The NationStates Feminist Thread III

by **Swith Witherward** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:08 pm

THE NATIONSTATES FEMINIST THREAD III

Mission
This thread is dedicated to supporting feminism and the promotion of women's rights; it is a place to educate, uplift and nurture the younger generations. It is also the catch-all for feminist discussion.

Some topics you may encounter here are...

Some behaviors that will not be tolerated here are...

Links

4 June 2015 update
Fris and Mod Team Address Recent Thread Lock and Unlock:

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Two significant policy questions were embedded in the threadjacking report. As such, these questions needed the input and discussion of the entire NationStates Moderation Team. After significant deliberation, we are now ready to hand down our ruling.

The first question, which is a more general one, involves the limiting of a (group) thread to ONLY certain participants or points of view. It's our ruling that NSG threads cannot do this. You cannot make a group thread for whatever topic and then limit it to strictly pro (or anti) side. NSG is a discussion forum, threads are open to allow discussion, even if you don't happen to like that discussion. Just because someone posts disagreeing with the general trend of the topic that is not prima facia evidence of trolling. That said, there are (usually) obvious differences between one off posts of going into, say, the Christian thread and screaming "Christianity is STUPID!" and posting "I think Christianity is false, and here's why...". It might be anti-Christian, but it does allow the pro side to engage in discussion.

Indeed, if we may, we would like to point out that Swith Witherward's engagement of "The group of you seem very happy to tell each other what feminists do and do not believe. Perhaps it would be more prudent to ask us what we believe. You see, we're such a diverse group that we won't all agree, but at least you'll gain perspectives that run far deeper than your currently limited viewpoint." is exactly how we would like to see these threads work, kudos to her for that!

Going to the second question, was it trolling and/or threadjacking to post something anti-feminist? No. Using the above, we find that some of the posters in question, while posting an anti-spiel, stuck around to debate and argue. They engaged, which tells us that this is what should be happening in NSG's threads. It should be noted however that one involved player turned out to be Delete-On-Sight and so was dealt with on those grounds.

The thread is hereby unlocked. Thank you for your patience.

--The NationStates Moderation Team

*blushes at the compliment*

An excellent point was raised above. Once again, let's continue to strive to express things in a way that engages and encourages dialog.

Also... please don't hesitate to send links to resources. I'd love to add them to the OP.

Let's set the tone for the thread.

Yes, I certainly am... although I don't invest much time into arguing those opinions online. The reason I volunteered to make this thread is twofold: I'm not heavily involved in the heated feminist discussions in NSG, and I'm known for my patience and fairness, ergo my motive is simply to promote feminism in its myriad of forms rather than to promote only my opinions on what feminism is or isn't.

One of the things we frequently see on forums is the disparagement of those that don't promote our particular principles. "You aren't a feminist if you don't embrace [fill in the flavor]." People form a conception of what we are and what we should believe without ever realizing that feminism is profoundly diverse.

Disagreements between feminists over principles are mostly due to that rich diversity within the feminist movement. People are welcome to promote their views here, by the way, provided they conform to NS policy. However, for the sake of this thread, we should endeavor to agree that we disagree on what exactly is the best principle and practice. We are not here to convert anyone to our specific approach to feminism. We are here to advocate women's rights and to support feminism in general. (er... no pun intended!)

A quick reminder: Moderation gave this thread the nod however our ability to keep it functioning rests on our shoulders. Please be civil towards one another.

by **Swith Witherward** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:08 pm

It seemed an innocuous enough speech delivered by Hillary Clinton during the 2017 MAKERS Conference.

"[I'm] proud to be a Maker, and proud to support Maker's Mission, to celebrate women's stories and to celebrate women's vital roles in the past, present, and future of our country. Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes the future is female. Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a march that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world. Now, more than ever, we need to stay focused on the theme of this year's conference. Be bold. We need strong women to step up and speak out. We need you to dare greatly and lead boldly," Clinton said in a message that was played for an audience at the opening of 'The 2017 MAKERS Conference'. "Please set an example for every woman and girl out there who is worried about what the future holds and wonders whether our rights opportunities and values will endure. And remember you are the heroes and history makers, the glass ceiling breakers of the future," Clinton said. 'MAKERS is a storytelling platform for the trailblazing women of today and tomorrow,' conference organizers say." (Sauce: Reuters)

The slogan, "The future is female", has been appropriated by various groups since the 1970s. It has even found its way into modern art, as in the case with Gaetano Pesce's 2006 mixed media piece by the same name.

