Off-Topic Let's talk about second-wave radical feminism - Dynastia's Daycare for the emotionally troubled.

[BE 911]

pretty much every woman who seeks a life that isn't sucking shit out of a gutter is a feminist, even if she hasn't self-categorized or been categorized yet.
And yes, even "egalitarians" are feminists. That's just libfem with a man-friendly hat.

I'm sorry but that kind of logic is extremely bad. Arguing that feminism is the same as egalitarianism is not only incorrect since feminism is mostly focused on women-centric issues, but also dismisses the roots and history of feminism, which was to help women attain rights they couldn't attain otherwise. Moreover plenty of feminists are openly non-egalitarian, as some discriminate against men, or openly go against a certain set of people who they believe should not have the same rights as them (for example transgender people for TERFs). So I disagree with this notion that egalitarians and feminists are the same, especially in a world where feminism is a very large umbrella with a lot of different people having a lot of different opinions about how matters should be handled, with some members purposefully going against some egalitarian ideals. So while in theory, egalitarians could automatically be considered feminists if we were to go by textual definitions, I feel that in practice it's very different, and how people address "equality" is very different according to who you're speaking to, and perhaps an egalitarian and feminist would actually end up disagreeing on some subject matters because of that difference.

I feel it's important to make the difference between things and carefully choose what you subscribe to in terms of ideology. Making your own research is better than believing in someone telling you that you automatically belong in an ideology if you believe X.

 

[2nd_time_user]

I'm sorry but that kind of logic is extremely bad. Arguing that feminism is the same as egalitarianism is not only incorrect since feminism is mostly focused on women-centric issues, but also dismisses the roots and history of feminism, which was to help women attain rights they couldn't attain otherwise. Moreover plenty of feminists are openly non-egalitarian, as some discriminate against men, or openly go against a certain set of people who they believe should not have the same rights as them (for example transgender people for TERFs). So I disagree with this notion that egalitarians and feminists are the same, especially in a world where feminism is a very large umbrella with a lot of different people having a lot of different opinions about how matters should be handled, with some members purposefully going against some egalitarian ideals. So while in theory, egalitarians could automatically be considered feminists if we were to go by textual definitions, I feel that in practice it's very different, and how people address "equality" is very different according to who you're speaking to, and perhaps an egalitarian and feminist would actually end up disagreeing on some subject matters because of that difference.

I feel it's important to make the difference between things and carefully choose what you subscribe to in terms of ideology. Making your own research is better than believing in someone telling you that you automatically belong in an ideology if you believe X.

That wasn't @brainlent's point though. Her point was that people are defining "feminism" as whatever they want under the banner of "equality."

 

[BE 911]

That wasn't @brainlent's point though. Her point was that people are defining "feminism" as whatever they want under the banner of "equality."

Yes, and my point is that it's dismissive of feminism's roots, history, and what it actually stands for.

 

[brainlent]

I'm sorry but that kind of logic is extremely bad. Arguing that feminism is the same as egalitarianism is not only incorrect since feminism is mostly focused on women-centric issues, but also dismisses the roots and history of feminism, which was to help women attain rights they couldn't attain otherwise. Moreover plenty of feminists are openly non-egalitarian, as some discriminate against men, or openly go against a certain set of people who they believe should not have the same rights as them (for example transgender people for TERFs). So I disagree with this notion that egalitarians and feminists are the same, especially in a world where feminism is a very large umbrella with a lot of different people having a lot of different opinions about how matters should be handled, with some members purposefully going against some egalitarian ideals. So while in theory, egalitarians could automatically be considered feminists if we were to go by textual definitions, I feel that in practice it's very different, and how people address "equality" is very different according to who you're speaking to, and perhaps an egalitarian and feminist would actually end up disagreeing on some subject matters because of that difference.

I feel it's important to make the difference between things and carefully choose what you subscribe to in terms of ideology. Making your own research is better than believing in someone telling you that you automatically belong in an ideology if you believe X.

Not all feminism is egalitarianism.
All egalitarianism is feminist.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Not all feminism is egalitarianism.
All egalitarianism is feminist.

Here's where I'm going to stop you. If "all egalitarianism is feminist" it naturally follows that all troons and all men actually should get access to women's bathrooms/pool locker rooms/prisons/dorms. If everything is equal, you can't prefer having female correctional officers watching over female inmates when at the same time championing said female officers working in male facilities that outnumber them, where I am, over 14 to 1. If everything is equal, you can't then champion these female sportswriters who clamored to get into pro locker rooms where men were fully naked to get dressed, then say it's not OK to have male journos go in and observe say LNBA players in similar states.

