The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Galloism]

We only really have the one TERF that regularly posts here. And you're not likely to get a response from her. Maybe she'll prove me wrong though (@Chessmistress)

As far as i know, you are wrong i have talked to her. So my question will go unanswered. She is moderate. Not Proudly TERF. I talked to her and she knows so i dont know what to do.

Chess is moderate like Ted Cruz is moderate.

[Philjia]

That's fraud, which is quite different. I'm talking about people like Germaine Greer and her ilk, who do not regard trans people as women.

Nope.
If you accept the idea that it's enough to "identify as a woman" for "being a woman" then that isn't "a fraud": that's simply the practical application of the idea, I love when extreme intersectionalists are confronted with the practical otucome of the full aplpication of their ideas.
I personally reject this extremist idea, just like I reject the other extreme side (those saying that even after a full transition a male would be still a male).

I'd much rather give people the benefit of the doubt.

As far as i know, you are wrong i have talked to her. So my question will go unanswered. She is moderate. Not Proudly TERF. I talked to her and she knows so i dont know what to do.

Chess is moderate like Ted Cruz is moderate.

Judging by the sig of the other person, if Chess is Cruz, Gabriella is Darrell Castle.

[GabrieIa]

Nope.
If you accept the idea that it's enough to "identify as a woman" for "being a woman" then that isn't "a fraud": that's simply the practical application of the idea, I love when extreme intersectionalists are confronted with the practical otucome of the full aplpication of their ideas.
I personally reject this extremist idea, just like I reject the other extreme side (those saying that even after a full transition a male would be still a male).

I'd much rather give people the benefit of the doubt.

Chess is moderate like Ted Cruz is moderate.

Judging by the sig of the other person, if Chess is Cruz, Gabriella is Darrell Castle.

I am

[New Edom]

I wrote a response, I don't know what happened to it.

Anyway: some things women do that undermine consent are things which are only seen as okay because they are women. Touching people, making sexual remarks etc are rarely discussed in feminist circles in the same light as similar actions by men are. So for instance if a woman starts talking openly about her sexuality in a flirtatious way on a show or in a movie, it is empowering according to how many feminist reviewers talk about it. If she and other women ogle a man and objectify him, that's okay. It's not okay if men do it according to them. It's a double standard.

Flashback, I know, but I've been away so please indulge me.

First, thank you for your response

Second, how does any of this "undermine consent"? What does that even mean? Is my consent worth more or less if I've ever made a public sexual remark? What exactly does the fact that I've touched other people mean for my consent to sexual acts (or lack thereof)? What bearing does it have on my consent to engage in sexual acts with other people? If I say 'yes' to sex, how is that agreement undermined by anything I've said or done before?

I'm referring to the fact that some feminists write and speak as though it is only men who initiate unwanted sexual comments or actions. So for example they will write as though it is harassment for a man to check out their rack or butt or something, but a man subjected to the same thing is not of any concern.

This discussion in feminist allies
Lindy West saying that patriarchy theory is why women ogling men is not an issue
article stating that objectification of men is not the same
Everyday feminism approach to men approaching women

So really, in the university's code of conduct, I read it to be a feminist code of conduct that is focused on dealing with perceived problems with male behaviour.

It's POSSIBLE that I'm being oversensitive about this. After all, I was subjected to years of physical and sexual abuse by a woman. I don't see women as being harmless creatures. So it's a personal issue for me; I see a continuing lack of analysis of evil female behaviour on the part of feminists.

Yet in those articles above, it's clearly not about how someone feels if they are objectified, it's not about what happens as a result--it's about patriarchy theory and how women are oppressed, so it means more when it happens to women. Women who are treated abusively by other women, children and men who are treated so by women are not acknowledged.

So since I see in normal television shows and movies how it's clearly okay for women to do this to men, and how when this is pointed out the response is "that's different"...that's why I have a problem with it. Either it focuses on fairness for everyone or feminists need to be honest and admit that they want special treatment for women.

[Gravlen]

Flashback, I know, but I've been away so please indulge me.

