The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Proctopeo]

I think his upset derives, at least in part, from the (surprisingly common) people who claim that "feminism is for men too!!!!" despite it obviously being anything but, and, in many cases, goes so far to be essentially a female supremacist movement, although bar some select cases, quite far from the Nazis. Those types are mostly found on the two major cesspools of the Internet: Twitter and Tumblr, listed in order of influence.
Basically, I understand where he's coming from, and I think that feminism has outlived its usefulness. What we need is a unified egalitarian movement - but it's not yet possible, so the MRM is necessary to diversify the realm of thought and draw attention to men's issues.

I mean, there's always Anarchism if you want egalitarianism. :V

I always see anarchists proclaim that you must be a feminist to be an anarchist, which makes me call that into question.

[Torrocca]

I mean, there's always Anarchism if you want egalitarianism. :V

I always see anarchists proclaim that you must be a feminist to be an anarchist, which makes me call that into question.

Anarcha-Feminist, friendo. It's like Liberal Feminism but it's not trash at all <3

[Proctopeo]

I always see anarchists proclaim that you must be a feminist to be an anarchist, which makes me call that into question.

Anarcha-Feminist, friendo. It's like Liberal Feminism but it's not trash at all <3

[x] doubt
'least it ain't "queer anarchism"
bleah

[Torrocca]

Anarcha-Feminist, friendo. It's like Liberal Feminism but it's not trash at all <3

[x] doubt
'least it ain't "queer anarchism"
bleah

I recommend some reading up on it, honestly. It's all about that intersectionality, unlike Liberal Feminism. <3

[Proctopeo]

[x] doubt
'least it ain't "queer anarchism"
bleah

I recommend some reading up on it, honestly. It's all about that intersectionality, unlike Liberal Feminism. <3

Sorry, I've always seen "intersectionality" used as a cover for racism and other things along those lines.

[Torrocca]

I recommend some reading up on it, honestly. It's all about that intersectionality, unlike Liberal Feminism. <3

Sorry, I've always seen "intersectionality" used as a cover for racism and other things along those lines.

Proct pls it's not that at all ;~;

[Right wing humour squad]

I recommend some reading up on it, honestly. It's all about that intersectionality, unlike Liberal Feminism. <3

Sorry, I've always seen "intersectionality" used as a cover for racism and other things along those lines.

Yeah it’s essentially bigot feminism.

[Galloism]

Hey so...new to this thread..sorry to interrupt but uh sort of wondering if this is more of a "people who actually understand Feminist Theory discussing nuanced points" thread or a "defending Feminism against people who saw this thread and got pissed off" sort of thread. It...sort of seems like the latter, which I guess was kind of inevitable. So uhh...hi everyone who isn't a Feminist..contrary to popular belief, credible scholars of Feminist Theory don't go around advocating misandry, but that's all I'll say on that because this post isn't really directed at you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm always down for defending Feminism, but finding a place to actually discuss it's nuances on the internet is fairly difficult (except on Tumblr, but let's be real, that website can be a shitshow).

Where's the discussions on transmisogyny? Misogynynoir? Different types of Feminisms? (Marxist, Ecofeminist...idk, the original post on this forum had quite an interesting and exhaustive list!) How #MeToo failed to acknowledge rape outside of a cis/heteronormative context? (I mean, there's a reason people like Coasto Fierro here think Feminists hold the position that only women can be raped) Or hell, what about discussing the history of Feminism? Is dividing Feminism into "waves" useful for scholars? I dont know, maybe we could even swap interesting lit. on certian topics.

And I'm not saying all of this as an attack on the people in this thread who, pissed off or not, came to debate the merits of Feminism. It's just that so many places for that already exist, and maybe those discussions should be separate from intra-community discussion? Just my two cents.

It started out with "people who actually understand Feminist theory discussing nuanced points" but, when those members started getting involved in blatant and provable falsehoods, as is typical in these types of discussions (at least that I've observed), people predictably called out those harmful falsehoods as being false and hateful besides. Because,



Over time, as more and more falsehoods were exposed on the part of those who tried to discuss Feminism in a positive way, the mood of the thread changed more towards "defending Feminism against any and all criticism" and, thanks to a few people who will remain nameless, then "defending feminism against bad and borderline crazy analogies".

Put another way - the sharks smelled blood.

