The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Galloism]

Do people always act in terms of their own interests, and never in the interest of the public good, or even their families or loved ones?

Sometimes people act in the interests of the public good, but this is rare. Families and loved ones become part of one's self-interest, it's in your interest to care and protect your children for example.

Then that implies there could be women on the “men’s side” of this “rope”, for their (extended?) self interest.

Wow. How about the honey badgers? And Cassie Jaye?

Honey badgers are the same. Cassie Jaye isn't. She's not an MRA, she's simply no longer a feminist.

So where is she on the rope?

[Costa Fierro]

Then that implies there could be women on the “men’s side” of this “rope”, for their (extended?) self interest.

Not really.

So where is she on the rope?

She's not on the rope, she's off to the side watching, with the rest of the egalitarians.

[Galloism]

Then that implies there could be women on the “men’s side” of this “rope”, for their (extended?) self interest.

Not really.

Now wait a minute, you said that people could be interested for the sake of friends or relatives, and this is "self interest". Are you of the opinion women have no male friends or relatives?

So where is she on the rope?

She's not on the rope, she's off to the side watching, with the rest of the egalitarians.

So men and women aren't enemies then, at least some women aren't enemies, yes?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not really.

Now wait a minute, you said that people could be interested for the sake of friends or relatives, and this is "self interest". Are you of the opinion women have no male friends or relatives?

She's not on the rope, she's off to the side watching, with the rest of the egalitarians.

So men and women aren't enemies then, at least some women aren't enemies, yes?

Most of my friends are men. I guess I am just a dirty infiltrator of the *urk* manosphere.

[Costa Fierro]

Now wait a minute, you said that people could be interested for the sake of friends or relatives, and this is "self interest". Are you of the opinion women have no male friends or relatives?

No, what I said was that families and friends become part of self interest, but these generally fall on one side of the knot. For example, the woman is considered the default parent, therefore a woman's interest is to protect her children, at the expense of said children's father.

So men and women aren't enemies then, at least some women aren't enemies, yes?

No. Inaction is just as bad as being on the wrong team.

[Galloism]

Now wait a minute, you said that people could be interested for the sake of friends or relatives, and this is "self interest". Are you of the opinion women have no male friends or relatives?

No, what I said was that families and friends become part of self interest, but these generally fall on one side of the knot. For example, the woman is considered the default parent, therefore a woman's interest is to protect her children, at the expense of said children's father.

Let's stay on track. How about her male children? Which side of the knot which that put her on?

Let's suppose her male child is trying to attend college in the current environment. Where would she be?

So men and women aren't enemies then, at least some women aren't enemies, yes?

No. Inaction is just as bad as being on the wrong team.

So most men are also enemies. It's not men vs women, it's sexists vs sexists, with egalitarians standing on the sideline.

[Ostroeuropa]

What makes you think all the women are on the same side of the rope?

It's in their interests to be on the same side of the rope. That is where the social and legal privileges and benefits are.

Is Karen Straughan against all men?

Karen Straughn is what people in my part of the manosphere call a "chameleon": the women who claim to support men's rights for their own interests.

Meh,
I've tried to spin your shit to our benefit, but fuck this mate.
I was woken up by Karen.

My personal shit didn't do it, I thought there was something wrong with me. Her videos made me realize it and look further into it. It literally does not even fucking matter if its "for her own benefit", she is helping.

She has been harassed, abused, threatened and fucking fired mate. She is an articulate woman.
She does not need to peddle mens rights to survive, as is evidence by her circuit with the libertarian party and so on and how she is now making her living making speeches. (I am NOT a libertarian. I merely acknowledge her skill.).

Fuck this, fuck that, fuck all of your nonsense. I have dated women who are on board with mens rights and women who are antithetical to it. I tried my fucking hardest to make you make sense, and you've gone too far. I cannot do it. Get a grip mate, and if you get a grip and people bring this shit up later i'll maul them for you, you have articulated hurt and isolation and hostility that is entirely fair to feel and articulate, but not as a sober thought at the best of our abilities, and you have pushed this for days. If this is a bad time i'll tell people to fuck off and i'll snarl and scream and scrap with them for you but you carry on this shit much longer and you're beyond defense.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Here we go:





You've heard wrong.

