The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Costa Fierro]

First off, it's historically inaccurate to say conscription was universal by any means.

Well, to go back to your quote, it did mention modern conscription in the sense that men were required to serve regardless of whether or not a country was at war. Previous acts of conscription were only during war time periods. For example, the Athenians had no peace time army but all citizens were required to serve with the advent of war. As citizenship was restricted to men only, therefore it was only men that fought. The Romans often drew young men and boys from their imperial provinces as auxiliaries to fight. They also required serving in the army to be a prerequisite for citizenship.

So whilst modern conscription is probably around 300-ish years old, the idea that men were obligated to fight to protect the state and their families is nothing new in the history of warfare.

[Geoagorist Territory]

Okay fine, let's assume conscription was near-universal throughout all history. In which case, are you against conscription in general or only "conscription based on gender"? In either case, phrasing it as "female privilege" doesn't make much sense. If it's something for both genders to avoid, then equality in conscription is an evil even worse if it means more people dying. But if it's something for both genders to be forced into equally as conscription is good, then the argument that male conscription is an example male privilege becomes even stronger than the inverse, as conscription is a good and not a bad.

Do you think women being forced into the kitchen is bad, or good?
Is it an example of female privilege?

Why, do you think nobody should ever cook? Clearly cooking is necessary, right? So it's female privilege by your logic.

As I was merely demonstrating the consequences of accepting conscription as a good, I see this as non-issue.

First off, it's historically inaccurate to say conscription was universal by any means.

Well, to go back to your quote, it did mention modern conscription in the sense that men were required to serve regardless of whether or not a country was at war. Previous acts of conscription were only during war time periods. For example, the Athenians had no peace time army but all citizens were required to serve with the advent of war. As citizenship was restricted to men only, therefore it was only men that fought. The Romans often drew young men and boys from their imperial provinces as auxiliaries to fight. They also required serving in the army to be a prerequisite for citizenship.

So whilst modern conscription is probably around 300-ish years old, the idea that men were obligated to fight to protect the state and their families is nothing new in the history of warfare.

Thank you, no ridiculous strawmen and an actual explanation instead of handwaving. That works.

However, citizenship had (and still does have) many benefits, so the claim that men were suffering from female privilege is at the very least suspect as it's more complex an issue than that.

[Mattopilos II]

1. You created a hypothetical, so I added to it. You seemed to imply men has it bad back then... and only men? Just men? I think there is little wrong with that addition.

Already no. Already fucking no. Essentially every part of this is wrong. I laid out, very clearly my position and you made an impressive effort to avoid it. I broke it down like a fucking algebra problem and you still chose not to get it. We have society assigning roles and responsibilities based on gender and doing so in a way that fucks everybody. Framing that as men oppressing women is stupid and deaf to simple realities.

I didn't frame that hypothetical as men oppressing women. seems you are reading what I am saying incorrectly.

[Mattopilos II]

So...you're the self-identified intersectionalist, tell us which measures up on the current league table of the oppression olympics progressive stack: a dead white male, or a living white woman. Both with equal backgrounds, equal income. Which is more advantaged?

Neither are truly advantaged at that point. Both are living in a shitty setting, both being used, and in the end, not really getting very far. And are you suggesting that back in the day, when conscription was at that level (we are talking the mid 20th century), that the income was equal? Kek. Equal backgrounds you could argue for, given being with a rich man meant good living.
And let's be honest: which is worse between living shittily and dying happy? And no, I am not saying soldiers had it better on the battlefield than women in the kitchen, but rather that 1. men weren't always in battle, and 2. WE DON'T WANT CONSCRIPTION AT ALL. This means women, AND men. And, if they had to serve, gender shouldn't be the foremost requirement to die on the battlefield (if at all).
So, you want my answer? The answer is your question is loaded. I mean, REALLY loaded. I answered it above as applicable, but there are glaring loaded points in that, also mentioned above. I simply find it funny that you think that somehow feminists all think it fine that men die on the battlefield, because they weren't conscripted in the past. That is a load of shit. You also seem to think that itself means men can claim more oppression. It doesn't. Come on, men on the field means no men in power? Ignore one and not the other? Does this mean you think that balances out, because women were safe in their kitchens at home, because these poor women can't serve for they would be a liability! If anything, it speaks of a benevolent sexism of men claiming women as weak, no?
And for one suggesting I am being snarky, you seem to have a little of it too.

