Q4BP: Is third wave feminism just a function of self interested sexual politics for women?

classycharacter · 2017-03-02T10:19:42+00:00

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving New article from psychologists showing that perpetually "outraged" groups (ex...

[–]Nozickspeaks 7 points7 points7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Previous generations of feminists actually had something to fight for. Now that women have more rights than men, the movement is struggling to be relevant. So it will nitpick and exaggerate issues to make it seem like they are still needed. They will try to get misogyny criminalised while keeping misandry as an option. This is like when they expand the definition of rape so that making a woman feel uncomfortable is the same as if someone committed a crime or like the struggle women go through in developing countries.

It is hypocritical. A buddy of mine looked at this study too and told me about it. It is like investing emotionally and placing yourself in the situation when you don't need to be there because you believe you are a moral person. It is difficult for people to accept they are not special snowflakes and SJW types are especially guilty of this. Being outraged on someone else's behalf has more to do with you than them. TRP may call this solipsism because they say women believe they are different when they are not, therefore they are outraged at TRP's lack of morality in its approach. But it happens to everyone. At best you can try to guard against it by not involving yourself in something that doesn't affect you but people are too emotionally invested in issues to give up being assholes when things don't go the way they want them to.

E.g. A woman getting blackout drunk and regretting her choices the next day, calling it rape. No matter how many studies link alcohol to rape, no matter how many people avoid getting that drunk because they know it is a bad idea, some people still believe she is not to blame and that men should suffer for her choices even if he was intoxicated too. This is a can of worms along with things like mansplaining, manspreading, "the male gaze", and even hinting that you prefer women be in some healthy shape. It is not pragmatic at all.

[–]findingmrnemo 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lonny_zone 5 points5 points5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]miharuhojo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

because they're not all stressed out and sad.

This is the issue here. No one else is in charge of how they feel about yheir body but them. Why should anyone accept them? I am not against curvier women at all. I prefer women be curvy but very overweight is a different story. No one else made them fat and I have seen the fat acceptance movement equate fat shaming to racism. This is bs because they chose to be fat. They didn't choose their skin colour.

Furthermore it takes hard work to be in good shape. I would think society would be keen to encourage a healthy lifestyle but putting fat people on the cover of a magazine and calling it "brave" is ridiculous. No one tries to be fat. It is easy to sit on your ass all day and scoff down food. Compare that to someone working out two hours a day to be in shape. That is hard work. It would be like complaining that people without degrees or PhDs don't get to be featured in prestigious science and medical publications. It is easy to not have a degree just as it is easy to be fat. Why would we celebrate this level of mediocrity? So some people can feel better about their poor decisions?

They need to take responsibility and stop blaming society for their poor choices. No one is entitled to emotional comfort.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People get mocked for poor choices all the time. A guy cheats and gets beaten by his wife? People find that hilarious. You buy a lemon (bad car) who can you blame? You chose to get drunk but fell asleep in a drain covered in your own vomit? Poor choice you will get mocked for.

People are total shits to everyone. What makes fat people exempt? Because it hurt their feelings? Everyone gets burned for something, even things they can't control like skin colour or a hooked nose. At least fat people can do something about it.

I grew up in a family filled with unhealthy people, in a country where fat and unhealthy (especially when older) is the norm. We shame people for smoking, drinking too much (and then driving) or taking drugs. They are unhealthy choices, but we have to tread carefully near fat people because.... Feelz before realz? They chose to be fat. They have no one else to blame. You don't have to tease them in public but they should not get special exemption due to any fat acceptance movements. If they don't like it they can hit the gym or eat healthier. Being too nice about it is not going to solve the problem either.

[–]classycharacter[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

" Hi Pot, Nice to meet you. Im Kettle."

" Nice to meet you too, Kettle. What brings you to this corner of the world?"

" Well, Im trying to learn more about other cookware and how they think. I find pots and pans to be quite confusing in their thoughts and actions. How about you, Pot?

" Basically the same thing. I really want to attract a good utensil, and live a great life making delicious food. You know, the good ol kitchen dream hahaha.

" Wow, Pot, that sounds awesome. We have a lot in common, it seems. Would you like to continue this conversation on the stove top? I heard its the hot new place to be."

"Awww, that's sweet Kettle. But Im actually seeing a Ladle now. Its a great utensil! Anyway, I gotta go. Ladle wants to cook some steak. I know, thats more of a "Pan" thing to do, but I cant say no to Ladle. See you later!"

Later, Kettle sits in his dark cupboard, stewing " Fucking Ladle! That bastardization of a spoon gets all the luck. Wish there was something I could do. Whats this? Opens up a cook site called The Red Scrub...

[–]future_space_boobs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]locriologyNon-Pill Shitlord0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism for the manosphere is basically just the combination of every piece of outrage porn they could find, but they collectively misunderstand a lot of concepts and don't know about some that are actually way more important than what anti-feminists perceive as important issues. So in their groupthink feminism became this frankensteinian monster that makes it impossible for them to swallow the red pill that most modern feminists love masculine men and aren't the shrieking angry cunts that they always imagine them as.

They feel personally attacked and persecuted even though most of that is just happening in their imagination and because they fill in too many gaps and read too much anger into it.

If I would only look at /r/tumblrinaction and at women hate threads on 4chan I would have the same understanding of feminism as that of its critics. (which are often fake, out of context or they don't understand the humor in it)

And a lot of it is just anger without any logic behind it mixed in with half knowledge, but thinking that they are an expert.

Like being angry at role playing or shooter games also offering the choice to have female characters now. No one that would actually think logically about anything would think that this is bad or that it even impacts him in the slightest, but of course this ruins gaming as a whole and he can never ever enjoy a game anymore.

The real perceived victimhood comes from anti-feminists.

There is more complaining about how bad complaining about mansplaining is than actually incidents of feminists genuinely unironically complaining about mansplaining.

There is more rape hysteria-hysteria than rape hysteria. (because they only read the title "one in five becomes a victim of sexual assault" and think it means rape, but don't read enough to see that the article explains that sexual assault is everything from sexual groping to rape)

There is more "they hate men"-hysteria than misandry. And again they only read the name of things like "toxic masculinity" and assume that it means that masculinity is toxic although they are actually trying to help men.

Those misunderstandings about what feminist concepts mean go very deep. Like basically none of the gender critics know that feminists refer to sex as the biological aspect and gender as your social identity so "gender is a social construct" is not wrong, because they literally defined that word like that, but critics never realize that sex is still a part of sex/gender.

Or their arguments against the wage gap are literally the arguments that feminists bring up as well (but for the he would have to read more then just the title of some click bait article), but they talk about them as glass ceiling and symptoms of patriarchy and those are somehow again things that critics have no idea about what they actually mean.

And most of their arguments are either "lol she's a feminist but she wears makeup" or if she doesn't wear makeup "no wonder she's a feminist if she's that ugly".

Can you remind me again whose ideology involves demanding things in compensation for perceived victimhood?

Do you think it's fair that we have wheelchair ramps?

So why shouldn't it be fair to give minorities a chance and fight against harmful stereotypes and bullying? Why shouldn't we strive to have equal representation in the government?

And here again the arguments are basically "but why do they include a trans character in the movie and ruin it" because they can't understand how someone of a minority group would feel the need to have good role models in the media or how harmful stereotypes can be for them.

