The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Fahran]

I'd like to think I wouldn't have, but I probably would have taken exception you're right.

Of course, I'm right. I have bad opinions and the world is a bad place. :^)

The examples you gave don't appear to support your point. We have transitioned from "Women do not have agency" to "Women do not have negative agency.". That is a substantially different thing with different underlying dynamics and different outcomes.

As for men and caretaking, this is not something that was normal prior to feminist attacks on fatherhood and demonization of husbands.

When you look at the stereotypes and prejudices that have been sustained, you'll observe that they closely mirror the stereotypes and prejudices that were there before. They simply haven't been deconstructed in the same manner as the ones that would deny women agency with regard to property ownership, voting, or in the workplace. Child-rearing was still associated with women in the classical and medieval period, as one will note from Catholic treatises on the feminine virtues and how nurturing we are by nature. You'll also note that among the Puritans women often weren't seen to be capable of criminality in the same way that men were, barring the very rare witch trial. As such, it's not really terribly controversial in my view to characterize these as residual prejudices and stereotypes left over from older ways of thinking. They aren't really something new as far as I can tell. Nobody is arguing for instance that men are vain and care too much for their hygiene.

There is other stuff in play sure. But individuals play a part.

The other stuff is pretty important to understanding these norms and prejudices as sociological issues.

And yet we're comfortable saying everything pre-feminism was patriarchy and has a certain set of characteristics that define it.

I mean...

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.

If we're discussing control of political and economic power, those roles are still largely filled by elite men, but, as bell hooks has pointed out, patriarchy itself may well be a misnomor given that it suggests that men as a whole control these things or that the system of values that perpetuates such control by a small group of elite men is crafted by men, as a whole or as a sub-unit, exclusively.

And yes, all of those are gynocentrism, for different reasons. Moving to the ones you'd object to; "Not wanting thirteen year old girls to get cat-called" is gynocentrism because it focuses the issue around women and their experiences and conceives of the problem from that perspective while ignoring the elements of society that impact men. The consequences of this are usually anti-male.

If preventing grown men from cat-calling teenage girls makes me anti-men, call me radfem and get me some cattle shears. How exactly does stating that we should probably not sexually harass people harm men? And I want you to reference my earlier articles across two threads pertaining to the social function of cat-calling among men when you make this argument.

So it goes for the property example and a lack of evaluation of what permitting women to own property would mean for men and how it would harm them because of expectations placed upon them that were not alleviated alongside this. Your examples list things that were *good for women* and then act like that is the same thing as *good for society*. That is gynocentrism.

Do you think women having the ability to own property was bad for society?

An example of precisely this kind of thinking would be "Oh women should get child support.". (In itself questionable, but bare with me.). Because of the lack of consideration for men, the result is "Male rape victims must pay child support.". That is the product of feminist thinking and gynocentrism.

And when feminists do begin discussing why male rape victims shouldn't have to pay child support and female rapists should go to prison does your point still apply? Because I have done that on several occasions already, as have others present in these threads.

Phrasing it as "Well I think it's a good thing that children get support and that's part of feminism" is still looking at it from a gynocentric perspective.

Children not starving or living in the streets is good for society, even if it isn't good for men.

When women were permitted to own property, how much examination of hypergamy was there? How much examination of whether women *needed* property to live comfortable lives compared to men? How much attempts to ensure that men were not negatively impacted by this change due to how their role was dependent on a certain dynamic occurred?

What if men didn't have the right to work or own property? Do you think they would be able to live independently? The answer is probably not. They would have to hope they married a woman who treated them well and had the means to provide for them.

On the women and property example; we have studies showing men are pressured to split their income and property with women.
Women are not pressured to do the same.

That is the product of that campaign that feminists undertook and their gynocentric conception of sexism.

There's also the stuff about men being pressured to obtain partners at the same rate as that time, but women no longer being pressured into being partners by economic forces.

That also is a product of feminism and has harmed men. It created that dynamic.

And again, it's the result of feminism and its childish conception of sexism and how it worked despite mens frequent objections to it.

We just want to have rights and be treated the same as men when it comes to the law, Ostro. I mean you're not really offering a good alternative here. We've talked in the past about potential solutions to these problems and the response seems to be to argue that feminism is bad and that we need to turn back the clock. You even gave a defense about marital norms in Pakistan awhile back. Come on.

[Ostroeuropa]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

[Suriyanakhon]

I have a balanced diet and a pretty rigorous exercise routine. It's good.

I'd also be willing to bet you also don't have anime size tiddies than also subscribe to anime physics which means it's impossible to find a sports bra that works and makes any form of cardio near impossible though.

I am conflicted between envy and feeling sorry for your back.