[Galloism]

This is a forum.

Yes, I argued they must be pacifists or their argument makes no sense, and even if they were it still doesn't make much sense. I never argued that they were necessarily pacifists, hence "I'm uncertain" qualifier, I wanted clarification on whether they were.

Don't assume what I meant.

It doesn't weaken the case at all, because it was never about "men dying in war" as female privilege. It's about "men being forced against their will to die in war while women are exempt" that was female privilege. The notion "men die in war" was the argument from which female privilege is ascertained is at its core either woefully ignorant of the arguments being made or a deliberate strawman.

Okay fine, let's assume conscription was near-universal throughout all history.

Doesn't matter if it was near-universal, it was gender discriminatory in pretty much every instance of existence.

Women being forced into pregnancy wasn't near-universal, it was still a terrible thing.

In which case, are you against conscription in general or only "conscription based on gender"? In either case, phrasing it as "female privilege" doesn't make much sense. If it's something for both genders to avoid, then equality in conscription is an evil even worse if it means more people dying. But if it's something for both genders to be forced into equally as conscription is good, then the argument that male conscription is an example male privilege becomes even stronger than the inverse, as conscription is a good and not a bad.

Conscription is, at absolute best, a necessary evil.

In most cases, it's an unnecessary evil. Further, it's an unnecessary evil that is applied in a sexist manner, which is even worse. think about it this way:

In war X, 500,000 conscripted soldiers will die. Is it better for 500,000 men to be conscripted and sent to their deaths against their will, 500,000 women to be conscripted and sent to their deaths against their will, or 250,000 men and 250,000 women to be conscripted and sent to their deaths against their will?

The last option is obviously the the least evil of the three, while the first and second one you're not only sending people to their deaths, you're sending people to their deaths based on their gender.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not really sure what exactly the suggested solution to dangerous careers is supposed to be. Promote gender equality in dangerous careers? Why would women dying too be good? And any rate, some feminists are already promoting this. Perhaps the suggestion is some form of radical labor reform that makes things safer.

As a feminist, I would say that it is primarily male business owners who are putting men into dangerous situations, and that this means that it is primarily men who are making men disposable in the workplace; further, I would say that an increase of women in business ownership would lead to a different set of choices being made (because men and women are socialized differently), including an increase in workplace safety.
As a communist, I would say that radical labor reform is also necessary, because even if female business owners are kinder and gentler, they're still capitalists and have incentives to cut costs, including workplace safety costs.

On the topic of female business owners, I was just reading about a particular female CEO's recent fall from feminist grace.

As with female political leaders, there is little to no reason to think that female business owners and executives will behave appreciably differently from male business owners and executives in general, as a group.

[Geoagorist Territory]

There are many possible reasons to advocate conscription of men and women equally where it exists, I suppose. On purely consequentialist grounds there are good reasons to avoid the conscription of women, as the threat of not being to recoup your population after a war is quite dire. Mohism was a fact of life back in the old days, population was absolutely vital.

So, I'm not sure how it could be possible to advocate for equal conscription, where it exists. It would be a death sentence for any society that tried it, as long as there was war.

If it we were to accept it as a necessary evil, at least in some cases, you couldn't support the position that conscription of gender equally would make it better, as that's completely impractical.

[Mattopilos II]

There are many possible reasons to advocate conscription of men and women equally where it exists, I suppose. On purely consequentialist grounds there are good reasons to avoid the conscription of women, as the threat of not being to recoup your population after a war is quite dire. Mohism was a fact of life back in the old days, population was absolutely vital.