[–]locriologyNon-Pill Shitlord0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I appreciate the long reply, what you have given me is a list of ways in which you think anti-feminists misinterpret feminism, when what I was actually looking for was the actual feminist positions that are meant to be taken seriously. When you complain that anti-feminists "cherry-pick" feminist arguments, that implies that some of the things some feminists say or advocate are ridiculous or not meant to be taken seriously, while others are.

But let's be real here. How in the world do you think you have any intellectual high ground in this argument when you say things like this with a straight face:

Like being angry at role playing or shooter games also offering the choice to have female characters now. No one that would actually think logically about anything would think that this is bad or that it even impacts him in the slightest, but of course this ruins gaming as a whole and he can never ever enjoy a game anymore.

This is so obnoxious and absurd. It's beyond hyperbole and into the territory of downright idiocy. There's not a chance in hell you think this is a serious opinion that any significant number of people hold, if any at all. You're not even remotely trying to be honest. This is just flat out lying.

The fact that you complain about anti-feminists misrepresenting feminists just broke my irony meter. It is laughable.

[–]SkinnySweaty 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anarchism4thewin1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OurThrownAwayDreamsWorking On Myself1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaderOfGamergateNon-Red Pill, anti-BP, anti-feminist8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would imagine disagreeing with them for a start. For example, when a hashtag like killallmen goes around, men would like a little support from women, maybe a counter hashtag like menareawesome that receives more support. This is like when the muslim world is silent after a terrorist attack by an organization linked to the religion. Being quiet is not the same as supporting but people would love to see the same outrage and placarding when the movement is promoting inequality between men and women or when some issues affect men disproportionately. Also, accepting that the movement can be criticised by men and women who don't have internalized misogyny because maybe they see actual problems with the movement. Feminism is not beyond criticism and just because someone believes in equality does not make them a feminist.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hoo-boy, I expected your answer to be bad, but you really outdid yourself there.

So...

http://everydayfeminism.com

A feminist website that isn't at all influential or famous...

Reposting.

A an article by Dr. Nerdlove - a very well known and influential feminist activist who routinely engages in virgin shaming.

While the article itself claims that the only problem with virginity is that virgins feel bad about it, and the solution is for them to stop feeling bad about it. It completely misrepresents the feelings of people who actually go through life utterly without any intimacy and validation, and it completely fails to mention all the social and financial disadvantages that lack of sexual success exposes men to - and of course it does, because mentioning that would undermine the message the male virgins are responsible for the issue of virgin-shaming.

The article also fails to in any way address or even mention the widespread use of virgin-shaming among feminists, including the author himself. Again, because that would severely undermine the author's agenda.

So okay - you googled for sources when I asked you for some. I get that, it's normal not to have a bunch of links on hand to source your claims, even if your claims are ultimately sourced. But it's also clear that you either never read the article you linked, or you're as ignorant about the issues faced by unattractive men as the author himself. If it's the latter - why do you have such a strong opinion about something you apparently have no actual knowledge of?

[–]BiggerDthanYou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You should hang out in some feminist spaces, not spaces making fun of feminist spaces but the real deal, and just observe. I assure you feminists call each other out and that the meta is constantly changing. Right now there is an argument going on about a new video game where some feminists are saying it's great because it has a female main character, while others are saying it's bad because the character is a white girl dressed in Native American style clothes. There are intense arguments on both sides. You seem to be under the impression that feminism is an organized group with newsletters and elected leaders and shit. That is not the case, feminism is more just a big room where even once you're inside you're probably going to get yelled at. I've been yelled at by other feminists and it's cool. People speaking passionately and feeling strongly about something important to them is okay and feminism has its own "anger phase". You'd think TRP would be more understanding of that aspect of the community.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd think TRP would be more understanding of that aspect of the community.

Big difference. Feminism's anger phase results in men paying a higher price in society - men have to be more responsible than women when alcohol is around, they have zero reproductive rights, are assumed to be abusers first in domestic violence cases, have few if any shelters to go to, are more likely to be homeless, earn fewer degrees and have their spaces removed while women get to keep theirs.

TRP's anger phase just gets ridiculed because any time men express dissatisfaction or that women are hurting them, they are told they are wrong. You said it yourself that feminism is a "big room". That is a lot of space given to people arguing about a video game character. When men discuss laws, relationship issues or that no one seems to care, they get shat on in the tiny space they have to do so. When men have brought their issues up in feminist spaces they were not welcome, now they are nlt welcome to do so in their own space.

People speaking passionately and feeling strongly about something important to them is okay

Would be great if this applied to both sides. Only feminism is given this freedom though.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I assure you feminists call each other out and that the meta is constantly changing.

Okay. Show me some feminists that are calling other feminists out on, say, virgin shaming.

Do that, then explain why it's still so common for feminists to shame men for being virgins and generally sexually unsuccessful.

You seem to be under the impression that feminism is an organized group

Feminism is organized inasmuch as it has a certain amount of political and social resource which allows it to actively and passively promote certain views and shut down others. That resource is routinely used to promote the idea that it's shameful to be a sexually unattractive man, whereas no influential voices speak to protect them, even though doing so would be in line with the stated goals of most branches of feminism.

You'd think TRP would be more understanding

Nice assumption there that I'm a terper.

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I assure you feminists call each other out and that the meta is constantly changing.

So other words feminists PC other feminists, got it. Not that I am surprised given how much PC feminists push and how much feminists want to restrict speech least speech they don't like least from others but think they should have freedom of say/speech.

Right now there is an argument going on about a new video game where some feminists are saying it's great because it has a female main character, while others are saying it's bad because the character is a white girl dressed in Native American style clothes.

What game is this? Horizon Zero Dawn? If so feminists really need to learn up on Native American style clothing. And more so actually study cultural history as their whole so called cultural appropriation is nothing but code for stealing culture. The whole logic and thinking behind that is beyond bullshit its freaking insanity.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should hang out in some feminist spaces, not spaces making fun of feminist spaces but the real deal, and just observe. I assure you feminists call each other out and that the meta is constantly changing.

You are joking right? Last time I read in a feminist space I encountered one outraged woman who claimed that white people who used henna tattoos were appropriating her culture (my culture had henna tattoos before her culture even existed). I could also enjoy a white middle class woman being outraged that other people didn't feel pity for her that she chose to buy a house and have two children on in total 1,5 full-time salaries (and not very high salaries at that). The same woman also made it clear that contraceptives (for women) and abortions were a fundamental right while if men didn't want to have children they should just keep their pants on.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lxnarratorxlPurple Pill Man8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

I'll try but I won't pretend that it's not a complicated situation. Many feminist scholars seriously argue whether we're living in a postfeminist period. Not in the sense that feminism is completely dead or that all the feminist aims have been realized but in the sense that there's this mainstream attitude that always places feminism in the past, one that has nominally incorporated some feminist notions (the genders are equal primarily) but that shies away from seriously interrogating current society and culture about hidden biases and the invisible tools of systemic sexism.

So a lot of feminist scholarship has gone into examining this post-second wave feminist period. Another development in feminist scholarship is the recognition of intersectional identities. The way black women face different challenges than white women and trans women and so on and so on. This is especially important in light of increasingly diverse societies. It's for example very important to be aware of orientalism and imperialism and racism while also seriously tackling misogyny, sexism and patriarchy in non-western cultures and religions.