[Adamede]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

I’ve seen a lot of shit on your comments but that last part is probably the absolute fucking dumbest I’ve ever seen. It’s certainly the dumbest thing I’ve read today.

[Kowani]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

That’s…not how oppression is categorized
It’s not a binary “you have it or you don’t” thing
That’s just not how it works

[Vassenor]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

That’s…not how oppression is categorized
It’s not a binary “you have it or you don’t” thing
That’s just not how it works

But that logic doesn't make White Men the real victims and society gynocentric.

[Fahran]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

Men are more likely to experience violence. That's absolutely accurate. It's not really an expression of gynocentrism though. You have to keep in mind that a lot of the perpetrators in these violent acts, likely an extreme majority, are men. And that has been the case for centuries. It's not something that originated with feminism. The Klansmen weren't a bunch of Beckys and Sarahs roaming around the countryside planting crosses in yards. They were Teds and Bills. I do acknowledge that men have often been oppressed and treated unfairly, but I disagree with your assessment as to why and I disagree with some of the odder solutions you've proposed to the problem.

[Suriyanakhon]

And yes, all of those are gynocentrism, for different reasons. Moving to the ones you'd object to; "Not wanting thirteen year old girls to get cat-called" is gynocentrism because it focuses the issue around women and their experiences and conceives of the problem from that perspective while ignoring the elements of society that impact men. The consequences of this are usually anti-male.

If preventing grown men from cat-calling teenage girls makes me anti-men, call me radfem and get me some cattle shears. How exactly does stating that we should probably not sexually harass people harm men?

Ostro's posts read like some of the best arguments for lesbian separatism one could make.

If calling men out for pedophilia is imposing gynocentrism on them, then we should evidently do the only pacifist thing possible and leave them to themselves.

[Istoreya]

I'd also be willing to bet you also don't have anime size tiddies than also subscribe to anime physics which means it's impossible to find a sports bra that works and makes any form of cardio near impossible though.

I am conflicted between envy and feeling sorry for your back.

If I could like, donate some tiddy, I'd be more than happy

[Fahran]

Ostro's posts read like some of the best arguments for lesbian separatism one could make.

If calling men out for pedophilia is imposing gynocentrism on them, then we should evidently do the only pacifist thing possible and leave them to themselves.

But I like men.

[Suriyanakhon]

I am conflicted between envy and feeling sorry for your back.

If I could like, donate some tiddy, I'd be more than happy

It's the thought that counts, but considering I am 110 lb, it would probably break my spine. XD

[Istoreya]

If I could like, donate some tiddy, I'd be more than happy

It's the thought that counts, but considering I am 110 lb, it would probably break my spine. XD

Makes me thankful for my chub.
Fun story my mother did end up having breast reduction surgery because the doctors told her that hers probably would break her spine. so. that's neat. If it got to the point a doctor told me the same thing, I'd buck up and just deal with a hospital for the sake of my own health.

[Kowani]

If I could like, donate some tiddy, I'd be more than happy

It's the thought that counts, but considering I am 110 lb, it would probably break my spine. XD

This did not stop Batman

[Ostroeuropa]

When you look at the stereotypes and prejudices that have been sustained, you'll observe that they closely mirror the stereotypes and prejudices that were there before.

I disagree that they do. They are different in a substantial way. For instance, the notion that fathers and men are *actively a danger to children* is not something that existed pre-feminism. Men used to be most teachers and the notion that husbands were a threat to families can be directly traced to feminists cooking the books on domestic violence and launching a propoganda campaign to demonize men alongside their demonization of male sexuality driving them out of childcare professions.

They simply haven't been deconstructed in the same manner as the ones that would deny women agency with regard to property ownership, voting, or in the workplace
Child-rearing was still associated with women in the classical and medieval period, as one will note from Catholic treatises on the feminine virtues and how nurturing we are by nature.

.

As I said, it is not merely a matter of deconstructing pre-existing stereotypes. New ones have arisen.

You'll also note that among the Puritans women often weren't seen to be capable of criminality in the same way that men were, barring the very rare witch trial. As such, it's not really terribly controversial in my view to characterize these as residual prejudices and stereotypes left over from older ways of thinking. They aren't really something new as far as I can tell. Nobody is arguing for instance that men are vain and care too much for their hygiene.

See above.

I mean...


If we're discussing control of political and economic power, those roles are still largely filled by elite men, but, as bell hooks has pointed out, patriarchy itself may well be a misnomor given that it suggests that men as a whole control these things or that the system of values that perpetuates such control by a small group of elite men is crafted by men, as a whole or as a sub-unit, exclusively.

And characterizing gynocentrism is similar.

