Feminism discussion thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
skekChuck said:
The simple answer to this is that there is a political compass within feminism.

It’s extremely subjective to each person even in this thread as to who is considered trustworthy or not. It’s a lot like theology where there’s so many interpretations and different forms of thought that you just have to dig in and find something.
Click to expand...
If its subjective to each person, how is it objective referring to reality.

If you can't define woman, and kick out people with retarded or corrupted definitions, wtf is Feminism. Wtf are Feminists getting mad at average men for, when their own leaders have dismantled womens sport and women's private accommodations.
Dyn said:
He knows, he's just doing that thing where he wants you to say "porn is bad" so he can say "but feminism says it's liberating, checkmate feminists" or "porn is liberating" so he can say "but feminism says it's bad, checkmate feminists". He's the anti-feminist equivalent of a fourteen year old reddit sperg who only just realised you can find contradictions in the Bible and thinks Christians will have their minds blown and renounce their faith when he points them out.
Click to expand...
You're right, every word I've written here boils down to pornography apologia, instead of how ridiculous and disparate Feminism has become.

And Dyn calling someone a reddit sperg. Lel
 
I
m1ddl3m4rch said:
If its subjective to each person, how is it objective referring to reality.

If you can't define woman, and kick out people with retarded or corrupted definitions, wtf is Feminism. Wtf are Feminists getting mad at average men for, when their own leaders have dismantled womens sport and women's private accommodations.
Click to expand...
I believe someone did list some basics.

It is all easier said than done when you’re dealing with the human mind. Thoughts and opinions and beliefs are like assholes, everyone has one.

It’s nice to have centralized set of standards but this is all politics within the community.
 
skekChuck said:
I believe someone did list some basics.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not supporting a Dworkin movement. Or a Riley Dennis one. You don't agree on "some basics." The definition of woman is as basic as it gets. You can't move on from it until you define it and enforce the definition.
skekChuck said:
It is all easier said than done when you’re dealing with the human mind. Thoughts and opinions and beliefs are like assholes, everyone has one.
Click to expand...
What is a woman? Write into Feminist 501c3s and see how compromised your movement is.
skekChuck said:
It’s nice to have centralized set of standards but this is all politics within the community.
Click to expand...
Define woman isn't a centralized set of standards. What is a woman.

Don't expect anyone to follow a women's movement that can't define woman, or even to not think its completely retarded.
 
m1ddl3m4rch said:
Well I'm not supporting a Dworkin movement. Or a Riley Dennis one. You don't agree on "some basics." The definition of woman is as basic as it gets. You can't move on from it until you define it and enforce the definition.

What is a woman? Write into Feminist 501c3s and see how compromised your movement is.

Define woman isn't a centralized set of standards. What is a woman.

Don't expect anyone to follow a women's movement that can't define woman, or even to not think its completely retarded.
Click to expand...
This is not anything I was saying.

The clear definition is XX chromosomes. Which most definitely was listed at some point in this thread.

What I’m saying is that you cannot expect cohesiveness because of the politics in the community. Like I said, wrangling everyone is easier said than done.

Edit: In almost all cases of a movement it is better to have constant deliberation on ideas. Yeah there’s going to hurt feelings and schisms. You will have radicals. This is entirely natural. It is also better instead of having blind followers because that is what a cult it.
 
skekChuck said:
This is not anything I was saying.

The clear definition is XX chromosomes. Which most definitely was listed at some point in this thread.
Click to expand...
Don't tell me, tell the White House and DNC, and every Feminist non-profit that's turned troon.
skekChuck said:
What I’m saying is that you cannot expect cohesiveness because of the politics in the community. Like I said, wrangling everyone is easier said than done.
Click to expand...
Then you can't possibly expect anyone to know what Feminism means, stands for or even what you personally mean when you talk about it. The movement contradicts itself and cannot makes sense until it removes the contradictory elements. Hence, "which Feminism."
skekChuck said:
Edit: In almost all cases of a movement it is better to have constant deliberation on ideas. Yeah there’s going to hurt feelings and schisms. You will have radicals. This is entirely natural. It is also better instead of having blind followers because that is what a cult it.
Click to expand...
Earlier in this thread, I quoted three posts by women from this thread, all saying that Feminism has become an unworkable joke of a movement. It had schisms before. What it has now is pandemonium.
 
m1ddl3m4rch said:
Don't tell me, tell the White House and DNC, and every Feminist non-profit that's turned troon.

Then you can't possibly expect anyone to know what Feminism means, stands for or even what you personally mean when you talk about it. The movement contradicts itself and cannot makes sense until it removes the contradictory elements. Hence, "which Feminism."

Earlier in this thread, I quoted three posts by women from this thread, all saying that Feminism has become an unworkable joke of a movement. It had schisms before. What it has now is pandemonium.
Click to expand...
And like I said earlier, thoughts and opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

While I understand where you’re coming from, you’re going to have to be a lot more specific and creative in these talking points.
 
skekChuck said:
And like I said earlier, thoughts and opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

While I understand where you’re coming from, you’re going to have to be a lot more specific and creative in these talking points.
Click to expand...
No I'm not. I already made my points. Were you paying attention?

Maybe think with your brain instead of your ovaries.
 
I read the Feminine Mystique because it's a highly influential book. It laid out a very clear problem, gave a probable reason, and offered practical solutions.

What is modern, practical feminism centered on, what are the clearly defined problems, and what are the solutions?

It just seems so diluted from the essays I read now. Deplatforming opposing ideaologies (including rival feminists) seems to be the biggest practical ambition.
 
