The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Kowani]

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.

Yeah
It’s almost like the realization that the struggles of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, to say nothing of class, interacted with gender and sex in their own nuanced ways required society to be able to accept the perspectives of all those marginalized groups and allowed them to contribute to the larger societal conversation
No, that couldn’t be a factor in the slightest
It’s just a feminist conspiracy drag down men

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.

We are all oppressed under capitalism:^)

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Yeah
It’s almost like the realization that the struggles of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, to say nothing of class, interacted with gender and sex in their own nuanced ways required society to be able to accept the perspectives of all those marginalized groups and allowed them to contribute to the larger societal conversation
No, that couldn’t be a factor in the slightest
It’s just a feminist conspiracy drag down men

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


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


yes, yes, yes, and NO.

We are all oppressed under capitalism:^)

I think you're giving too much credit to intersectionalism. It has been my experience that intersectionalism adopted the oppressor-oppressed dynamic still even while acknowledging the complicated intersection of those things, hence statements like "One can be oppressor along one axis and oppressed along another".

It was only far more recently when women became unable to convincingly argue they were oppressed and seemed in danger of being classed as oppressor that they "Indicated by some lofty pronouncement that the time for conversation suddenly passed" and it all devolved into a vague mess of "We're all in this together.". (Which, conveniently, allowed them to "Just focus on our issues" and retain the status quo of mens issues being ignored anyway).

Well, in my opinion, if it was good for the gander...

We also don't seem all that interested in examining what harm treating men as an oppressor for decades has done and what responsibility some organizations and individuals might have for that and whether there should be compensation and so on.

So no, I'm not convinced. I think it's largely a rationalization made to justify continuing gynocentrism. I'd take it more seriously if they took it more seriously instead of using it as a way to avoid thinking about things like "What might this say about what we have done and how we should make up for it".

[Cordel One]

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


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


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?

Would you like me to bring up sexual harassment/assault statistics? They'd paint a very diferent picture. Oh, and it's easier for me to get a ot of high-end jobs. Do you ever wonder why almost all the billionaires are men? There are disadvantages to being a man, but screaming about how we're the REAL victims and women are the priveleged ones is just dumb.

[Kowani]

Yeah
It’s almost like the realization that the struggles of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, to say nothing of class, interacted with gender and sex in their own nuanced ways required society to be able to accept the perspectives of all those marginalized groups and allowed them to contribute to the larger societal conversation
No, that couldn’t be a factor in the slightest
It’s just a feminist conspiracy drag down men


We are all oppressed under capitalism:^)

I think you're giving too much credit to intersectionalism. It has been my experience that intersectionalism adopted the oppressor-oppressed dynamic still even while acknowledging the complicated intersection of those things, hence statements like "One can be oppressor along one axis and oppressed along another".

I mean, that’s not technically wrong, but it’s mostly used to dismiss genuine struggles that men (usually poor white men) go through, so I’m not in favour of it as a general rule.

It was only far more recently when women became unable to convincingly argue they were oppressed and seemed in danger of being classed as oppressor that they "Indicated by some lofty pronouncement that the time for conversation suddenly passed" and it all devolved into a vague mess of "We're all in this together.".

Well, in my opinion, if it was good for the gander...

Yeah I have no clue what you’re talking about
When did this happen?

[Fahran]

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.

The dominance of women in fields such as teaching, nursing, and childcare has a good deal more to do with limitations on the career opportunities available to women who didn't want to be homemakers and the manner in which we socialize girls than a nefarious campaign to demonize men and portray them as predatory. Beyond that, the association of men with criminality, danger, and unbridled sexuality does not originate among feminists. It's yet another manifestation of the agent-object dynamic and a lot of it is probably tied to the onus placed on women being chaste rather than on men being chaste. I'm not going to assert that some feminists haven't participated in sweeping generalizations of men or that enough has been to deconstruct these prejudices and stereotypes, but you're overplaying the hand a little bit here.

And characterizing gynocentrism is similar.

Do women, as a whole or as a sub-unit, control positions of political and economic power in our society? If not, gynocentrism is probably better characterized as a system of values that perpetuates the social privileges and legal protections of women at the expense of men. Actually, why not define precisely what you mean by the term in a couple sentences, two or three let's say?