Meh,
I've tried to spin your shit to our benefit, but fuck this mate.
I was woken up by Karen.

My personal shit didn't do it, I thought there was something wrong with me. Her videos made me realize it and look further into it.
She has been harassed, abused, threatened and fucking fired mate. She is an articulate woman.
She does not need to peddle mens rights to survive, as is evidence by her circuit with the libertarian party and so on and how she is now making her living making speeches. (I am NOT a libertarian. I merely acknowledge her skill.).

Fuck this, fuck that, fuck all of your nonsense. I have dated women who are on board with mens rights and women who are antithetical to it. I tried my fucking hardest to make you make sense, and you've gone too far. I cannot do it. Get a grip mate, and if you get a grip and people bring this shit up later i'll maul them for you, you have articulated hurt and isolation and hostility that is entirely fair to feel and articulate, but not as a sober thought at the best of our abilities, and you have pushed this for days. If this is a bad time i'll tell people to fuck off and i'll snarl and scream and scrap with them for you but you carry on this shit much longer and you're beyond defense.

Thank you, Ostro. Really.

[Ostroeuropa]

Meh,
I've tried to spin your shit to our benefit, but fuck this mate.
I was woken up by Karen.

My personal shit didn't do it, I thought there was something wrong with me. Her videos made me realize it and look further into it.
She has been harassed, abused, threatened and fucking fired mate. She is an articulate woman.
She does not need to peddle mens rights to survive, as is evidence by her circuit with the libertarian party and so on and how she is now making her living making speeches. (I am NOT a libertarian. I merely acknowledge her skill.).

Fuck this, fuck that, fuck all of your nonsense. I have dated women who are on board with mens rights and women who are antithetical to it. I tried my fucking hardest to make you make sense, and you've gone too far. I cannot do it. Get a grip mate, and if you get a grip and people bring this shit up later i'll maul them for you, you have articulated hurt and isolation and hostility that is entirely fair to feel and articulate, but not as a sober thought at the best of our abilities, and you have pushed this for days. If this is a bad time i'll tell people to fuck off and i'll snarl and scream and scrap with them for you but you carry on this shit much longer and you're beyond defense.

Thank you, Ostro. Really.

I thought since you posted this on how to respond.

First I went with;

In all honesty, the most straightforward reply would be, he attacked an MRA. What did he expect?
He left the reservation and I am no longer prepared to defend him and will criticize him if it comes to it, there is no sensical reason to attack women MRAs.
You want to argue the majority of women are sexist? Fine, i'll tolerate it. Majority toxic? Extends from the first. You want to argue even those who actively take an interest in tackling misandry are bad? I don't see it. I can't see it. How could I? I just don't see how you can do it without appealing to innate evil or inferiority that transcends their actions and behaviors, their impact on the world, that no matter how they think and no matter what they do, there will be something wrong with them.

I can see that as a view that arises from hurt and isolation. Hell, i've had it happen, it's often easier to just give up. OH NO THE FANFIC PLUG! (Ja, ja, racism not sexism.)

We recognize poverty and drugs not as evidence of inferiority of a race, or even an individual, but as symptoms of societal failure, and the need to provide opportunities, education, community, and long-term solutions to common human problems. It is easier to blame an individual for their situation than it is to work to help them, easier to destroy them and hope the problems go away rather than work tirelessly to fix those problems, easier to be superficial in our understanding of eachother, easier to see symptoms as the problem and not the disease, easier to be incurious and uncharitable in our evaluation of each-other, and easier to be unsympathetic, where that sympathy might compel us to give some things up, be it time, money, or beliefs, even dearly held, that cause others harm. That is perhaps why the Empire can find adherents among those who wish to shirk their duty to their fellow creatures, but unlike them, we are aware of the spirit of this nation. We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Second I went with;
The most popular MRAs are women.

Third;
His stance is unwise even if he believes it to be the case and he should keep it to himself for our sake.

Fourth;
You're welcome.