[Bienenhalde]

I think his upset derives, at least in part, from the (surprisingly common) people who claim that "feminism is for men too!!!!" despite it obviously being anything but, and, in many cases, goes so far to be essentially a female supremacist movement, although bar some select cases, quite far from the Nazis. Those types are mostly found on the two major cesspools of the Internet: Twitter and Tumblr, listed in order of influence.
Basically, I understand where he's coming from, and I think that feminism has outlived its usefulness. What we need is a unified egalitarian movement - but it's not yet possible, so the MRM is necessary to diversify the realm of thought and draw attention to men's issues.

I mean, there's always Anarchism if you want egalitarianism. :V

The problem is egalitarianism is stupid, meritocracy is superior. But I think to create a truly meritocratic society we need to get rid of unfair discrimination on the basis of gender or sex.

[Nekokuni]

It's not irrelevant by a long shot. No amount of mental gymnastics will make it irrelevant.

No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make what Asia Argento did invalidate the stories of thousands of women who have experienced sexual assault.

She committed a rape of a legal minor and she deserves to be called out on it.

The only person saying she shouldn't is you pretending that everyone else thinks so.

She was never a victim, she was a perpetrator,

Perpetrators can become victims, we don't live in such a binary world where the two are mutually exclusive. A lot of prisoners are raped in prisons, some of them have committed sex crimes, but that doesn't excuse their sexual assault, or the need for prison reform.

and I'd hate to think of what that man went through when he saw her paraded about as a victim of Weinstein's supposed crimes. She claims she was paid off by Weinstein and she payed off a victim of her own predatory tendencies. At best that makes her a hypocrite and at worst, a liar.

That can hardly even be called logic, it doesn't even make sense. Argento's own crimes are totally irrelevant to what happened to her with Harvey Weinstein.

And yes, the movement is one of hate and demonisation.

It sounds more like your hatred for women is making you use a male rape victim as a tool to attack a movement you don't like. You proved my point perfectly.

[Bienenhalde]

I recommend some reading up on it, honestly. It's all about that intersectionality, unlike Liberal Feminism. <3

Sorry, I've always seen "intersectionality" used as a cover for racism and other things along those lines.

I thought it was a conspiracy to forcibly draft women and minorities into radical leftism.

[Kowani]

I mean, there's always Anarchism if you want egalitarianism. :V

The problem is egalitarianism is stupid, meritocracy is superior. But I think to create a truly meritocratic society we need to get rid of unfair discrimination on the basis of gender or sex.

The problem with meritocracy is this: Who decides what’s the best? I mean, yeah, you can look at two people’s contributions and go, okay, Person A did better. But if person B really did better but the decision maker like person A more, B’s fucked. And then you have people who merely create the appearance of work and just steal from others. (I’m looking at you, Mr. IGN editor) There’s no way to truly eliminate human bias, although it’s still a good thing to work towards. (There’s this one quote I love, but I don’t know who said it: “What good is a utopia, if it is, by definition, unreachable?” “To walk towards.” (¿Para qué sirve la utopía, si es, por su definición, iralcanzable? Para caminar hacia ella.)

[Chestaan]

I think his upset derives, at least in part, from the (surprisingly common) people who claim that "feminism is for men too!!!!" despite it obviously being anything but, and, in many cases, goes so far to be essentially a female supremacist movement, although bar some select cases, quite far from the Nazis. Those types are mostly found on the two major cesspools of the Internet: Twitter and Tumblr, listed in order of influence.
Basically, I understand where he's coming from, and I think that feminism has outlived its usefulness. What we need is a unified egalitarian movement - but it's not yet possible, so the MRM is necessary to diversify the realm of thought and draw attention to men's issues.

I mean, there's always Anarchism if you want egalitarianism. :V

Earlier today I saw a Facebook post on a page iirc called Anarchist Feminism about a book called "How to date men when you hate men" with the comment being something about how much they need that book. Sadly anarchists aren't exempt from being shitty people.

And I know it was posted as a joke, but I don't think normalising misandry through such humour should be acceptable.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hey so...new to this thread..sorry to interrupt but uh sort of wondering if this is more of a "people who actually understand Feminist Theory discussing nuanced points" thread or a "defending Feminism against people who saw this thread and got pissed off" sort of thread. It...sort of seems like the latter, which I guess was kind of inevitable. So uhh...hi everyone who isn't a Feminist..contrary to popular belief, credible scholars of Feminist Theory don't go around advocating misandry, but that's all I'll say on that because this post isn't really directed at you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm always down for defending Feminism, but finding a place to actually discuss it's nuances on the internet is fairly difficult (except on Tumblr, but let's be real, that website can be a shitshow).

