The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Luminesa]

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. I use "radical Feminist" as a term for any Feminist more radical than Amy Schumer, as i don't know a better term. I don't claim that there aren't bad eggs in the radfem community.
1. Presumably people well versed in philosophy, politics and religion enough to give the Feminist movement a strong philosophical and political foundation. At the moment, I don't know anyone who could fill that role.
2. It's not "overthrowing" the patriarchy, as "overthrowing" suggests that the patriarchy like a government can be physically removed. But it's more a metaphysical concept that's hard to explain. But to answer your question, a post-patriarchal society would feature a general lack of most explicit gender roles in our society. Differences in gender would still exist, but they would be more in abstract than "men work and women raise babies". Women would be far more prevalent in the management of society, in government, police and military, and that'd probably be the most noticeable change in society. As well as general greater respect between men and women.
3. I dunno. I don't know all that well about male problems. Same as you maybe? Greater homelessness rates, falling behind in education, etc.

So for the first one, you don't know. Neither do I. My concern here is that there is an approach to leadership that is self perpetuating. The leaders of the 2nd Wave of feminism who have remained in place as feminist icons act as patrons for the general approach mainstream feminism has today. So gender studies classes and other humanities classes which have had gender studies ideas spread to them perpetuate this approach.
So who are these leaders? Here's a list:
- Gloria Steinem
- Naomi Wolfe
- Eve Ensler
- Hilary Clinton
- Emma Watson
- Jessica Valenti
- Joe Biden
- Michael Kimmel
- Justin Trudeau
- Anita Sarkeesian
- bell hooks
- Julie Bindel
- Julie Burchill
etc. There are lots more, I realize. But the ones I have mentioned have a lot of cultural influence and sway. They may seem to have some very diferent ideas, but this is rather like the different approaches within a religious denomination--ultimately they all believe in the same creed.

I think another problem is with the notion of patriarchy being a problem. There is no clear measurement for what extent of control patriarchy has, or how much it affects people, or what it would mean to be freer of it. One of hte problems with this idea is that because it is never ending and because any progress is downlplayed as not enough, it is tiresome to hear about it. Nearly every feminist pundit talks about the struggle of feminism as though little has been done and as though society as a whole is hostile to women's rights, eager to oppress women at a moment's notice. There is little to no clarity on this.

That brings me to men's issues. For my own part, I have stopped supporting feminism until there is honest and fair dialogue between men and women about the social changes that have come with feminism and changing economics and ways of life. I don't see the slightest effort on the part of hte mainstream feminist leaders I mentioned above to really understand male concerns at all. Some feminists even insist that women shouldn't have to. Until this dynamic changes there will be no progress.

And finally: without men's willing support there would never have been a feminist movement. Yeah the activists and thinkers did a lot of work, but let's face it, men had to accept it and agree to support it. Feminists had beter wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Emma Watson isn't really a "leader", as she hasn't done anything to spearhead a new sort of feminism, or anything really NEW in the current third-wave feminism. She's just a celebrity voice in a sea of celebrity-voices. And Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau aren't really "feminists", though they may be politics who are open to modern feminism.

[Yevraziyskaya Rus]

I honestly don't get why you guys think Islam is this barbaric cult all about rape and slavery, when any major Islamic scholar worth his salt has been on the defensive fighting against extremist interpretations of Islam. ie, Ali Gomaa and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

I honestly don't get where you imagined these delusional ramblings from. I didn't say anything of the sort, so I'd appreciate it if took the time to employ basic reading skills and avoid misrepresentation of my position.

If I was going to be critical about something - such as Islam (and oooh boy could I give both barrels on it if I had the time and inclination to do so) or Christianity, then I would do exactly the same as I do here in this thread about Feminism where I am critical about Feminism and I would apply the same standards for my criticism in the Islam thread. Here in this very thread I am very careful to recognise that feminism isn't entirely about the delusional lunatic types, that there have been (and still are) feminists who are not all following the same rabid branches of feminist zealotry and I'd make the exact same recognition in the Islam thread.

