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

[2nd_time_user]

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.

Disagree somewhat. If the woman feels secure in her own financial independence/prowess, it is not at all uncommon for her to be open to childbearing or actively pursue it. Especially in the latter years and especially if that's what they really want to do.

 

[brainlent]

This tweet is my response to that comic in a nutshell.

Sure you're virtuous enough to marry your women, Stonetoss. You also make webcomics for a living, so I'm sure they'll all come running to recieve your plastic wedding ring and live with you in your cardboard box.

You could only turn me into the woman from the comic here if you have tenure, your dick is raspberry flavored, and you promise to die young.

 

[FI 665]

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."

The creator really hits all of the incel/MRA/TRP/MGTOW points with a lot of his stuff, it seems. Behold:

Spoiler

"Why yes, I have jizzed on every object in my house, including my ex-girlfriend, whom I also consider to be an object!" Like dude, it's bodily fluid. It's jizz. It wipes off, it doesn't automatically stain and taint every woman who fucks someone forever.

 

[SourDiesel]

The creator really hits all of the incel/MRA/TRP/MGTOW points with a lot of his stuff, it seems. Behold:

Spoiler

View attachment 884749

"Why yes, I have jizzed on every object in my house, including my ex-girlfriend, whom I also consider to be an object!" Like dude, it's bodily fluid. It's jizz. It wipes off, it doesn't automatically stain and taint every woman who fucks someone forever.

Haha ooooookay. So this is what we're dealing with. Jesus Christ look at how buddy drew his ex girlfriend. Literally a cardboard cutout of a woman. Lol these guys are too much. Cliché I know, but hey, maybe it's your attitude pal?

 

[theshep]

 

[SourDiesel]

Ok yes but what does this have to do with radical feminism?

 

[redcent]

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.

Well, since it keeps bugging me and there's more room to swing a cat here I suppose without the mods eating me....

...I honestly don't think virginity really is valued, at least not to that great extent. You really don't get any special rewards for it. BUT female sexuality really is demonised. It really shocked me when I first saw the manosphere rants how much vitriol there was towards "whores" which has now become an umbrella term for anything a woman does that is remotely sexual. I don't want to be that person who's all for promoting orgies or polygamy. But the fact is woman have urges just like men -doesn't mean they're going to be in the polygamy crowd- yet it get's beaten down with the reasoning "she'll become a massive whore" despite being a natural urge just like men have.

Yet if you're a virgin you're largely ignored. Some excuse get's thrown up "you're just stuck like that because ugly" "you're just a man hating feminist" it goes on. You're seen as a prude and get mocked. No one really sees it as a choice, no one believes a person would choose that. Once again, there's no special prizes for being a virgin. No recognition, no praise except for maybe close relatives or something. One slip up though no matter how small and suddenly you're one of the whores. You can't wear this, you can't look at that... The comic isn't a praise of remaining pure, it's not a carrot method, it's a stick method for beating down women.

Yet guys largely seem to escape that stick (not all, I know some guys go through some rough shit. And it should go without saying this isn't a rant against men as a whole, the majority are relatively decent). As a girl I'm given a bunch of rules (not as bad as it is with say girls in the ME or FLDS don't get me started there though) yet so many men get off with slaps on the wrists for doing some pretty shit things. And I guess I'm just pissy how unfair that is.

 

[FI 665]

Well, since it keeps bugging me and there's more room to swing a cat here I suppose without the mods eating me....

Yet if you're a virgin you're largely ignored. Some excuse get's thrown up "you're just stuck like that because ugly" "you're just a man hating feminist" it goes on. You're seen as a prude and get mocked. No one really sees it as a choice, no one believes a person would choose that. Once again, there's no special prizes for being a virgin. No recognition, no praise except for maybe close relatives or something. One slip up though no matter how small and suddenly you're one of the whores. You can't wear this, you can't look at that... The comic isn't a praise of remaining pure, it's not a carrot method, it's a stick method for beating down women.

Yet guys largely seem to escape that stick (not all, I know some guys go through some rough shit. And it should go without saying this isn't a rant against men as a whole, the majority are relatively decent). As a girl I'm given a bunch of rules (not as bad as it is with say girls in the ME or FLDS don't get me started there though) yet so many men get off with slaps on the wrists for doing some pretty shit things. And I guess I'm just pissy how unfair that is.

I’d say most of us here who read your responses in the Stonetoss thread thought they were well-written and were at least sympathetic, if not in agreement. I hope my post didn’t come off as me having a go at you. It’s pretty funny when a woman has a relatively mild and completely reasonable take on some comics, but a group of men white knighting it feel the need to screech her down in autistic fury.

BUT female sexuality really is demonised. It really shocked me when I first saw the manosphere rants how much vitriol there was towards "whores" which has now become an umbrella term for anything a woman does that is remotely sexual. I don't want to be that person who's all for promoting orgies or polygamy. But the fact is woman have urges just like men -doesn't mean they're going to be in the polygamy crowd- yet it get's beaten down with the reasoning "she'll become a massive whore" despite being a natural urge just like men have.