Where's the discussions on transmisogyny? Misogynynoir? Different types of Feminisms? (Marxist, Ecofeminist...idk, the original post on this forum had quite an interesting and exhaustive list!) How #MeToo failed to acknowledge rape outside of a cis/heteronormative context? (I mean, there's a reason people like Coasto Fierro here think Feminists hold the position that only women can be raped) Or hell, what about discussing the history of Feminism? Is dividing Feminism into "waves" useful for scholars? I dont know, maybe we could even swap interesting lit. on certian topics.

And I'm not saying all of this as an attack on the people in this thread who, pissed off or not, came to debate the merits of Feminism. It's just that so many places for that already exist, and maybe those discussions should be separate from intra-community discussion? Just my two cents.

Oh don't worry, we discuss the history of feminism. It's one of the major reasons we're opposed to it.

It sounds more like your hatred for women is making you use a male rape victim as a tool to attack a movement you don't like. You proved my point perfectly.

This is a pretty pathetic meme that feminists rely on.

The duluth model is the most popular form of DV intervention program in the united states and is instituted by feminists, it's a more coded successor to the notion that women who initiate violence against men in relationships are definition defending themselves because he's complicit in a patriarchy that attacked them first, and we're currently dealing with this generation of feminists engaged in statistical manipulation to downplay the issue, despite the result of all their efforts being that male victims are more likely to be jailed for seeking help than the perpetrator.

How many generations of feminists defending the abuse of men through their actions does it take for it to be become a hate movement?

In the UK, the sexual offences act has been updated three times in the past two decades at the demands of feminist lobbyists, to expand the definition of various sexual offences, and they recently managed to push for an entirely new law to be passed that treats upskirting as an offence. At no point have feminist lobbyists demanded the definition be changed to include female rapists, and in fact they routinely (And let's face it, deliberately) use statistics based on that definition to talk about proportions of victims being wildly disproportionate. I say it's deliberate because the same people who do this pretend they support male rape victims despite using stats that report 0% women perpetrators, but they only talk about the victim rates and THEN move onto "So men need to stop raping so much." without discussing the perpetration rates, leaving hetero-normative bias to imply all the women were raped by men. In the US, Mary Koss (feminist) lobbied the US government to exclude male rape victims, and many of their organizations still use lopsided definitions.

Both of these things have the effect of demonizing and villying men, something feminism has done for decades. When they started this, the largest feminist organization in the world, NOW, also demanded women be given preferential custody when they request it on the grounds men were violent to their families more than women (A lie, women commit most domestic violence when you account for their abuse of the elderly, but this was deliberately dropped from the narrative to gerrymander the results, and even then they still had to lie. Abuse of the elderly being dropped by feminists from the definition before going about their blood libel is important because the narrative was that even viewing violence against other family members was a danger to a child.) and they lobbied on that basis to exclude fathers and provide resources to mothers as well as pushed the notion that a single mother is just as capable as a couple onto society and engaged in a propaganda war to portray fathers as detrimental or superficial to the family.

These events led to Warren Farrell beginning to question the movement, for which he was demonized and cast out of its organizations. This sparked the schism that led to the mens rights movement.

Most modern feminists only give a shit about that because they realize they shot themselves in the foot with the wage gap, but even there they routinely misframe the issue and imply it's due to pay discrimination against women.

On the issue of rape and sexual assault, feminist efforts have resulted in the collapse of due process in the united kingdom, and violation of due process in the US on university campuses, (Not up for debate this one, courts have ruled as much.) because they have successfully demonized and dehumanized their outgroup (men) that people don't care about the potential for their suffering and don't seek to mitigate it. They've been doing this since at least the Lacrosse case, it is not an aberration, it is the norm for feminism to oppose mens human rights on these topics and to vilify them.

That's why MeToo is just the latest in a long line of actions by a hate movement.

These aren't the only issues.

[Costa Fierro]

No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make what Asia Argento did invalidate the stories of thousands of women who have experienced sexual assault.

I'm afraid that those stories have already invalidated themselves purely because they're just that: stories. One of the major problems that #MeToo has is that we have no way of knowing if any of the stories are true or false. And now that two of the major proponents of the movement, including one that has claimed to be a victim, have been found to have engaged in serious misconduct themselves, people are going to question not only the integrity of the movement's proponents, but also the movement itself.

The only person saying she shouldn't is you pretending that everyone else thinks so.

That's not how retorts work.

Perpetrators can become victims

Except in this instance. There's very little evidence that Argento was ever a victim, and there's mounting evidence that she is in fact a perpetrator.