So, I'm not sure how it could be possible to advocate for equal conscription, where it exists. It would be a death sentence for any society that tried it, as long as there was war.

If it we were to accept it as a necessary evil, at least in some cases, you couldn't support the position that conscription of gender equally would make it better, as that's completely impractical.

Okay, I can somewhat see the logic in this. However, would you not suggest that there should be equal participation in war, even if this means industry? I mean like, how they hired many women workers in America during the second world war (but maybe better conditions than back then)?

[Geoagorist Territory]

Okay, I can somewhat see the logic in this. However, would you not suggest that there should be equal participation in war, even if this means industry? I mean like, how they hired many women workers in America during the second world war (but maybe better conditions than back then)?

I am not a consequentialist (in the main anyway, I do have some mild consequentialist elements in my philosophy), so I am quite happy to say I oppose conscription at all times and places, in all possible situations, and with all people equally.

I am simply saying that whether you're a proponent of "necessary evil" concept who's not otherwise consequentialist or you're a traditional consequentialist, the argument for equal conscription fails.

And I don't find the argument that it should be suicidally pursued anyway convincing, no matter what ethics you use to justify it.

[Galloism]

There are many possible reasons to advocate conscription of men and women equally where it exists, I suppose. On purely consequentialist grounds there are good reasons to avoid the conscription of women, as the threat of not being to recoup your population after a war is quite dire. Mohism was a fact of life back in the old days, population was absolutely vital.

So, I'm not sure how it could be possible to advocate for equal conscription, where it exists. It would be a death sentence for any society that tried it, as long as there was war.

If it we were to accept it as a necessary evil, at least in some cases, you couldn't support the position that conscription of gender equally would make it better, as that's completely impractical.

Unless your are losing 10s of percentages of your population, repopulation is an overgrown problem, and if the war is that dire, you have serious gigantic problems and probably need every hand you can get. In fact, unless your society accepts polygyny, it's very likely disproportionate killing of one sex and not the other would actually reduce repopulation efforts rather than increase them.

Humans are quite good at breeding really, and we really don't lose all that many troops in war.

Even WW2, the bloodiest war of the last century, the United States only lost about 580,000 troops. Source for that. The United States had a population in 1945 of 140 million. Source for that. Dividing the former by the latter results in a total loss of 0.414%. That's less than 1 in 200 people.

That's terrible mind you, but not a breeding problem. You're searching for excuses to avoid admitting the severe sexism of the male-only draft, sending men, and only men, to fight and die against their will.

[Costa Fierro]

However, citizenship had (and still does have) many benefits, so the claim that men were suffering from female privilege is at the very least suspect as it's more complex an issue than that.

Well feminism didn't really exist in the ancient world, mainly because no one really thought critically of gender relations and the lack of strict socio-religious ideals meant women often has surprising liberties that were not regained until the suffragette movements in the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

However the idea of the male obligation to fight suits modern western feminism immensely because it's one of the benefits that women have over men.

There are many possible reasons to advocate conscription of men and women equally where it exists, I suppose.

Well it's more of historical precedent and need rather than an advocacy of gender equality. Israel, to use a well known example of a country where universal conscription exists, had to introduce it because of its size and because of the belligerence of its neighbours during Israel's first four decades of existence. It's history of having an existential threat posted by much larger bordering nations has lead the government to enact the conscription of every man and woman of military age in order to have a population that is fit and ready for war when and if Israel is threatened with invasion again.

On purely consequentialist grounds there are good reasons to avoid the conscription of women, as the threat of not being to recoup your population after a war is quite dire. Mohism was a fact of life back in the old days, population was absolutely vital.

The demographic hit after a major protracted conflict is always going to be an impact of warfare.

So, I'm not sure how it could be possible to advocate for equal conscription, where it exists. It would be a death sentence for any society that tried it, as long as there was war.