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.

Not at all.

"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.

How does telling men they shouldn't sexually harass little girls because it's morally reprehensible, predatory, and makes children feel uncomfortable constitute psychological damage to men or societal damage? How is it equivalent to destroying an orphanage?

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

It was a joke. I've probably shilled more for men's rights than any woman in this thread and it hasn't simply been when you've called me out for ignoring them. It's been repeated and sustained because I care about men and boys as much as I care about women and girls.

In isolation no. But that's the problem isn't it.

There's a but... Okay.

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.

Elaborate on the harm done to society by women owning property and not being financially dependent on their fathers, husbands, or sons.

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?

I've never argued that anything is solely justified by "equality." I also never denied that misandry exists. I'm asking you to highlight your point of view on this specific issue. How has women owning property been bad for society? And did women owning property make the social dysfunction in question inevitable or substantially more likely? Lastly, what were the ethical concerns wrapped up in all that?

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.

Feminism is a lot of different things. That's why I'm so hesitant to countenance arguments that treat it as a single hegemonic thing.

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.

I mean... there are ethical objections one could raise to it, especially with regard to male victims of sexual violence. It may be socially advantageous, but it is also unjust.

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.

The ability to work and own property does tend to make that less of a hassle. Remember, women couldn't reliably do either of those things in a lot places historically.

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.

Why do men need women?

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 can all vote. We can all own property. We can all work. Those are three of the big things feminists wanted and we managed to produce those. That things have not been impeccable and that other problems have arisen or persisted is not a reason to decry the gains that have been made. It's a reason to work towards more gains, not only for women, but also for men.

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.

What does your ideal society look like in terms of gender relations exactly?

[Kowani]

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?

Would you like me to bring up sexual harassment/assault statistics? They'd paint a very diferent picture. Oh, and it's easier for me to get a ot of high-end jobs. Do you ever wonder why almost all the billionaires are men? There are disadvantages to being a man, but screaming about how we're the REAL victims and women are the priveleged ones is just dumb.

Oh no
This will not end well

[Saiwania]

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?

It arguably shouldn't be stopped so long as the people in question are 18+ and they're not opposed to the attentions. But I don't know if cat calling ever works to be honest. If its very ineffective more often than not, then I'm inclined to want it just not be done anymore. I trust that most people could or should handle themselves in that they don't need any extra protections in regards to social interactions if they're not a minor in their society. If they need to reject someone, they should do so.

So far as I'm concerned, I don't care about age so long as the person is 18+ in age and if the person in question has enough in common in terms of lifestyle or phase in life. There is the occasional young person who's an old soul and is into older stuff but more often than not, no more than a 20 year age gap works best, but I find that its more of a suggestion than any hard limit.

Men want a younger woman if they're more open to having biological children some day but don't want too narrow of a time frame to actually get that done. Plus there is the whole aspect of men just liking physical beauty more so than women. Most men who're old geezers can't pull off a relationship with a younger woman without being something like a sugar daddy, but the point is that there are some who have enough game to be able to do so anyways, or they're just rich like Donald Trump.

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

Would you like me to bring up sexual harassment/assault statistics? They'd paint a very diferent picture. Oh, and it's easier for me to get a ot of high-end jobs. Do you ever wonder why almost all the billionaires are men? There are disadvantages to being a man, but screaming about how we're the REAL victims and women are the priveleged ones is just dumb.

By all means, grab the stats.
That's a specific form of violence. is there a reason you feel the need to single out that form of violence? (one incidentally, that is not as one-sided as you might like to think.). Can singling out that form of violence be justified?

It is not in fact easier for you to get high end jobs. You're simply more likely to because women are free to pursue work-life balance in ways men are not, something which is almost universally seen as more desirable by both sexes. The minority of women who are workaholics and eschew a home life can get promoted more easily than men due to a desire to privilege women, but men are in general forced to act as workaholics and thus have more hours on the job and so on and a lack of ability to pursue a home life.