It's currently snowballing into controversy and social media fodder, however.

Hillary Clinton Draws Cheers and Criticism for ‘Future Is Female’ Line
by Mary Emily O'Hara (sauce)

"The future is female," Hillary Clinton announced in her latest speech, immediately setting off a passionate debate between her supporters and critics. But by using the phrase she also stepped into a virtual lesbian separatist history text — likely without having any clue about the story behind the slogan.

The former secretary of state and presidential candidate casually invoked the phrase in a video introducing this year's MAKERS Conference, an annual event hosted by AOL that brings together female leaders to create "a bold agenda," according to its website.

"Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes, the future is female," said Clinton in the video. "Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month, as women organized a march that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world."

Clinton's use of the phrase sparked a flurry of passionate tweets from conservatives who cried sexism, while drawing praise from women's rights advocates — some of whom mocked the strong conservative outcry.

The 1970's Revisited

If conservatives are upset now, wait until they find out that the phrase Clinton used actually grows out of 1970's lesbian separatist culture, and is enjoying a vibrant second life today.

"The Future is Female" became re-popularized in 2015 by the lesbian-owned lifestyle brand Otherwild, which started producing a line of t-shirts and other items featuring the phrase in stark lettering against a plain background.

Otherwild owner Rachel Berks told NBC News that she first came across "The Future is Female" on the Instagram account [url=https://www.instagram.com/h_e_r_s_t_o_r_y/?hl=en[/url], a lesbian culture archive. The Instagram account admin had posted an archival photo of 1970's lesbian folk singer Alix Dobkin wearing a t-shirt with the phrase emblazoned across the chest. The photo was taken by Dobkin's then-girlfriend, Liza Cowan, who told ID magazine in December 2015 that she identified as a lesbian separatist and that the slogan "The Future is Female" was a "call to arms" and an "invocation."

Kelly Rakowski, who oversees the popular Instagram account (and its over 70,000 followers), told NBC News that she sees the phrase as a "feminist declaration."

"It's pretty wild to hear Hillary Clinton drop 'The Future is Female'," said Rakowski. "I never thought that what I unearthed in the depths of the internet would be such a broad, cultural sensation."

Berks reissued the design and the t-shirts took off; Otherwild expanded into pins, prints, bags, and even "Future is Female" coffee mugs. Knockoffs began to circulate as well, with controversy following model [url=http://www.dailydot.com/irl/cara-delevingne-otherwild-future-is-feminist/]Cara Delevingne after she began to sell her own bootleg version of the t-shirt[/url] in violation of Berks' copyright in 2015.

Berks told NBC News it was "surreal" to hear the words come out of Clinton's mouth.

"It feels somewhat surreal to hear Hillary speaking these words, but is not surprising, given the current political climate and as female-identified bodies and rights remain under unrelenting attack," said Berks. "'The future is female' became a rallying cry throughout the course of the election, and most notably for me, after the election."

Berks also noted that Clinton mentioned the Women's March. Berks attended the march herself, waving a "future is female" flag, and said that she was "floored" by the number of marchers holding handmade "future is female" posters.

Sales of the t-shirts raise money for Planned Parenthood, with 25 percent of proceeds going to the embattled reproductive health organization.

The Otherwild owner said she isn't surprised by the conservative backlash to Clinton's use of the phrase.

"They want us without health care, without sliding-scale clinics like Planned Parenthood, they want to rescind the Violence Against Women Act," Berks said of the characteristic Trump-era Republican agenda.

Twitter conservatives also mocked "The Future is Female" for talking about gender at all, with the editors of VDARE (a blog focusing on "patriotic immigration reform") pretending to be shocked by such old-fashioned notions.

Rakowski acknowledged criticisms of the phrase, but said that its meaning went beyond flat readings of "male" and "female."

"I think the word female can be less structured in this definition," Rakowski told NBC News. "Reading between the lines for me, it's really saying 'Smash the Patriarchy'."

So what exactly is the problem with the slogan?

I'm by no means a conservative. However, I can understand why some people, including some egalitarian feminists, see the slogan as exclusionary if not outright misandry. Sarah Begley summed it up nicely in her Aug 12, 2014 Time Magazine article, "Ironic Misandry: Why Feminists Pretending to Hate Men Isn't Funny".

