NationStates

Des-Bal wrote:Just had a conversation so I thought I'd throw this out there:

Campaigns directed at believing or supporting female victims of sexual crimes seek to grant more privilege to an already privileged group.

I find the idea of "privilege" reductive and somewhat dehumanizing but female victims of sex crimes, without question, are taken much more seriously than male victims. To frame the way victims are doubted, dismissed, or ignored as being the result of women not being taken seriously ignores the fact that they're being treated better than the only other point of comparison. If feminism is about advancing women towards equality with men then advocating for better treatment of female victims is entirely non-feminist.

It's a welfare for whites moment certainly. I've been thinking about it recently and think it's an aspect of femininity and female identity post-feminism to behave this way. They changed the way women identify about themselves. That study showing in-group bias, more concern for women than men and all that supports it. You've got pretty much the same mechanisms they always blather on about, in this case the woman feels defeminized (the equivalent to emasculated) by the notion of male victims and female perpetrators, the existence of male disadvantage is a threat to her identity, so she throws a tantrum over it and tries to exclude men from that aspect of society and shut them down. All these organizations are just matriarchal institutions.

When feminists blithely waffle about how no its different because society is a patriarchy they're ignoring the fundamental aspect a play. Men gatekept masculine activities and recognition of masculinity in men. |Now women, and feminists, are doing the same for men, beyond that they've sanitized femininity and acted like it isn't harmful. This is a good example of how femininity is harmful. (I'd like to remind you that the Ruthman study showed the more strong a womans identity as a woman, the worse she was at all this chauvinism stuff. High femininity = more chauvinism = more gatekeeping.).

It's also hegemonic. Here, femininity is used to monopolize access to resources at the expense of others deemed less feminine or not traditionally feminine, social power is leveraged to create a hierarchy of access, feminine status, and recognition. That's pretty much a straight up example of oppression. By any reasonable definition, this is power, it merely doesn't present in masculine terms that feminists demand power be defined by, and if they ignore their ideologically induced pro-feminine chauvinism for a moment they'll realize, they think so too. (Take a look at all the "Empowering" rhjetoric they use about their activities.). This is the feminine version of hegemonic masculinity. They are obsessed with acquisition, perpetuation, and maintainence of female power and femininities gatekeeping of the sources and valid claimants of its power. They have, in effect, articulated an ideology of nothing more than projecting the negatives of femininity on to masculinity in addition to its own, with the effect of gatekeeping in this way, an ideology that is built to gatekeep power and acquire it at the expense of men.

When they waffle on about how its fine to just discuss womens issues, they're ignoring that's a direct parallel to "It's fine to have male only companies" and so on, and that the situation they are doing keeps in place systemic and widespread injustice.

The gatekeeping amounts to social violence to deny people attention and resources they need. This aspect of femininity is pretty much the direct result of the feminist movement and its redefining of femininity. It can't be blamed on patriarchal for women to behave this way, and the whole blaming patriarchy and misogyny for everything aspect is itself a manifestation of femininity and its negative attributes. Feminine chauvinism tends toward lack of responsibility for poor behavior, and while feminists blame this on patriarchy too, it's difficult to ignore that plenty of womens activists are currently pushing for things like an end to womens prisons.

This is because the feminist worldview is just the same thing. Feminist femininity causes these people to offload responsibility for negativity on to masculinity. The same dynamic we see between men and women exists between femininity and masculinity as concepts themselves, women downplay femininity and blame its negatives on men, and so on. The result is mistrust of men, and so on. The mechanism by which femininity harms others is, well, feminine, instead of masculine and direct. That can only really be laid at the feet of feminism, especially since it has taken active efforts to push the meme that women should not be the ones to care for men, without taking a critical eye to this female hegenomy over these attributes. (Equivalent to "We're not going to pay for shit anymore, go live on the street, this is about male liberation from your shit. No, you can't get a job, you're a woman, its fine to have male only companies.".)

Women feel defeminized when their agency isn't seen as wholly positive and reasonable at all times and places and they seen as the victims, and with the focus on them and their feelings and how anything done to harm them is wrong, even if greater harm is done to others in the process. Men gatekept respect and masculine status, women gatekeep empathy, attention, care, and so on. The stuff they say about "emasculating" applies to them too. Defeminizing. The tantrums they throw about it are equivalent to men throwing a tantrum about a woman doing something more masculine than them, like if a woman beats a man at a sport and he starts sulking and shouting and trying to get people to see a woman as having something wrong with her.