Another important "new" development (it's actually decades old at this point) is the critique and examination of the notion of gender. How does gender still influence how we view each other and which rolls we play in life. A lot of this is about how notions of gender influence things "under the hood" so to speak. For example, in the Netherlands women only make up between 25-30% of the full-time workforce. Most women work part-time. Feminists are the ones asking why that distribution is so gendered, especially in a seemingly progressive country like the Netherlands. Interrogating gender also happens with regards to the sciences and the whole idea of "bio-truths". How much of that research is influenced by own our preconceived notions?

So that's scholarship but feminism is also still activist of course. In terms of activism you're seeing a lot of identity and choice based feminism these days. Women fighting for the right to identify themselves according to their own desires. This has a lot to do with being sex-positive and fighting against slut-shaming and so on. Feminism as an identity statement is part of it too. This kind of activism is problematic when you keep in mind that we're living in a postfeminist period. So this kind of activism is sometimes looked down upon because some feminists think this kind of activism doesn't do enough to question whether we really are free when it comes to our choices and personal matters like sex. This kind of activism is sometimes called third-wave feminism. It's considered less political and less radical then earlier waves of feminism. I think Trump kinda threw a wrench into that definition of third-wave feminism tho and we're now seeing that the real activist heart of feminism never really went away and that serious issues like the gender wage gap and rape culture have stayed as important as issues of identity.

So I hope that kinda helped clear up the modern situation of feminism. My description definitely privileges a scholarly look of things and I assure you that more activist individuals would describe the modern situation differently. Suffice it to say that there's still a lot happening when it comes to feminist scholarship and feminist activism. There isn't "one" feminism but I think there never really was, it's just more obvious these days. Still, a lot of important issues are being tackled today (e.g. rape culture, invisible gender rolls, sexism in the sciences, patriarchy across different cultures, systemic sexism in modern society, the double standards in sexual norms for men and women, etc.)

[–]soccerstar77 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]footballma56Aggressively Average Looking1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dissentforall0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dissentforall0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Why would a woman living in the West not question and try to change the culture she was born and has always lived in? A dutch woman or Swedish woman lives in a much better situation than a woman living in Somalia but that doesn't mean she shouldn't continue to fight for improvement in her own situation.

The conditions in most parts of Africa are vastly different to the conditions in Europe and North-America. In many places there is war, widespread poverty, most overtly patriarchal cultures, less access to (high quality) education. Those issues should be tackled in conjunction with feminist activity. As long as they persist progress will be harder in Africa. But still, even despite those worse conditions there are still plenty of African feminists. Same goes for places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Japan. Just because they're not well-known doesn't mean they don't exist. I mean, most media outlets give barely any attention to the feminist in their own country let alone the feminists in abroad.

So to get back to your question, there's a reason Noam Chomsky writes about the abuses of power in and by the USA and not by China or Russia, despite those countries often doing worse on things like human rights. You work from within the country and culture you live in. It's not silly to ask questions or be an activist in your own country even if you're facing less difficult and clear-cut problems than people in other places. This is basically the "don't complain, there are starving kids in Africa" argument.

[–]locriologyNon-Pill Shitlord2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]locriologyNon-Pill Shitlord1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

When I say improve their situation I'm talking about striving for more equality and justice, especially when it comes to issues of gender.

So when a woman in Saudi Arabia looks at women in the West and sees women having equal rights under the law, working jobs just the same as men, enjoying the freedom to wear bikinis in public, and not being property of their husbands, don't you think they might make the same argument you're making now?

Any argument you make in the form of, "Compared to women in the West, men don't have any serious issues to deal with," I can apply to women in Saudi Arabia compared to women in the West.

When straight white men vote for Trump, for example, out of self-interest they're not just looking out for themselves but actively deciding to harm others.

Think about what you just wrote here. Do you honestly, truly believe that people were thinking to themselves, "Yes, this will harm people," while marking the box for Trump in the voting booth? I'm not talking about the fringe sadists or actual Klansmen or anything. I'm talking about the average Trump voter.

Did you write that honestly thinking you were accurately representing what Trump voters were thinking? Or is that just how it fits in your perception of them?

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Where did I say that men don't have serious issues to deal with? I just happen to think feminism is the best way of dealing with them. For all their talk about men's rights I actually think the manosphere more often then not plays into the toxic masculinity and the expectations of traditional gender rolls that harm men.

And wrt Trump voters no, I don't think harming others was all or even primarily what they were thinking. I think they were more preoccupied with the way the status quo (which Clinton represented) hurt them and how an outside force like Trump might help them. However, I think that for a large part of the Trump vote the demonization of others, especially latinos and muslims, was a huge plus. I don't presume the average Trump voter to be stupid so they must've been aware of just how much of a threat Trump represented to certain groups in society. This means they were either okay with that out of their own self-interest or were actively happy with the threat Trump was for latino's, muslims, blacks, etc.

I mean there's been research that showcases that racial animosity is especially high among those that voted for Trump. What I'm saying is not that controversial.

[–]locriologyNon-Pill Shitlord-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Where did I say that men don't have serious issues to deal with?

I said, "compared to women", which is only a slight exaggeration of actual feminist narrative. But still, that only serves to prove my point even more. If you say, "Sure men have issues, but women have it worse," then I'll say, "Sure, women in the West have issues, but women in Islamist countries have it worse."

The prevailing feminist narrative is that women's needs should be prioritized because they're oppressed in today's Western society. I'm just saying if we use the logic of "help the ones who are most in need," the buck can't stop with Western women.

And wrt Trump voters no, I don't think harming others was all or even primarily what they were thinking. I think they were more preoccupied with the way the status quo (which Clinton represented) hurt them and how an outside force like Trump might help them.

A fair statement.

I don't presume the average Trump voter to be stupid so they must've been aware of just how much of a threat Trump represented to certain groups in society. This means they were either okay with that out of their own self-interest or were actively happy with the threat Trump was for latino's, muslims, blacks, etc.

Aaaaand you're back to being intellectually lazy again. Instead of seeing two people, yourself and a Trump voter, as people with two different perspectives and each doing what they viewed as the right thing, you're applying your perspective to both yourself and the Trump voter, and assuming that the Trump voter knowingly did something morally wrong.

I encourage you to actually try to understand why just maybe someone did not view Trump as a threat to those minority groups. If it helps, think about the black people, Muslims, and Latinos who voted for him.

I mean there's been research that showcases that racial animosity is especially high among those that voted for Trump.

Happen to have a link to this research?

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It serves your point because it's not actually what I said. I don't think "men have issues but women have it worse", I think both men and women have issues. Those issues don't compete because they both go back to the same source (traditional views on gender, toxic masculinity). I don't think women's needs should be prioritized but I think women are the more obviously disadvantaged group. And it's intellectually dishonest to say that being a (feminist) activist somehow means that you should help the ones who are in need (on a worldwide scale) which is basically what you're saying. No use working to improve our own societies when there are worse one's around the world. Nobody thinks like that, as they should, because of course people privilege certain groups and their own societies. That's how actual change works.

When it comes to Trump you're the one being intellectually lazy. I mean, what platform did Trump campaign on? He promised people he would invest heavily in America again, put America first again. He promised to heavily limit immigration because migrants, especially coming from Latin America, were bringing crime and being leeches off of the American system. He talked about black people exclusively in terms of burning inner cities. He claimed muslims have a problem with America, that's why they supposedly celebrated 9/11 and that's why they should be kept out at all costs. You have been sleeping underneath a rock for the last year and a half if you haven't noticed Trump playing into people's racial biases yet. As for any black, muslim or latino voters I will just say that there are always people who, in the face of prejudice, hatred and animosity aimed squarely at them, think they can be one of the good ones. That they hatred and fear wouldn't hit them. Doesn't mean that the man they voted for did not represent that hatred in the flesh.