The particular slogan, "The Future is Female", isn't an attempt at irony or humor. The purpose of any political slogan is to provide a statement designed to resonate in the minds of the citizens that observe them in an effort to increase awareness of your cause while also clearly stating what you stand for. Many people, especially those unaware of the history behind it or the intent to use it to support a women's healthcare cause, assess this particular slogan at face value: the future does not include men, nor is it for men or boys. It is quickly becoming a radical feminist "Pepe meme" in the eyes of the uninformed, especially as it has been continuously associated with fanatical demonstrators. (These are the 10% of any group that get the most attention because they offer the most contentious representation of that group, thereby casting the entire group in a bad light. It's the Big Red Effect we fight so hard to counter.)

I don't think Clinton intended for this to spiral into chaos. I think this was a clueless misstep on her part. But what say you, NSG? Are people blowing this out of proportion? Do you see this slogan as exclusionary or sexist?

by **Galloism** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:46 pm

@ Swith Witherward

Sorry I'm on a phone. Quoting is hard.

From an educated perspective, I see it as kind of a radfem dogwhistle. That is, it's designed to rile up the radicals and make them feel like their dreams of supremacy are broadly supported while being vague enough to be deniable by the moderates.

You know, like republican politicians often do. I see many many similarities along those lines - more and more all the time.

Currently · by **The Grene Knyght** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:16 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:-snip-

I don't know much about lesbian separatism, but if its anything like separatist feminism (and in this case it sounds like it), its not something I could agree with as a feminist. That being said, I can appreciate the context that this might have been said in, considering that, women and, in particular, LGBTQ+ people faced far more oppression at this time than they do now. Its hard to really see what they meant by this since the quote is taken entirely out of context (i mean like, it was lifted from a photo from taken 40 years ago). It could be more along the lines of the future is female, which doesn't necessarily mean its not male too. I mean, it probably didn't mean that, but its a possibility...

Galloism wrote:@ Swith Witherward

Sorry I'm on a phone. Quoting is hard.

From an educated perspective, I see it as kind of a radfem dogwhistle. That is, it's designed to rile up the radicals and make them feel like their dreams of supremacy are broadly supported while being vague enough to be deniable by the moderates.

You know, like republican politicians often do. I see many many similarities along those lines - more and more all the time.

As much as I'd love any opportunity to hate on clinton, and this wouldn't be the first time shes co-opted a movement like this purely and unscrupulously to garner support, I honestly think this was done more out of ignorance on the origin of the phrase than anything else.

by **Costa Fierro** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:53 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:Are people blowing this out of proportion? Do you see this slogan as exclusionary or sexist?

This is good for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it shows the true nature of the modern feminist movement and it's recent shift towards equity rather than equality and secondly, it's allowing people to finally start looking at the movement as a whole and hopefully start engaging in more constructive and effective criticism of the movement as a whole and the direction it is heading.

Hopefully we can do away with this idea that because you're anti-feminist, you're anti-women.

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:24 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Swith Witherward wrote:Are people blowing this out of proportion? Do you see this slogan as exclusionary or sexist?

This is good for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it shows the true nature of the modern feminist movement and it's recent shift towards equity rather than equality

Which is good...? Equity could be seen to mean equality of opportunity rather outright 50-50 splitting or everything, or the often misunderstanding of communism of "everyone gets the same amount no matter if you need more or less" idea. I think either of these interpretations is just people using semantics to tear the other side to shreds without rhyme or reason.

and secondly, it's allowing people to finally start looking at the movement as a whole and hopefully start engaging in more constructive and effective criticism of the movement as a whole and the direction it is heading.

Again, I didn't see an issue with the slogan, because I kinda know it wasn't meaning to be exclusionary. I can see how people can jump to that conclusion, but it is hardly trying to promote female supremacy. I think people are fitting their already negative interpretations of the movement, and then pasting it upon the slogan as 'proof' it wants female supremacy.

Hopefully we can do away with this idea that because you're anti-feminist, you're anti-women.

Depends on how one shows they are 'anti-feminist'. This could mean the 'I don't want to associate with them, but I want equality', or 'women have enough rights, fuck em'.

by **Costa Fierro** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:03 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:Which is good...?

Not really. Equality of outcome is different than equality of opportunity because it usually results in different methods on how to achieve their final goals. For example, equality of opportunity would be promoting STEM fields in universities to female high school students in order to encourage them to chose those fields. Equality of outcome would be mandating a gender quota of having 50% of students in STEM fields be female. The difference between the two is that one doesn't actively discriminate against other students.