You can't argue for sex-based spaces at all as the egalitarianism ideal is to, by definition, get rid of them.

The second-wavers/derivative radfems largely DO say the sexes are not equal, hence their advocacy for sex-segregated spaces. What they've done for the past 40 years is argue that women should be allowed into more "male-controlled" turf without the expectation that males would eventually tur their rhetoric and the underlying progressive argument back on them by being allowed into women's spaces.

 

[AnOminous]

What they've done for the past 40 years is argue that women should be allowed into more "male-controlled" turf without the expectation that males would eventually tur their rhetoric and the underlying progressive argument back on them by being allowed into women's spaces.

Much less that the invaders would claim to be more woman than actual women and invade their spaces violently, while openly demanding their cocks sucked.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Much less that the invaders would claim to be more woman than actual women and invade their spaces violently, while openly demanding their cocks sucked.

Ya. I mean, I think some realism is required from both the TERF and troon side here. Transwomen are transwomen, not biological females. Most MTFs do not pass seamlessly. But at the same time, if they do their business and quickly exit the women's like everyone else, that solves most of the conflict right there. If MTFs compete in co-ed due to their physiology, absolutely no one has a problem.

Where MTFs do is by insisting that transwomen and women are exactly the same, then leveraging that for validation and asspats. It's not on women to first notice your difference and then say, oh, "he I mean SHE is a woman" and then start complimenting you on how much you pass. Let alone in more intimate situations like pool locker rooms and saunas. I've seen, one time, a woman doing these yoga poses in the sauna fully nude, her actual vag in full view. I didn't appreciate this as it was but that's nothing like seeing a dick in an enclosed space. Jon's not the first troon to be carrying around tampons because they think that will increase acceptability. Because really, few women ask and if they do, they're not asking any WOMAN over 50 let alone 12.

Transwomen and women are not the same. It's the MTFs that don't get that who are causing 95 percent of the problem.

 

[Cryin RN]

I've seen, one time, a woman doing these yoga poses in the sauna fully nude, her actual vag in full view.

Cool. So that's the lady equivalent of the old men that blow-dry their sacks. Wish I didn't know that now.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Cool. So that's the lady equivalent of the old men that blow-dry their sacks. Wish I didn't know that now.

Nowhere near equivalent. This woman exposing her labia minora was more like "eww, I can't believe you're doing that, that's incredibly rude."

Whereas anyone with a dick doing that would provoke immediate screams.

 

[brainlent]

Here's where I'm going to stop you. If "all egalitarianism is feminist" it naturally follows that all troons and all men actually should get access to women's bathrooms/pool locker rooms/prisons/dorms. If everything is equal, you can't prefer having female correctional officers watching over female inmates when at the same time championing said female officers working in male facilities that outnumber them, where I am, over 14 to 1. If everything is equal, you can't then champion these female sportswriters who clamored to get into pro locker rooms where men were fully naked to get dressed, then say it's not OK to have male journos go in and observe say LNBA players in similar states.

You can't argue for sex-based spaces at all as the egalitarianism ideal is to, by definition, get rid of them.

The second-wavers/derivative radfems largely DO say the sexes are not equal, hence their advocacy for sex-segregated spaces. What they've done for the past 40 years is argue that women should be allowed into more "male-controlled" turf without the expectation that males would eventually tur their rhetoric and the underlying progressive argument back on them by being allowed into women's spaces.

It depends on your definition of equal.
If equal just means everyone should be accommodated, that could mean accomodated separately or together.
Generally egalitarianism just means, no special treatment, no targeted oppression. If that results in every single combination of sex and gender having its own accomodation, that's still egalitarian.
And colloquially, I've always heard it from the mouths of women who want to say women deserve equal rights but need to emphasize their nonaggression towards men. That's not rhetoric against women's spaces, it's a vague plea to end all sexism.

 

[Otterly]

How do radical feminists justify simultaneously believing that MtF trannies have an unfair advantage in sports because of their male biology, and that men and women are precisely equally capable of performing at all jobs and tasks?

In my experience it’s actually the third wavers who think like that. Men and women are not capable of the same physical tasks at the same levels at all times. It’s perfectly OK to hire a man for deep sea salvage work or something that requires physical work outwith female strength. It’s not OK to say lady brains can’t cope with working at CERN. It’s OK to say you only want a carer of the same sex as your elderly parent to wipe their arse.

The wanting access to spaces thing is also more subtle. Imo both sexes should be able to have single sex clubs, spaces and provisions. What’s dodgy is where you have exclusive power in a closed area only accessible to one sex. So a male and a female dining club is fine. All the power deals only being made in a club where women aren’t allowed is an issue - in that scenario women are excluded from all power rather than equitable but separate by sex provision.

There is a difference between true equitableness (if that’s even a word) and access all areas, no privacy allowed.

 

[CeleryBread]

I'm a bit rusty in my philosophy, but from what I remember reading I thought egalitarianism was its own thing, tied to humanism. I think some egalitarians actually consider men+women's lib to be branches of the philosophy, since usually egalitarianism is considered to be too "general" in its focus

 

[TrannyLindsayLohan]

Ya. I mean, I think some realism is required from both the TERF and troon side here. Transwomen are transwomen, not biological females. Most MTFs do not pass seamlessly. But at the same time, if they do their business and quickly exit the women's like everyone else, that solves most of the conflict right there. If MTFs compete in co-ed due to their physiology, absolutely no one has a problem.

Where MTFs do is by insisting that transwomen and women are exactly the same, then leveraging that for validation and asspats. It's not on women to first notice your difference and then say, oh, "he I mean SHE is a woman" and then start complimenting you on how much you pass. Let alone in more intimate situations like pool locker rooms and saunas. I've seen, one time, a woman doing these yoga poses in the sauna fully nude, her actual vag in full view. I didn't appreciate this as it was but that's nothing like seeing a dick in an enclosed space. Jon's not the first troon to be carrying around tampons because they think that will increase acceptability. Because really, few women ask and if they do, they're not asking any WOMAN over 50 let alone 12.

Transwomen and women are not the same. It's the MTFs that don't get that who are causing 95 percent of the problem.

If transwomen are really women, then there shouldn’t be any issue with cis women playing one of us in a movie; the fact so many troons chimp out over it ( or god forbid a transwoman part being played by a cis MAN) tells you all you need to know.

The reality is even the best-passing of us will never have an idea what it’s like to deal with periods and worry about pregnancy, much less going through female puberty as an adolescent. There’s just always going a gulf there.

 

[2nd_time_user]

If transwomen are really women, then there shouldn’t be any issue with cis women playing one of us in a movie; the fact so many troons chimp out over it ( or god forbid a transwoman part being played by a cis MAN) tells you all you need to know.

The reality is even the best-passing of us will never have an idea what it’s like to deal with periods and worry about pregnancy, much less going through female puberty as an adolescent. There’s just always going a gulf there.

Hollywood should be promoting transwomen as transwomen, though. Take L&O SVU. AFAIK they've only used a true and honest transwoman once, and that's b/c the plot involved a NON-PASSING one.

The other plots involving TW were "trap" dramas. You don't need a CIS woman there to accentuate how people really "can't tell." It's an insult to TW, but TBF, if they didn't, then the non-passing ones would see it as an insult that someone who looked like Blaire was featured.

 

[HG 400]

Okay everyone, I figured we might as well add a little spice to this daycare by dissecting and offering feminalysis on some galaxy-brained hot takes from the resident angry boys. I'll start us off with an excerpt from a slapfight that started in the Stonetoss thread.

The comic in question is this.

Spoiler

But what if the man was a slut?

To quote the great philosopher Patrice O Neal, you can't go "what about men" for everything.

What can I say? Turnabout is fair play. Who doesn't like equality?

Look it's very simple. I described an asymmetry between what men seek in women and what women seek in men (for long term partners). You suggested that women start modifying what they seek in men, and go against their unmodified desires, simply to attain "equality". You called it turnabout, but if you look your motive, it's really just a kind of revenge. It's like men deciding to only want to date rich women because on average, women prefer richer partners. It would be this weird kind of revenge. And if you wanna do that, be my guest, you're never going to convince at most a handful of people to go against their own interests anyways.

I'm on the money because the comic hit home to you. You're 37 and you missed the boat. So now you try to convince yourself that you didn't want to get on the boat. You tell the lie that you don't want men to want you. And you know what, I feel you, it's probably a tough place to be.