Again, Israel. It exists. It has universal conscription and has fought three major conventional wars.

If it we were to accept it as a necessary evil, at least in some cases, you couldn't support the position that conscription of gender equally would make it better, as that's completely impractical.

The thing with universal conscription, or universal drafting in the case of the United States, is that for the most part, a major war is unlikely. The last time the draft was instituted to fight a conflict was Vietnam, and that ended 40 years ago. Americans especially are being told that women are capable of doing anything a man can do and the American military has been under pressure to open up more combat roles for women. So, why should women be exempt from the draft if the military is being forced to be more accommodating?

[New Edom]

So...you're the self-identified intersectionalist, tell us which measures up on the current league table of the oppression olympics progressive stack: a dead white male, or a living white woman. Both with equal backgrounds, equal income. Which is more advantaged?

Neither are truly advantaged at that point. Both are living in a shitty setting, both being used, and in the end, not really getting very far. And are you suggesting that back in the day, when conscription was at that level (we are talking the mid 20th century), that the income was equal? Kek. Equal backgrounds you could argue for, given being with a rich man meant good living.
And let's be honest: which is worse between living shittily and dying happy? And no, I am not saying soldiers had it better on the battlefield than women in the kitchen, but rather that 1. men weren't always in battle, and 2. WE DON'T WANT CONSCRIPTION AT ALL. This means women, AND men. And, if they had to serve, gender shouldn't be the foremost requirement to die on the battlefield (if at all).
So, you want my answer? The answer is your question is loaded. I mean, REALLY loaded. I answered it above as applicable, but there are glaring loaded points in that, also mentioned above. I simply find it funny that you think that somehow feminists all think it fine that men die on the battlefield, because they weren't conscripted in the past. That is a load of shit. You also seem to think that itself means men can claim more oppression. It doesn't. Come on, men on the field means no men in power? Ignore one and not the other? Does this mean you think that balances out, because women were safe in their kitchens at home, because these poor women can't serve for they would be a liability! If anything, it speaks of a benevolent sexism of men claiming women as weak, no?
And for one suggesting I am being snarky, you seem to have a little of it too.

I think that the problem is that feminists insist that gender roles meant simply that women were oppressed. That's the general tone and position. It's not that simple. That makes it seem like women were all chattel slaves, and that's not the situation.

Both men and women are called upon to sacrifice their bodies when a civilization is being built. In the Middle Ages, for instance, both men and women worked in agriculture for the most part or in crafts and the women simply worked closer to home. This makes sense--you can only do so many things, and it made far more sense for women to work with children and in the home for biological reasons. Of course we humans tend to codify things and forget the original reasons, so I think that's all buried in tradition. For the men, it makes more sense for them to risk physical danger away from the home. This really began to change with the Industrial Revolution. You can see this clearly in how the lowest levels of society had such traditions stripped from them. The mining and factory conditions in Europe in the 19th Century are a good example. When I read Zola's Germinal I was surprised when later research revealed that if anything he had given a subdued account of the conditions men and women had to live in.

In a way this has shaped male/female cultures in many societies and as we're trying to figure out how that works, it's very hard. It worries me when people (not talking about you) oversimplify it so much. I think it should be okay to admit that this is a hard process for everyone. However the knee jerk response so many feminists have is to just accuse the patriarchy, say men profited by it, and demand that men humble themselves while women don't have to consider how they benefited from the sacrifices of men...and vice versa.

I think part of it though on a simple level is resentment, and resentment I quite understand. There's a tone that some prominent feminists take that seems to be saying "Fuck you. We don't care if you gave your lives in war to protect us; we don't care if you suffered coal dust and lumber accidents to build us homes, we don't care if you had to work in drudgery at factories or in repetitive oblivion in offices. Fuck you. Give us what we want, forever, and accept our anger. We owe you nothing, we don't respect anything you ever did. But we demand infinite respect from you. Fuck you."