Equity could be seen to mean equality of opportunity rather outright 50-50 splitting or everything, or the often misunderstanding of communism of "everyone gets the same amount no matter if you need more or less" idea. I think either of these interpretations is just people using semantics to tear the other side to shreds without rhyme or reason.

Equity in this context, including that of other social causes, is equality of outcome, where certain groups of people perceived to be disadvantaged in society are given extra abilities to give off a perception of equality when the methods used are inherently unequal.

Again, I didn't see an issue with the slogan, because I kinda know it wasn't meaning to be exclusionary.

How is the idea that men have no role in the future not exclusionary?

I can see how people can jump to that conclusion, but it is hardly trying to promote female supremacy. I think people are fitting their already negative interpretations of the movement, and then pasting it upon the slogan as 'proof' it wants female supremacy.

I don't think it's negative interpretations at all. What I see is more liberal feminists finally coming out of their shells and questioning why mainstream feminism is hellbent on alienating half the population when it is supposed to be convincing them that feminism has their interests at heart too.

Depends on how one shows they are 'anti-feminist'. This could mean the 'I don't want to associate with them, but I want equality', or 'women have enough rights, fuck em'.

Personally for me, I find feminism is less relevant in many Western countries that it used to be two or three or four decades ago. Of course, the United States is always an outlier when it comes to these sorts of arguments, but when you look at countries like Germany, France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands etc. you do have to ask yourself the question "why is feminism needed?" I don't see the relevancy, especially where I live. I also dislike the way American-style militancy and the radicalisation is slowly starting to influence feminist thought in other Anglophone states. That "male privilege" education thing in the Australian state of Victoria for example is one of those things that I vehemently oppose because it seeks to dehumanize and demonize men and boys for being men and boys. Why should I lend any kind of support to a movement that is increasingly seeing me as the enemy?

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:17 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Not really. Equality of outcome is different than equality of opportunity because it usually results in different methods on how to achieve their final goals. For example, equality of opportunity would be promoting STEM fields in universities to female high school students in order to encourage them to chose those fields. Equality of outcome would be mandating a gender quota of having 50% of students in STEM fields be female. The difference between the two is that one doesn't actively discriminate against other students.

I want equality of opportunity.

Equity in this context, including that of other social causes, is equality of outcome, where certain groups of people perceived to be disadvantaged in society are given extra abilities to give off a perception of equality when the methods used are inherently unequal.

... I think we are using different meanings of "equity" then. See the above and that is what I mean by "equity" - having the ability to have the same opportunity, not the exact same outcome.

How is the idea that men have no role in the future exclusionary?

That is a poor interpretation of it. It in no way implies men are not in the future. That is one reading into it and applying a false dichotomy of "If women are the future, then men aren't in it". It simply means they are aiming for women to BE IN the future, so to speak.

I don't think it's negative interpretations at all. What I see is more liberal feminists finally coming out of their shells and questioning why mainstream feminism is hellbent on alienating half the population when it is supposed to be convincing them that feminism has their interests at heart too.

Again, liberal feminism is the same white feminism you saw at the marches. You would find more RadFems actually disagreeing with the march than libfems.

Personally for me, I find feminism is less relevant in many Western countries that it used to be two or three or four decades ago.

And? So do I. That is different than saying "not needed". Careful we don't fall into the trap of relative privation.

Of course, the United States is always an outlier when it comes to these sorts of arguments, but when you look at countries like Germany, France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands etc. you do have to ask yourself the question "why is feminism needed?"

Because people like me and other feminists, that may or may not be in the mainstream movement, use it to mean "Egalitarianism"? I think we have touched on this before - language is powerful, and painting feminism as "female supremacists" by other groups, especially the anti-fems you side with, is much to do with the image. I think some of them actually WANT female supremacy, but I would trod them down the same as those that oppose egalitarianism, because that is what they too oppose.

I don't see the relevancy, especially where I live.

That is close to relative privation, but I won't call it that because you didn't specifically say after that "... and there are other places it should be."

I also dislike the way American-style militancy

That has become the emotive language used the paint the movement, it seems.

and the radicalisation

Yet libfems were the main people in the march. Funny that. I mean, the speakers are a different story, like a certain jailbird. That is different than having the whole movement or even most of them be "militant" or "radicalized". My type of feminism could be termed "radical", but that doesn't mean I am some dangerous weirdo. It just SOUNDS dangerous.

is slowly starting to influence feminist thought in other Anglophone states. That "male privilege" education thing in the Australian state of Victoria for example is one of those things that I vehemently oppose because it seeks to dehumanize and demonize men and boys for being men and boys.