Fifth;
It was an honest reaction and I can't explain precisely where it came from. The thoughts and words came to me as posted without much further reasoning. I can after the fact rationalize where, but that isn't true. I read him attacking Karen as doing this in her own interests and recognized red pillery, and decided I was done defending him unless it was an emotional rather than a rational expression.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What makes you think all the women are on the same side of the rope?

It's in their interests to be on the same side of the rope. That is where the social and legal privileges and benefits are.

Is Karen Straughan against all men?

Karen Straughn is what people in my part of the manosphere call a "chameleon": the women who claim to support men's rights for their own interests.

Your part of the manosphere must be pretty dumb.

[Costa Fierro]

Let's stay on track. How about her male children? Which side of the knot which that put her on?

On the feminist side. Women are seen as the default parents. Therefore protection of children is always going to fall on the feminist side.

Let's suppose her male child is trying to attend college in the current environment. Where would she be?

It would be out of her control in that respect.

So most men are also enemies. It's not men vs women, it's sexists vs sexists, with egalitarians standing on the sideline.

It is men versus women. That doesn't mean men can't be enemies, it means that men are aiding feminists whereas no women aid men.

[Galloism]

It is men versus women. That doesn't mean men can't be enemies, it means that men are aiding feminists whereas no women aid men.

That's blatantly asinine.

No women aid men? So the mothers who are currently helping their sons sue the education system for sexism faced by them in the educational environment are made up?

Don't tell them. They might disappear, like fairies when you stop believing in them.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Now wait a minute, you said that people could be interested for the sake of friends or relatives, and this is "self interest". Are you of the opinion women have no male friends or relatives?

No, what I said was that families and friends become part of self interest, but these generally fall on one side of the knot. For example, the woman is considered the default parent, therefore a woman's interest is to protect her children, at the expense of said children's father.

So men and women aren't enemies then, at least some women aren't enemies, yes?

No. Inaction is just as bad as being on the wrong team.

"People should be treated equally lol"

"Absolute fencesitter. You're worse than the ENEMY. Obviously, the only position or course of meaningful action is to pick one of two arbitrary, tiny, extremist factions."

Honestly, "fencesitter" is almost always used not to call out a person who lacks meaningful stances, but to deride someone for not being an extremist.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Let's stay on track. How about her male children? Which side of the knot which that put her on?

On the feminist side. Women are seen as the default parents. Therefore protection of children is always going to fall on the feminist side.

Let's suppose her male child is trying to attend college in the current environment. Where would she be?

It would be out of her control in that respect.

So most men are also enemies. It's not men vs women, it's sexists vs sexists, with egalitarians standing on the sideline.

It is men versus women. That doesn't mean men can't be enemies, it means that men are aiding feminists whereas no women aid men.

You wanna run that by me again?

[Arvecnia]

I'm a 'fencesitter' because both extremes are ridiculous. Why is equality so difficult I will never understand.

[The Blaatschapen]

Now wait a minute, you said that people could be interested for the sake of friends or relatives, and this is "self interest". Are you of the opinion women have no male friends or relatives?



So men and women aren't enemies then, at least some women aren't enemies, yes?

Most of my friends are men. I guess I am just a dirty infiltrator of the *urk* manosphere.

I want to say "stop invading my safe space", but you are very much welcome there.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm a 'fencesitter' because both extremes are ridiculous. Why is equality so difficult I will never understand.

What does equality mean in practical terms?

[Costa Fierro]

It's in their interests to be on the same side of the rope. That is where the social and legal privileges and benefits are.



Karen Straughn is what people in my part of the manosphere call a "chameleon": the women who claim to support men's rights for their own interests.

Your part of the manosphere must be pretty dumb.

Because?

"People should be treated equally lol"

"Absolute fencesitter. You're worse than the ENEMY. Obviously, the only position or course of meaningful action is to pick one of two arbitrary, tiny, extremist factions."

Honestly, "fencesitter" is almost always used not to call out a person who lacks meaningful stances, but to deride someone for not being an extremist.

Lacking meaningful stances is why they became fence sitters in the first place. Instead of actually committing to something, it's essentially just pretending to be morally justified in doing absolutely nothing. If someone cannot come up with anything practical beyond "both sides should compromise/listen", then there's no point in actually acknowledging anything else they say.