TheBigZee said:
I read the Feminine Mystique because it's a highly influential book. It laid out a very clear problem, gave a probable reason, and offered practical solutions.

What is modern, practical feminism centered on, what are the clearly defined problems, and what are the solutions?

It just seems so diluted from the essays I read now. Deplatforming opposing ideaologies (including rival feminists) seems to be the biggest practical ambition.
Click to expand...
radfems arent advocating for deplatforming. what they want is pretty simple. were not men so the obsession with control just isnt there
m1ddl3m4rch said:
Well I'm not supporting a Dworkin movement. Or a Riley Dennis one. You don't agree on "some basics." The definition of woman is as basic as it gets. You can't move on from it until you define it and enforce the definition.

What is a woman? Write into Feminist 501c3s and see how compromised your movement is.

Define woman isn't a centralized set of standards. What is a woman.

Don't expect anyone to follow a women's movement that can't define woman, or even to not think its completely retarded.
Click to expand...
adult human female. thats something every woman in here is saying. do you not understand where you are? either youre just looking for a gotcha or really stupid
 
Freya said:
radfems arent advocating for deplatforming. what they want is pretty simple. were not men so the obsession with control just isnt there
Click to expand...
This is true, and something that I think male antifeminists overlook/don't know/don't understand. I think the prefix "radical" frightens people regardless of what comes after it.

That said, TheBigZee seemed to be referring to a "diluted" feminist message as expressed in more modern/popular essays, which leads me to believe that these were essays by 3rd-wavers (correct me if I'm wrong). 3rd-wave feminists unlike 4th-wavers, I would say,  do have a preoccupation with deplatforming. I hate to say "cancel culture" but it's a similar concept--how many celebrities or even just normal people get shouted off of social media platforms due to expressing a view as simple as "troons don't belong in female bathrooms" or "drag is offensive" or "children shouldn't be given SRS"?

4th-wave feminists usually are the ones forbidden a place to express their opinions, both by 3rd-wavers themselves and by men who benefit off of the things they advocate. If you say transgenderism is a social contagion? You're a transphobe, banned. If you say pornography and prostitution harms women on a global scale? You're an oppressive Puritan, banned. This is why radfems form their own small spaces separate from mainstream platforms.
 
Freya said:
radfems arent advocating for deplatforming. what they want is pretty simple. were not men so the obsession with control just isnt there
Click to expand...
So simply stated, what is wanted?

Just from my light reading, the simple things are only simple if you accept a set of axioms about life, the universe and everything. But my reading is far, far, far from comprehensive.

Group Project Carrier said:
That said, TheBigZee seemed to be referring to a "diluted" feminist message as expressed in more modern/popular essays, which leads me to believe that these were essays by 3rd-wavers (correct me if I'm wrong). 3rd-wave feminists unlike 4th-wavers, I would say,  do have a preoccupation with deplatforming. I hate to say "cancel culture" but it's a similar concept--how many celebrities or even just normal people get shouted off of social media platforms due to expressing a view as simple as "troons don't belong in female bathrooms" or "drag is offensive" or "children shouldn't be given SRS"?
Click to expand...
I guess they are third wave. "Intersectionality" is one of the main dillutions. Special/divergent interests hijacked the women's movement. A lot of women wound up pulling an ox-cart full of issues that don't directly impact them. Race/racism is important as it leads to poverty and housing problems. But addressing affordable housing before shouting for reperations would be the broad approach.

The third wave stuff is so idealogically driven that it can't survive simple conversations. Women have been cancelled for challenging social construction, or being philisophical essentialists. Whatever mentally ill ranting has come from Jordon Peterson since, the original CBC interview, the interviewer went after him hard because he challenged the assumptions behind the wage gap.
 
Lemmingwiser said:
Why do you choose equity over equality, assuming that you do?
Click to expand...
Well, it's becoming clear to me that there are differences between the sexes, but I think we can acknowledge those differences and still work toward a fair and just society.
 
TheBigZee said:
"Intersectionality" is one of the main dillutions. Special/divergent interests hijacked the women's movement. A lot of women wound up pulling an ox-cart full of issues that don't directly impact them.
Click to expand...
This is one of (if not  the) central troubles of 3rd-wave feminism--it's not really for women. If you had to write down a bullet-point list of core 3rd-wave tenets, you will realize that it seeks everyone's interests but women's.

Racism → our problem
"LGBTQ+" (particularly the G and T) → our problem
Disabilities → our problem

In all of these situations, you will also notice that 3rd-wavers are usually going to bat for men. They'll get up-in-arms about racism against black men, only to spin around and say that "if black women are women, then trans women are also women" (???) They'll rail on about drag and gay men, then turn around and call lesbians transphobic and forbid them from having female- or lesbian-only spaces (see: the decline of lesbian bars and bookstores everywhere, due to not wanting to cape for troons). And the women who argue for prostitution because "incels and disabled men deserve to get laid" are 3rd-wavers as well.

Who benefits from troons in women's changing rooms? Not women; men. Who benefits from pervasive hookup culture? Not women, who get much out of it and have much more to risk by engaging in it; men. Who benefits from the porn and sex industries? Not the women trafficked into them, but the men that consume them.

I know I'm going to sound like a conspiracy theorist right now but I genuinely wonder whether some male "thinker" introduced the concept of intersectionality at a point along the way. I guess you could chalk it up to female socialization and how girls/women are often conditioned to seek others' needs before their own, but that's not really a satisfying answer tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom