too.
It's yet another example of the kind of lack of concern for mens perspective and wellbeing that saturates the movement.

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

http://domestic-violence.martinsewell.c ... ge1994.pdf

Not just legal, you got publicly punished for it if your wife beat you.
So it is, in fact, another example of feminists pretending something is a mens issue, when men had it worse.

Note that there's the evidence for it, and then merely the assertion of ideology, again, that it was due to patriarchy.

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands
thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France,
for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards
while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded
around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt.

[Sernarbia]

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

what is it with you and strawmanning

I assume you mean Gio as I wan't strawmanning.

[Luminesa]

Used to be legal to hit the husband too.
It's yet another example of the kind of lack of concern for mens perspective and wellbeing that saturates the movement.

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

Yet another fantastic observation, my eyes have been opened to the crux of the feminism-anti feminism argument. Teach us your ways, oh great scholar.

[Crysuko]

what is it with you and strawmanning

I assume you mean Gio as I wan't strawmanning.

no, you and specifically you. Due to the tendency to take an entire paragraph and turn it into a second rate insult. It's like answering a college professor by blowing a raspberry

[Galloism]

Used to be legal to hit the husband too.
It's yet another example of the kind of lack of concern for mens perspective and wellbeing that saturates the movement.

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

Actually, it more than legal. Society would actually take action against the man in that scenario.

https://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt.

They go on to blame the ethos that men should dominate their wives not the other way around (and they're not wrong on that front - ancient times sucked really bad), but the notion that women would be punished for beating their husbands is not just delusional - it's downright contrary to what was done. It was the man who was punished for getting beaten.

[Giovenith]

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

Pot, meet kettle.

You'll get a serious response when you stop trying to play this failed attempted "exasperated quick-n-witty" game and actually started responding to what people say. Until then, in your own words, you're done here. I don't entertain petty Z-finger-snapping.

[Ostroeuropa]

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

Actually, it more than legal. Society would actually take action against the man in that scenario.

https://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt.

They go on to blame the ethos that men should dominate their wives not the other way around (and they're not wrong on that front - ancient times sucked really bad), but the notion that women would be punished for beating their wives is not just delusional - it's downright contrary to what was done. It was the man who was punished for getting beaten.

Note that the "It was patriarchy wot done it" feminist assertion on the issue of domestic violence has been debunked through the failure of the duluth model.
There is no reason to accept their version of history when you bare that in mind.

That would make this another example of feminists appropriating mens issues to make it all about how society views and treats women, which is itself a form of control.

So how do we fix the issue of society punishing men for their wife beating them?
Not by doing anything about that, no no, we should focus on making people respect women more.

This is the toxic consequence of feminist ideology.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

what is it with you and strawmanning

I assume you mean Gio as I wan't strawmanning.

You took her reply saying that she disagrees with the professors in gender studies teaching these vapid girls something about the real world and they overreacting like vapid bitches over something and made it sound like she said everyone who disagrees with her is a vapid bitch.

No, what she is saying is that the girls she has gone to school with, have tried to educate her, and her educators are all vapid bitches for being overreacting, vapid bitches, not that everyone who disagrees with her is a vapid bitch.

For someone trying to defend educators, you really need to bring up your reading to speed.

[Luminesa]

They don't so much read it as they have their professors explain it to them and then take the professor's interpretation as the Word of God. "My mom professor told me it's sprinkling patriarchy!"

They go in, get all hyped up on horror stories about historical and current oppression against women they honestly should have known about for years, and then become blind sycophants to the theory through sheer reactionary rage over all the new things they've just learned. "How can you not be for feminism?! Don't you know it used to be legal to hit your wife?!" Yes actually, I probably knew that way longer than you have, and I'm not "against feminism," I'm against your version of feminism — your stupid professor doesn't hold the copyright to the movement.

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

Yes, every single professor is an identical LEGO in the giant LEGO Bionicle known as “FEMINISM”. FEAR IT. FEAR THE UNIFORM MAJESTY OF THIS NEW BIONICLE. Only available at Toys R’ Us for $19.99 until December 26th!

[Galloism]

True, there has been some criticism on that front.

It's been largely ignored, but there has been some. Karen DeCrow also had some choice criticisms along those lines.

For the uninitiated, Emma Goldman died in 1940. I don't have any super strong criticisms of Emma Goldman other than she was an anarchist and... no fucking thanks.

Well, say what you like, but she did have some interesting things to say about the early feminist movement. Somewhere in Anarchism and other essays for anyone interested, I forget the exact essay, but I'll have a look around for it.

I'm sure with a title like that, Gallo is rushing to read it /s

Normally, I do take NSG's reading suggestions seriously tbh. However, in this particular case, I think I'll pass. I have no strong criticisms of her, so I'm not sure what I'd be trying to prove.

[Luminesa]

I assume you mean Gio as I wan't strawmanning.

no, you and specifically you. Due to the tendency to take an entire paragraph and turn it into a second rate insult. It's like answering a college professor by blowing a raspberry

This image made me giggle.

[Ors Might]

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

Actually, it more than legal. Society would actually take action against the man in that scenario.

https://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt.

They go on to blame the ethos that men should dominate their wives not the other way around (and they're not wrong on that front - ancient times sucked really bad), but the notion that women would be punished for beating their wives is not just delusional - it's downright contrary to what was done. It was the man who was punished for getting beaten.

No, no, you see, it’s actually the women in that scenario that are the disadvantaged ones. Society not taking abusive women seriously is clearly an example of male privilege.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So anyone who disagrees with you, even professional educators, are stupid? Brilliant, you'll defeat the patriarchy in no time!

Yes, every single professor is an identical LEGO in the giant LEGO Bionicle known as “FEMINISM”. FEAR IT. FEAR THE UNIFORM MAJESTY OF THIS NEW BIONICLE. Only available at Toys R’ Us for $19.99 until December 26th!

Wait, but you're studying to be a teacher, so does that mean...

[Sernarbia]

Evidence? Oh wait you're an antifeminist asking you to prove what you say is evil and wrong! Only feminists are to be criticised!

http://domestic-violence.martinsewell.c ... ge1994.pdf

Not just legal, you got publicly punished for it if your wife beat you.
So it is, in fact, another example of feminists pretending something is a mens issue, when men had it worse.

Note that there's the evidence for it, and then merely the assertion of ideology, again, that it was due to patriarchy.

In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands
thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France,
for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards
while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded
around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt.

Straus noted that in a Kentucky study of battered wives, the study failed to
report a 38% rate of unilateral female-to-male violence. Straus further noted that in
reviewing over thirty studies, every (Straus's emphasis) study using a sample that was not
self-selecting had found rough equivalence of assault rates for both women and men

So it's about advantage then. Awful yes, but not the epidemic you are trying to portray it as.