Maybe that's not what is meant, but damn, does it ever come across, a colossal ingratitude and resentment that is getting resentment in turn.

[Hirota]

There's a hell of a lot of claims in here with at least one overtly sexist one. I won't go into the communist bit, because that's significantly OT,

Why not? Both Engels and Marx had parts to play in the hazy formation of the theory of patriarchy. The history of feminism is tied into early communism.

[Costa Fierro]

There's a hell of a lot of claims in here with at least one overtly sexist one. I won't go into the communist bit, because that's significantly OT,

Why not? Both Engels and Marx had parts to play in the hazy formation of the theory of patriarchy. The history of feminism is tied into early communism.

Not to mention the first International Woman's Day was established by a socialist.

[Chestaan]

There's a hell of a lot of claims in here with at least one overtly sexist one. I won't go into the communist bit, because that's significantly OT,

Why not? Both Engels and Marx had parts to play in the hazy formation of the theory of patriarchy. The history of feminism is tied into early communism.

Marx and Engels would have prescribed such discrimination not to patriarchy but to capitalism. Many communists/socialists, such as myself, see problems with the theory of patriarchy in that it often ignores economic conditions and many of the problems ascribed to it are much better explained by capitalism.

[Luminesa]

Why not? Both Engels and Marx had parts to play in the hazy formation of the theory of patriarchy. The history of feminism is tied into early communism.

Not to mention the first International Woman's Day was established by a socialist.

Fun fact, to us Americans March 8th is International Womens' Day, and but in the place where it was started, Russia, it was the beginning of the Russian Revolution. (It was also the day that Russian women got the right to vote, except of course for the Tsar's wife and four daughters who were all locked in prison after Nicholai II abdicated a couple days later.)

[Jello Biafra]

As a feminist, I would say that it is primarily male business owners who are putting men into dangerous situations, and that this means that it is primarily men who are making men disposable in the workplace; further, I would say that an increase of women in business ownership would lead to a different set of choices being made, including an increase in workplace safety.
As a communist, I would say that radical labor reform is also necessary, because even if female business owners are kinder and gentler, they're still capitalists and have incentives to cut costs, including workplace safety costs.

There's a hell of a lot of claims in here with at least one overtly sexist one. I won't go into the communist bit, because that's significantly OT, but let's have evidence for the three largest suspect claims.

1) That it's men making men disposable.
2) That women who are owners treat men as less disposable/reduce workplace injuries, when controlling for career field.
3) That women are, in fact, "kinder and gentler" bosses compared to men in the same fields.

That last one is the overtly sexist one, btw.

Female-owned businesses are only 31% of businesses and only employ 14% of workers. 86% of workers work for either men, or an equal number of men and women. Even if women and men were to equally view men as being disposable, it's still primarily men making these decisions.
Statistics specifically about workplace injuries are tough to find, when controlling for company ownership. However, female owners are less likely to lay people off and to employ temp workers, indicating a general belief that their employees aren't disposable.
This study says that female bosses are better at engaging their employees than male bosses are.

Not exactly statistics that prove my claims, if such statistics were to exist, but what I found is sufficient enough to show that they're at least reasonably plausible.

[Hirota]

Yes I'm aware conscription existed before then, thanks. Do you have an actual point? Perhaps you're trying to suggest that the quoted portion of the article is incorrect? If so, I'd like to know why.

Your post was the first to make mention of "universal conscription" - before that it was only conscription being discussed. It's disingenuous to imply universal conscription is the only form of conscription that exists, and the point was being made by my post was that conscription goes back thousands of years, not hundred as you tried to claim.

I find it ironic that masculist (if you're not an MRA, that leaves masculist,who tend to be better, am I correct?)

Thats better, but if you really have to resort to labels you can label me "Hirota" and be done with it.

opponents of the wage gap point to female career choices as evidence of non-discrimination

As far as I'm concerned, thats one factor, but not the only factor.

I'm not really sure what exactly the suggested solution to dangerous careers is supposed to be. Promote gender equality in dangerous careers? Why would women dying too be good?