If preventing grown men from cat-calling teenage girls makes me anti-men, call me radfem and get me some cattle shears.

It entirely depends on how you go about it. Presumably you wouldn't be on board with doing so by any means necessary since that can quickly be reduced to absurdity.

"If building this hospital makes me anti-orphan, then call me scrooge.".

I mean yeah, it does. Because you're ignoring the orphans in the way and laying cement down on top of them.

The amount of discourse on the psychological and societal damage feminists have done through their campaigns against men on matters of sexuality can fill a library at this point. Again, you are appealing to gynocentrism as a justification and hoping that this in itself will be convincing.

Perhaps it is to you, but that's not exactly something you should feel comfortable being so open about in my opinion.

Do you think women having the ability to own property was bad for society?

In isolation no. But that's the problem isn't it. I'm critiquing how feminists view these things in isolation and from a gynocentric perspective and how that causes societal ills and harms men. Instead, i'd invite you to evaluate whether this reform was bad for society in terms of its overall impact on the people residing in it, and there i'd say the answer is pretty clearly that yes, it caused a lot of harm, largely because of the mindset and ideology that underpinned it and the manner it was conducted which inevitably arose from that ideology.

The response to that observation is usually to just appeal to gynocentrism again and say "Well its good for women so it must be good and you're a bad person for saying otherwise" and ignore the observation that it was negative for men and worsened their lives and wellbeing, and to treat them as though they don't matter.

Historically this was deflected by feminists and their absurd rationalizations about how misandry doesn't exist and what they were doing was justified because equality so mens lives being worsened didn't matter because the end result was equalizing. But you don't believe that, so why do you view it as justified?

"Do you think it's a bad thing we have a hospital?"
"In isolation no. But you did burn down an orphanage to build it, and I do think that matters when deciding if you should be given the key to the city or not.".

And when feminists do begin discussing why male rape victims shouldn't have to pay child support and female rapists should go to prison does your point still apply?

Heavily depends on the manner in which they do so, but this is also largely about feminisms historical rhetoric and actions and how the justification for considering feminism an equality movement rests on misandry and denial of its historic practices and flaws.

Children not starving or living in the streets is good for society.

I agree. So I guess that clears it up then, forcing male rape victims to pay child support is justified and the legislation doing that is a good thing and we shouldn't view it negatively for its complete lack of consideration for mens wellbeing.

What if men didn't have the right to work or own property? Do you think they would be able to live independently?

You don't need to go to this hypothetical. Men already struggle enormously to live independently due to the roles placed upon them and their reliance on women to perform certain tasks.

You are once again appealing to gynocentrism here. Your argument is that "Women shouldn't need men". I agree. Men shouldn't need women either.

And yet feminism created a situation where women didn't need men, but men still needed women.

Women have effectively pulled the equivalent of moving in with someone on the understanding that they will split the rent, then bolted and left that person spiraling into debt instead of staying for a while to make a mutual arrangement. It is acceptable for men to be angry at women for this, especially given the historical opposition to mens movements and the denial of the problem and so on.

You then saying "it's a good thing I have my own house now, I should be allowed to do that" is entirely missing the point.

We just want to have rights and be treated the same as men when it comes to the law, Ostro. I mean you're not really offering a good alternative here.

That's not really what feminism has produced in its actions though is it. You may want that, but if that's the case, you should have respected men enough to listen when they pointed out that that wasn't what you were doing and you were in fact privileging yourselves.

We have been pointing it out for a hundred years now.

The alternative is to accept feminism was a sexist movement, oftentimes a hate movement, and to accept that the time is for the MRM to fix the damage it has caused while marginalizing feminism and feminists from society and institutions.

Were we to go back to before feminism, a different approach could be taken, one that wasn't so relentlessly self-absorbed and gynocentrist that could have seen both sexes liberated.

Again, these mens issues and how they are being overlooked and worsened are not new and hitherto unforseen consequences. men have been pointing this out to feminists since the beginning. It's just that the sheer scale of the mess feminists have made have forced them to at least be marginally more in touch with reality than their forebears ever were.

[Suriyanakhon]

It's the thought that counts, but considering I am 110 lb, it would probably break my spine. XD

Makes me thankful for my chub.
Fun story my mother did end up having breast reduction surgery because the doctors told her that hers probably would break her spine. so. that's neat. If it got to the point a doctor told me the same thing, I'd buck up and just deal with a hospital for the sake of my own health.

I get the (playful) bulli from my GF all the time, since she can pick me up and carry me when she feels like it.

