The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I'm glad.

It's interesting how often Radfems and Conservative Christians agree, especially on issues related to gender and sexuality.

for a second i thought this said "republicans and conservative Christians" and was like yeah??? they're the same. but then i remembered how to read.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

Sounds simple, then. You want to abolish sex work: abolish capitalism. Most women are pushed to sex work because of the economic troubles caused by a capitalist model. Win-win.

Yes, it's going to be a happy day when noone turns to prostitution or pornography as a way to make their livelihood, let alone does in general.

most people don't actually care if others are watching/making p0rn, it's a non-issue

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

Here in Canada theres been a social initiative to reclassify sex workers as victims of human trafficking. With outreach and support that brought down the number of sex workers in the DTES of Vancouver. Maybe instead of making it illegal see it for what it is, someone selling their body because they cant make any/enough money any other way.

1.Then help them make money another way? Stop giving up on people. It's disgusting, pathetic, and depraved to pay for sex. Nobody should be pressured into sinking that low, it shouldn't even be an option.

2.Would you want that type of life for your mother? Your sister? Your daughter? Have some decency.

1.wow someone seems angry
2.i really don't care if women i happen to be related to decide to be sex workers, that's their prerogative. decency is when Judeo-Christian morals and i am therefore indecent.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

What if they want to do it because they like it?

I don't care, it's degrading and depraved.

what if i thought consensual heterosexual acts in the god blessed marriage bed were degrading and depraved? my opinion on other's consensual sexual activities doesn't matter, and neither does yours.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I don't care, it's degrading and depraved.

What if people are into that shit?

then they are sinners (:

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

The religious idea of “decency” is “ban every lifestyle I find icky.” Of course it is. Why are you surprised?

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I don't care.

Do you know what BDSM is?

stop. you're going to make sun strive to abolish anything that isn't straight married missionary sex, and i don't want to live in a world like that.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

at the end of the day I think criminalizing prostitution is missing the point. The real problem is people turning to prostitution in the first place and its better focusing on helping change the life circumstances if any that lead to that decision.

Sex Work has existed forever in human society, it is the world's oldest profession.

And like I know some who would do it even if they had their basic needs met

kinda thought farming was the oldest but ok

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

-

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

-

[Alaska Hawaii and the Aleutes]

The religious idea of “decency” is “ban every lifestyle I find icky.” Of course, it is. Why are you surprised?

u right

Stop spamming please

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

u right

Stop spamming please

ok ;-;

[Stellar Colonies]

What is a TERF or a SWERF? Do either of those categories apply to my stance?

A SWERF is someone who wants to abolish prostitution by punishing buyers of women's bodies.
Do you agree with this stance?

So SWERFs are fine with male sex work?

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

A SWERF is someone who wants to abolish prostitution by punishing buyers of women's bodies.
Do you agree with this stance?

So SWERFs are fine with male sex work?

i think they forget/refuse to acknowledge that it's a thing, or they don't think men are victimized when doing the same things they think are victimizing women. we love a nice double standard.

[Ostroeuropa]

In what way are men not sexually liberated? Are we imposing virginity test on y'all? Do y'all have to be occupied by a female relative at all times to prevent you from sneaking off to have conjugal relations? Do y'all lack access to contraception? Do y'all face socially ubiquitous slut-shaming whenever you decide to express your sexuality or behave promiscuously? With regard to problems, you keep point to women engaging in hypergamy. I'm just going to point out that women engaged in that behavior before. It's not a novel development. What's changed is how this is expressed.

This is a gynocentric perception of what liberation would entail. You've asked "In what way are men not liberated" and then defined liberation around womens experiences. That's the kind of perception that has led to a lack of mens sexual liberation.

I have most often observed incel as a self-applied label for men suffering from social alienation and loneliness - which have become more common of late. This extends, quite prominently I might add, to a notable lack of strong and sustained male friendships. And not all men who suffer from these things take the approach of blaming women for their troubles. I've talked to several of these people. Guess how many have actually asked out more than one woman in a year? Guess how many have a single male friend IRL? Blaming women for incels is taking the easy way out and misdiagnosing the problem.

Which movement was it again that actively set out to undermine and eliminate male spaces where they form bonds and *still* characterizes all male environments as sinister?
I mean the mythopoetic section of the mens movement pointed this out when they originally coined their conception of toxic masculinity and noted it arises from a lack of masculine spaces.

It wasn't men who created this situation.

What?

You're arguing men are sexually liberated while ignoring that they are compelled into sexuality. If we were to react to calls for womens sexual liberation with "Okay, marriage is now over and men can just rape any woman they come across. There, now you're not confined to a single sexual relationship, you're liberated." that would be the same kind of error you're making here, just taken to the extreme.

Men are compelled into sexual activity. There's that study showing a majority of college age men have this experience for instance.

What do you mean by reproductive rights? Because that can be interpreted as men's sexual liberation requiring women to grant men control over our bodies. I take it this a gripe about how courts tend to stereotype men as not be caretakers - if I'm being charitable about the statement? That's true, but I consider that to have more to do with familial rights than sexual liberation.