I'm more of an advocate for letting women do what they want without pushing for quotas in STEM or other fields. If a woman is the best person for job x, let them do it. Appreciate that does lead to more physical, dangerous jobs going to men because most men are stronger than most women, but I'd really rather avoid the idea that all new scientists and engineers should have tits by default.

[Hirota]

Neither are truly advantaged at that point. Both are living in a shitty setting,

(emphasis my own) Well, thats not quite true is it - one of them is dead after all

And let's be honest: which is worse between living shittily and dying happy?

This also isn't quite true - why would a conscript be happy? Maybe because he's being fed, but happy is an exaggeration.

And no, I am not saying soldiers had it better on the battlefield than women in the kitchen, but rather that 1. men weren't always in battle, and 2. WE DON'T WANT CONSCRIPTION AT ALL. This means women, AND men. And, if they had to serve, gender shouldn't be the foremost requirement to die on the battlefield (if at all).

Good. Neither does anyone here, aside from the odd Tradcon..

So, you want my answer? The answer is your question is loaded. I mean, REALLY loaded.

Maybe, but it's also pretty obvious what the answer is and you seem to be avoiding it.

I simply find it funny that you think that somehow feminists all think it fine that men die on the battlefield, because they weren't conscripted in the past.

I find it funny that: 1) You think with my track record on these pages I am implying "all" feminists given I have a demonstrable track record of recognising that not all feminists think x or y.
And 2) that you think Feminists care if it's on the battlefield. There are plenty out there who would be more than happy if all men were killed. What, you believe #killallmen was a joke, in the same vein as rape jokes?

That is a load of shit. You also seem to think that itself means men can claim more oppression. It doesn't.

Come on, men on the field means no men in power? Ignore one and not the other? Does this mean you think that balances out, because women were safe in their kitchens at home, because these poor women can't serve for they would be a liability! If anything, it speaks of a benevolent sexism of men claiming women as weak, no?

No, that is a lie. Given my proven track record on these feminism threads I can easily demonstrate I wholeheartedly oppose the idea that "advantage" or "oppression" is a binary or zero sum game. I don't indulge in oppression olympics, and unlike intersectionalists, I don't indulge in the "progessive stack."

If you want to get critical over talking about a "load of shit" such as "balancing out" or "ignoring one and not the other" perhaps you should do some navel gazing, because all that bullshit comes from principles whose origin is firmly in the sect of intersectional feminism you've disclosed you are a disciple of. Yes, I know you don't personally, but you're the intersectionalist, and this crap comes from intersectionalism.

And for one suggesting I am being snarky, you seem to have a little of it too.

More than enough, but good thing is I can back my snark up with facts. In that last post you seem to have backed your snark up with falsehoods and character attacks that were easily proven to be baseless.

[Ostroeuropa]

Let's compare two issues a moment.

Child Custody: Men far less likely to get it. Feminist critics note that men are less likely to pursue it, so it's not a real case of discrimination.

Representation in Government: Women far less likely to be there. Anti-feminist critics note that women are far less likely to pursue a career here, that there is no evidence that when they do they're treated as less viable candidates (And plenty showing they are treated equally, and even some showing they are given preference) so it's not a real case of discrimination.

Can anyone manage to hold these two views simultaneously, and not be a hypocrite or disingenuous? It seems to me to signal bad faith argumentation, double standards, and a clear bias.

So instead let's focus on the why:

Why are men less likely to pursue child custody, and why are women less likely to enter politics?

One big reason is they assume there is little point and they will fail. Where do messages that tell women they are not likely to succeed at politics stem from in the modern era?

[The Blaatschapen]

One big reason is they assume there is little point and they will fail. Where do messages that tell women they are not likely to succeed at politics stem from in the modern era?

Hillary's loss. May's whacky adventures. Sturgeon's inflexible stance. Merkel's immigrants gaffe.