The MRM evaluation of feminism has been right from pretty much the beginning, albeit, also not as critical of femininity and feminisms' impact on it as they should have been. Much like happened with DV, rape, and so on, the negative aspects of womens identity, femininity, and how it does others harm, are ignored, and often projected on to men as their responsibility.

Des-Bal wrote:Just had a conversation so I thought I'd throw this out there:

Campaigns directed at believing or supporting female victims of sexual crimes seek to grant more privilege to an already privileged group.

I think using the word "privileged" to describe survivors of sexual violence is a bit too much, even if you managed to credibly argued that female survivors are relatively better off, in terms of public recognition and support, than other survivors. Even with all this alleged "privilege", sexual violence remains a form of violence that is rarely reported and prosecuted, and rarely leads to a conviction, even for female survivors.

Liriena wrote:I think using the word "privileged" to describe survivors of sexual violence is a bit too much, even if you managed to credibly argued that female survivors are relatively better off, in terms of public recognition and support, than other survivors. Even with all this alleged "privilege", sexual violence remains a form of violence that is rarely reported and prosecuted, and rarely leads to a conviction, even for female survivors.

I don't think it's ever appropriate. Anyone you identify as "privileged" based on their group could be a survival of sexual assault and being in a "privileged" position is not the same as being in a good position. It's the problem with the entire idea of privilege

I don't think anyone's saying it's great to be a victim of sexual assault but in terms of relative treatment by society women would have to be clear front runners.

Liriena wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:Just had a conversation so I thought I'd throw this out there:

Campaigns directed at believing or supporting female victims of sexual crimes seek to grant more privilege to an already privileged group.

I think using the word "privileged" to describe survivors of sexual violence is a bit too much, even if you managed to credibly argued that female survivors are relatively better off, in terms of public recognition and support, than other survivors. Even with all this alleged "privilege", sexual violence remains a form of violence that is rarely reported and prosecuted, and rarely leads to a conviction, even for female survivors.

Do you ever act this way about male privilege, or is it just situations where women are privileged this sudden concern comes out? Go ahead, name one example of male privilege this wouldn't apply to.

On the topic of feminist laws being exploitative and subjugating men, we're about to witness the ultimate incarnation of that and how they have produced erratic and unjustifiable results as a result of gynocentric focus.

The richest person on the planet is about to change. The current richest person is going to go through a divorce in a state where his wife is guaranteed at least half, and alimony. In addition to that she is likely to receive child custody, and consequently, child support. This will mean she receives over half of his income henceforth.

She has never worked for Amazon. She in fact has written two novels. "Traps", and "The testing of Luther albright."

One of them sells for twelve pence currently.

Suffice to say, she has done nothing to earn this money beyond marry a man in a feminist society and subsequently divorce him. The process of the feminist takeover of society is usually fairly insidious and progresses over generations, but occasionally you see jumps like this one.

When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Just how much gender privilege do you need exactly?

At least men who were at the top of society for sexist reasons did things to generate wealth or govern, rather than simply be a particular sex.

Ostroeuropa wrote:On the topic of feminist laws being exploitative and subjugating men, we're about to witness the ultimate incarnation of that and how they have produced erratic and unjustifiable results as a result of gynocentric focus.

The richest person on the planet is about to change. The current richest person is going to go through a divorce in a state where his wife is guaranteed at least half, and alimony. In addition to that she is likely to receive child custody, and consequently, child support. This will mean she receives over half of his income henceforth.

She has never worked for Amazon. She in fact has written two novels. "Traps", and "The testing of Luther albright."

One of them sells for twelve pence currently.

Suffice to say, she has done nothing to earn this money beyond marry a man in a feminist society and subsequently divorce him. The process of the feminist takeover of society is usually fairly insidious and progresses over generations, but occasionally you see jumps like this one.

When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Just how much gender privilege do you need exactly?

At least men who were at the top of society for sexist reasons did things to generate wealth or govern, rather than simply be a particular sex.

Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men. Certainly more equal than ever, and certainly with better rights in divorces, but not across society. What needs to be done is the destruction of liberal identity politics and a reorganization of society on such a line that the playing field is made as even as possible to the point where this problem (for Jeff Bezos) would never have occurred and such wealth could never have been accumulated.