First, thank you for your response

Second, how does any of this "undermine consent"? What does that even mean? Is my consent worth more or less if I've ever made a public sexual remark? What exactly does the fact that I've touched other people mean for my consent to sexual acts (or lack thereof)? What bearing does it have on my consent to engage in sexual acts with other people? If I say 'yes' to sex, how is that agreement undermined by anything I've said or done before?

I'm referring to the fact that some feminists write and speak as though it is only men who initiate unwanted sexual comments or actions. So for example they will write as though it is harassment for a man to check out their rack or butt or something, but a man subjected to the same thing is not of any concern.

This discussion in feminist allies
Lindy West saying that patriarchy theory is why women ogling men is not an issue
article stating that objectification of men is not the same
Everyday feminism approach to men approaching women

So really, in the university's code of conduct, I read it to be a feminist code of conduct that is focused on dealing with perceived problems with male behaviour.

It's POSSIBLE that I'm being oversensitive about this. After all, I was subjected to years of physical and sexual abuse by a woman. I don't see women as being harmless creatures. So it's a personal issue for me; I see a continuing lack of analysis of evil female behaviour on the part of feminists.

Yet in those articles above, it's clearly not about how someone feels if they are objectified, it's not about what happens as a result--it's about patriarchy theory and how women are oppressed, so it means more when it happens to women. Women who are treated abusively by other women, children and men who are treated so by women are not acknowledged.

So since I see in normal television shows and movies how it's clearly okay for women to do this to men, and how when this is pointed out the response is "that's different"...that's why I have a problem with it. Either it focuses on fairness for everyone or feminists need to be honest and admit that they want special treatment for women.

You've said a lot of this before, and I think I follow you... but only so far. I still don't see how this relates to consent in any way, let alone undermines it. I simply don't understand what you mean when you say that.

[Costa Fierro]

Thats not my experience at all in how feminists a address these issues.

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

[Gravlen]

Thats not my experience at all in how feminists a address these issues.

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

*sigh*

[Philjia]

Thats not my experience at all in how feminists a address these issues.

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

They're not actually moustache twirling villains. They're woefully misguided firebrands.

[Costa Fierro]

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

*sigh*

I don't see what your problem is. I choose not to support a movement that is largely aimed at ensuring that I cannot be treated like a human being because I was born with a penis.

[Gravlen]

*sigh*

I don't see what your problem is. I choose not to support a movement that is largely aimed at ensuring that I cannot be treated like a human being because I was born with a penis.

Sure.

[New Edom]

I'm referring to the fact that some feminists write and speak as though it is only men who initiate unwanted sexual comments or actions. So for example they will write as though it is harassment for a man to check out their rack or butt or something, but a man subjected to the same thing is not of any concern.

This discussion in feminist allies
Lindy West saying that patriarchy theory is why women ogling men is not an issue
article stating that objectification of men is not the same
Everyday feminism approach to men approaching women

So really, in the university's code of conduct, I read it to be a feminist code of conduct that is focused on dealing with perceived problems with male behaviour.

It's POSSIBLE that I'm being oversensitive about this. After all, I was subjected to years of physical and sexual abuse by a woman. I don't see women as being harmless creatures. So it's a personal issue for me; I see a continuing lack of analysis of evil female behaviour on the part of feminists.

Yet in those articles above, it's clearly not about how someone feels if they are objectified, it's not about what happens as a result--it's about patriarchy theory and how women are oppressed, so it means more when it happens to women. Women who are treated abusively by other women, children and men who are treated so by women are not acknowledged.

So since I see in normal television shows and movies how it's clearly okay for women to do this to men, and how when this is pointed out the response is "that's different"...that's why I have a problem with it. Either it focuses on fairness for everyone or feminists need to be honest and admit that they want special treatment for women.

You've said a lot of this before, and I think I follow you... but only so far. I still don't see how this relates to consent in any way, let alone undermines it. I simply don't understand what you mean when you say that.