And I would hope that there would be intelligent people who would not take it as an opportunity to misrepresent my position.

You're the guy who's all about rational thought, yet you've downright badmouthed me in the two conversations we've had.

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. I use "radical Feminist" as a term for any Feminist more radical than Amy Schumer, as i don't know a better term. I don't claim that there aren't bad eggs in the radfem community.
1. Presumably people well versed in philosophy, politics and religion enough to give the Feminist movement a strong philosophical and political foundation. At the moment, I don't know anyone who could fill that role.
2. It's not "overthrowing" the patriarchy, as "overthrowing" suggests that the patriarchy like a government can be physically removed. But it's more a metaphysical concept that's hard to explain. But to answer your question, a post-patriarchal society would feature a general lack of most explicit gender roles in our society. Differences in gender would still exist, but they would be more in abstract than "men work and women raise babies". Women would be far more prevalent in the management of society, in government, police and military, and that'd probably be the most noticeable change in society. As well as general greater respect between men and women.
3. I dunno. I don't know all that well about male problems. Same as you maybe? Greater homelessness rates, falling behind in education, etc.

So for the first one, you don't know. Neither do I. My concern here is that there is an approach to leadership that is self perpetuating. The leaders of the 2nd Wave of feminism who have remained in place as feminist icons act as patrons for the general approach mainstream feminism has today. So gender studies classes and other humanities classes which have had gender studies ideas spread to them perpetuate this approach.
So who are these leaders? Here's a list:
- Gloria Steinem
- Naomi Wolfe
- Eve Ensler
- Hilary Clinton
- Emma Watson
- Jessica Valenti
- Joe Biden
- Michael Kimmel
- Justin Trudeau
- Anita Sarkeesian
- bell hooks
- Julie Bindel
- Julie Burchill
etc. There are lots more, I realize. But the ones I have mentioned have a lot of cultural influence and sway. They may seem to have some very diferent ideas, but this is rather like the different approaches within a religious denomination--ultimately they all believe in the same creed.

I think another problem is with the notion of patriarchy being a problem. There is no clear measurement for what extent of control patriarchy has, or how much it affects people, or what it would mean to be freer of it. One of hte problems with this idea is that because it is never ending and because any progress is downlplayed as not enough, it is tiresome to hear about it. Nearly every feminist pundit talks about the struggle of feminism as though little has been done and as though society as a whole is hostile to women's rights, eager to oppress women at a moment's notice. There is little to no clarity on this.

That brings me to men's issues. For my own part, I have stopped supporting feminism until there is honest and fair dialogue between men and women about the social changes that have come with feminism and changing economics and ways of life. I don't see the slightest effort on the part of hte mainstream feminist leaders I mentioned above to really understand male concerns at all. Some feminists even insist that women shouldn't have to. Until this dynamic changes there will be no progress.

And finally: without men's willing support there would never have been a feminist movement. Yeah the activists and thinkers did a lot of work, but let's face it, men had to accept it and agree to support it. Feminists had beter wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot.

I mean if my beliefs gain ground, I don't think any adherents would look to Trudeau or Emma Watson for guidance. My feminism is rather plainly anti-Liberal and anti-Capitalist, etc.

And I define the patriarchy as a social system where men are considered inherently more superior, physically, emotionally and intellectually than women, and hold the most power in politics, military and economy. A non-patriarchal society would then be one where men and women are considered equal to one another and where women hold equal power in the politics, economy and military. As you can see, its rather self explanatory why I think the patriarchy exists. And while I'm not a Marxist who thinks history is constant progress, I do think that in time, the patriarchy will disappear. Whatever socio-economic situation that may have propped it up doesn't appear to exist anymore.

" Nearly every feminist pundit talks about the struggle of feminism as though little has been done and as though society as a whole is hostile to women's rights, eager to oppress women at a moment's notice. There is little to no clarity on this. "
I mean I cant speak for them, but I do strongly believe there's a ton of road to be travelled before we can say that we're in a good place in terms of gender equality. We are not absolutely miserable, but we're not doing well either.