I don't like how divorce works or how certain laws make this a problem in the first place, at least no more than you do. I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

Ostroeuropa wrote:When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Maybe when the argument being made here isn't coming from someone who's zealously fanatical to this shit to the point that literally all they ever talk about is this stuff.

Orostan wrote:Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men. Certainly more equal than ever, and certainly with better rights in divorces, but not across society. What needs to be done is the destruction of liberal identity politics and a reorganization of society on such a line that the playing field is made as even as possible to the point where this problem (for Jeff Bezos) would never have occurred and such wealth could never have been accumulated.

I don't like how divorce works or how certain laws make this a problem in the first place, at least no more than you do. I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

Where specifically are women disadvantaged in the western world, list a few if you could.

Des-Bal wrote:

Orostan wrote:Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men. Certainly more equal than ever, and certainly with better rights in divorces, but not across society. What needs to be done is the destruction of liberal identity politics and a reorganization of society on such a line that the playing field is made as even as possible to the point where this problem (for Jeff Bezos) would never have occurred and such wealth could never have been accumulated.

I don't like how divorce works or how certain laws make this a problem in the first place, at least no more than you do. I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

Where specifically are women disadvantaged in the western world, list a few if you could.

I’ve seen women get paid less than a man would for the same job, though I don’t believe the gender pay gap nonsense. I have also seen some other unequal treatment in the workplace. Other than that I wouldn’t know, though I am convinced that there is more that I haven’t seen.

Don’t misinterpret me though, third wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left. I think a movement for all workers is needed right now, not more liberalism.

Orostan wrote:
I’ve seen women get paid less than a man would for the same job, though I don’t believe the gender pay gap nonsense. I have also seen some other unequal treatment in the workplace. Other than that I wouldn’t know, though I am convinced that there is more that I haven’t seen.

Don’t misinterpret me though, third wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left. I think a movement for all workers is needed right now, not more liberalism.

Your statement seems kind of contradictory but the pay gap is interesting because very little of it can be attributed explicitly to preferential treatment of men, when you account for job choice and work history what remains really only applies to married men and it's also to the detriment of single men.

If you have some evidence of the CIA's creation of third wave feminism I'd hear it but on it's face that sounds more like a medical issue than a solid theory.

Des-Bal wrote:

Orostan wrote:
I’ve seen women get paid less than a man would for the same job, though I don’t believe the gender pay gap nonsense. I have also seen some other unequal treatment in the workplace. Other than that I wouldn’t know, though I am convinced that there is more that I haven’t seen.

Don’t misinterpret me though, third wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left. I think a movement for all workers is needed right now, not more liberalism.

Your statement seems kind of contradictory but the pay gap is interesting because very little of it can be attributed explicitly to preferential treatment of men, when you account for job choice and work history what remains really only applies to married men and it's also to the detriment of single men.

If you have some evidence of the CIA's creation of third wave feminism I'd hear it but on it's face that sounds more like a medical issue than a solid theory.

The pay stuff is what I’ve seen. I don’t know if someone has done a sound study on it.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opi ... story.html

Here is an article about Gloria Steinem, one of the popular people of third wave feminism. It’s pterry obvious that she was a CIA asset. I’m sure many others were or are too. COINTELPRO tactics were being used as late as 2008, and hey probably are used against the DSA or other groups today.

EDIT: The article is written by a liberal and I don’t like that but it does give an alright overview.

Torrocca wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Maybe when the argument being made here isn't coming from someone who's zealously fanatical to this shit to the point that literally all they ever talk about is this stuff.

No, no, hear him out on this one. He has something important to say that doesn't deserve to be ignored because "lol Ostro is talking about things again".

Des-Bal wrote:

Orostan wrote:
I’ve seen women get paid less than a man would for the same job, though I don’t believe the gender pay gap nonsense. I have also seen some other unequal treatment in the workplace. Other than that I wouldn’t know, though I am convinced that there is more that I haven’t seen.

Don’t misinterpret me though, third wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left. I think a movement for all workers is needed right now, not more liberalism.

Your statement seems kind of contradictory but the pay gap is interesting because very little of it can be attributed explicitly to preferential treatment of men, when you account for job choice and work history what remains really only applies to married men and it's also to the detriment of single men.

If you have some evidence of the CIA's creation of third wave feminism I'd hear it but on it's face that sounds more like a medical issue than a solid theory.

