Feminism gone wrong Thread

Yeap. Radical feminism. The thing that made me turn from a feminist into an equalist. The idea is the same, just includes everyone now.

EDIT: Anyone who missed it, here is another example.

I'll start with I Blame Patriarchy.

What is it?

Quote :

This blog is written for women. Its purpose is to advance radical feminism, not to empathize with male experience, or to coddle with delicate reassurances the male visitor who is threatened by a woman-centric zeitgeist.

Ahaha. Misandry on a feminist blog. Lose a point for missing the point of feminism.

Quote :

Do you really think a “matriarchy” would be any better?

Sadly this question is not answered.

Quote :

Educating men in the mysterious and rigorous discipline of viewing women as human beings is not, happily, the focus of this blog.

No, the focus of this blog is to blame men in power and being completely irony resistant to the unfortunate implications of doing so, while at the same time telling men to view women as human beings.

Quote :

Say, here’s some “revolutionary science” for y'all: I had my lab assistant Phil run some gels, and we found out that women aren't from Venus after all. Women belong 100% to the species H. sapiens!

Don't see it? If she views both men and women as humans, that means an all-female government would be just as bad as an all-male government or any mix of both female and male governments. So why the fuck is she blaming the patriarchy? Could it be that, perhaps she thinks that... matriarchy would be better?

You know, I could have believed that she feels that the current government is far too sexist and needs to improve, and that that's the purpose of the blog - to educate and spread awareness with a lot of evidence, but again...

Quote :

radical feminism

Quote :

Educating men in the mysterious and rigorous discipline of viewing women as human beings is not, happily, the focus of this blog.

...that's not the case. So why the rhetoric of 'women are human too' with simultaneous misandry?

Lose 10 points for being schizophrenic.

Quote :

Male persons who wish to leave comments on this blog are strongly encouraged not to. Male persons who wish to leave comments, despite the preceding statement, affirm, by clicking the “Blame” button, the following:

– That they grasp elementary feminist theory and therefore do not question the existence of patriarchy, that they benefit from male privilege, or the validity of the argument for women’s liberation from male oppression.

Uh-huh. I love begging the question. Lose a point for a logical fallacy. Lose another point for not giving any proof that patriarchy exists.

Quote :

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: 93.7% of 21st century feminist time is wasted reassuring people that feminists don’t hate men.

Quote :

It’s like Superglue, this loony idea that the spinster aunt — the aunt who merely yearns, swilling Scotch alone on her lime green recliner at spinster HQ, for women to assume fully human status in our cold, miserable world — promotes man-hating.

Lulz. Someone forgot that just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. And just because misandry is not being dropped at me every minute, that doesn't mean I don't see it giving me a paper-cut every 10 seconds. Talking down potential male readers is just the beginning of it.

Speaking of patriarchy, it doesn't exist. Why? Because men and women are humans and equal. And any form of government is an instance of humans governing humans.

The 'do not question existence of patriarchy' means you subscribe to radical feminist tripe. Which means

Quote :

– That enbiggening the discourse, rather than an ironic intellectual exercise, is the guiding principle of their commentary.

translates to 'circleshlick'. (:circlefap: not appropriate)

Needs more examples of radfem nutters.

Psy-4 wrote:

That enbiggening the discourse

Is . . . is that a Simpsons reference?

Please let that be a Simpsons reference.

Lysander wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

That enbiggening the discourse

Is . . . is that a Simpsons reference?

Please let that be a Simpsons reference.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Why on Earth do they not address the perfectly valid questions they, themselves posted on this page?

I planned to include the fact that she quoted Andrea Dworkin in the definition of antifeminism as proof that her claim that she doesn't hate men is a lie, but that was too easy.

And I was wrong! I said she provided no proof that patriarchy is real.

Behold!

Alright, let's do this.

Quote :

poster wrote:

While I understand Jill's position on the badness of a member of the sex class performing a submissive role in the bedroom (or dungeon, as the case may be), I haven't been able to find her opinion on the opposite situation: dominant women. Could somebody point me to the appropriate posts and/or comments? Or perhaps she herself could clarify.

She herself could clarify! With pleasure.

What maidden refers to as “the opposite situation” isn't opposite at all. Any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression, regardless of the sex, gender, race, diet, type of refrigerator, underwear, or political affiliation of the practitioner, is crappy and antifeminist.

Apparently women are incapable of having their own preferences. Alright.

Quote :

This includes sexay domination practiced by women; these behaviors are dictated by male fetish. As are all feminine behaviors.

Dominating women are hardly feminine. So everything feminine is dictated by male fetish, and everything opposite of that is too. Women just can't win.

Quote :

poster wrote:

Then maybe somebody could explain to me how it's possible for a woman to participate in any (heterosexual) sexual activity without subjecting herself to fulfilling a dude-centric fantasy of some kind.

It isn't. Sorry.

And apparently, basic sex, along with kinky sex, is included in any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression and is, therefore, antifeminist.