And as for men, and men's right, like I've said, I think Feminism should be concerned with them. They totally exist and are an obstacle to a Feminist society. They should be addressed with equal importance to women's issues, and I think feminists who say "Kill all men" and the like are just harming their cause, not that I think they're really "oppressing" men but its hypocritical and damaging to the purpose of gender equality.
"And finally: without men's willing support there would never have been a feminist movement. Yeah the activists and thinkers did a lot of work, but let's face it, men had to accept it and agree to support it. Feminists had beter wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot."

I know what you're trying to say, but you gotta understand how unintentionally sexist and patronizing that sounds. Men didn't "agree to" women's rights, as white people didn't "agree to" black rights.

[New Edom]

So for the first one, you don't know. Neither do I. My concern here is that there is an approach to leadership that is self perpetuating. The leaders of the 2nd Wave of feminism who have remained in place as feminist icons act as patrons for the general approach mainstream feminism has today. So gender studies classes and other humanities classes which have had gender studies ideas spread to them perpetuate this approach.
So who are these leaders? Here's a list:
- Gloria Steinem
- Naomi Wolfe
- Eve Ensler
- Hilary Clinton
- Emma Watson
- Jessica Valenti
- Joe Biden
- Michael Kimmel
- Justin Trudeau
- Anita Sarkeesian
- bell hooks
- Julie Bindel
- Julie Burchill
etc. There are lots more, I realize. But the ones I have mentioned have a lot of cultural influence and sway. They may seem to have some very diferent ideas, but this is rather like the different approaches within a religious denomination--ultimately they all believe in the same creed.

I think another problem is with the notion of patriarchy being a problem. There is no clear measurement for what extent of control patriarchy has, or how much it affects people, or what it would mean to be freer of it. One of hte problems with this idea is that because it is never ending and because any progress is downlplayed as not enough, it is tiresome to hear about it. Nearly every feminist pundit talks about the struggle of feminism as though little has been done and as though society as a whole is hostile to women's rights, eager to oppress women at a moment's notice. There is little to no clarity on this.

That brings me to men's issues. For my own part, I have stopped supporting feminism until there is honest and fair dialogue between men and women about the social changes that have come with feminism and changing economics and ways of life. I don't see the slightest effort on the part of hte mainstream feminist leaders I mentioned above to really understand male concerns at all. Some feminists even insist that women shouldn't have to. Until this dynamic changes there will be no progress.

And finally: without men's willing support there would never have been a feminist movement. Yeah the activists and thinkers did a lot of work, but let's face it, men had to accept it and agree to support it. Feminists had beter wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Emma Watson isn't really a "leader", as she hasn't done anything to spearhead a new sort of feminism, or anything really NEW in the current third-wave feminism. She's just a celebrity voice in a sea of celebrity-voices. And Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau aren't really "feminists", though they may be politics who are open to modern feminism.

So...being a UN goodwill ambassador, chosen by UN Women to represent their work doesn't make Watson a leader? I see.

And so Joe Biden and Trudeau ardently supporting feminism, declaring support for say Watson's approach, explicitly being involved in support of major feminist initiatves makes them not real feminists?

[New Edom]

I honestly don't get where you imagined these delusional ramblings from. I didn't say anything of the sort, so I'd appreciate it if took the time to employ basic reading skills and avoid misrepresentation of my position.

If I was going to be critical about something - such as Islam (and oooh boy could I give both barrels on it if I had the time and inclination to do so) or Christianity, then I would do exactly the same as I do here in this thread about Feminism where I am critical about Feminism and I would apply the same standards for my criticism in the Islam thread. Here in this very thread I am very careful to recognise that feminism isn't entirely about the delusional lunatic types, that there have been (and still are) feminists who are not all following the same rabid branches of feminist zealotry and I'd make the exact same recognition in the Islam thread.

And I would hope that there would be intelligent people who would not take it as an opportunity to misrepresent my position.

You're the guy who's all about rational thought, yet you've downright badmouthed me in the two conversations we've had.