How is it dehumanizing them if they are still treating them as human, given they are being treated and labelled as human males? I think you mean to say it is isolating a whole gender as the problem for being that gender. I don't see a major issue with the initiative, but it NEEDS to branch out to education on other forms of 'privilege' and also that of the fact women CAN commit domestic abuse and rape as well.

Why should I lend any kind of support to a movement that is increasingly seeing me as the enemy?

They don't, if you mean for being a man. They do, if you mean opposing feminism.

by **Galloism** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:21 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
Not really. Equality of outcome is different than equality of opportunity because it usually results in different methods on how to achieve their final goals. For example, equality of opportunity would be promoting STEM fields in universities to female high school students in order to encourage them to chose those fields. Equality of outcome would be mandating a gender quota of having 50% of students in STEM fields be female. The difference between the two is that one doesn't actively discriminate against other students.

I want equality of opportunity.

Equity in this context, including that of other social causes, is equality of outcome, where certain groups of people perceived to be disadvantaged in society are given extra abilities to give off a perception of equality when the methods used are inherently unequal.

... I think we are using different meanings of "equity" then. See the above and that is what I mean by "equity" - having the ability to have the same opportunity, not the exact same outcome.

How is the idea that men have no role in the future exclusionary?

That is a poor interpretation of it. It in no way implies men are not in the future. That is one reading into it and applying a false dichotomy of "If women are the future, then men aren't in it". It simply means they are aiming for women to BE IN the future, so to speak.

I don't think it's negative interpretations at all. What I see is more liberal feminists finally coming out of their shells and questioning why mainstream feminism is hellbent on alienating half the population when it is supposed to be convincing them that feminism has their interests at heart too.

Again, liberal feminism is the same white feminism you saw at the marches. You would find more RadFems actually disagreeing with the march than libfems.

Personally for me, I find feminism is less relevant in many Western countries that it used to be two or three or four decades ago.

And? So do I. That is different than saying "not needed". Careful we don't fall into the trap of relative privation.

Of course, the United States is always an outlier when it comes to these sorts of arguments, but when you look at countries like Germany, France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands etc. you do have to ask yourself the question "why is feminism needed?"

Because people like me and other feminists, that may or may not be in the mainstream movement, use it to mean "Egalitarianism"? I think we have touched on this before - language is powerful, and painting feminism as "female supremacists" by other groups, especially the anti-fems you side with, is much to do with the image. I think some of them actually WANT female supremacy, but I would trod them down the same as those that oppose egalitarianism, because that is what they too oppose.

I don't see the relevancy, especially where I live.

That is close to relative privation, but I won't call it that because you didn't specifically say after that "... and there are other places it should be."

I also dislike the way American-style militancy

That has become the emotive language used the paint the movement, it seems.

and the radicalisation

Yet libfems were the main people in the march. Funny that. I mean, the speakers are a different story, like a certain jailbird. That is different than having the whole movement or even most of them be "militant" or "radicalized". My type of feminism could be termed "radical", but that doesn't mean I am some dangerous weirdo. It just SOUNDS dangerous.

is slowly starting to influence feminist thought in other Anglophone states. That "male privilege" education thing in the Australian state of Victoria for example is one of those things that I vehemently oppose because it seeks to dehumanize and demonize men and boys for being men and boys.

How is it dehumanizing them if they are still treating them as human, given they are being treated and labelled as human males? I think you mean to say it is isolating a whole gender as the problem for being that gender. I don't see a major issue with the initiative, but it NEEDS to branch out to education on other forms of 'privilege' and also that of the fact women CAN commit domestic abuse and rape as well.

Why should I lend any kind of support to a movement that is increasingly seeing me as the enemy?

They don't, if you mean for being a man. They do, if you mean opposing feminism.

Would you not consider a group that is broadly attempting to prevent you ever getting equal protection of the law, equality before the justice system, and trying to empower people to rape and abuse you while keeping the rapists and abusers relatively immune from legal retribution - going so far as to empower those rapists and abusers to use the legal system against their victims - an enemy?

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:26 pm

Galloism wrote:Would you not consider a group that is broadly attempting to prevent you ever getting equal protection of the law, equality before the justice system, and trying to empower people to rape and abuse you while keeping the rapists and abusers relatively immune from legal retribution - going so far as to empower those rapists and abusers to use the legal system against their victims - an enemy?