It seems to be little more than a conspiracy theory.

Proctopeo wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Maybe when the argument being made here isn't coming from someone who's zealously fanatical to this shit to the point that literally all they ever talk about is this stuff.

No, no, hear him out on this one. He has something important to say that doesn't deserve to be ignored because "lol Ostro is talking about things again".

Des-Bal wrote:
Your statement seems kind of contradictory but the pay gap is interesting because very little of it can be attributed explicitly to preferential treatment of men, when you account for job choice and work history what remains really only applies to married men and it's also to the detriment of single men.

If you have some evidence of the CIA's creation of third wave feminism I'd hear it but on it's face that sounds more like a medical issue than a solid theory.

It seems to be little more than a conspiracy theory.

They literally paid someone to promote it.

Orostan wrote:Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men.

That's incorrect.

I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

Also incorrect.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Orostan wrote:Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men.

That's incorrect.

I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

Also incorrect.

>no u

where are the arguments billy?

Orostan wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
That's incorrect.



Also incorrect.

>no u

where are the arguments billy?

The statements didn't warrant much in the way of a response, so I did not provide one. Saying you are incorrect is both true and satisfactory.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Orostan wrote:>no u

where are the arguments billy?

The statements didn't warrant much in the way of a response, so I did not provide one. Saying you are incorrect is both true and satisfactory.

Provide an argument or get out. I have no tolerance for this smugness.

Orostan wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
The statements didn't warrant much in the way of a response, so I did not provide one. Saying you are incorrect is both true and satisfactory.

Provide an argument or get out. I have no tolerance for this smugness.

We're having an argument now, are we not?

Costa Fierro wrote:

Orostan wrote:Provide an argument or get out. I have no tolerance for this smugness.

We're having an argument now, are we not?

No, you are either going to post an actual argument against my points or you should leave this thread.

Orostan wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:On the topic of feminist laws being exploitative and subjugating men, we're about to witness the ultimate incarnation of that and how they have produced erratic and unjustifiable results as a result of gynocentric focus.

The richest person on the planet is about to change. The current richest person is going to go through a divorce in a state where his wife is guaranteed at least half, and alimony. In addition to that she is likely to receive child custody, and consequently, child support. This will mean she receives over half of his income henceforth.

She has never worked for Amazon. She in fact has written two novels. "Traps", and "The testing of Luther albright."

One of them sells for twelve pence currently.

Suffice to say, she has done nothing to earn this money beyond marry a man in a feminist society and subsequently divorce him. The process of the feminist takeover of society is usually fairly insidious and progresses over generations, but occasionally you see jumps like this one.

When the richest person on the planet is merely a beneficiary of sexist laws and dynamics that benefit one sex at the expense of the other, will that finally be enough for you guys to admit this movement was nonsense?

Just how much gender privilege do you need exactly?

At least men who were at the top of society for sexist reasons did things to generate wealth or govern, rather than simply be a particular sex.

Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men. Certainly more equal than ever, and certainly with better rights in divorces, but not across society. What needs to be done is the destruction of liberal identity politics and a reorganization of society on such a line that the playing field is made as even as possible to the point where this problem (for Jeff Bezos) would never have occurred and such wealth could never have been accumulated.

I don't like how divorce works or how certain laws make this a problem in the first place, at least no more than you do. I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

What are "liberal reactionaries?" And what do they have to do with feminism?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Orostan wrote:Still, the fact of the matter is that across society in general women are still a bit behind men. Certainly more equal than ever, and certainly with better rights in divorces, but not across society. What needs to be done is the destruction of liberal identity politics and a reorganization of society on such a line that the playing field is made as even as possible to the point where this problem (for Jeff Bezos) would never have occurred and such wealth could never have been accumulated.

I don't like how divorce works or how certain laws make this a problem in the first place, at least no more than you do. I think that on this issue you are falling for a right wing reactionary trick that feminism is synonymous with liberal reactionaries. It is not. Feminism is exactly what the dictionary definition is, anything else (read: this) is a liberal distraction at best and petty-bourgeois fuckery at worst.

What are "liberal reactionaries?" And what do they have to do with feminism?

Third wave feminism is a reaction to the fact that men occupy leading economic positions in many industries, among other things. I call it petty bourgeois because it comes from the perspective of a petty bourgeois woman wanting to be able to occupy the position of a bourgeois man. It's got that class character. Left wing feminism, as opposed to liberal feminism, has a distinct proletarian class character.