And here are three articles discusses various studies that indicate racial resentment and animosity played a big part in Trump's victory and the rise of the radical right in the West in general. The Vox one is quite a long read but also goes into the most depth (duh):

1.

2.

3.

[–]locriology1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think "men have issues but women have it worse", I think both men and women have issues.

I think women are the more obviously disadvantaged group.

What the fuck?

And it's intellectually dishonest to say that being a (feminist) activist somehow means that you should help the ones who are in need (on a worldwide scale) which is basically what you're saying.

Well that's convenient. My issues matter more than yours because you're privileged, but those even less-privileged people in other countries? Nah, too far away. We should just focus on my issues.

When it comes to Trump you're the one being intellectually lazy.

Incorrect. The difference between you and me is that I can state your position in a way that you would agree is generally accurate, but you are clearly incapable of doing that for me. Or you don't care to. Which makes you either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.

I mean, what platform did Trump campaign on? He promised people he would invest heavily in America again, put America first again...

Irrelevant tangent. Do I seriously need to hold your hand to keep you on track in this discussion? I asked you to make a sincere effort to understand the perspective of a Trump voter - in particular, try to see how one would not see the same bigotry that you see. In response, you started going off about why you feel Trump is a bigot. Couldn't have missed the point any more.

And here are three articles

Article 1: The question mentioned was “How likely is it that many whites are unable to find a job because employers are hiring minorities instead?” It's immediately obvious why this is total fucking horseshit to anyone with half a brain. Textbook loaded question that plays into people's economic anxieties and is extremely vague, and of course the author is going to use anyone who responded affirmatively as evidence of racism. What a crock.

Then they have the question about how well the word "violent" describes Muslims and black people, and measured the support for Trump based on these responses. Backwards logic. It's saying that racists tend to support Trump, but that is far from evidence that people who support Trump are racists.

Article 2:

Our experiment: How we ‘cued’ race

We embedded our experiment in a recent Internet survey conducted by Survey Sampling International (SSI) ...

Are we going to start using Fox News online polls as a source for reliable scientific research, too? I looked all around that article and couldn't find any link to an actual published paper. Unless I missed it?

Article 3: Yeah I'm not reading a fucking novel. I asked for a link to research - you know, peer-reviewed, published kinda stuff? I'm not interested in obnoxious fluff pieces that make no attempt to hide their bias.

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude, it feels like I'm the one that needs to hold your hand. Obvious and worse don't mean the same thing. When I say more obviously disadvantaged that means the disadvantage is more apparent, not that the issues are also worse. And again, you're being completely intellectually dishonest here. Nobody thinks everybody should work on the least privileged worldwide first and then make your way up the privilege ladder.

Nobody is stopping anybody from focusing on male-on-male rape in prisons or domestic abuse by women on their male partners. If you want to be an activist on those issues you can join the fucking feminists who already are. You seem incapable of envisioning progress as something that helps everybody, not something that puts the interests of different segments of society in conflict with one another.

And where exactly have you stated my position in a way I found accurate? You either misrepresent me or are just not understanding what I'm telling you, like here:

I said, "compared to women", which is only a slight exaggeration of actual feminist narrative. But still, that only serves to prove my point even more. If you say, "Sure men have issues, but women have it worse," then I'll say, "Sure, women in the West have issues, but women in Islamist countries have it worse."

The prevailing feminist narrative is that women's needs should be prioritized because they're oppressed in today's Western society. I'm just saying if we use the logic of "help the ones who are most in need," the buck can't stop with Western women.

Saying Trump trafficked in obvious bigotry throughout his campaign is not an irrelevant tangent. I respect the average Trump voter too much to just presume their ears are less capable of hearing shit than mine. Trump literally announced his candidacy with racist remarks about Mexicans. Trump has repeatedly used racist language, from the usual dog whistles (burning inner cities and black-on-black crime) to outright prejudiced statements (Mexico sends it's rapists, Muslims have a problem with the US). Trump's bigotry cannot be divorced from his victory. The perspective of Trump voters is informed by that same bigotry. Now, does that mean that the average Trump voter defines bigotry like I do. No, not necessarily but that does not make it not bigotry.

Now if I'm so incapable of seeing the different perspective of the average Trump voter, by all means please enlighten me. Explain to me what motivated people to vote for Trump and why they either failed to recognize the bigotry of many of his statements or chose to overlook it.

Finding peer-reviewed studies for such a recent phenomena is difficult because peer-reviewing takes time. That doesn't mean the studies discussed in the 3 articles aren't useful, however. Here is an actual paper and another article discussing a paper, both examining the role racism played in the 2016 election.

1.

2.

But perhaps that isn't enough for you either. So I would just really like to hear from you what you think motivated the average Trump voter to go for Trump and what role, if any, you think race and xenophobia played in his victory.

[–]locriology1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude, it feels like I'm the one that needs to hold your hand.

Is this what this debate is going to be? You take critical observations I've made and respond with "NO U"?

Obvious and worse don't mean the same thing. When I say more obviously disadvantaged that means the disadvantage is more apparent, not that the issues are also worse.

Why didn't you just say that? Don't blame me for your poor choice of words.

And again, you're being completely intellectually dishonest here. Nobody thinks everybody should work on the least privileged worldwide first and then make your way up the privilege ladder.

So, the whole "male tears", "what about the menz", "poor white boy is oppressed :(" type mockery is just completely not real? You're really denying that this is a thing that feminists do? Because I bet I could find countless instances of exactly this here on Reddit without even trying. And I'm talking about serious feminist discussion subs, not obvious shitposting places like SRS.

If you want to be an activist on those issues you can join the fucking feminists who already are.

What if I don't like the way feminists go about tackling men's issues? If I started a local group with the intention of discussing men's issues, do you seriously think it wouldn't be protested by feminists? Feminists protested even having an "International Men's Day" and got it canceled at University of York a couple years ago. Are these all straw feminists, too?

And where exactly have you stated my position in a way I found accurate?

I haven't made an explicit attempt to do so yet, but I also haven't deliberately misrepresented you. All I've really done is take your words and restate them in a less weasely way, and you don't like that because without the fluff, your arguments are ridiculous.

If you'd like, we can try the intellectual exercise of naming an issue, and trying our best to accurately represent the other person's position in such a way that the other person would agree is accurate.

Saying Trump trafficked in obvious bigotry throughout his campaign is not an irrelevant tangent. I respect the average Trump voter too much to just presume their ears are less capable of hearing shit than mine.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Responding to a request to consider an alternative perspective with incessant claims that your perspective is the objectively correct one is, once again, completely missing the point. Don't act like accusing Trump voters of dishonesty and/or racism instead of stupidity is somehow being charitable to them.

The perspective of Trump voters is informed by that same bigotry. Now, does that mean that the average Trump voter defines bigotry like I do. No, not necessarily but that does not make it not bigotry.

In other words, "maybe they don't see it as bigotry, but they're just wrong." That's not attempting to view their perspective, it's outright dismissing it. Try again.

Explain to me what motivated people to vote for Trump and why they either failed to recognize the bigotry of many of his statements or chose to overlook it.

Pick out some quotes of his since he began his campaign that you consider the most egregious examples of bigotry. Let's go over them in detail. Where you see undeniable evidence of bigotry, I'll show you how a different interpretation of it implies no bigotry at all.