Who said I have to support all they do to be labelled a feminist, or that I am part of that blob of feminism that you are suggesting? Again, I am not a """""Mainstream""""" feminist, and vehemently opposed actions that are against gender neutrality in law. That means various feminists and many anti-feminists.

by **Galloism** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:34 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:
Galloism wrote:Would you not consider a group that is broadly attempting to prevent you ever getting equal protection of the law, equality before the justice system, and trying to empower people to rape and abuse you while keeping the rapists and abusers relatively immune from legal retribution - going so far as to empower those rapists and abusers to use the legal system against their victims - an enemy?

Who said I have to support all they do to be labelled a feminist, or that I am part of that blob of feminism that you are suggesting? Again, I am not a """""Mainstream""""" feminist, and vehemently opposed actions that are against gender neutrality in law. That means various feminists and many anti-feminists.

You don't, but your personal admission that you are not a mainstream feminist means your personal views are nearly irrelevant to whether feminism, as a movement, is an enemy of men or not.

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:36 pm

Galloism wrote:
Mattopilos II wrote:
Who said I have to support all they do to be labelled a feminist, or that I am part of that blob of feminism that you are suggesting? Again, I am not a """""Mainstream""""" feminist, and vehemently opposed actions that are against gender neutrality in law. That means various feminists and many anti-feminists.

You don't, but your personal admission that you are not a mainstream feminist means your personal views are nearly irrelevant to whether feminism, as a movement, is anti-men or not.

They aren't anti men as a whole. To claim so is to lack any form of nuance. There are various criticisms you can make of them, but the blank statement of "they hate men" is just.... wrong.

by **Galloism** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:38 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:
Galloism wrote:You don't, but your personal admission that you are not a mainstream feminist means your personal views are nearly irrelevant to whether feminism, as a movement, is anti-men or not.

They aren't anti men as a whole. To claim so is to lack any form of nuance. There are various criticisms you can make of them, but the blank statement of "they hate men" is just.... wrong.

Oh I would never make that claim in entirety - just as I wouldn't claim republicans hate brown people. It's no doubt false, as numerous exceptions can be found.

However, one shouldn't ignore the trend.

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:40 pm

Galloism wrote:
Mattopilos II wrote:
They aren't anti men as a whole. To claim so is to lack any form of nuance. There are various criticisms you can make of them, but the blank statement of "they hate men" is just.... wrong.

Oh I would never make that claim in entirety - just as I wouldn't claim republicans hate brown people. It's no doubt false, as numerous exceptions can be found.

However, one shouldn't ignore the trend.

There is a trend, but hardly amongst the whole movement. There is certainly a tumor on the movement, and it must be cut before it spreads.

by **Galloism** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:42 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:
Galloism wrote:Oh I would never make that claim in entirety - just as I wouldn't claim republicans hate brown people. It's no doubt false, as numerous exceptions can be found.

However, one shouldn't ignore the trend.

There is a trend, but hardly amongst the whole movement. There is certainly a tumor on the movement, and it must be cut before it spreads.

Good luck with that.

Really.

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:44 pm

Galloism wrote:
Mattopilos II wrote:
There is a trend, but hardly amongst the whole movement. There is certainly a tumor on the movement, and it must be cut before it spreads.

Good luck with that.

Really.

Sometimes I wish there really was a fourth wave. Then I could claim I am that and lay out the ideas of it. Third wave is a mess of ideas and interpretations, and the second is just awful for this current political environment.

by **Galloism** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:51 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:
Galloism wrote:Good luck with that.

Really.

Sometimes I wish there really was a fourth wave. Then I could claim I am that and lay out the ideas of it. Third wave is a mess of ideas and interpretations, and the second is just awful for this current political environment.

The point is that the movement, in general, is becoming anti-men as republicans have become anti-Arab. Not every single person falls under that umbrella, naturally, but there's enough to be extremely problematic.

Then you have Hillary who, being a very influential politician among the feminist movement, knowingly or not knowingly, used a sexist radfem dogwhistle (bringing it back full circle).

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:14 pm

Galloism wrote:
Mattopilos II wrote:
Sometimes I wish there really was a fourth wave. Then I could claim I am that and lay out the ideas of it. Third wave is a mess of ideas and interpretations, and the second is just awful for this current political environment.

The point is that the movement, in general, is becoming anti-men as republicans have become anti-Arab. Not every single person falls under that umbrella, naturally, but there's enough to be extremely problematic.