Fence sitters also enable the supposed "tiny" extremists to become mainstream and dominate the movement by pretending that said extremists aren't a majority or don't represent the whole movement. It's how liberal feminism became essentially powerless and worthless within Western feminism: because instead of taking charge, they sat back and pretended everything was fine. Now look where we are. We have a movement that's just opened up one if the biggest assaults on men in recent times, and we're all still living under this illusion that actually it's just a vocal minority. That supposed minority is getting away with the kind of bigotry that, if such positions were advocating for by men, would be a massive, global outcry. What outcry has there been regarding such bigotry from these women? Virtually none. In the face of things, why exactly should I or any man who is aware of this kind of thing be compromising? There's no room for compromise anymore.

[Costa Fierro]

In all honesty, the most straightforward reply would be, he attacked an MRA. What did he expect?

I expected nothing else. But if you can't see that the movement is engaging in self-castration, then there's really no hope left. Women and men as collective groups, regardless of social status, race, etc. have conflicting interests. Where does it make sense to say "hey, I want to become an advocate for a movement that could potentially take my rights away?"

[Hirota]

I'm a 'fencesitter' because both extremes are ridiculous. Why is equality so difficult I will never understand.

What does equality mean in practical terms?

Are we getting back to the whole "equality of opportunity" vs "equality of outcome" spiel?

Since I'd vaguely consider myself an advocate for meritocracy, I would favor the former and condemn the later as inherently discriminatory, albeit indirect (rather than direct) discrimination.

It's funny in a way, because equality of outcome tends to fall into the trap of focusing on the demographics rather than the individual - it's half-hearted, token intersectionalism that makes sweeping assertions focusing upon broad demographics (such as gender) with the result of ignoring (or undermining) the individuals own attributes and abilities.

[The Blaatschapen]

What does equality mean in practical terms?

Are we getting back to the whole "equality of opportunity" vs "equality of outcome" spiel?

Since I'd vaguely consider myself an advocate for meritocracy, I would favor the former and condemn the later as inherently discriminatory, albeit indirect (rather than direct) discrimination.

It's funny in a way, because equality of outcome tends to focus on the demographics rather than the individual - it's half-hearted, token intersectionalism that makes sweeping assertions upon broad demographics and ignores the individuals own attributes.

We're not going there, but since in the context written it was not clear which form was meant, I ask for clarification.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Because?

Because you think every woman who's for men's rights is insincere.

Lacking meaningful stances is why they became fence sitters in the first place. Instead of actually committing to something, it's essentially just pretending to be morally justified in doing absolutely nothing. If someone cannot come up with anything practical beyond "both sides should compromise/listen", then there's no point in actually acknowledging anything else they say.

Fence sitters also enable the supposed "tiny" extremists to become mainstream and dominate the movement by pretending that said extremists aren't a majority or don't represent the whole movement. It's how liberal feminism became essentially powerless and worthless within Western feminism: because instead of taking charge, they sat back and pretended everything was fine. Now look where we are. We have a movement that's just opened up one if the biggest assaults on men in recent times, and we're all still living under this illusion that actually it's just a vocal minority. That supposed minority is getting away with the kind of bigotry that, if such positions were advocating for by men, would be a massive, global outcry. What outcry has there been regarding such bigotry from these women? Virtually none. In the face of things, why exactly should I or any man who is aware of this kind of thing be compromising? There's no room for compromise anymore.

"Lacking meaningful stances is why they became fence sitters in the first place. Instead of actually committing to something, it's essentially just pretending to be morally justified in doing absolutely nothing. If someone cannot come up with anything practical beyond "both sides should compromise/listen", then there's no point in actually acknowledging anything else they say. "

Right. What does that have to do with egalitarianism.