[New Edom]

One big reason is they assume there is little point and they will fail. Where do messages that tell women they are not likely to succeed at politics stem from in the modern era?

Hillary's loss. May's whacky adventures. Sturgeon's inflexible stance. Merkel's immigrants gaffe.

That doesn't mean that it's because they are wwomen.

[The Blaatschapen]

Hillary's loss. May's whacky adventures. Sturgeon's inflexible stance. Merkel's immigrants gaffe.

That doesn't mean that it's because they are wwomen.

I was being facetious

[New Edom]

That doesn't mean that it's because they are wwomen.

I was being facetious

Fair enough.

[Mattopilos II]

Maybe, but it's also pretty obvious what the answer is and you seem to be avoiding it.

I am not avoiding the answer, since I already answered it - one will be happier - the one that is alive the idea that a soldier is going to be happier than the woman in the kitchen is a no brainer. However, I also think that it kinda distracts from the debate at hand, unless of course one of us was trying to argue women shouldn't serve. Which, obviously, I don't think any of us are arguing.

I find it funny that: 1) You think with my track record on these pages I am implying "all" feminists given I have a demonstrable track record of recognising that not all feminists think x or y.
And 2) that you think Feminists care if it's on the battlefield. There are plenty out there who would be more than happy if all men were killed. What, you believe #killallmen was a joke, in the same vein as rape jokes?

1) Just like you claim not to know me, I also won't claim to know you, so, well, I guess the best thing to say here is "Well, my bad for assuming what you thought". It was more an acting on an impulse given previous encounters with anti-feminists. It is likely a built in reaction due to how often a similar point is made without any distinction whatsoever. Good to know that this is not the case with you.
2) It likely wasn't to some people. Some people probably saw it as a joke and unknowingly grew a dangerous movement. Others in the movement probably blasted the idea altogether. I will not be so naive to claim the movement was a joke, especially to various people in the movement. I think anyone with half a brain know that such a movement has no direction, and if it did... it isn't a helpful one. Think of it as a rare crossing over of agreement.

No, that is a lie. Given my proven track record on these feminism threads I can easily demonstrate I wholeheartedly oppose the idea that "advantage" or "oppression" is a binary or zero sum game. I don't indulge in oppression olympics, and unlike intersectionalists, I don't indulge in the "progessive stack."

Good. The idea of binary or zero sum games in oppression is pretty fucking stupid. That is to say, that one form of oppression outweighs the other, or means one can never be disadvantaged/advantaged. That, and of course the idea of "punching up" as an equalizing tactic. Fucking over a whole group for an innate identity (I mean, ones that you don't actually walk around and parade as being superior or being a reason to slaughter others, obviously) kinda defeats the point of aiming for equality. If I ever make the "Kill whitey xD" jokes, I tend to do it in closed groups and with obvious irony behind it (being white myself).


Looking up progressive stack... it pretty much just sounds like consensus voting. I mean LITERALLY like consensus voting... because it isn't consensus voting if minorities aren't heard. It seems... pretty redundant a concept.

If you want to get critical over talking about a "load of shit" such as "balancing out" or "ignoring one and not the other" perhaps you should do some navel gazing, because all that bullshit comes from principles whose origin is firmly in the sect of intersectional feminism you've disclosed you are a disciple of. Yes, I know you don't personally, but you're the intersectionalist, and this crap comes from intersectionalism.

I am also a post-leftist. I hardly claim a fixed set of ideas for the sake of some ideological purity.

More than enough, but good thing is I can back my snark up with facts. In that last post you seem to have backed your snark up with falsehoods and character attacks that were easily proven to be baseless.

Well, with opinions, and sometimes facts. I think that is kinda the norm here so not exactly a diamond hard point. And really, I think we have all just used some character attacks... although I am still trying to find where I attacked your character. I would have made it fairly obvious... like calling you stupid, ignorant... But maybe that is me missing my own points out of bias for my own work. Certainly not an impossible scenario.