It's also a curious examination of what "privilege" means for you to argue that a man working all day is privileged when his wife works part time or stays at home, when the woman is free to choose to do either, and the man is pressued into working. Does it impact womens quality of life for this to be the case? Do you know what "Household income" means?

How about this; Men have to work almost twice as many hours as women to achieve the same household income.

This is an example of how feminism convinces people to frame female privilege as secretly being the oppression of women. It's nonsense.

[Fahran]

We are all oppressed under capitalism:^)

Oh, wow. I want to be oppressed now.

[Kowani]

We are all oppressed under capitalism:^)

Oh, wow. I want to be oppressed now.

-_-

See this
This is why you get bullied

[Galloism]

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?

Would you like me to bring up sexual harassment/assault statistics? They'd paint a very diferent picture. Oh, and it's easier for me to get a ot of high-end jobs. Do you ever wonder why almost all the billionaires are men? There are disadvantages to being a man, but screaming about how we're the REAL victims and women are the priveleged ones is just dumb.

I’d suggest if you bring up those statistics you absolutely bring your A game, because a lot of those statistics extremely cook the books when you start looking at the methodology behind them (which I have).

Namely: the statistics on sexual assault and harassment largely suggest that the oppression of men in these areas is so very obscene and omnipresent, that even statistically we take steps to hide that oppression and call it activism.

[Albrenia]

Not to sound like an Accursed Centrist again, but doesn't it rather look like men and women both suffer from various forms of sexism? I don't buy the 'Patriarchy' any more than I do the idea that women are the source of all evil.

[Galloism]

Not to sound like an Accursed Centrist again, but doesn't it rather look like men and women both suffer from various forms of sexism? I don't buy the 'Patriarchy' any more than I do the idea that women are the source of all evil.

Nuance is cheating.

[Ostroeuropa]

The dominance of women in fields such as teaching, nursing, and childcare has a good deal more to do with limitations on the career opportunities available to women who didn't want to be homemakers and the manner in which we socialize girls than a nefarious campaign to demonize men and portray them as predatory. Beyond that, the association of men with criminality, danger, and unbridled sexuality does not originate among feminists. It's yet another manifestation of the agent-object dynamic and a lot of it is probably tied to the onus placed on women being chaste rather than on men being chaste. I'm not going to assert that some feminists haven't participated in sweeping generalizations of men or that enough has been to deconstruct these prejudices and stereotypes, but you're overplaying the hand a little bit here.

That's a fine assertion. It doesn't match what men report about it though does it. Are you sure you're not engaged in repeating rationalizations that other feminists came up with?
Male childcarers and teachers report a high degree of suspicion and mistreatment by parents and colleagues. Are you going to say that has nothing to do with it and it's "A good deal more to do with x"? Do you have proof of that, or is it that that is simply where you'd rather place the focus?

The notion of men being a danger to children of their own society, ESPECIALLY men in positions like teaching, pretty much does originate with feminists. For gods sake, when the NHS was founded there was a serial killer doctor and people just outright refused to comprehend it because he was a professional and professionals didn't do that kind of thing, they were upright members of society and blah blah. So it goes with teachers. The notion that a teacher could be a sexual threat to their students was practically unheard of. They're *professionals* you see. Good upper middle class lads.

Do women, as a whole or as a sub-unit, control positions of political and economic power in our society?

Certainly.
As i've pointed out before, there are no billionaires in the senate. And yet.

When you examine lobbying groups and groups consulted on legislation, feminist organizations hold a huge degree of sway. They're also highly influential in media, academia, and so on.

If not, gynocentrism is probably better characterized as a system of values that perpetuates the social privileges and legal protections of women at the expense of men

.
Pretty much. But it's also about focusing on women while ignoring men and/or justifying things while engaging in that, or suggesting that if something is good for women, it must be good, and so on. It has some common manifestations which are easy to spot.

How does telling men they shouldn't sexually harass little girls because it's morally reprehensible, predatory, and makes children feel uncomfortable constitute psychological damage to men or societal damage? How is it equivalent to destroying an orphanage?