So for the first one, you don't know. Neither do I. My concern here is that there is an approach to leadership that is self perpetuating. The leaders of the 2nd Wave of feminism who have remained in place as feminist icons act as patrons for the general approach mainstream feminism has today. So gender studies classes and other humanities classes which have had gender studies ideas spread to them perpetuate this approach.
So who are these leaders? Here's a list:
- Gloria Steinem
- Naomi Wolfe
- Eve Ensler
- Hilary Clinton
- Emma Watson
- Jessica Valenti
- Joe Biden
- Michael Kimmel
- Justin Trudeau
- Anita Sarkeesian
- bell hooks
- Julie Bindel
- Julie Burchill
etc. There are lots more, I realize. But the ones I have mentioned have a lot of cultural influence and sway. They may seem to have some very diferent ideas, but this is rather like the different approaches within a religious denomination--ultimately they all believe in the same creed.

I think another problem is with the notion of patriarchy being a problem. There is no clear measurement for what extent of control patriarchy has, or how much it affects people, or what it would mean to be freer of it. One of hte problems with this idea is that because it is never ending and because any progress is downlplayed as not enough, it is tiresome to hear about it. Nearly every feminist pundit talks about the struggle of feminism as though little has been done and as though society as a whole is hostile to women's rights, eager to oppress women at a moment's notice. There is little to no clarity on this.

That brings me to men's issues. For my own part, I have stopped supporting feminism until there is honest and fair dialogue between men and women about the social changes that have come with feminism and changing economics and ways of life. I don't see the slightest effort on the part of hte mainstream feminist leaders I mentioned above to really understand male concerns at all. Some feminists even insist that women shouldn't have to. Until this dynamic changes there will be no progress.

And finally: without men's willing support there would never have been a feminist movement. Yeah the activists and thinkers did a lot of work, but let's face it, men had to accept it and agree to support it. Feminists had beter wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot.

I mean if my beliefs gain ground, I don't think any adherents would look to Trudeau or Emma Watson for guidance. My feminism is rather plainly anti-Liberal and anti-Capitalist, etc.

And I define the patriarchy as a social system where men are considered inherently more superior, physically, emotionally and intellectually than women, and hold the most power in politics, military and economy. A non-patriarchal society would then be one where men and women are considered equal to one another and where women hold equal power in the politics, economy and military. As you can see, its rather self explanatory why I think the patriarchy exists. And while I'm not a Marxist who thinks history is constant progress, I do think that in time, the patriarchy will disappear. Whatever socio-economic situation that may have propped it up doesn't appear to exist anymore.

" Nearly every feminist pundit talks about the struggle of feminism as though little has been done and as though society as a whole is hostile to women's rights, eager to oppress women at a moment's notice. There is little to no clarity on this. "
I mean I cant speak for them, but I do strongly believe there's a ton of road to be travelled before we can say that we're in a good place in terms of gender equality. We are not absolutely miserable, but we're not doing well either.

And as for men, and men's right, like I've said, I think Feminism should be concerned with them. They totally exist and are an obstacle to a Feminist society. They should be addressed with equal importance to women's issues, and I think feminists who say "Kill all men" and the like are just harming their cause, not that I think they're really "oppressing" men but its hypocritical and damaging to the purpose of gender equality.
"And finally: without men's willing support there would never have been a feminist movement. Yeah the activists and thinkers did a lot of work, but let's face it, men had to accept it and agree to support it. Feminists had beter wake up and stop shooting themselves in the foot."

I know what you're trying to say, but you gotta understand how unintentionally sexist and patronizing that sounds. Men didn't "agree to" women's rights, as white people didn't "agree to" black rights.

White people DID agree to black rights. Without William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln for instance there would have been no death to slavery in the Anglosphere. White people HAD to agree to support this, because they formed an overwhelming powerful majority. Accepting this in no way diminishes say Sojourner Truth or Frederick Douglass.