"Fence sitters also enable the supposed "tiny" extremists to become mainstream and dominate the movement by pretending that said extremists aren't a majority or don't represent the whole movement. It's how liberal feminism became essentially powerless and worthless within Western feminism: because instead of taking charge, they sat back and pretended everything was fine. Now look where we are. We have a movement that's just opened up one if the biggest assaults on men in recent times, and we're all still living under this illusion that actually it's just a vocal minority. That supposed minority is getting away with the kind of bigotry that, if such positions were advocating for by men, would be a massive, global outcry. What outcry has there been regarding such bigotry from these women? Virtually none. In the face of things, why exactly should I or any man who is aware of this kind of thing be compromising? There's no room for compromise anymore."

They usually don't. Liberal feminism lost hold of mainstream feminism to radical feminism because it never had hold. Radical feminists always held positions of authority within the feminist movement, and more moderate feminists are found more often in positions of less influence. Acknowledging a faction as a minority of a movement isn't going to allow the faction to grow, claiming that a faction IS the movement will be what forces the faction to grow.

[Ostroeuropa]

In all honesty, the most straightforward reply would be, he attacked an MRA. What did he expect?

I expected nothing else. But if you can't see that the movement is engaging in self-castration, then there's really no hope left. Women and men as collective groups, regardless of social status, race, etc. have conflicting interests. Where does it make sense to say "hey, I want to become an advocate for a movement that could potentially take my rights away?"

Many people support justice and are opposed to unnecessary suffering, even if it means acting against their own interests. Charity exists, as an obvious example, people willingly give their money and resources away to pursue the goal of a happier and healthier species.

[Tahar Joblis]

It is men versus women. That doesn't mean men can't be enemies, it means that men are aiding feminists whereas no women aid men.

That's blatantly asinine.

No women aid men? So the mothers who are currently helping their sons sue the education system for sexism faced by them in the educational environment are made up?

Don't tell them. They might disappear, like fairies when you stop believing in them.

With the way that talking about gendered issues is normed female, those MOBs (mothers of boys) can be among the most effective advocates on that side of the field.

The standard feminist playbook is designed around shutting men up. Men are "blinded by privilege." If a man speaks about due process, he's trying to protect his own hide, because he's a rapist / abuser / et cetera. Or wants to be. If a man speaks out about discrimination, he's trying to shift blame for his own failures. Any man disagreeing with feminists is to be labeled misogynist.

It's very hard for feminists to shut down women the same way. That's not to say that they don't try, but it's harder. Case in point.

Feminist ideology has invested a lot in things like standpoint epistemology. You see claims such as:

(A) Women have special insights into society that men lack, because men are blinded by privilege. Or just because women are special.
(B) That the "lived experience" of an individual woman is a valid source of inference about a whole society (the personal is the political).
(C) We should always believe women because women don't lie about important things like rape.
(D) It's wrong/sexist to challenge a woman's claim of expertise (even if she isn't actually an expert).

It's really deeply sexist... and when a woman challenges feminism, that sexism within feminism works in her favor.

[Galloism]

That's blatantly asinine.

No women aid men? So the mothers who are currently helping their sons sue the education system for sexism faced by them in the educational environment are made up?

Don't tell them. They might disappear, like fairies when you stop believing in them.

With the way that talking about gendered issues is normed female, those MOBs (mothers of boys) can be among the most effective advocates on that side of the field.

The standard feminist playbook is designed around shutting men up. Men are "blinded by privilege." If a man speaks about due process, he's trying to protect his own hide, because he's a rapist / abuser / et cetera. Or wants to be. If a man speaks out about discrimination, he's trying to shift blame for his own failures. Any man disagreeing with feminists is to be labeled misogynist.

It's very hard for feminists to shut down women the same way. That's not to say that they don't try, but it's harder. Case in point.

Feminist ideology has invested a lot in things like standpoint epistemology. You see claims such as:

(A) Women have special insights into society that men lack, because men are blinded by privilege. Or just because women are special.
(B) That the "lived experience" of an individual woman is a valid source of inference about a whole society (the personal is the political).
(C) We should always believe women because women don't lie about important things like rape.
(D) It's wrong/sexist to challenge a woman's claim of expertise (even if she isn't actually an expert).

It's really deeply sexist... and when a woman challenges feminism, that sexism within feminism works in her favor.

That article pops me a paywall for some reason. Can you quote?