Finding peer-reviewed studies for such a recent phenomena is difficult because peer-reviewing takes time.

Well, you made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up with the research you claimed existed. If it doesn't exist, that's fine, just admit you were wrong, and we can move on.

Article 1: Again, same problem as the last one. It shows that racist people tended to support Trump. That does not, in any way, imply that people who supported Trump tended to be racists.

Paper 2: Putting aside the questionable nature of using data from online surveys (again), look at the way they supposedly measured "racism". It's listed in the paper as "acknowledgement of racism", and making reference to concepts like white privilege. These are statements of opinions about society, not about races or people. Just because you don't believe white privilege is a thing doesn't mean you hold any negative feelings towards non-white people. They are two separate and independent things, and this paper's conflation of the two is dishonest.

So I would just really like to hear from you what you think motivated the average Trump voter to go for Trump and what role, if any, you think race and xenophobia played in his victory.

Really not wanting Clinton to be president. Email server scandal, Podesta email leaks, evidence of fishiness in the Democratic primaries, etc. all did not inspire much confidence, even among a lot of Democrats. (single biggest reason among people I know)
Trump was, in their eyes, the anti-establishment candidate, as evidenced by the fact that practically the entire GOP and Fox News opposed him up until the point he won the nomination.
As the anti-establishment candidate, he would be far more likely to shake up the status quo, for better or worse. People are sick of the same shit back and forth between run-of-the-mill Democrats and Republicans. Change of pace was exciting.
He represents a giant "fuck you" to the liberal, social justice, politically correct crowd who has been bullying them for years. If a black man can't find a job, the liberals will be up in arms complaining about "systemic racism", and make sure he gets taken care of. If a white man can't get a job, he is either ignored, his problems are dismissed, or he's outright mocked for having the audacity to complain about his situation as a white man.
If you're a fence-sitting voter, and one candidate literally out and claims that 50% of the voters in the other camp are "deplorable", that is certainly not going to make you want to support her.

Now, rather going with your instinctive reaction and trying to debunk all of those points, the challenge I've issued it to actually try to entertain those thoughts and empathize with people who feel this way. If you don't quite get it, that's fine, but it's the attempt to understand someone different that bridges gaps and creates tolerance.

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First of all, I'm not simply turning your "observations" around on you as some kind of spiteful attack. I said "more obviously disadvantaged" and you misunderstood me by thinking that means the same thing as "worse". How is that not you needing to be taken by the hand. That is less a poor choice of words and more you not understanding words.

But anyway, you don't seem like you're arguing out of bad faith so I don't want to personally attack you.

So, the whole "male tears", "what about the menz", "poor white boy is oppressed :(" type mockery is just completely not real? You're really denying that this is a thing that feminists do? Because I bet I could find countless instances of exactly this here on Reddit without even trying. And I'm talking about serious feminist discussion subs, not obvious shitposting places like SRS.

That is not what feminism is about. Women, even feminist women, saying stuff on reddit is not feminist activism. It's just people talking. That might seem like an easy out but it actually isn't. I'd argue that the more common feminist response to men's issues is actually not combative at all. Women making jokes about "male tears" because some men complain about the feminism in Mad Max: Fury Road or the female lead in Rogue One is not the same as feminists demeaning or dismissing men's issues. Take a look at the SRSDiscussion subreddit for example. You can find serious discussion there about how certain topics should be discussed, how to depersonalize what are essentially criticisms of structures and systems and why the use of insults like aspy or virgin are actually harmful and unproductive. Mainstream feminism is generally supportive of, for example, efforts to destigmatize male virginity and male victimhood in cases of rape and domestic abuse.

What if I don't like the way feminists go about tackling men's issues? If I started a local group with the intention of discussing men's issues, do you seriously think it wouldn't be protested by feminists? Feminists protested even having an "International Men's Day" and got it canceled at University of York a couple years ago. Are these all straw feminists, too?

Okay, first things first because I think this is very important, do you understand why people dislike "male spaces" like MGTOW, TRP, MRA and Incels? Discussing this is absolutely useless if you don't at least understand why those places are seen as toxic and unhelpful. But assuming that you do understand the I think it is disingenuous to say that feminists would automatically protest a local group for discussing men's rights. Look at the University of York thing. The objection to participating in the International Men's Day was that it played into existing structures of patriarchy and masculinity instead of interrogating them. The open letter where the staff and students expressed their objection mentions that "giving practical application to concepts of equality and diversity should be taken seriously by the university. However, we do not believe that this is furthered by the promotion of International Men's Day in general and are concerned by the particular way in which the university has chosen to do so". And here's another paragraph that really highlights why they were opposed to celebrating the day:

A day that celebrates men's issues - especially those outlined in the University's statement - does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities. The closing remark - ‘gender equality is for everyone’ - echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights. One particularly wrongheaded and offensive assertion is that ‘in the professional support services, there are areas where men are significantly under-represented. Likewise in academic departments, the support staff complement is often heavily weighted towards women, with some departments employing no men at all in these roles.’ Though the statement concedes that the ‘reasons for these circumstances are complex,’ it proposes that they should be addressed ‘in the same way that we approach unfairness and discrimination by women.’ This misses the crucial point that men’s ‘underrepresentation’ in these areas is a direct consequence of unfairness and discrimination towards women; secretarial and support work are gendered and demeaned as ‘women’s work,’ whereas men dominate senior - and better paid - roles. The statement is particularly crass in view of the fact that of the twelve-strong university Senior Management Group (SMG), three quarters are male.

That is not some simplistic opposition going back to "men vs women" but a well-thought out reason for opposing this specific way of highlighting men's issues.

Now to get to Trump. I have not been weasely in the slightest on Trump and why I think people voted for him. And I never claimed I had peer-reviewed studies on the reasoning behind the Trump vote. I just had studies, the studies used throughout the media to help explain why people supported Trump.

On that topic, I expressly stated that "I don't think harming others was all or even primarily what they were thinking. I think they were more preoccupied with the way the status quo (which Clinton represented) hurt them and how an outside force like Trump might help them". How is that all that different from what you said? All I did was confront the racism and bigotry attached to Trump that you've been avoiding all this time. Do you contest that Trump heavily blamed the outside world, as countries (China) but also as immigrants, for the status quo of working class America? Do you not see how absolutely drenched in racial resentment this...

He represents a giant "fuck you" to the liberal, social justice, politically correct crowd who has been bullying them for years. If a black man can't find a job, the liberals will be up in arms complaining about "systemic racism", and make sure he gets taken care of. If a white man can't get a job, he is either ignored, his problems are dismissed, or he's outright mocked for having the audacity to complain about his situation as a white man.

...argument in favor of Trump is? I am not questioning any of the reasons you've posited as having helped the Trump vote. But I am asking you what role Trump's race baiting played in the election and his popularity among voters. Why did Trump start his campaign by taking shots at Mexico who, according to him, sends it's rapists, drugs and crimes across the border? Why do you think Trump announced VOICE in his first State of the Union? Who do you think is to blame, according to Trump and his voters, for what he called this "American Carnage". Why did Trump change the agency responsible for investigating all kinds of terrorism into one solely focused on islamic terrorism? I don't disagree with you that there was more to his victory than just plain old racism. But this entire discussion about Trump started because I stated that people voting for Trump were either elated that their vote represented a serious threat to certain minorities or were aware yet uncaring about that fact. Do you dispute that?