I’m definitely not advocating for polyamory or orgies or furry sex parties either, but it is absolutely a vicious double standard. Sexual agency in women IS demonized; even something as milquetoast as “hey women are also horny sometimes” gets chalked up under the whore-brella by men, who have ‘sewn their wild oats’ already and are praised for it.

 

[HG 400]

.... who have ‘sewn their wild oats’ already

I seriously doubt that lmao.

 

[redcent]

I’d say most of us here who read your responses in the Stonetoss thread thought they were well-written and were at least sympathetic, if not in agreement.

Thanks

I hope my post didn’t come off as me having a go at you.

Nah I laughed at the boat crack

It’s pretty funny when a woman has a relatively mild and completely reasonable take on some comics, but a group of men white knighting it feel the need to screech her down in autistic fury.

The thread surprised me though. I am loathe to insert myself into American politics as I am not one myself, but if you'd had to place me left or right I kinda figured up to recently I would have been right since I kinda look up to Baptist teachings. But even then if someone poked fun at say Jack Chick I would have either laughed or admit some points that critics have made. Most of the Americans I have interacted with (online) I figured would have gone along with that criticism, but now not so much. I don't know what America is anymore. It's gone cray-cray. Or maybe it was always cray-cray and I never noticed.

 

[tuscangarder]

Would bet my left tit that stonetoss is ugly. If not, I'd let him hate fuck me. Nazis prob give out a hard fuck.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Would bet my left tit that stonetoss is ugly. If not, I'd let him hate fuck me. Nazis prob give out a hard fuck.

He's probably a self-loathing gay dude in love with some Jewish actor

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

Kind of a weird question, but since I know that a radfem issue is the regulation/restriction of porn, I was wondering how "porn" is generally defined in those instances. Obviously video and photographic content would be included, but what about illustrated or written content? I can't think of any ways in which the latter two would be harmful to women off the top of my head, beyond some idiot guy not realizing that you can't just transfer fictional sex to real sex 1:1. As a side note, I'm delightfully surprised at how nice this thread has been so far; almost every other feminism discussion I've seen online has gotten way nastier than this within the first five posts even when the starting material is as milquetoast as can be.

 

[AnOminous]

Kind of a weird question, but since I know that a radfem issue is the regularion/restriction of porn, I was wondering how "porn" is generally defined in those instances. Obviously video and photographic content would be included, but what about illustrated or written content?

There's really a split between aggressively anti-sex feminists, and while that seems like an extreme way to put it, that would include, most obviously, feminists like Andrea Dworkin (of all heterosexual sex is rape fame) and Catherine MacKinnon, particularly against porn. Much of this seems more visceral than ideological and Dworkin in particular just flat out hated men and anything that men might like is disgusting, whether it actually directly exploits anyone or not.

The other vein would be represented by individualists like Camille Paglia. I'm not sure she can really be considered "second wave" or if she's something of her own, but she generally detests post-modern and post-structuralist ideas and is a lot more interested in the rights of people to self-actualization, and being a feminist focuses specifically on individual women rather than women as a collective. This general vein wouldn't be inherently hostile to porn but wouldn't be oblivious to the exploitative nature of any industry that turns it into work.

Then there's everywhere in the middle.

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

There's really a split between aggressively anti-sex feminists, and while that seems like an extreme way to put it, that would include, most obviously, feminists like Andrea Dworkin (of all heterosexual sex is rape fame) and Catherine MacKinnon, particularly against porn. Much of this seems more visceral than ideological and Dworkin in particular just flat out hated men and anything that men might like is disgusting, whether it actually directly exploits anyone or not.

Having read some of Dworkin's work, I can almost see where she's coming from with her hatred of men. If I did a huge amount of research on how awful the sex industry is for women, tried to present that information to people, and then got called "crazy" for it, I'd probably be pretty mad, too. Add in how awful men's attitudes have been historically towards women who are more open with their sexuality, and I can absolutely see why she came to the conclusion of "If women aren't allowed to enjoy sex, then men shouldn't be allowed to, either." If there's any feminist of that age that I think deserves the title that Dworkin seems to hold (i.e. batshit crazy), I think it would be Valerie Solanas.

I mostly just pitched my question because I think it's an interesting edge case in the anti-porn argument. Given that most points against porn that have been made in this thread are about how it directly harms women, I'm interested to see how erotic content that deals with fictional women would be regarded. Would it be fine because it doesn't put actual women at risk, or is potentially even worse that video content because it can encourage sexual behavior that is potentially unrealistic and thus harmful to women's health? This is one of the few places I'll actually get to ask that question, since a lot of online radfem communities wouldn't take too kindly to some random man asking them to clarify their stance on what is probably an unimportant edge case.

 

[SourDiesel]

Having read some of Dworkin's work, I can almost see where she's coming from with her hatred of men. If I did a huge amount of research on how awful the sex industry is for women, tried to present that information to people, and then got called "crazy" for it, I'd probably be pretty mad, too. Add in how awful men's attitudes have been historically towards women who are more open with their sexuality, and I can absolutely see why she came to the conclusion of "If women aren't allowed to enjoy sex, then men shouldn't be allowed to, either." If there's any feminist of that age that I think deserves the title that Dworkin seems to hold (i.e. batshit crazy), I think it would be Valerie Solanas.