Then you have Hillary who, being a very influential politician among the feminist movement, knowingly or not knowingly, used a sexist radfem dogwhistle (bringing it back full circle).

DNC fucked the civil rights movement big time in many ways. Don't even get me started on her version of IdPol, which was basically what happens when you bastardize intersectional theory and have no focus whatsoever on class, meaning technically you just remved one of the largest factors leading to inequality in the first place. This alienated the working class like nothing, and some of her IdPol supporters still have they strange idea that white people cannot be oppressed AT ALL, which goes against intersectional theory for one, and secondly it is pretty self-evident that isn't even the case. Again, it is taking a theory that says "You know, inequality is not based on just singular labels, but many different labels and they affect you different ways, including sexuality, gender, race, religion, wealth, occupation, etc." and turning it into "Only minorities are oppressed." Italics for the part that DNC so very much ignored.

by **Omniverso of Zamasu** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:43 pm

Free women are found of the divine precepts given by the almighty God Zamasu known to men as Allah, Jehovah, Yavheh. The only rights of mankind are the rights of worship, submission, loyalty and supreme obedience to the almighty God Zamasu, otherwise they do not deserve to live, mortals were created to exalt the beauty of the gods and primarily to the almighty God Zamasu.

by **New Edom** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:58 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:It seemed an innocuous enough speech delivered by Hillary Clinton during the 2017 MAKERS Conference.

I don't think Clinton intended for this to spiral into chaos. I think this was a clueless misstep on her part. But what say you, NSG? Are people blowing this out of proportion? Do you see this slogan as exclusionary or sexist?

It is unfortunate. One element people keep leaving out is this: the 2nd Wave of feminism started during a time that still held unprecedented Western prosperity. Though there were problems with oil prices and there were concerns, they were considered incidents and not the overall trend for the rest of the Century and the new century to come. So housing prices, interest rates, inflation, etc would start hitting us later. There is a LOT more competition for a decent financial future now in the West than there had been before. So this makes people anxious and the threat that people MIGHT get more resources becomes more contentious as a result.

So saying "the future is female" when the future is generally uncertain was an unfortunate choice of words. There is now a fierce competition for who is given more consideration over others.

Right now it might be smarter for feminist leaders to think less identity politics and more leadership in a broad sense. Can the movement do this? Can feminists propose that the general approach they might advocate towards economics, politics, military service, law and order, health care and education are vital to maintain civilization? Or are they going to be revealed to be another approach like Intelligent Design--something built more against something than for something, which is revealed under the cold stark light of reality to not provide enough that people should join it?

by **Proctopeo** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:03 pm

Omniverso of Zamasu wrote:Free women are found of the divine precepts given by the almighty God Zamasu known to men as Allah, Jehovah, Yavheh. The only rights of mankind are the rights of worship, submission, loyalty and supreme obedience to the almighty God Zamasu, otherwise they do not deserve to live, mortals were created to exalt the beauty of the gods and primarily to the almighty God Zamasu.

This ain't a RP forum, sorry to say.

by **Giovenith** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:27 pm

Yeah, disguising blatant female favoritism as equality isn't cute. This attempt at "counterbalancing" male favoritism by giving women more "points" until you reach some vague sense of "being even" doesn't work; you preach non-favoritism from the start, full stop. It isn't "women's turn," it's everyone's turn.

by **Mattopilos II** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:59 pm

Giovenith wrote:Yeah, disguising blatant female favoritism as equality isn't cute. This attempt at "counterbalancing" male favoritism by giving women more "points" until you reach some vague sense of "being even" doesn't work; you preach non-favoritism from the start, full stop. It isn't "women's turn," it's everyone's turn.

I don't even think that was what the phrase was originally attempting to do, but it sure has been twisted by both sides to mean that. People that are feminists have taken it on board to mean that (or if they are less ignorant that it is simply a way of saying a future where women are equal to men), and anti-fems and other groups have also taken it to mean this, and using it as a weapon to go "Ha! See? They ARE extremists and female supremacists!". Lets just say that the phrase is not going down well on wither side for various reasons, due to a lack of nuance on the interpretation.

Politics are messy, and as such, anything with even thin ties to politics are going to be wrapped in mis-translation, extremism, and sects.

by **Costa Fierro** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:29 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:Sometimes I wish there really was a fourth wave. Then I could claim I am that and lay out the ideas of it. Third wave is a mess of ideas and interpretations, and the second is just awful for this current political environment.