Well, to me what's being talked about is not really consent. Consent literally would mean that both parties consent to an exchange taking place. But if feminists are not concerned with the consent of others when THEY initiate something, then that's not really establishing consent.

There was a scene on a show that I watched with a girlfriend where two female characters blatantly ogle and then talk about a man's nice butt right in front of him. He's clearly embarrassed and would rather they did not. Neither woman is involved with him sexually; in fact he's invovled with someone else and so are they. Yet the only way he is depicted as being able to get them to stop--since when he asks them to they ignore him--is to leave the room. I must emphasize that the show has been praised for being feminist, that the female characters' sexual freedom is spoke of with admiration; clearly the women on the show are generally meant to be depicted as people to identify with, they're not being shown as awful people. There are many such examples I could provide from popular culture. So how does something like that respect someone's need to consent?

[Costa Fierro]

I don't see what your problem is. I choose not to support a movement that is largely aimed at ensuring that I cannot be treated like a human being because I was born with a penis.

Sure.

If you want to believe that modern feminism has your best interests at heart, be my guest.

[New Edom]

Sure.

If you want to believe that modern feminism has your best interests at heart, be my guest.

A lot of it is about money and power. The necessity for academics to keep being relevant and keep selling books and lecutres; the necessity for political figures to create a controversy so they can be champions; the necessity for celebrities to appear relevant and be mentioned in clickbait; the necessity for organizations to keep being funded; the necessity of dubious fields of study to keep being funded. This is all piggybacked by people who are just the ordinary folks. These are mostly just concerned with appearing to be moral and who know little of what the movement actually does. Equality doesn't have much to do with it.

[New Edom]

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

They're not actually moustache twirling villains. They're woefully misguided firebrands.

Universities are good training grounds for this. I've seen it. Literally the only opposition depicted to feminist ideas or policy is the unfair cruelty of patriarchy. So people get told for four years that evils in teh world are worse thant hey had ever thought and that there's only one solution to it: feminism. When people oppose themin the real world it's shocking and awful. And they are then told by feminist journalists that only ignorant or evil people disagree with what feminists say. Feminists who contradict this orthodoxy are ignorant or anti-feminist. It has been shown to be effective from the point of view of establishing ideological control and even in terms of establishing policy. Where it fails is when people dissagree and realize that they can get away with it. The issue here of course is that the systems that support feminism and the ideals behind them don't really produce anything--they're forced to control thoughts and emotional responses. That only continues as long as people think they need your approval. When that stops, they're done. This si what happened with much of the Christian Church in the West--while it reains some influence it's a lot less than what it once had. The same is going to be true for feminism.

[The Grene Knyght]

Thats not my experience at all in how feminists a address these issues.

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence at all. I have anecdotal evidence in response to a post you made giving no evidence at all. You respond to my evidence, dubious though it may be, with another claim that offers no evidence, and act like it's more valid than my claim.

[Gravlen]

You've said a lot of this before, and I think I follow you... but only so far. I still don't see how this relates to consent in any way, let alone undermines it. I simply don't understand what you mean when you say that.

Well, to me what's being talked about is not really consent. Consent literally would mean that both parties consent to an exchange taking place. But if feminists are not concerned with the consent of others when THEY initiate something, then that's not really establishing consent.

There was a scene on a show that I watched with a girlfriend where two female characters blatantly ogle and then talk about a man's nice butt right in front of him. He's clearly embarrassed and would rather they did not. Neither woman is involved with him sexually; in fact he's invovled with someone else and so are they. Yet the only way he is depicted as being able to get them to stop--since when he asks them to they ignore him--is to leave the room. I must emphasize that the show has been praised for being feminist, that the female characters' sexual freedom is spoke of with admiration; clearly the women on the show are generally meant to be depicted as people to identify with, they're not being shown as awful people. There are many such examples I could provide from popular culture. So how does something like that respect someone's need to consent?

So if I understand you right your complaint is that there are examples from popular culture where women are shown to not live up to the ideals concerning consent, and that feminists whom are talking about the importance of consent (when it comes to women) are praising such shows (even if they're failing to apply the ideal of consent to situations involving men)? Is what you're saying?