This is not actually what feminism has done on the matter though is it. Rather, it has suggested that this behavior is tied into the male psyche and masculinity and so on, and how male sexuality is about dominance of this kind and so on and so on. I've already shown you the damage this does to even male feminists to be subjected to this kind of constant psychological abuse. You are ignoring the actual ideology behind their handling of the issue and rhetoric. I don't object to telling men they shouldn't sexually harass girls. I object to feminist ideology and conceptions of this issue and why it happens and so on.

If feminists could all agree to just keep their shit to "This is bad, I don't like it" like you're pretending was done on this issue without trying to pathologize men and come up with grand conspiracies about them then it would be far less damaging to society. But that simply isn't what feminism is in practice. You are engaged in a motte and bailey argument here, though I'd wager you didn't intend to be.

"Why has the klans rhetoric been bad? Surely you don't object to them telling black people they shouldn't rape white people.".

I mean they do say that, yes. You might be hearing that even, if you're not the target of the rest of what they say and how they say it and what they say about black people and rape.

But I assure you, that is not what black people hear.

It's actually pretty revealing that THIS is how you parse feminist messages to men on this topic, and not the, you know.

"They're biologically animalistic and less human and that's why they do the rapin', kleetus, and it's why our here underminin of due process is justified and what they deserve" *snorts and spits*.

Elaborate on the harm done to society by women owning property and not being financially dependent on their fathers, husbands, or sons.

Because men are still in the position where they are expected to obtain partners and so on or face societal consequences, but society is no longer structured to facilitate it to the extent it was, as one example. For another, by making women independent without simultaneously working to make men independent, it drastically shifted power dynamics in relationships and broader society. Consider as well that a man without a job will become homeless. A woman without a job will become a housewife. Unless you're at full employment, more societal harm is done by employing a woman than employing a man. This is a consequence of the lack of mens liberation alongside womens.

As I said in my comparison, what feminism did was equivalent to women being in an arrangement with men to split the rent on a house, and then bolting without notice, leaving the man spiralling into debt. Then the woman turns around and says "But I have my own house, and that's a thing I should be allowed to do.".

That is not the point. The manner in which you have gone about this arising from your total lack of consideration for other people was highly destructive, lacking empathy, and selfish. It arose from the ideological theory of feminism and pervades it, and that itself was merely a reflection of womens own flaws and prejudices which we are only now beginning to understand, confront, and demand be changed.

In any reasonable society it should be entirely uncontroversial to say that these changes should only have been undertaken when the damage they would cause men was accounted for and alleviated by addressing mens issues alongside them.

"Women should have a job" Alongside "We shouldn't treat men who don't have a job like subhumans.".

The alternative was a worsening of society and its wellbeing, but it worked out for women, so it must be good, right?

I've never argued that anything is solely justified by "equality." I also never denied that misandry exists. I'm asking you to highlight your point of view on this specific issue. How has women owning property been bad for society? And did women owning property make the social dysfunction in question inevitable or substantially more likely? Lastly, what were the ethical concerns wrapped up in all that?

Women owning property is not in itself the problem. The problem was the way that measure was conceived of and implemented, and how that problem arose due to gynocentrism and a lack of consideration for mens wellbeing *despite men pointing all of this out at the time*.

Feminism is a lot of different things. That's why I'm so hesitant to countenance arguments that treat it as a single hegemonic thing.

Discussing it as a societal phenomanae is something that has to be undertaken and attempted.

I mean... there are ethical objections one could raise to it, especially with regard to male victims of sexual violence. It may be socially advantageous, but it is also unjust.

*shrug*

Why do men need women?

A sizable number of men are unable to take care of themselves or perform household tasks.

We can all vote. We can all own property. We can all work. Those are three of the big things feminists wanted and we managed to produce those.

See above.

That things have not been impeccable and that other problems have arisen or persisted is not a reason to decry the gains that have been made. It's a reason to work towards more gains, not only for women, but also for men.

Why should those gains be done under the name of a movement that has harmed men and demonized them and so on? Don't you think part of taking mens experiences and pain seriously must necessitate an acknowledgement that feminism has been a major source of it and should not be considered a positive thing in a modern society regardless of whether it was good for women or not?

What does your ideal society look like in terms of gender relations exactly?