So to summarize: I never argued that there weren't other issues at play than just race when it comes to Trump but I did argue that race played a role, and a significant role at that. You might disagree with that final part but I'm curious whether you dispute that race played any role at all.

[–]locriology1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is not what feminism is about. Women, even feminist women, saying stuff on reddit is not feminist activism. It's just people talking. That might seem like an easy out but it actually isn't. I'd argue that the more common feminist response to men's issues is actually not combative at all.

The first part of that is fair, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your last sentence. The feminist kneejerk reaction to anything containing "men's" and "rights" in the same sentence is beyond absurd. The typical justification is something like, "MRA's don't actually care about men's issues, they just want to bring women down." There's always overwhelming support for women-exclusive spaces, activities, or political activism, but try to do the same thing for men, and you will get protested by feminists. You can try to "no true scotsman" those feminists if you want, but the fact remains that this does happen. Regularly.

I say this as someone who doesn't consider himself MRA, Red Pill, MGTOW, or a member any of those "manosphere" communities.

Okay, first things first because I think this is very important, do you understand why people dislike "male spaces" like MGTOW, TRP, MRA and Incels? Discussing this is absolutely useless if you don't at least understand why those places are seen as toxic and unhelpful.

Yes. I understand. I go to /r/MensRights, /r/TheRedPill, /r/MGTOW, or any of those places and I see a lot of comments that are legitimately misogynistic, and a lot of men who actually do just have shitty views of women. This is (part of) why I have no desire to associate with them.

But assuming that you do understand the I think it is disingenuous to say that feminists would automatically protest a local group for discussing men's rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

Just a single example, and not intended to be proof of a trend, but there's a guy who just wanted to started a men's group while explicitly stating he wanted to distance himself from more toxic MRA groups, and he still got cockblocked by the university.

Does it happen automatically, 100% of the time? No, I suppose not. But again, it does happen.

Look at the University of York thing. The objection to participating in the International Men's Day was that it played into existing structures of patriarchy and masculinity instead of interrogating them.

This only makes sense from the perspective of someone who buys into patriarchy theory in the first place. If you don't know anything about feminism, or do know about it but reject their claims, then this sounds like a load of hogwash.

The closing remark - ‘gender equality is for everyone’ - echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights.

Do you see the problem with this statement? It's conflating "misogyny", which is hate/discrimination against women, with political opinions. It's a perfect example of the, "If you disagree with feminism, then you hate women," fallacy. Disagreeing with political activism or opinions is not the same as hating anyone.

This paragraph you extracted also appears to contradict your claim of what feminism represents, which is that men and women both have issues, neither one's more significantly severe than the other, but only women's issues are obvious and apparent. If you acknowledge that both men and women have issues, but then do things like protest celebrating International Men's Day because you don't think it has the same validity as International Women's day, you really don't view them on the same level, do you? More importantly, don't you see how protesting a holiday is just petty as fuck? I'm sorry, but you can come up with all the long-winded justifications you want, but this is just so blatantly a case of, "How dare you celebrate men when women are still oppressed."

Can you give me a real, defensible reason why celebrating a holiday called "International Men's Day" is so actively harmful that it needs to be stopped? I don't mean come up with some justification as to why it's less legitimate than the women's version, I mean why it's actually that dangerous. Because only then will I accept that this was anything other than childish pettiness.

Do you contest that Trump heavily blamed the outside world, as countries (China) but also as immigrants, for the status quo of working class America?

Illegal immigrants? No. Immigrants in general? Yes. Why so many people struggle with this distinction these days is beyond me.

Do you not see how absolutely drenched in racial resentment this argument in favor of Trump is?

I absolutely, unequivocally, wholeheartedly contest your interpretation of this. That example is not the hypothetical white man blaming black people for not being able to get a job. It is a state of frustration in response to common liberal rhetoric in which white people's issues are simply not taken seriously.

Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ulvcqaiM8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCHfH0WABTY

How in the world can you seriously expect to appeal to white voters this way? It's not a backlash towards racial minorities in the slightest, it's a backlash to being shat on by the media and liberal elites.

Now, I asked you to pick out some specific exact quotes by Trump that we could analyze for bigoted content, but what you did was paraphrase a couple things he said in a way that was charitable to your interpretation. Why do you think I wanted you to use exact quotes? I'm not going to discuss things you say he said, only things he said.

But this entire discussion about Trump started because I stated that people voting for Trump were either elated that their vote represented a serious threat to certain minorities or were aware yet uncaring about that fact. Do you dispute that?

Yes, I dispute that. I believe the majority of Trump voters did not believe he posed a threat to minorities, with the exceptions of illegal immigrants and Islamic terrorists.

I never argued that there weren't other issues at play than just race when it comes to Trump but I did argue that race played a role, and a significant role at that. You might disagree with that final part but I'm curious whether you dispute that race played any role at all.

We disagree on the extent to which race played a role, but we both agree that it played a role. To argue about the extent is a pointless exercise because it's highly subjective and difficult to prove, but what we can do is correct false representations and misunderstandings. I am still trying to get you to consider another perspective, but you just seem so caught up in how "correct" you are that Trump is a bigot who got elected mostly by appealing to other bigots.

Trump played the game very well in that he very carefully walked the line of bigotry. He didn't cross the line into outright racism (e.g. he never said, "I hate Latinos"), but he deliberately said things that were provocative and could (and would) be interpreted different ways by different people. This way, he got news coverage from the media, he got absolutely blasted by the left, which curries great favor from people who are sick of political correctness, and he got favor from the actual racists as well while still having plausible deniability that he himself is a racist. Is that a shitty tactic? One could say yes, but it was clearly an effective one.

My perspective on Trump was always that he's someone who's been in the news for longer than most media pundits have even been alive. He plays the game better than them. So rather than taking everything he said exactly at face value, I looked at the response he got, and his polls continued to rise.

[–]soccerstar77 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Postfeminist refers to the fact that nominally mainstream culture has incorporated a lot of traditional feminist thought. It's considered uncouth to think the gender aren't equal for example. however, a lot of the systemic cultural forces and societal pressures faced by women aren't questioned or interrogated at all in mainstream culture. So feminist ideals are merely co-opted in order to marginalize actual feminist activism. That weird development that started in the late 80s and early 90s is usually called postfeminist. So you're right, feminist goals haven't been completely achieved and so there's still room for feminism. It's just that mainstream culture isn't facilitating that kind of activism but often actively impeding it.

And with regards to your question about rape culture I'd say that we're a long way from saying "ultimately rape and sexual assault can't be stopped". It's still not unusual for men to get away with sexual assault or rape, there's still a boys will be boys mentality and the goddamn president of the US has bragged about assault and harassment on tape. So let's keep those kinds of questions for when we actually get to that stage.

[–]soccerstar77 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So you're right, feminist goals haven't been completely achieved and so there's still room for feminism.

But what kind of goals here, that can be changed?

It's still not unusual for men to get away with sexual assault or rape

What does "unusual" mean though here? Are we talking about cases where there isn't enough evidence? Or there is cover-up, like with the recent UC-system wide finding that 1/3 of it's employees have been involved in sexual misconduct?

there's still a boys will be boys mentality

How can feminism change this? This isn't a law or a right.

the goddamn president of the US has bragged about assault and harassment on tape

Again, what can feminism do to change this? That tape didn't contain any credible threats. This is the same reason why Madonna didn't get arrested for saying she thinks a lot about blowing up the white house.