Plenty to unpack here when it comes to the premium society places on virginity, the suppression of the female sex drive, and the madonna-whore complex. It'd feel gauche of me to start, so I'll cede the floor to anyone else who wants to take first crack at this.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Okay everyone, I figured we might as well add a little spice to this daycare by dissecting and offering feminalysis on some galaxy-brained hot takes from the resident angry boys. I'll start us off with an excerpt from a slapfight that started in the Stonetoss thread.

The comic in question is this.

Spoiler

Plenty to unpack here when it comes to the premium society places on virginity, the suppression of the female sex drive, and the madonna-whore complex. It'd feel gauche of me to start, so I'll cede the floor to anyone else who wants to take first crack at this.

Meh. I didn't find the comic strip especially funny nor really offensive. I just didn't get it.

As to the thing about women only dating rich men, that's not at all the same as saying they want them financially independent and employed. Many women I know outearn and/or have more assets than their partners. To me this sounds like an argument from soys in their mom's basement who want to fuck say an 8 and the 3s are saying no.

 

[Otterly]

Meh. I mean wanting your partner to have a stable job and pull their weight is standard isn’t it? For both partners? If one of you gets sick and needs to be carried a bit or if you have a bit of time out to raise kids then go back to work or retrain or go back to school for a few years that’s very different to just being a gold digger. There are men and women who go after rich people - I dont think that’s particularly sex specific. Being able to hold down a steady job is a market of being an adult. It’s not the same as saying you want to marry someone loaded and spend the rest of your life not working.

The whole ‘wah wah evil wimmin only go for chads’ thing is bollocks - I mean ffs just look at the Male cows on here who are still getting laid. Greta is getting laid, and if Greta can get laid I don’t want to hear any whining about how women only go for brad Pitt lookalikes

 

[FI 665]

Look it's very simple. I described an asymmetry between what men seek in women and what women seek in men (for long term partners).

From the comic, it's that women apparently only think about babies and a salaryman husband when fucking what appears to be a smug guido, and the dude with the briefcase prizes virginity and the woman's ability to "bear male children" and little else? Society fetishizes women's vulnerabilities, but bands together in infantilizing her when she expresses that she has a sex drive.

Nice slapfight tho, oh my.

I'm on the money because the comic hit home to you. You're 37 and you missed the boat. So now you try to convince yourself that you didn't want to get on the boat. You tell the lie that you don't want men to want you. And you know what, I feel you, it's probably a tough place to be.

Is 'the boat' supposed to be full of men, because it sounds like a really gay place to be.

 

[Cryin RN]

People want exciting partners when they're younger, and the hotter version of their opposite-sex parent when they get broody and their friends are posting cute photos of their toddlers at the ball game on Facebook. It's a unisex issue. Also, this is pulled out of my ass, but desire for children seems partially dependent on the stability of the current partner. It's not a variable that always exists independent of the relationship. Lots of friends were adamant about childlessness while they were dating fuckboys and girls whose shit was not together, but their minds change when someone comes along who doesn't get drunk with her friends every weekend.

 

[SourDiesel]

First of all, men that complain that women only want rich guys have a very low bar for what they consider "rich". You know, guys that can afford to take care of themselves and go out to a movie once in a while and might even own a car. You know, rich guys. These dudes have nothing to offer, that's the problem.

As mentioned though, when people in general are ready to settle down, they tend to choose stable partners and stability is a bit boring just by definition. But guess what? Not everyone is ready to settle down and sometimes people wanna fuck some douchebag because they're hot or they're horny or whatever. And you know what else? Those people really couldn't give a fuck that some dude or dudette is out there pining away for "real love". Sometimes people aren't looking for real love so they really couldn't care less if they don't find it.

This really strikes me as an incel meme. Like it's trying to say, "Look, I'm this nice guy who could take care of you but here you are pursuing this absolute Chad with nothing substantial to offer. And when you realize I'm over here pining over you, I may be gone. Won't you feel bad then?" But the answer really is "No, you idiot because I'm not looking for that right now anyway and even if I was it's literally none of your business who I'm fucking or why you goddamned mall ninja". Like even in the comic, she's like, "Wait who the fuck are you?" The dude is a complete stranger just having an opinion on who women he's never met are fucking.

"Why aren't you with meeeee?"
"Well for starters, I've never even met you."