Legal parental surrender. It's another reason men are not sexually liberated.

You think cat-calling is a legitimate expression of sexuality, huh?

Sure, it can be.

Would you like to hear about the first time I got cat-called and about how it made me feel? I was thirteen years old. I've never dated anybody. I'd never even kissed a boy. A group of three older boys started following me as I walked home alone. They were probably seventeen or eighteen. They whistled at me and taunted me. It scared me so bad that I pulled out my cell phone and called my mom. Then they laughed because they found it funny that they'd freaked out a thirteen year old.

This one time, a woman complimented my appearance, but she was just mocking me and wasn't sincere. It was an upsetting experience. Therefore, compliments by women are evil and not legitimate expressions of sexuality in all cases.

Seriously, this argument is unbelievably asinine. Men's sexual liberation shouldn't extend to making women and girls actively feel unsafe

.

That entirely depends on whether the women are feeling unsafe because they've consumed propoganda, or because the men are behaving in a way that is actually threatening. Men are not obliged to restrict their behavior on the basis of whatever frenzy of paranoia women have whipped themselves into. This is the thing, you're axiomatically acting like womens feelings are valid.
They often aren't and are an expression of their prejudice against men.

And, as you well know from our previous conversation, most women were first cat-called when they were as young as twelve or thirteen.

See above.

How about another example, one that a male friend and his girlfriend experienced? They were around sixteen and a much older man, probably in his thirties or forties, began staring at my friend's girlfriend. He shouted "nice ass" from a little ways off. They both felt uncomfortable, they both felt unsafe. Do you still think we should accept cat-calling as a legitimate expression of sexuality?

Why unsafe? This is the crux of the issue here. Stop blaming men and trying to regulate them because women hate and fear them. Regulate yourselves instead.

See above. "I can't say gross things to women and girls anymore so I'm oppressed" is terrible logic.

"Male sexuality is gross and therefore we should stop it being expressed, but i'm nothing like the people who throw tantrums about gays kissing in public.".

I mean... men used to receive sole custody of children in the early modern period. Any more balanced approach to child custody was going to be disadvantageous to men. And, thus far, that's really the one valid point you've raised since I see no point in entertaining the notion that cat-calling isn't rapey and inappropriate.

Men expressing their sexuality is rapey and inappropriate, gotcha. You still haven't actually articulated why beyond the fact you don't like it, when that's exactly the point i'm getting at with how we haven't put in the work to change culture so mens sexuality is more accepted.

Men have almost never had the same stigma when it comes to having sex. They do have a stigma when it comes to refusing sex, and that should absolutely be brought up more. Because it's a persistent rape myth that women tell about men - they always consent to sex.

And hence, compelled speech is not the same as free speech. The feminist sexual liberation is akin to; "We're legalizing protestantism, so it's freedom of religion. By the way, you *have* to be protestant".
Men are not sexually liberated because they lack the social capital to decline safely. Again, it's a gynocentric perspective on what liberation means.

Two or three of these are valid. The rest are garbage takes.

See above, but if you're conceded two or three then you know men aren't actually sexually liberated.

We call that sexual harassment and, having experienced it, I can corroborrate that it's remarkably unpleasant and probably shouldn't happen.

Why not? Try and actually justify why men expressing their sexuality verbally should be curtailed without behaving like womens dislike and contempt for that sexuality being a good enough reason. I'm sure you're about to try and argue something akin to "Well homophobes really struggle in workplaces around gay people and they need careers, so don't ask dont' tell.".

The problem is that feminism is gynocentrism. You approached this issue from the idea that women were automatically in the right and men had to change, rather than women change.

I think you have a point about child custody, rape myths that revolve around men, and the perception of men as being sexually dangerous to children. You don't really have any other points beyond that in this conversation.

I've elaborated on the point.

I don't think you're familiar with Pakistani attitudes towards women because nobody is going to talk about the phenomena we've discussed in this manner in Pakistan itself. And monogamy isn't even obligatory as polygyny still occurs quite widely in some places.

Perhaps.

You're exaggerating the role hypergamous sexual selection plays in our society, especially when you liken women's hypergamy to the Klan's anti-Catholicism, and you're also overstating the threat it poses to social cohesion and function. It does exist but it's not nearly as pronounced or unnuanced as the people you're consulting make out.

I mean the data is all there on how it leads to polarization.

If this were the case, the average age difference in relationships would be around fifteen to twenty years instead of five to seven years. The data regarding relationships suggests that women make educated guesses about the stability of their romantic partners based on level of education, ambition, work ethic, etc. from a financial standpoint.

As I said, material prosperity isn't the only factor in hypergamy. It's about women viewing themselves as equal to men higher in status than they are.

Waiting at the finish line is a sub-optimal dating strategy.

It is however a socially advantageous one to maintain the norm that one sex has to adhere to the demands of the other and compete for doing that, while the other sex has to do basically nothing.