Hopefully you won't ever need to.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Makes me thankful for my chub.
Fun story my mother did end up having breast reduction surgery because the doctors told her that hers probably would break her spine. so. that's neat. If it got to the point a doctor told me the same thing, I'd buck up and just deal with a hospital for the sake of my own health.

I get the (playful) bulli from my GF all the time, since she can pick me up and carry me when she feels like it.

Hopefully you won't ever need to.

So like can you eat anything and not gain weight?

[Ostroeuropa]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

That’s…not how oppression is categorized
It’s not a binary “you have it or you don’t” thing
That’s just not how it works

It's interesting that this approach only became adopted when women were no longer able to convincingly claim to be unilaterally oppressed.

Then all of a sudden, "It's complicated.".

I'm not inclined to accept that behavior.

It seems to me to just be more post-facto rationalization to avoid a conclusion that wouldn't allow us to continue gynocentrism in our society.

[Cordel One]

The purpose of this thread is to focus on the injustices that women face because it's the feminism thread. Men's issues are separate from this, and yelling "what about me" in a thead that's not about you is ridiculous. Being a feminist doesn't mean I ignore the sociological issues and toxicity that hurt me and other men, it means I acknowledge the injustices that women experience and want to see it change as it's absolutely horrible.

It's very hypocritical of you to accuse others of self-absorption in this light. Calm down with the victim complex, ok?

As a point of order, we do discuss men's issues in this thread. The wonderful original post written up by Gio even goes so far as to include a list of men's resources alongside a list of women's resources. Given feminism purports to support gender equality, even if I prefer to frame it in terms of the elevation/uplifting of persons, I don't perceive talk of men's rights or critiques of feminism as incompatible with the purposes of this thread. I disagree with Ostro's arguments on the topic in question, but that's a different matter altogether.

You're right, though I think most of my argument still does stand.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

That’s…not how oppression is categorized
It’s not a binary “you have it or you don’t” thing
That’s just not how it works

I wouldn't say women are oppressed, at least not by the government. I would argue impoverished minorities are.

[Suriyanakhon]

I get the (playful) bulli from my GF all the time, since she can pick me up and carry me when she feels like it.

Hopefully you won't ever need to.

So like can you eat anything and not gain weight?

Yes, not that I'm usually that hungry. I actually dropped 5 lb after going on HRT, despite going up a cup size.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So like can you eat anything and not gain weight?

Yes, not that I'm usually that hungry. I actually dropped 5 lb after going on HRT, despite going up a cup size.

I wish I could. I currently weigh 148 but if I were to start eating whatever I felt like eating, I'd probably balloon up to anywhere between 180 and 200.

[Istoreya]

Makes me thankful for my chub.
Fun story my mother did end up having breast reduction surgery because the doctors told her that hers probably would break her spine. so. that's neat. If it got to the point a doctor told me the same thing, I'd buck up and just deal with a hospital for the sake of my own health.

I get the (playful) bulli from my GF all the time, since she can pick me up and carry me when she feels like it.

Hopefully you won't ever need to.

Despite my weight, my boyfriend can pick me up too. Or he would be able to if I didn't wriggle and scream about how I'm too heavy and he'd hurt himself every time he did.

And thank you

[Cordel One]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

It's almost like there are many factors at play beyond hate crimes.

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

Being a woman or anything else also worsens societal prejudice in many ways.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

yes, yes, yes, and NO.

[Ostroeuropa]

Racial hate crimes?
Men are 72% of victims.

Religious hate crimes?
61% of victims.

Sexuality hate crimes?
80% of victims.

Other hate crimes?
63% of victims.

(Other -> Disability, language, occupation).

It's almost like there are many factors at play beyond hate crimes.

Being poor worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a racial minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a sexual minority worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.
Being a man worsens other forms of societal prejudice against you.

Being a woman or anything else also worsens societal prejudice in many ways.

The rich are not oppressed.
White people are not oppressed.
Straight people are not oppressed.
Women are not oppressed.

yes, yes, yes, and NO.

It doesn't appear to worsen societal prejudice from other factors. This is not merely me claiming it, it's been studied. Any other vector of societal disadvantage you care to examine, will impact boys and men more harshly than women. Male minorities, disabilities, unemployment, poverty, etc.

Cumulative disadvantage is something we've known about a long time.
"Being poor and disabled fucks you over a lot more than being disabled OR poor".
And we find that being a man? Lines up exactly with that.

Yet for some reason, we're in denial over being a man being a disadvantage. We wouldn't behave that way about poverty, disability, or race.

On what basis do you say no to the last one given that?

[Suriyanakhon]

It's the thought that counts, but considering I am 110 lb, it would probably break my spine. XD

This did not stop Batman

I....

Didn't read that chapter of Batman and Robin. Kind of wish I did now.