Quote :

Not even lesbians and asexuals are 100% patriarchy-free. Its ubiquity, see, is what makes patriarchy the dominant paradigm. The invisible, indefeasible pervasiveness of the culture of domination is the key concept of this blog.

If it's indefeasible, then this entire blog, and the entire feminist movement is an exercise in futility.

Quote :

Sadly, I fear that many readers are reluctant to fully embrace the horrific truth that patriarchy isn't just some abstract academic conceit. The don't wanna face that they themselves, as members of an honest-to-fuck sex class, are well and truly screwed.

You can actually see the tinfoil hat growing out of this post. You don't want to face the truth, because you are too scared! The best slave is the one that thinks he is free!

Wow. That was undeniably conclusive proof that patriarchy exists. Subtle dehumanization of women and garden variety conspiracy nut rhetoric.

Cyberwulf is going to flay you alive and then make you eat what she flayed off.

Psy-4 wrote:

Speaking of patriarchy, it doesn't exist.

Oh, you.

This doesn't deserve to be called feminism in any shape or form, because it makes actual feminists look like men-castrating, baby-hating monsters. And while totally sexist behavior (i.e., Roissy) is seen as a more acceptable behavior for me, it's not for women.

But then again, even though this is taking that way to the fucking extreme, isn't that part of the problem? Men can be sexist assholes who treat women like objects, but there's no way for women to do the same and end up coming off like anything even human? (Let alone likable)

To be quite honest with you, from what I have seen of this thing, she's not only a feminist, she's an absolute cynic who has made it out like there's not even a point to feminism.

I'm too much of an optimist for this shit.

Kateness wrote:

This doesn't deserve to be called feminism in any shape or form, because it makes actual feminists look like men-castrating, baby-hating monsters. And while totally sexist behavior (i.e., Roissy) is seen as a more acceptable behavior for me, it's not for women.

Ah, but they call themselves feminists and I don't see zombie Susan B. Anthony dening it. Like it or not, the apparent standard-bearer of mainstream feminism seems to currently be these clowns.

Quote :

But then again, even though this is taking that way to the fucking extreme, isn't that part of the problem? Men can be sexist assholes who treat women like objects, but there's no way for women to do the same and end up coming off like anything even human? (Let alone likable)

Except that the radical fringe of feminism seems to be "let's sterilize the lot of 'em", rather than "hurr, hurr penis." You're not physically harmed in one fantasy, and you've lost your ability to procreate (or even live, Y HALO THAR Valerie Solanas) in the other.

unskilled78 wrote:

Ah, but they call themselves feminists and I don't see zombie Susan B. Anthony dening it. Like it or not, the apparent standard-bearer of mainstream feminism seems to currently be these clowns.

Since when is some dumbass with a blog the "standard-bearer" of a movement? That's like saying that Amy Alkon is the leading figurehead for evo-psych.

Quote :

Except that the radical fringe of feminism seems to be "let's sterilize the lot of 'em", rather than "hurr, hurr penis." You're not physically harmed in one fantasy, and you've lost your ability to procreate (or even live, Y HALO THAR Valerie Solanas) in the other.

Woah hey flawed analogy. The problem is that "let's sterilize all the mens" doesn't actually happen on a wide scale, but female genital mutilation and honor killings are totally real and not even that uncommon in some countries.

Mae Bedlam wrote:

unskilled78 wrote:

Except that the radical fringe of feminism seems to be "let's sterilize the lot of 'em", rather than "hurr, hurr penis." You're not physically harmed in one fantasy, and you've lost your ability to procreate (or even live, Y HALO THAR Valerie Solanas) in the other.

Woah hey flawed analogy. The problem is that "let's sterilize all the mens" doesn't actually happen on a wide scale, but female genital mutilation and honor killings are totally real.

We have our own brand of "honor killings" and Male Genital mutilation is just as widespread.

unskilled78 wrote:

Mae Bedlam wrote:

unskilled78 wrote:

Except that the radical fringe of feminism seems to be "let's sterilize the lot of 'em", rather than "hurr, hurr penis." You're not physically harmed in one fantasy, and you've lost your ability to procreate (or even live, Y HALO THAR Valerie Solanas) in the other.

Woah hey flawed analogy. The problem is that "let's sterilize all the mens" doesn't actually happen on a wide scale, but female genital mutilation and honor killings are totally real.

We have our own brand of "honor killings" and Male Genital mutilation is just as widespread.

Or for cryin' out loud - you're actually trying to compare these things? Honestly?

Is... is Skillet trying to argue that men are oppressed?


WHAT.


:bang:

While ideology like equalism is nice and all, it ignores the fact that there is a social construct of inequality for both genders (way more so against women, though). Sure, you and I may think it's all equal and that it should be, but go out in the world and it's not so. Proclaiming oneself to be of any of these ideologies isn't going to change the fact that sexism still exists elsewhere.

And so, how are we going to stop it? Someone tell me how we can stop genital mutilation, honor killings, rapes to turn a person straight, etc. How long are we going to have to wait until a blue-collar job will pay a woman as much as a man for the same amount of work? Women make 3/4 as much as men do- and the reasoning is skewed. They think a man has to feed his family, but newsflash- women have babies. I think of all the shit my mom had to go through at the workplace, growing up with expectations put upon her to behave a certain way...