[New Edom]

Well, to me what's being talked about is not really consent. Consent literally would mean that both parties consent to an exchange taking place. But if feminists are not concerned with the consent of others when THEY initiate something, then that's not really establishing consent.

There was a scene on a show that I watched with a girlfriend where two female characters blatantly ogle and then talk about a man's nice butt right in front of him. He's clearly embarrassed and would rather they did not. Neither woman is involved with him sexually; in fact he's invovled with someone else and so are they. Yet the only way he is depicted as being able to get them to stop--since when he asks them to they ignore him--is to leave the room. I must emphasize that the show has been praised for being feminist, that the female characters' sexual freedom is spoke of with admiration; clearly the women on the show are generally meant to be depicted as people to identify with, they're not being shown as awful people. There are many such examples I could provide from popular culture. So how does something like that respect someone's need to consent?

So if I understand you right your complaint is that there are examples from popular culture where women are shown to not live up to the ideals concerning consent, and that feminists whom are talking about the importance of consent (when it comes to women) are praising such shows (even if they're failing to apply the ideal of consent to situations involving men)? Is what you're saying?

Yes, and by extension then holding men to a higher standard generally than women are being held to.

[Costa Fierro]

Well unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat. Most feminists want women to be raped because that keeps the fires of misandry going.

Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence at all. I have anecdotal evidence in response to a post you made giving no evidence at all. You respond to my evidence, dubious though it may be, with another claim that offers no evidence, and act like it's more valid than my claim.

Because it is more valid. Your use of anecdotal argument invalidates your argument because you're relying on the person you are arguing against believing in your "evidence" for your argument to be valid. It's also unscientific.

[New Edom]

Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence at all. I have anecdotal evidence in response to a post you made giving no evidence at all. You respond to my evidence, dubious though it may be, with another claim that offers no evidence, and act like it's more valid than my claim.

Because it is more valid. Your use of anecdotal argument invalidates your argument because you're relying on the person you are arguing against believing in your "evidence" for your argument to be valid. It's also unscientific.

I don't think they actually WANT women to be raped. That's obviously something that cannot be substantiated and that they would wisely deny. The real issue comes down to the same thing though in that no matter how much is done against rape--including adding marital rape to the laws, and certainly in Canada having a version of 'yes means yes' and in other nations too, enacting laws against harassment, etc, will not be enough. Nor is it enough to have decades of television documentaries, movies and public statments.

As I said before, it all comes down to the money and power. As long as there is a 'rape crisis' in the west, there will be a flow of money and delegated power if people respond to it.

[GabrieIa]

Now to any real TERF. The ones who dont think i am a woman, please explain to me why i am not.

[The Serbian Empire]

Now to any real TERF. The ones who dont think i am a woman, please explain to me why i am not.

Huh? Are you like me?

[GabrieIa]

Now to any real TERF. The ones who dont think i am a woman, please explain to me why i am not.

Huh? Are you like me?

What are you? I am a Transgender MtF. Radical feminist if you did not see

[The Serbian Empire]

Huh? Are you like me?

What are you? I am a Transgender MtF. Radical feminist if you did not see

I am a trans woman myself. There's only one TERF to my knowledge on here and she may or may not surface on a timely basis.

[GabrieIa]

What are you? I am a Transgender MtF. Radical feminist if you did not see

I am a trans woman myself. There's only one TERF to my knowledge on here and she may or may not surface on a timely basis.

Chessmistress? If it is her then she is not who i am looking for. I have talked to her about this. She know about me i know about her. She is ok with me, as you know my thing was cut off

[The Serbian Empire]

I am a trans woman myself. There's only one TERF to my knowledge on here and she may or may not surface on a timely basis.

Chessmistress? If it is her then she is not who i am looking for. I have talked to her about this. She know about me i know about her. She is ok with me, as you know my thing was cut off

Then you'll probably be looking for a different place if one wants to discuss such with the full radical TERF types. The mods would hammer a radical like a nail if they vocalized the level of radicalism.