What I am trying to say here is, given the current political climate in America, it doesn't seem like feminism is a reasonable cause by itself. Women, without consideration to race or citizenship status aren't hurting. Rape was never talked about on the campaign trail.

Also, bare in mind Im a mexican american with a few extended family who are undocumented. I am not a Trump supporter, but I feel that feminists tend to focus on specific examples of rape culture without really looking at America as a whole.

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Culture is more difficult to change than laws and regulations. It's relatively easy to change the law to allow women to vote but a lot harder to change mainstream culture. That doesn't mean people shouldn't try tho. I when I say it's not unusual for men to get away with rape or assault I'm referring to cases like the Brock Turner case, the overwhelming support for someone like Roman Polanski in Hollywood and the slut-shaming of victims that often occurs after a rape or sexual assault. Those things, like the fact that American society seems okay with a president who bragged about assaulting women and the general boys-will-be-boys mentality, are for the most part not changed easily.

One thing that can be done easily is no longer making colleges responsible for being the first to handle such cases but that won't change rape culture obviously. So the only thing to do is educate people and advocate for other ways of thinking. That might seem like a fruitless endeavor but it really isn't.

To give an example when it comes to racism: certain populations within the US are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Black people, Native Americans and Latino's. In the past the most common explanation was that these groups were just predisposed to crime. They were more savage or less intelligent or just inherently more aggressive. These explanations were accepted as "bio-truths" (this should shine a light on the dangers of RP as well). They often weren't enshrined in law, not totally at least. They did help segregation and such but even after such discriminatory laws were ended the explanations still stuck. It is only through the diligent work of activists that people have started to reevaluate the issue of minority over-representation in prisons. Now, more people believe in systemic racism, hidden biases, differing environments caused by a deeply racist history, etc. The cultural narrative that certain groups are over-represented because of their own faults hasn't been defeated completely yet but is has become less accepted. It is seen more often for the racism that it actually is.

So culture can only change when we actively force it to, by advocating and educating wherever we can. That's a job far more ambiguous and hard than lobbying and protesting to change laws but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.

[–]soccerstar77 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course privilege is more nuanced than just saying this group of people all have certain privileges equally. I mean, that's obviously not the case. But we still need to examine something like the Turner case and try to explain what makes something like that possible. And then we definitely have to take in consideration how social and economic status and race play a roll in how people are judged in society. The first thing that happens whenever some kind of injustice happens to a black person is that people try to find a way to justify it. Trayvon Martin looked intimidating in his hoody, that sort of thing. Any criminal activity, not matter how minor or how far into the past, is brought up just to try and paint the victim in a worse light. It's similar to slut-shaming and the way rape or sexual assault is often (partly) blamed on the victim. She dressed to "slutty" or she drank too much. The opposite often happens in cases concerning (rich) white men. There the immediate response is to downplay the crime and protect the perpetrator. Oh sure, maybe he raped this girl but he's also such a good kid (white men can be kids far into their twenties while black kids start being men in their early teens, just another example of systemic racism that needs to be acknowledged).

We need to understand and talk about those differences. Privilege is a nuanced subject but that doesn't mean we should shy away from it. And when we talk about privilege we're not attacking or blaming one group of people. We're talking about the way our current systems work and how they disadvantage some people while advantaging others. It's not the same as racial generalizing.

[–]WavesAcross0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

when I say it's not unusual for men to get away with rape or assault I'm referring to cases like the Brock Turner case, the overwhelming support for someone like Roman Polanski in Hollywood

Why don't you see this as a class issue rather than a gender issue? My main issue with the modern "social justice" culture is it seems to paint issues that are clearly class issues as race/sex/gender issues.

My cynical view is that this is a way for the people in power to divide us. Get everyone fighting amongst each other black vs white, men vs women etc... Preventing us from fighting against the people who are actually in power. And yes, while the people in power are disproportionately male and white, working to make our tyranny have a more accurate race/sex/gender balance, won't change the fact that will still live under tyrants.

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lollygagyoSociopathic Fake Flirter2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many feminist scholars seriously argue whether we're living in a postfeminist period.

I can only guess most say we are not because women still not "equal" to men despite women being more equal than men.

It's considered less political and less radical then earlier waves of feminism.

3rd wave is less political and less radical? lol wut? Its anything but. Even before Trump ran for president 3rd wave was just as much if not more so than earlier waves of feminism. 3rd wave feminism is things like mattress girl. And that protesting and fighting against MRA's with total refusal to try and work with them. As well ask being physically violent to anyone that opposes them or that targets their views (numerous video's on this). It arguably has help the rise of the regressive left and that the rise if antifa's.

Still, a lot of important issues are being tackled today

Not in the first world where manspreading is seen as a major issue far more than abortion rights.

sexism in the sciences

Which feminists have pushed the pendulum so far to women's side colleges are now hiring women for tenure science spots over that of men. Of course feminists are fine with this as they very much promote hiring of women over that of men, no matter how qualified or not the woman is.

[–]lxnarratorxlPurple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silentninjadesuBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DESTINOOOOO 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaderOfGamergateNon-Red Pill, anti-BP, anti-feminist4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Modern feminism is more or less a female-nationalist movement. It has no economic or social ideology, its all about bringing women forward and pushing men back, whatever the paradigm, whatever the context. A rich woman will always be more important than a poor man in the eyes of feminism, women must rise up and take more power at the expense of men. Women must have more privileges, and men must have less. This sometimes borders on hate, every conversation I've had with feminists online, they utilise very toxic and shameful language to attack men whom disagree with them. They call them neckbeards and virgins whilst decrying slutshaming or bodyshaming of women.

Its all-in-all a hypocritical movement with no coherent or rigid structure except Women yes, men no. Women must have more power, men must have less. That is the essential and undeniable essence of modern feminism.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeaderOfGamergateNon-Red Pill, anti-BP, anti-feminist1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]classycharacter[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IIHotelYorbatreats objects like women-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha. This is why it was so hilarious when Donald Trump started really taking the spotlight. Best thing he ever did was expose liberals hypocrisy. The news right now is so hilariously transparent in their bias. In order to be anti trump, they were pretty quick to become pro-islam, which shows they dont' give a damn about women's rights, just their own first world problems.

Intersectional feminism in all its anti straight white male rage while propping up islam has been hilarious to watch. Ironically in all this, Islam is the most antifeminist religion in political ideology and has a lot of similarities with the Red Pill thought train, much more so than Donald Trump ever would.

Also, obligatory "didn't vote for trump" post, but I'm starting to wish I did. He's making these people look like damn fools.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you live in the coastal US. I'd guess California which is as big an echo chamber as my super liberal University. I live in the rust belt, in a liberal stronghold for that matter. My state voted trump. It was shocking because its historically democrat. The shit on the news does not reflect reality here. Blaming everything on racism and xenophobia is a fucking joke. In reality, the dudes nationalism just resonated with people. I remember leading up to the election the polls had Clinton winning my state convincingly. It was weird because I didn't know anybody outside of a few college students who were excited about her. On the other hand, people wouldn't shut up about trump. The dude was popular across a lot of demographics here so it was really weird seeing the polls so opposite of the local "buzz". People are never buzzing about the republican candidate here.

This area is pretty liberal, nobody voted for him because of all these -isms, as much as the media likes making that shit up. Its fucking embarassing to watch right now.