You should have seen my ancestors' small ranch town- the women weren't even allowed to go outside, bathe for two months after having a baby, bathe during menstrual cycles, nor go out and help with ranch duty even if they wanted to. Roles were deeply gendered both ways in this machismo culture that frowned upon men who wanted to stay inside and do more "womanly" hobbies like knitting, crafting, or cooking, and the women who wanted so bad to help out with the cattle drive. Sure, it's gone now but think about how we sort people today and how we treat others based on our gendertyping of them in real life.

How long will it take for this world to accept people for who they are and treat them equally? Sure I want to be optimistic but how are we going to fix this?

I was actually thinking more of the times when there was a draft that could take little Billy-Bob off to die for the simple reason that Uncle Sam needs bodys to fill his LSTs, and I don't really see the difference between Circumscision and FGM (other than the unsanitary conditions under which FGM is generally performed, but that's hardly because of anti-feminsit feeling.)

also, Nil, with the wage gap: Economists seem to be divided fairly evenly as to whether that's a result of things like Maternity leave (time off = less salary and less senority), or more women leaving to raise kids, or a secret conspiracy to keep women heterosexual by providing a need to get married.

Dr. Professor Science wrote:

Is... is Skillet trying to argue that men are oppressed?

No, I am arguing that being oppressed is a part of being human, not solely for those who are a minority.

Nihilist wrote:

- the women weren't even allowed to bathe for two months after having a baby, bathe during menstrual cycles

What the fuck....that shit is disgusting right thurr. I'm morbidly curious as to the reasoning behind that, though. Did they think she'd wash off some of her....feminity or something?

Also Skillet, you fail at analogies.

unskilled78 wrote:

also, Nil, with the wage gap: Economists seem to be divided fairly evenly as to whether that's a result of things like Maternity leave (time off = less salary and less senority), or more women leaving to raise kids, or a secret conspiracy to keep women heterosexual by providing a need to get married.

Sure, you can vomit reasons up at me for another 200 years, but can you stop and think critically and go "Hey, something is wrong with that" and instead of trying to keep the status quo, trying to make things better? What the fuck is wrong with you

Sheba wrote:

What the fuck....that shit is disgusting right thurr. I'm morbidly curious as to the reasoning behind that, though. Did they think she'd wash off some of her....feminity or something?

The supposed reasoning is that a woman is unclean during her menstrual cycle, so dirty that she'll contaminate the water.

Nihilist wrote:

Sheba wrote:

What the fuck....that shit is disgusting right thurr. I'm morbidly curious as to the reasoning behind that, though. Did they think she'd wash off some of her....feminity or something?

The supposed reasoning is that a woman is unclean during her menstrual cycle, so dirty that she'll contaminate the water.

But. Bathing in general contaminates the water.

unskilled78 wrote:

I was actually thinking more of the times when there was a draft that could take little Billy-Bob off to die for the simple reason that Uncle Sam needs bodys to fill his LSTs,

How is this the same as a family murdering their daughter for being raped or refusing to marry? I know you're famously sheltered and socially retarded, but you really can't be that dense.

Quote :

and I don't really see the difference between Circumscision and FGM (other than the unsanitary conditions under which FGM is generally performed, but that's hardly because of anti-feminsit feeling.)

How about the fact that genitals are different and that male circumcision doesn't affect intercourse the way female circumcision does? Or that female circumcision is practiced specifically because it makes sex painful for the woman?

oh god why am i even bothering

Bamshalam wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

Sheba wrote:

What the fuck....that shit is disgusting right thurr. I'm morbidly curious as to the reasoning behind that, though. Did they think she'd wash off some of her....feminity or something?

The supposed reasoning is that a woman is unclean during her menstrual cycle, so dirty that she'll contaminate the water.

But. Bathing in general contaminates the water.

Yeah, weird isn't it

oh and after having the baby, the woman had to be kept secluded in a room by herself for a month because she was unclean. And don't get me started on the rules governing sex, what a person was supposed to wear, and that the curanderos (herbal healers) often thought rape was a good cure for anything. And you know what, that's the only kind of healer they had.

Jesus fucking Christ

ETA: why am I even bothering with this thread, it's obvious Cyberwulf bait and you know she's smarter than that

You know, I was going to berate Skillet, but that never works, and then I slapped myself and said, "Silly, you knew as soon as you saw this thread was posted by Psy-4 that it was Cyberwulf-bait. What are you doing!"

but seriously Skillet, cut it out

unskilled78 wrote:

No, I am arguing that being oppressed is a part of being human, not solely for those who are a minority.

unskilled78 wrote:

No, I am arguing that being oppressed is a part of being human, not solely for those who are a minority.

unskilled78 wrote:

minority

unskilled78 wrote:

minority

PROTIP: Women are 50% of the world population.

Sure is obvious trolling in here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Psy is trolling, but the really worrying part is Skillet actually believes what he's typing.