Furthermore, men had to agree to women's rights as well. Almost every major legislation favouring women's rights in Canada from 1916 to 1966 was actually done in overwhelmingly male parliaments, with the odd woman here or there involved. We need to start seeing this as a cooperation rather than just women being marvelous champions.

[The Blaatschapen]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

[Costa Fierro]

I don't want to see any more radical feminists. The world doesn't need more radical feminists. The ones we had are bad enough.

The world needs few things that it has now. That itself is not a strong argument for the existence or non-existence of groups past personal feelings.

No, the argument would be that radical feminists have made gender equality worse, not better.

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

Because society doesn't see women not wanting something to do with the opposite sex as being discrimination. Now whilst this "oppressor versus the oppressed" narrative is predominantly used in the Anglosphere, it may also be a narrative that's present in continental Europe as well. Simply put, women are allowed to discriminate against men because society sees them as the weaker sex and is therefore more understanding of why women would want to discriminate against men. Men cannot discriminate woman because it's sexism. And men are the only group of people, according to this narrative, that can engage in sexism.

[Philjia]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

The market for illegally made voyeur porn of men is smaller.

[New Edom]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

Because of three things:

1. Contrary to mainstream and radical feminist propganda, generally women are treated with more kindness and compassion than men. So there's a ntoion in Western Civilization that women ought to be protected.

2. In order to appear progressive, our society has maintained some protections for women while privileging them in other areas. This is presented as being fair.

3. It is politically correct to enshrine women's sexual choices but not those of men. So it is considered wrong to mention the idea that women may tempt men sexually, while it is ok to say that men may victimize women sexually.

[Neo Balka]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

hold on there, little sheep, Balk the shepherd is about to take you on a thrill ride.

According to modern third wave feminist theory, most problems that society has is due to this omnipresent force called "the Patriarchy".

All knowing, all seeing yet somehow invisible, this "Patriarchy" pretty much latched women all over the west with is invisible ball and chain to marginalize them, oppress them and other shit.

But like its Bavarian equivalent the Illuminati ;nobody can quite prove that the "patriarchy" exists apart from social media outrage.

[Jello Biafra]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

Since you're talking about rooms, I'm interpreting this as sharing a living space with another person a 'roommate' or 'flatmate', rather than your own apartment. In this instance, women are more comfortable with sharing living spaces with other women, whereas men might want a woman in order to potentially seduce her. You might see a 'men only' ad if it's a gay man placing it.
Admittedly I am speaking of Craigslist ads here, which may not be representative of these types of ads in general.

[Mattopilos II]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

I think Jello is on the right track with this one - men might not mind about the sex of the person staying with them. I won't go so far to say it is for the purpose of seduction or something else malicious, but they simply don't care that much about the gender.
Women, however, likely feel more comfortable around other women, either for ease of understanding of the person staying with them (easy to prepare a room for a woman if you know what they want, no?), and maybe some innate security reasons (the above fear that a man might take advantage of the situation).

[Galloism]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

I think Jello is on the right track with this one - men might not mind about the sex of the person staying with them. I won't go so far to say it is for the purpose of seduction or something else malicious, but they simply don't care that much about the gender.
Women, however, likely feel more comfortable around other women, either for ease of understanding of the person staying with them (easy to prepare a room for a woman if you know what they want, no?), and maybe some innate security reasons (the above fear that a man might take advantage of the situation).

Which is, of course, a symptom of sexism - that while men don't fear women because of their gender, women fear men because of their gender, because men are all dangerous monsters while women are sweet wonderful people who could never do anything wrong.

[Mattopilos II]

I think Jello is on the right track with this one - men might not mind about the sex of the person staying with them. I won't go so far to say it is for the purpose of seduction or something else malicious, but they simply don't care that much about the gender.
Women, however, likely feel more comfortable around other women, either for ease of understanding of the person staying with them (easy to prepare a room for a woman if you know what they want, no?), and maybe some innate security reasons (the above fear that a man might take advantage of the situation).

Which is, of course, a symptom of sexism - that while men don't fear women because of their gender, women fear men because of their gender, because men are all dangerous monsters while women are sweet wonderful people who could never do anything wrong.