[–]soccerstar77 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]soccerstar77 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soccerstar771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soccerstar771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GinSmokeLies1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soccerstar771 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let me know then their arcane ways aren't running the country or part of the cultural.

Which parts of Syrian cultures are too arcane (except for some like the wife having less say than her husband (but muh captain and first mate))? They've had a female vice president, are openly accepting feminism, progressed to more equality, etc

I have a bridge to sell you if you think that.

Okay, but what about the fact that they've changed their constitution and several laws in the last fifty years?

The current constitution guarantees equal rights and opportunities, equal pay and maternity benefits.

In the 60s they were ruled by the Ba'ath Party who's slogan was "Unity, liberty, socialism" and they promised emancipation and that all citizens have equal rights (and they changed the laws to be more equal and to promote emancipation). Syria has always been one of the better countries in that area

In 2012 they got a new constitution which was even better.

So I don't see how they aren't trying to be progressive

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]parduscat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawai1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutismoCircusNo pills0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soccerstar77 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Syria or other similarly relatively progressive countries.

Omg, I almost choked and died on my coffee laughing at this.

https://www.madre.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Syria%20UPR%20submission%20Final.pdf

Economic and familial pressures mean that many Syrian women and girls are made to accept marriages they may not otherwise consent to.xliii Many marriages are arranged between families rather than representing a choice by either the bride or groom, placing additional family pressure on women and girls to marry under nonconsensual terms.xliv Syrian law amplifies these pressures by requiring women to have the permission of their male guardian in order to marry; a provision not required for men.xlv Syrian law also permits underage marriage. Syrian men may marry at 18 but women can marry at 17. In addition, judges in Syria have the discretion to grant marriage to boys as young as 15 and girls as young as 13, upon a determination that the underage parties have reached puberty

Child marriages, spousal rape, forced marriages, Need father permission to marry, honor killings with only 1 year in prison, ISIS rapes, women can be married to much older men without consent.

You seriously don't know anything about Muslim countries. The idea that Muslim countries are progressive are psychotic delusions on the level of trump believing 3 million illegals voted in the election.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]parduscat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they argued that the Quran needs a progressive feminist reinterpretation.

And yet the middle east still treats women poorly. If liberals love Islam and the middle east so much, they are welcome to live there and assimilate the culture if they believe it is so harmless.

Fyi, I have muslim family and even they wouldn't dare go to the middle east, even for the money. It is one thing to be open minded, but liberals cannot decide how they view the muslim world. Is it a place of terrible suffering and inequality or one that needs more tolerance? How is it that they can hold the view that it is unequal yet people should be more accepting of the culture? It is the Patriarchy incarnate. That seems quite counter productive. It requires serious mental gymnastics to simultaneously criticise a culture and religion for how it treats women but then to tell others to be more accepting of it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soccerstar77 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]locriologyNon-Pill Shitlord0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In order to be anti trump, they were pretty quick to become pro-islam, which shows they dont' give a damn about women's rights

The thing is that it's very hard for someone who's not in a group (especially something sensitive like race or religion) to criticize the culture of that group without being arrogant and imposing their culture or values on others. It's much better to support the cause of people actually in that group who know what they're talking about, we support Muslim feminists, who understand their religion much better than we do. Rightwingers also don't realize that someone can be both Muslim and feminist at the same time, just like people can be Christian and feminist.

Let's say you're from country A, and someone from country B comes over to your country and starts telling you your culture is wrong. Of course that's disrespectful, and that's why we're against that.

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Intersectionality is Essentially a desperate grab by feminism to attempt to remain relevant. Because women's issues are fairly trivial and unimportant nowadays. Feminism already accomplished its goals. Women vote, go to college, have jobs, own properly, file for divorce, and have 100% of the same legal rights as men.

So now, in order to remain relevant, feminism needs to piggy-back on every single other bigotry issue in the world. "Your race is discriminated against? So are women! This intersectional issue proves we need to destroy the patriarchy!" "You're some kind of non-heterosexual, non-binary gendered individual? Cool! Feminism is totally about you as well! Don't be fooled by the name into thinking feminism is just about females. We're about anything as long as it's against white heterosexual christian males, who have enjoyed power for far too long!"

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

White women feminism is the foundation of modern feminism.

Your stereotypes are like several decades too old. You should update them.

You are talking about second wave feminism although third wave was created when intersectionality started becoming mainstream among feminists.

They [white women] literally started feminism. The ideal of intersectionality came later and still not part of feminism.

It came later and replaced the white women upper class feminism in the mainstream. Most feminists today talk about intersectionality and how second wave feminism only focused on the issues of privileged white women.

Link me one feminist article that actually shows this. Its funny you have to deflect such a statement than try and refute it.

It's clear that you've never read anything feminsts wrote since the 70s or 80s so I'm letting it up to you to do your research

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Your stereotypes are like several decades too old.

So history now is stereotyping now got it. And the foundation of feminism was set in the 1st wave, not second. You should really read up on feminism.

It came later and replaced the white women upper class feminism in the mainstream.

Too bad that is wrong. As if that was the case then black female feminists won't be fighting white female feminists today.

Most feminists today talk about intersectionality

Oh look more bullshit.

It's clear that you've never read anything feminsts wrote since the 70s or 80s so I'm letting it up to you to do your research

Too bad I have. But I see you can't refute what I said and can only deflect instead. Let me know when you plan on refuting my argument and not deflect it and actually prove me wrong. As all you doing is proving me correct.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How am I deflecting?

By saying I know nothing (even tho somehow I know more about feminism than you). And doing nothing to refute what I said, despite me asking you for a single link where intersectionality is happening, your reply to that was I read nothing and do my own homework.

You stated that feminists never talk about intersectionality

Ya because they think in black and white terms. Just cause they came up with the idea doesn't mean its part of feminism.

although it's the foundation of feminism since the 90s so you are clearly not informed enough

Despite the fact it in no way part of the foundation of feminism, never was nor will be. Why you think its part of the foundation is beyond me. And I am very much informed. Again if feminists talked about it all the time then they would stop thinking in black and white terms. The fact they have not and continue to do so says otherwise. The FACT you can't NOT even dispute this only proves this. You can't even produce a single feminist article taking this approach.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HelperBot_1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYou1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_RexMRP you wish was single4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]4NovaLecithin4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ManSentHisOwnWay 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]purpleppparmchair evo psych0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]voteGOPkBlack Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Typhoon_AshbiteMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is the self interested reasons that feminists appear to be preserving when they cry about their "moral outrage" towards men's sexual desires in terms of thin, younger fertile women?

if those sexual desires involve unwanted objectification or advances you can bet yer briches its a feminist issue

i think everyone experiences that sweet sweet taste of "im so morally righteous and those people are WRONG and it feels so good to feel RIGHT" and it is not exclusive to feminists. have you ever seen the moral righteousness of a pro-lifer or climate change advocate?

you cant dismiss an entire movement cause some people are dicks

Is this moral outrage just a guilt about their own moral culpability in terms of their own sexual desires/imperative toward the AF/BB issue?

nah, i think people are just very, very angry at the state of things and demonize the "other side" for it.

Title	Q4BP: Is third wave feminism just a function of self interested sexual politics for women?
Author	classycharacter
Upvotes	26
Comments	205
Date	March 2, 2017 10:19 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5x2h1c/q4bp_is_third_wave_feminism_just_a_function_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4bp-is-third-wave-feminism-just-a-function-of.269751 https://theredarchive.com/post/269751

Comments