That can hardly even be called logic, it doesn't even make sense. Argento's own crimes are totally irrelevant to what happened to her with Harvey Weinstein.

They're not irrelevant. They're exactly the kinds of things she is accusing Weinstein of doing.

It sounds more like your hatred for women is making you use a male rape victim as a tool to attack a movement you don't like. You proved my point perfectly.

LMAO calling a rapist a rapist is now hatred of women. That's some sound logic right there.

[Ostroeuropa]

No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make what Asia Argento did invalidate the stories of thousands of women who have experienced sexual assault.

I'm afraid that those stories have already invalidated themselves purely because they're just that: stories. One of the major problems that #MeToo has is that we have no way of knowing if any of the stories are true or false. And now that two of the major proponents of the movement, including one that has claimed to be a victim, have been found to have engaged in serious misconduct themselves, people are going to question not only the integrity of the movement's proponents, but also the movement itself.

The only person saying she shouldn't is you pretending that everyone else thinks so.

That's not how retorts work.

Perpetrators can become victims

Except in this instance. There's very little evidence that Argento was ever a victim, and there's mounting evidence that she is in fact a perpetrator.

That can hardly even be called logic, it doesn't even make sense. Argento's own crimes are totally irrelevant to what happened to her with Harvey Weinstein.

They're not irrelevant. They're exactly the kinds of things she is accusing Weinstein of doing.

It sounds more like your hatred for women is making you use a male rape victim as a tool to attack a movement you don't like. You proved my point perfectly.

LMAO calling a rapist a rapist is now hatred of women. That's some sound logic right there.

She accused Weinstein of pressuring her into a five year long consensual relationship.
I stand by my mrm post on the matter;

Asia isn't Weinstein's only victim, and her claim against him was dubious in the first place and likely wouldn't have been taken as seriously by the public (even if feminists would still have gone batshit over it) if it was the only one.

The recent developments do cast some more doubt her claim imo, but it may be worth ignoring that to push the point that someone can be both a perpetrator and a victim, which is an important meme to get out there so gynocentric feminists can finally get a clue about sexism and how it works.

She groomed and raped a child.

[Veroza]

Sorry, I've always seen "intersectionality" used as a cover for racism and other things along those lines.

Yeah it’s essentially bigot feminism.

Intersectionality is a term first introduced to feminist scholarship by critical-race theorist Kimberle Crenshaw. It is a sociological analytical framework that explores how the interaction between different power structures impact historically marginalized identites.
Crenshaw first used this terminology to describe how her experience as a black woman cannot be divided into one "black" experience and one "woman" experience, but rather how both of those perspectives inform one another. Of course, anaylsis is not limited to race and gender. For example, a disabled transwoman will have a profoundly different experience than an able-bodied transwoman, as both women's level of ability have an impact on their trans identities and vice versa. More specifically, a disabled transwoman who utilizes a wheelchair may find that she has even less safe options for using the public restroom than an able-bodied transwoman.

So um...no. No it's uhh, definitely not a cover for racists and bigots, Right-Wing and Proctopeo.
But my guess from your political views is that I'm sort of barking up the wrong tree here. Whatever. Hopefully one of you or someone else on this forum finds this breakdown of intersectionality useful.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeah it’s essentially bigot feminism.

Intersectionality is a term first introduced to feminist scholarship by critical-race theorist Kimberle Crenshaw. It is a sociological analytical framework that explores how the interaction between different power structures impact historically marginalized identites.
Crenshaw first used this terminology to describe how her experience as a black woman cannot be divided into one "black" experience and one "woman" experience, but rather how both of those perspectives inform one another. Of course, anaylsis is not limited to race and gender. For example, a disabled transwoman will have a profoundly different experience than an able-bodied transwoman, as both women's level of ability have an impact on their trans identities and vice versa. More specifically, a disabled transwoman who utilizes a wheelchair may find that she has even less safe options for using the public restroom than an able-bodied transwoman.

So um...no. No it's uhh, definitely not a cover for racists and bigots, Right-Wing and Proctopeo.
But my guess from your political views is that I'm sort of barking up the wrong tree here. Whatever. Hopefully one of you or someone else on this forum finds this breakdown of intersectionality useful.

Do you believe misandry and discrimination, institutional and otherwise, against men for being men exists. The reason they call intersectionality a cover for racism and sexism is the underlined portion being used to excuse racism and sexism.

[Right wing humour squad]

Yeah it’s essentially bigot feminism.