I think you are being reductionist, and also kinda ignoring the fact that history has very much fitted that idea... that women are weak and as such must obey/fear men. It isn't like the idea of scary men came out of thin air, has it? Can hardly see women as being the one "doing anything wrong" when there was a time they could hardly DO anything.
I think the attitude on it has to change. I think each gender needs to become more accepting of the other. HOWEVER, we cannot ignore the reasons for why certain views have formed in the first place, and still affect attitudes in society now.

So no, I find no need for the comment you have made past "Lets see if I can reverse the roles of sexism lol".

[Tahar Joblis]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

IME in the US, there are landlords who want to only rent out to women on the theory that they are more likely to keep things tidy and neat (and not break things). It is illegal for them to discriminate by sex, but they do so anyway.

I also know people (men and women) who have expressed similar sentiments when it comes to flatmates / roomies. When it comes down to it, most people who are looking for flatmates / roommates have had limited experience living with other people, so stereotypes tend to play a magnified role compared to actual experience.

[New Edom]

Which is, of course, a symptom of sexism - that while men don't fear women because of their gender, women fear men because of their gender, because men are all dangerous monsters while women are sweet wonderful people who could never do anything wrong.

I think you are being reductionist, and also kinda ignoring the fact that history has very much fitted that idea... that women are weak and as such must obey/fear men. It isn't like the idea of scary men came out of thin air, has it? Can hardly see women as being the one "doing anything wrong" when there was a time they could hardly DO anything.
I think the attitude on it has to change. I think each gender needs to become more accepting of the other. HOWEVER, we cannot ignore the reasons for why certain views have formed in the first place, and still affect attitudes in society now.

So no, I find no need for the comment you have made past "Lets see if I can reverse the roles of sexism lol".

Can't speak for Gallo, but for myself, I'm tired of hearing about how women are afraid of men and it's justified so let's give more focus to feminism. I repeat: I do not support the movement while the movement continues to brush aside concerns people have about women. So if the attitudes you are talking about include brushing aside those concerns because women are benevolent and harmless supposedly, sure, I'm interested. If it doesn't focus on the various harms women do then I could not care less.

[Galloism]

Which is, of course, a symptom of sexism - that while men don't fear women because of their gender, women fear men because of their gender, because men are all dangerous monsters while women are sweet wonderful people who could never do anything wrong.

I think you are being reductionist, and also kinda ignoring the fact that history has very much fitted that idea... that women are weak and as such must obey/fear men. It isn't like the idea of scary men came out of thin air, has it? Can hardly see women as being the one "doing anything wrong" when there was a time they could hardly DO anything.
I think the attitude on it has to change. I think each gender needs to become more accepting of the other. HOWEVER, we cannot ignore the reasons for why certain views have formed in the first place, and still affect attitudes in society now.

So no, I find no need for the comment you have made past "Lets see if I can reverse the roles of sexism lol".

I watched an interesting documentary on Victorian England - this notion that women are sweet innocent beings is fairly new, societally speaking.

In fact, it was apparently fairly common (although not the majority of cases) in the Middle Ages for powerful women (i.e. Nobles) to quite literally kidnap men and hold them hostage until the man agreed to marry her.

The concept of the damsel in distress never actually existed.

[Mattopilos II]

I think you are being reductionist, and also kinda ignoring the fact that history has very much fitted that idea... that women are weak and as such must obey/fear men. It isn't like the idea of scary men came out of thin air, has it? Can hardly see women as being the one "doing anything wrong" when there was a time they could hardly DO anything.
I think the attitude on it has to change. I think each gender needs to become more accepting of the other. HOWEVER, we cannot ignore the reasons for why certain views have formed in the first place, and still affect attitudes in society now.

So no, I find no need for the comment you have made past "Lets see if I can reverse the roles of sexism lol".

I watched an interesting documentary on Victorian England - this notion that women are sweet innocent beings is fairly new, societally speaking.