You're in luck!

But wait, what's this?

Jennifer Simpkins of The Huffington Post argues that fourth-wave feminism has created a hostile, Mean Girls-like atmosphere where women are more likely to tear each other down. "I've actually never once been belittled and attacked by a man for believing in the cause of feminism" she states, "but women are just about lining up to take a whack at the shoddy piñata of my personal tastes and opinions."

Oh dear.

I want equality of opportunity.

Then you want equality. That is good.

I think we are using different meanings of "equity" then. See the above and that is what I mean by "equity" - having the ability to have the same opportunity, not the exact same outcome.

Except that's now how it is being defined by feminists. Equality in this case is treating everyone the same, i.e equality of opportunity. Equity is giving people what they need to be successful, i.e equality of outcomes. Equity in this sense sounds benign but it is in fact discriminatory, as we see with things like affirmative action and gender quotas.

That is a poor interpretation of it. It in no way implies men are not in the future. That is one reading into it and applying a false dichotomy of "If women are the future, then men aren't in it". It simply means they are aiming for women to BE IN the future, so to speak.

"The future is female". Sounds pretty affirmative of female power if you ask me.

Again, liberal feminism is the same white feminism you saw at the marches. You would find more RadFems actually disagreeing with the march than libfems.

So, using a convicted murderer as a poster child is what liberal feminists are up to these days? Christ, maybe we should be scared.

And? So do I. That is different than saying "not needed". Careful we don't fall into the trap of relative privation.

Well it was a polite way of me saying it was largely irrelevant, in that women in a lot of cases have more rights in society than men do. And better social views.

That has become the emotive language used the paint the movement, it seems.

It comes from the proverbial horse's mouth. You can go on any social media platform and find feminists saying incredibly sexist and misandrist things and not one ounce of controversy or contradiction from other feminists or from others. It's like people like to think these people aren't influencing what feminism is becoming or how people see it but they are. Just because we don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and sweeping these people under the carpet isn't going to do anything because if they aren't confronted, it sends the message that their views are acceptable.

Yet libfems were the main people in the march.

Were they though? I don't think you could even say that the majority of people there were feminists.

That is different than having the whole movement or even most of them be "militant" or "radicalized". My type of feminism could be termed "radical", but that doesn't mean I am some dangerous weirdo. It just SOUNDS dangerous.

The thing with this is that the radicals have been influencing the mainstream and the liberals haven't really been countering this at all. And yes, radical feminism is dangerous.

How is it dehumanizing them if they are still treating them as human, given they are being treated and labelled as human males?

It's going on about the concept of "male privilege" by portraying boys and men as superior to women and being privileged in society and allowing them to get away with rape and murder against women and basically shaming them. I also seriously doubt that statistics and such would be presented in an impartial and non-biased manner. Given how mainstream feminism seems reluctant to acknowledge male rape and male domestic violence statistics that puts make victims on par with women in a number of places, I think this is a fairly terrible prospect for the future of our education systems.

They don't, if you mean for being a man. They do, if you mean opposing feminism.

I agree with Galloism's response and I would also like to state that they do purely for me being born as a man. I am the enemy. Of course, not all feminists see me as such, but such sentiments are becoming more widespread.

by **Giovenith** » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:51 pm

Mattopilos II wrote:
Giovenith wrote:Yeah, disguising blatant female favoritism as equality isn't cute. This attempt at "counterbalancing" male favoritism by giving women more "points" until you reach some vague sense of "being even" doesn't work; you preach non-favoritism from the start, full stop. It isn't "women's turn," it's everyone's turn.

I don't even think that was what the phrase was originally attempting to do, but it sure has been twisted by both sides to mean that. People that are feminists have taken it on board to mean that (or if they are less ignorant that it is simply a way of saying a future where women are equal to men), and anti-fems and other groups have also taken it to mean this, and using it as a weapon to go "Ha! See? They ARE extremists and female supremacists!". Lets just say that the phrase is not going down well on wither side for various reasons, due to a lack of nuance on the interpretation.

Politics are messy, and as such, anything with even thin ties to politics are going to be wrapped in mis-translation, extremism, and sects.

Regardless of intentions, it's badly worded to begin with. It wasn't smart for anyone to make phrase so blatantly open to a biased interpretation.

The NationStates Feminist Thread III

The NationStates Feminist Thread III

Zamasu God

Who is online