Intersectionality is a term first introduced to feminist scholarship by critical-race theorist Kimberle Crenshaw. It is a sociological analytical framework that explores how the interaction between different power structures impact historically marginalized identites.
Crenshaw first used this terminology to describe how her experience as a black woman cannot be divided into one "black" experience and one "woman" experience, but rather how both of those perspectives inform one another. Of course, anaylsis is not limited to race and gender. For example, a disabled transwoman will have a profoundly different experience than an able-bodied transwoman, as both women's level of ability have an impact on their trans identities and vice versa. More specifically, a disabled transwoman who utilizes a wheelchair may find that she has even less safe options for using the public restroom than an able-bodied transwoman.

So um...no. No it's uhh, definitely not a cover for racists and bigots, Right-Wing and Proctopeo.
But my guess from your political views is that I'm sort of barking up the wrong tree here. Whatever. Hopefully one of you or someone else on this forum finds this breakdown of intersectionality useful.

It is exactly bigoted, instead of examining her experiences as a human she reduced herself to mere identities she had no choice over. Her experience became not her own but as an expression of her race and gender. And intersectional feminism has taken this idea and run with it. As if people were so easily explained.

I guess it must seem attractive to the mentally lazy to explain complexity in such easy terms.

[Veroza]

Sorry, I've always seen "intersectionality" used as a cover for racism and other things along those lines.

I thought it was a conspiracy to forcibly draft women and minorities into radical leftism.

Well uhh..gotta say, that's a new one! Points for originality!
So... How are they doing this, are they forcing these people to learn about intersectionality, or do they do it voluntarily? Are they forced into believing radical leftism immediately, or like once they've been aware of intersectionality for a while? Are...are they held at knifepoint or something? Genuinely a little confounded by that one..
I mean I personally think a lot of people who use an intersectional framework to study power structures simply gain perspectives that they otherwise wouldn't have. This makes them become more sympathetic to the plight of those who are oppressed in ways they themselves are not. So someone with this new perspective might be more sympathetic to leftist politics since, I'm sure you can agree, conservatives don't usually make "sympathy for the historically marginalized" one of their main talking points. That doesnt mean all feminist are "leftist" though, most just tend to be liberal. But trust me when I say that I wish there was more leftist feminists we need them!

[Hirota]

So um...no. No it's uhh, definitely not a cover for racists and bigots, Right-Wing and Proctopeo.

History lecture aside, yes it is.

It might well have been conceived as that. But it's abused now to argue that somehow your homeless white male has more "privilege" that your University attending Black trans person. It's reductive because people who claim to agree with intersectionalism attempt to quantify if attribute a has more privilege than attribute b. It's called the "progressive stack", or "Oppression Olympics" to signify a pointless and never ending effort to try and establish some sort of idiotic pecking order based on (largely) uncontrollable demographics.

It's used as a cover for racists because it ignores an individuals experiences. It's used as a justification for hatred of someone simply because they are a "fucking white male" - using inherited demographics to justify hatred, ignoring personal experiences that led them to where they are today. It's just another tool to justify petty tribalism. It's borderline eugenics.

In short, I'm a much better "intersectionalist" than most self-proclaimed intersectionalists today (on the basis that I recognise privilege isn't primarily dictated by inherited biological traits), and I don't see it as an appropriate lens, and certainly not as the primary tool to use as arbiter of who is or isn't oppressed relative to one another. Instead it encourages division, animosity and hatred along arbitary lines.

[Nioya]

Hey guys. I saw this post on tumblr.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Upb9Ghg

I would ask in the transgender thread but I think I could get more opinions here. Is being trans gender fun? Is it a game for some people? Because if it is that changes my opinion a whole lot.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Hey guys. I saw this post on tumblr.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Upb9Ghg

I would ask in the transgender thread but I think I could get more opinions here. Is being trans gender fun? Is it a game for some people? Because if it is that changes my opinion a whole lot.

This might best be suited for the transgender thread.

As for fun, having dysphoria doesn't sound like fun or a game.

[Irona]

Hey guys. I saw this post on tumblr.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Upb9Ghg

I would ask in the transgender thread but I think I could get more opinions here. Is being trans gender fun? Is it a game for some people? Because if it is that changes my opinion a whole lot.

It’s just a joke. I wouldn’t read into it that much.

[Isilanka]

To me, the post isn't even about considering being trans as a game, it's just saying that you can be trans and yet feel good, you're not obliged to be tortured and depressed. At least that's how I read it in which case it's...a very sane statement, I assume.