Orostan wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
We're having an argument now, are we not?

No, you are either going to post an actual argument against my points or you should leave this thread.

Here's the thing; the burden of proof is upon the one arguing for something, not upon the one sceptical of it.

It's on you to provide evidence where women are "across society in general women are still a bit behind men." Evidence, not anecdotes.

It's also on you to provide evidence that "wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left." I'm fascinated by what evidence would lead you to that conclusion. I mean, I don't disagree that feminism and "identity politics" have damaged the left, but I am sceptical it was done deliberately and by a state actor.

Hirota wrote:

Orostan wrote:No, you are either going to post an actual argument against my points or you should leave this thread.

Here's the thing; the burden of proof is upon the one arguing for something, not upon the one sceptical of it.

It's on you to provide evidence where women are "across society in general women are still a bit behind men." Evidence, not anecdotes.

It's also on you to provide evidence that "wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left." I'm fascinated by what evidence would lead you to that conclusion. I mean, I don't disagree that feminism and "identity politics" have damaged the left, but I am sceptical it was done deliberately and by a state actor.

I provided evidence that the CIA promoted it already. For the women are behind men part, take a look at governmental positions and economic leadership positions. I hate to use that example, but it either proves that for some reason women just don’t go down those career paths as much (might be true, but I don’t believe that can account for everything) or they don’t have the stomach for destroying third world countries and ruthless exploitation. My opinion on this is mostly based on how I’ve seen women treated in the workplace, I’d be interested to see if there’s a study that says on the median women are paid the same as men for the same job.

Orostan wrote:No, you are either going to post an actual argument against my points or you should leave this thread.

I would, but you haven't got any power over me, so I'll think I'll stay.

Besides, there's something else I'd like to address:

Third wave feminism is a reaction to the fact that men occupy leading economic positions in many industries, among other things.

Third wave feminism is not a reactionary movement at all, it is an evolution of the movement. Looking back through the movement, it is easy to see this transition taking place. The original fight for basic rights gave way to the challenging of social norms and now we've reached a point where women are a powerful class in Western society. This is where third wave feminism comes in. Because there's largely no more rights for women to gain anymore, third wave feminism is intent on not only preserving what rights and privileges women enjoy, but also furthering the control and power women have in society. Hence why we've seen government policies that favour women in terms of domestic violence, hence the Duluth model, hence feminists in India and Israel successfully preventing the definitions of their respective criminal laws to include women as perpetrators of rape.

I call it petty bourgeois because it comes from the perspective of a petty bourgeois woman wanting to be able to occupy the position of a bourgeois man. It's got that class character. Left wing feminism, as opposed to liberal feminism, has a distinct proletarian class character.

The only class character that exists is whatever benefits women. Social class, bourgeoisie, proletariat, or other classes, it doesn't matter.

Orostan wrote:

Hirota wrote:Here's the thing; the burden of proof is upon the one arguing for something, not upon the one sceptical of it.

It's on you to provide evidence where women are "across society in general women are still a bit behind men." Evidence, not anecdotes.

It's also on you to provide evidence that "wave feminism was created by the CIA to damage the left." I'm fascinated by what evidence would lead you to that conclusion. I mean, I don't disagree that feminism and "identity politics" have damaged the left, but I am sceptical it was done deliberately and by a state actor.

I provided evidence that the CIA promoted it already.

That's fair: I didn't read it because the Chicago tribune doesn't know how to GDPR correctly. But my VPN got around it.

Let's assume Steinem is telling the truth and she was involved in the CIA. You still have not shown evidence that the CIA was seeking to damage the left. It's supposition empty of evidence. Indeed, the opinion piece suggests that Steinem was recruited with the intention to act as a bulwark against the Soviets, strengthening the moderate left rather than weakening it.

Orostan wrote:I’d be interested to see if there’s a study that says on the median women are paid the same as men for the same job.

The wage gap is a tricky one to discuss, but the burden of proof is upon feminists to prove it exists, as opposed to others disproving it exists. The studies that normally demonstrate a wage gap generally have some pretty shoddy methodology, and/or project some confirmation bias when they attempt to explain why it happens (ignoring womens choices and differences in fields of employment tend to be ignored).