I mostly just pitched my question because I think it's an interesting edge case in the anti-porn argument. Given that most points against porn that have been made in this thread are about how it directly harms women, I'm interested to see how erotic content that deals with fictional women would be regarded. Would it be fine because it doesn't put actual women at risk, or is potentially even worse that video content because it can encourage sexual behavior that is potentially unrealistic and thus harmful to women's health? This is one of the few places I'll actually get to ask that question, since a lot of online radfem communities wouldn't take too kindly to some random man asking them to clarify their stance on what is probably an unimportant edge case.

Well it's an interesting question a obviously I can only speak for my own beliefs but you've given me something to chew on here. It's true you have to draw a line somewhere but you run into the age old question of "what media is considered porn?" which has been debated at length in many venues.

Personally, I am one of those people you might consider 'in the middle' between "PIV is rape" and "choosey choice, whatever any individual woman does is feminist". I'm mainly concerned with sex trafficking, rape without justice and problems like that. So for me personally, it's not that any depiction of sex for the purpose of titillation is inherently bad but there is definitely a lot of harm against women depicted in a lot of porn and that does harm women. Especially when you consider that in today's world, young people have access to all the porn they want when they hit puberty and it worries me that porn is where they get thier information about how sex is supposed to be. I've heard stories and read accounts of how young men seem to expect a lot of really disturbing sex acts from young women and that's due to seeing these acts performed in porn and not having anyone or anything else explain sex to them or talk to them about it.

So for me, it's the video media that's really the problem and not pictures or anything like that. I fail to see how an image of a man fucking a woman, in itself, contributes to any real issues. You can't traffic a drawing someone did or rape an image. It's the way real life women are treated by men in videos imo that's the problem. And again, it's not even porn videos themselves, just the way women are treated in many of them. Start treating women like they deserve respect and I don't see an issue even with video.

 

[HG 400]

Hot takes incoming, but Andrea Dworkin really wasn't a man-hater. She came up at a time when feminists were cucking out hard anytime they got accused of misandry and getting bogged down in trying to prove they don't hate men instead of finishing their argument, and the only feminists who didn't care about being called man-haters were psychotic terrorists planting bombs for the weathermen. If I had to summarise her greatest contribution to the movement it boils down to encouraging women to just let critics call them manhaters, and then finish what they wanted to say anyway.

In a lot of ways she just reacted like we do when people accuse us of being part of a terroristic hate group. We know we'll just look like faggots arguing that point to disingenuous liars who don't really care, so we just let them say it while we hail satan and al'hamdullilah the ISIS caliphate and put tranny kill counts on our user profiles because lol, fuck off. Dworkin wasn't nearly as edgy as us, but she was just as unapologetic and anti-feminists really capitalised on quotemining her. Most of her best-known misandrist quotes were taken out of context from what was basically bantering with antifeminist critics that she was on friendly terms with ; for example the very well-known quote about her using stiletto heels to crush male skulls was in response to somebody claiming she's so fat she could use them to drill for oil. It's just bants.

When we move past her edgy banter soundbites and into her actual literary works, it's pretty obvious those are being presented disingenuously too. The idea that she claimed "All PIV is rape" came from a single hyperbolic line in "Intercourse" and is an extremely skewed interpretation of her argument that overtones of sexual violation of women, by men, is so ubiquitously eroticised to the point it's considered expected for men to always take the dominant role and women the subordinate role in consensual sex, which is not really a controversial take at all.

All that said, I'm still not a fan of Dworkin. The overarching point of most of her works was to get women mad and loud about injustices they see, and not let critics shame them into silence with accusations of misandry. I think that was sorely needed at the time. Whenever people get too cuckolded to speak because they're terrified of being called a sexist, or a racist, or a transphobe, we see pretty dark stuff happening, so I'm 100% on board with her there. What she said needed saying, and it inspired the second wave movement to stop being pissweak sissies. But when it comes to the sourcing and academic integrity of her works, they're garbage on par with a Jezebel op-ed freelancer, and that bothers me in a way it doesn't bother a lot of her fans.

tl;dr - She was an excellent demagogue, a terrible academic, and she didn't hate men. She just refused to let her critics railroad her into having that debate every time she wanted to say a thing.

 

[SourDiesel]

Hot takes incoming, but Andrea Dworkin really wasn't a man-hater. She came up at a time when feminists were cucking out hard anytime they got accused of misandry and getting bogged down in trying to prove they don't hate men instead of finishing their argument...

Unfortunately apparently we need another Dworkin today.

 

[HG 400]

Unfortunately apparently we need another Dworkin today.

But instead, all you've got is me.

Now who's ready to put on the paradise vest and start talking targets?

 

[WW 635]

But instead, all you've got is me.

Now who's ready to put on the paradise vest and start talking targets?