In fact, it was apparently fairly common (although not the majority of cases) in the Middle Ages for powerful women (i.e. Nobles) to quite literally kidnap men and hold them hostage until the man agreed to marry her.

The concept of the damsel in distress never actually existed.

I am not talking about a full-on "Damsel in Distress" situation as I am the idea that women are inferior to men, that may or may not lead to the idea they can "do no harm". And when you talk of nobles... that is just it, THEY ARE NOBLES. At that point, it is about class and less about the gender itself. This in turns leads into intersectionality of different groups and niches. I mean, I am fairly sure that the kidnapping part was quite common for men and women, no? That suggests it would be, you know, a thing nobles can do?

[Mattopilos II]

I think you are being reductionist, and also kinda ignoring the fact that history has very much fitted that idea... that women are weak and as such must obey/fear men. It isn't like the idea of scary men came out of thin air, has it? Can hardly see women as being the one "doing anything wrong" when there was a time they could hardly DO anything.
I think the attitude on it has to change. I think each gender needs to become more accepting of the other. HOWEVER, we cannot ignore the reasons for why certain views have formed in the first place, and still affect attitudes in society now.

So no, I find no need for the comment you have made past "Lets see if I can reverse the roles of sexism lol".

Can't speak for Gallo, but for myself, I'm tired of hearing about how women are afraid of men and it's justified so let's give more focus to feminism. I repeat: I do not support the movement while the movement continues to brush aside concerns people have about women. So if the attitudes you are talking about include brushing aside those concerns because women are benevolent and harmless supposedly, sure, I'm interested. If it doesn't focus on the various harms women do then I could not care less.

Let it be known that was what I was doing. Lol.

[Hirota]

You're the guy who's all about rational thought, yet you've downright badmouthed me in the two conversations we've had.

Start employing rational thought (heck, it's not even rational thought that's your problem - if you employed even basic reading skills that would have sufficed) and you won't get "badmouthed". And honestly if you think thats badmouthing then you really are far to fragile for the real world. You launched a strawman attack, got called out on your misrepresentation, and now you mewl and whine because you get called out.

I don't really care about your delusions (beyond pointing out how daft they are), but when they are completely baseless fictions and untrue delusions concerning me then I certainly have the right vigourously reply to your falsehoods which will certainly include you getting called out on your nonsense.

[The Blaatschapen]

Feminist thread, explain something to me:

I'm looking for a place to live in a big EUropean city, and 20% if not more of the ads for rooms are 'women only'. I have not seen any 'men only' ads. Why is this?

Since you're talking about rooms, I'm interpreting this as sharing a living space with another person a 'roommate' or 'flatmate', rather than your own apartment. In this instance, women are more comfortable with sharing living spaces with other women, whereas men might want a woman in order to potentially seduce her. You might see a 'men only' ad if it's a gay man placing it.
Admittedly I am speaking of Craigslist ads here, which may not be representative of these types of ads in general.

No idea about craigslist ads (as in, craigslist is not very common over here; it exists; but I'm unaware of the culture around it).

That said, why would I want to seduce a female flatmate? I'm not ready for such a commitment (a sexual/romantic relationship where I live together with someone). She'd better buy me dinner first before I'll even consider putting out.

[Costa Fierro]

That said, why would I want to seduce a female flatmate? I'm not ready for such a commitment (a sexual/romantic relationship where I live together with someone). She'd better buy me dinner first before I'll even consider putting out.

Duh, all men want sex all the time. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting from Jello's post. It's an attitude that's ridiculous enough that it's starting to become a trope in itself.

[The Blaatschapen]

That said, why would I want to seduce a female flatmate? I'm not ready for such a commitment (a sexual/romantic relationship where I live together with someone). She'd better buy me dinner first before I'll even consider putting out.

Duh, all men want sex all the time. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting from Jello's post. It's an attitude that's ridiculous enough that it's starting to become a trope in itself.

I am actually playing two prejudices against each other. The one where men want sex vs. the one where men do not commit.