Total equality.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Not to sound like an Accursed Centrist again, but doesn't it rather look like men and women both suffer from various forms of sexism? I don't buy the 'Patriarchy' any more than I do the idea that women are the source of all evil.

Unlike racism, no one is free under sexism. In the bad old days, society was strict and puritanical toward men and women and there was no escape.

Often times people say "calling someone a bitch is sexist cause you're calling them a woman and suggesting women are inferior," but when I was a kid we often used the opposite insult against a girl and called her a man. It wasn't about one gender being inferior to another, it was basically the toxic gender roles coming into play and us saying "you don't follow our gender norms and fit the mold. You're a weirdo and you aren't welcomed here."

[Nevertopia]

women of NS, whats your position on abortion?

[Suriyanakhon]

women of NS, whats your position on abortion?

Morally acceptable until some time into the second trimester, reproductive rights are important for a civilized society.

As a disclaimer, I personally can't have children, but I think it's important for women to defend each other's rights.

[Giovenith]

women of NS, whats your position on abortion?

It's pretty awesome.

[Stellar Colonies]

Well. This has been an interesting dozen pages.

Also, crimes such as rape, domestic abuse, and sexual harassment are gender neutral in terms of both perpetrator and victim and should be socially and legally regarded as such, universally.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Not to sound like an Accursed Centrist again, but doesn't it rather look like men and women both suffer from various forms of sexism? I don't buy the 'Patriarchy' any more than I do the idea that women are the source of all evil.

Well, yeah. Whether you call it patriarchy, traditionalism, capitalism or good old fashioned alienation, men and women are both suffering because of it.

Whilst I am also not a fan of seeing patriarchy as a singular entity of a few old white men who rule the world, the idea of there being a system that both puts men on a pedestal and views them as disposable is valid.

Feminism's got your back, just maybe not radfems.

[Vassenor]

Not to sound like an Accursed Centrist again, but doesn't it rather look like men and women both suffer from various forms of sexism? I don't buy the 'Patriarchy' any more than I do the idea that women are the source of all evil.

Well, yeah. Whether you call it patriarchy, traditionalism, capitalism or good old fashioned alienation, men and women are both suffering because of it.

Whilst I am also not a fan of seeing patriarchy as a singular entity of a few old white men who rule the world, the idea of there being a system that both puts men on a pedestal and views them as disposable is valid.

Feminism's got your back, just maybe not radfems.

Mostly because a fair chunk of radfems let themselves become tools of said system to the point where it's debatable if they can even really be classed as radfems any more.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Well, yeah. Whether you call it patriarchy, traditionalism, capitalism or good old fashioned alienation, men and women are both suffering because of it.

Whilst I am also not a fan of seeing patriarchy as a singular entity of a few old white men who rule the world, the idea of there being a system that both puts men on a pedestal and views them as disposable is valid.

Feminism's got your back, just maybe not radfems.

Mostly because a fair chunk of radfems let themselves become tools of said system to the point where it's debatable if they can even really be classed as radfems any more.

The term is outdated. TERFs, for example, often include conservatives who are opposed to feminism and happen to hate trans people. RadFems are like tankies.

[Sundiata]

Mostly because a fair chunk of radfems let themselves become tools of said system to the point where it's debatable if they can even really be classed as radfems any more.

The term is outdated. TERFs, for example, often include conservatives who are opposed to feminism and happen to hate trans people. RadFems are like tankies.

I wouldn't consider New Feminism a form of radical feminism, for instance. It's way more moderate.

[Vassenor]

Mostly because a fair chunk of radfems let themselves become tools of said system to the point where it's debatable if they can even really be classed as radfems any more.

The term is outdated. TERFs, for example, often include conservatives who are opposed to feminism and happen to hate trans people. RadFems are like tankies.

Yes, that's why I prefer to use the term Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe. It's more fitting.

[Vassenor]

The term is outdated. TERFs, for example, often include conservatives who are opposed to feminism and happen to hate trans people. RadFems are like tankies.

I wouldn't consider New Feminism a form of radical feminism, for instance. It's way more moderate.

I'm still waiting for a proper explanation for how "God says your purpose is to carry and raise children and nothing else" is somehow feminism because you dress it in a few token trappings of "men and women are totally equal".