It's a lot more complicated. Literally, the data doesn't back up a lot of what the manosphere tries to assert because they skew and exaggerate the small portions of it that do seem to support what they have to say until it becomes a practical caricature.

Which data are you saying doesn't back it up?

I would argue that, while women being able to work was a substantial change, the current epidemic of singleness, among both young men and young women, has a good deal more to do with atomization and more generalized economic phenomena - that almost recall trends during the processes of industrialization and urbanization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The advent of feminism itself cannot adequately explain the breakdown in large communal institutions which would have facilitated the creation of social networks, friendships, and romantic relationships in previous decades.

Capitalism certainly plays an equal role in the problem sure. Feminism and gynocentrism also play a part because these sort of unjust hierarchies are socially destructive and cause these issues in a community.

See above. I don't find that to be the principal problem at all, and, in any case, women's attitudes on dating men who meet this description don't seem to have changed too much.

Can you prove it?

Source on the claim that a woman is more likely to hook up with or date someone that her friends have hooked up with or dated? Additionally, can we get controls for how this relates to men within the same broader social network who have not hooked up with or dated her friends?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 85026.html

Source?

The studies indicate this is a thing women do. There is not one that indicates men do the same.

If you don't have a lot of male friends or hobbies that allow for social engagement, the reason you're single isn't really that women are choosing not to dating you. It's that you're not talking to people or participating in society. As I alluded to before, a lot of the incels I've talked to don't even bother asking women out. You can't really blame women for social alienation of that sort, especially when a lot of the more toxic behaviors are reinforced by online peer groups. You can't date a guy you never see or never talk to.

They withdraw from society after this, not prior to it, in a sizable number of cases. And yes, women can be blamed for this social alienation given their active attempts to colonize male spaces and destroy other ones for several decades.

The primary difference is that women are far pickier about their romantic partners than men are. This likely has some evolutionary basis, but, again, we're talking about dating apps as opposed to in-person courtship and dating. The dynamics probably change quite a bit. And, as with financial hypergamy, the statistics on this seem to exaggerate women's proclivities. If we behaved strictly in this manner, eighty percent of women would not marry in a monogamous society.

They do marry, but then resent their husbands and view them negatively. This is one reason why most divorces are initiated by women. I also contest the evolutionary basis for it given the other elements I have highlighted, I think it's a result of womens in group bias.

Hypergamous behavior does occur, but it's not really as pronounced as the manosphere makes out.

It's not merely a matter of dating as i pointed out.

A more minor one.

How convenient.

Social liberalism and individualism as well.

As I said, i'm happy to say these play an equal part in the issue.

[Starblaydia]

So SWERFs are fine with male sex work?

i think they forget/refuse to acknowledge that it's a thing, or they don't think men are victimized when doing the same things they think are victimizing women. we love a nice double standard.

Wink Wonk We Like Stonks, as this writing, you have made 12 of the 16 posts on this page alone. Stop spamming.

[Auzkhia]

Which is exactly why we should legalize prostitution and protect sex workers.

We need to criminalize purchasing sex and protect sex-workers under legal provisions reserved for human trafficking.

No, we need to decriminalize sex work and give legal recourse to sex workers, who often can own themselves without pimping. How about we listen to sex workers? They want decriminalization, and yes specifically that word rather than legalization, there is a slight difference, but it matters with sexual activity and laws. Legalization still would have activity criminalized that is outside the parameters that the state sets.

Gender=/=Sex.

based

My sex is also female. I am certainly not male, I wasn't truly that, only mistaken for that. My gender is non-binary woman, agender, and queer.

[Cordel One]

Which is exactly why we should legalize prostitution and protect sex workers.

We need to criminalize purchasing sex and protect sex-workers under legal provisions reserved for human trafficking.

That leaves pimps around.

[Adamede]

It's interesting how often Radfems and Conservative Christians agree, especially on issues related to gender and sexuality.

for a second i thought this said "republicans and conservative Christians" and was like yeah??? they're the same. but then i remembered how to read.

Just so you know both of the main American political parties are of the big tent variety.

[The New California Republic]

We need to criminalize purchasing sex and protect sex-workers under legal provisions reserved for human trafficking.

That leaves pimps around.

Or the sex workers could form cooperatives.

[The Blaatschapen]

That leaves pimps around.

Or the sex workers could form cooperatives.

Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.

[The New California Republic]

Or the sex workers could form cooperatives.

Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.

After seeing the way drag queens fought against police tyranny at Stonewall, then I'm inclined to believe that anyone and everyone can organise and fight their corner (pun intended) if needs be.

[Ostroeuropa]

Full reply now up Fahran.

[Fahran]

"new" vs. contemporary. dunno why it's called new when it's just repackaged old sexism for Modern Christian Women^TM.

It's actually a reconceptualization of the roles of women within the broader Catholic paradigm, perhaps with some assertions regarding the less positive impacts of modernity on women. I'm not keen on the idea since it still puts women on pedestals, but I see no harm on praising wives and mothers as much as doctors and lawyers. I do think you're likely to fall into the same issue as hijabis though at times - where there is de facto social pressure to adhere to a more traditional role.