[Jello Biafra]

Which is, of course, a symptom of sexism - that while men don't fear women because of their gender, women fear men because of their gender, because men are all dangerous monsters while women are sweet wonderful people who could never do anything wrong.

I agree that these are problematic sexist tropes.

That said, why would I want to seduce a female flatmate? I'm not ready for such a commitment (a sexual/romantic relationship where I live together with someone). She'd better buy me dinner first before I'll even consider putting out.

Duh, all men want sex all the time. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting from Jello's post. It's an attitude that's ridiculous enough that it's starting to become a trope in itself.

#notallmen , but sometimes the ads are euphemistically explicit about this sort of thing.

[New Edom]

Next, on Feminism, we have a wonderful display of self contradictions that some might find hilariously revealing of how utterly muddy and confusing mainstream feminism is. But don't be fooled, dear readers--this is political genius at its finest. By pretending to be uncofused, incompetent and at times outright stupid, this is all to lull everyone into complacency, preparing the way for the great revolution that is to come. Genius.

So the Huffington Post tells us that Feminism needs to stop being likable. This is astonishing, at a glance, since outside of Hollywood, academic and activist circles feminism is actually unpopular. Curiously, high achievement among women is not, according to mainstream feminists, actually feminism. Those women, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, etc are not really feminist icons, they're just shills for the conservative patriarchy. Genius.

Then there's Justin Trudeau. He who once said he had fifty percent women in his cabinet because "It's 2015"--which might sound like a smug little soundbyte but is really genius--is now a tiresome shill as well. The CBC, definitely a pro-feminist news source, seems to be accusing poor Mr. Trudeau of being a shallow feminist at best. A number of other news sources with a feminist slant have made this accusation as well. One might think "Hey wait a minute. I thought you wanted more men to declare their feminism!" One might point out the irony in this article and others like it--wondering why this man is not doing more to remove the supposed obstacles women face in the Patriarchy--but that irony doesn't recognize the genius of these attacks on feminism's greatest male champion in the world today. What do I expect though when a poster here even said that he is NOT a feminist? One would think that being confused about who is and who is not is part of the movement's problem. But really, that fails to grasp the brilliance of the unifying political strategy behind this.

However a writer for the Huffington Post also calls upon male feminists to do...exactly what Justin Trudeau did? 50/50 boards, openly supporting women's initiative? Eh? Maybe I'm too stupid to understand how this does not contradict the earlier CBC article on how Trudeau is a fake?

Then there's this piece by Robert Jensen, another male feminist. You can easily brush this aside as typical Jensen woes. Actually it has in common with the other pieces a sort of vagueness, a kind of ideological fog that doesn't actually present any practical plan, appeal to any common interests people may actually have. Here for instance is part of Jensen's strategy:

What are some of those battles? Protecting reproductive rights at the grassroots, including support for women who can’t afford abortions; reinvigorating the radical feminist analysis in the mainstream anti-rape movement; challenging the way that men’s sexual exploitation of women in the commercial sex industry has become normalized. Those are places to start, along with the intersectional work of making critiques of White supremacy a part of every project; challenging capitalism’s corrosive effects on both our sense of self and the possibility of real democracy; and opposing any efforts for the United States to unleash its military to control the politics of the developing world.

I think that if the Duke of Wellington, George S. Patton, Sun Tzu and Genghis Khan were brought back to life today they'd be in awe of the strategy that Jensen has laid out. Political thinkers like Edmund Burke, Confucius, Machievelli and Bismarck would weep at the scalpel brilliance Jensen has brought to the table.

I could go on but i'm choked up. This will continue this week. Please take time to reflect on the immortal words of Emma Watson paraphrased here: "If not us, then who? If not today then on what other day?"

[Costa Fierro]

I agree that these are problematic sexist tropes.

So why are you reinforcing them?

#notallmen , but sometimes the ads are euphemistically explicit about this sort of thing.

Replacing a trope with another one.

I am actually playing two prejudices against each other. The one where men want sex vs. the one where men do not commit.

You're probably better off remaining uncommitted.