Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

KT67
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 94

12 May 2019, 4:28 am

OK first of all, a lot of people don't know what radical feminism means. It ought to mean bringing feminism back to its roots.

The beliefs are: the two sexes exist and gender is imposed by patriarchy. Gender is a hierarchy with masculinity on top. Dismantle gender.

So I don't want to hear anyone say 'yeah, radical feminism is awful because of Riley Dennis' when Riley Dennis is far from being a rad fem.

This would be an actual philosophy. In itself the notion that having a penis or having a vagina shouldn't matter in terms of equality is good, actual feminism.

But the women radical feminism attracts are actual misandrists.

They believe in things like, all heterosexual relationships are abusive to the woman. Women and men can't be friends. All men are inherently abusive to all women. Some of them even say it about animals.

It's hypocritical. You can't not believe in gender and, at the same time, see all men as cavemen. It's almost cultish, because just living around men will show that some are like the cavemen they talk about and some just aren't. They encourage women to cut all ties from men which is unhealthy.

What I'd say is: if you're wanting to socially transition, just do what you want without hurting your body. If you're medically trans and hate your body in a way which could be fixed with transition: transition. If you're a masculine woman or a feminine man: just go ahead and do it and sod society's gender roles. But nobody ought to cut people out of their lives just because of their sex. It's unhealthy and sexist and bs.

They really are the MGTOWs of feminism.



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691

12 May 2019, 8:16 am

I think that true radical feminists often have reasons for feeling the way that they do. Maybe they’ve suffered some extreme abuses by a man (or men), so I really don’t like to criticize their perspective even though I don’t entirely agree with all of their views. (Not that all radical feminists believe that all men are evil but, certainly, some of them do.)

Sometimes radical groups (as long as they don’t resort to violence) can push for more positive changes. For instance, I don’t agree with PETA in many respects, but they have brought a lot of awareness towards the abuses of the fur industry which I’m grateful for.



Last edited by Twilightprincess on 12 May 2019, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,255
Location: Queens, NYC

12 May 2019, 8:28 am

It’s almost like Malcolm X was required as sort of a counterpoint to Martin Luther King.

Or as sort of a “bad cop” to King’s “good cop.”



KT67
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 94

12 May 2019, 9:07 am

True.

Most of my sexism (being pushed towards femininity) has come from other women. I've had issues from some men but mostly it's been women who couldn't accept me being different to them.

And I've dated both, I think both with the incel community and the rad fem community part of the issue might be straight people who hate the opposite sex from dating. I have had more issues in straight relationships than in lesbian ones but I don't blame all men for that, I think that's stupid. I blame those particular men for being sexist and abusive.

They say what's between your legs doesn't determine your personality but then they write off all men, which they define as anyone born with a penis.

But yes, they're the ones who were the real feminists. It feels like they've gone off the rails though. It might be because of how easy it is to form bubbles online but, most of my friends are men, most of the family I get on with as mates are men. I'm not going to cut someone out because what's between their legs is different to what's between mine.

And in case anyone is reading this and thinking 'that sounds transphobic'. Yes, they are. Although they also hate transmen. They call transmen sisters but they don't act like it. Even if a cis woman as overly masculine, they cast her out, I know because they did that to me - being online they assumed I was a man even though I was born female.

It might be more of an anon troll online problem then a Germaine Greer problem. I'm not sure. But I do know that this 'don't have anything to do with men' attitude is unhealthy.

They say 'radical' just means 'back to roots'. Which is where they start from but then it gets more and more cultish and actually radical in the extreme sense.



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691

12 May 2019, 9:16 am

KT67 wrote:
True.

Most of my sexism (being pushed towards femininity) has come from other women. I've had issues from some men but mostly it's been women who couldn't accept me being different to them.

And I've dated both, I think both with the incel community and the rad fem community part of the issue might be straight people who hate the opposite sex from dating. I have had more issues in straight relationships than in lesbian ones but I don't blame all men for that, I think that's stupid. I blame those particular men for being sexist and abusive.


Don’t you think that it depends on the extent of abuses one has experienced?

I’m continually finding out that people’s behavior usually makes sense once I know something about their personality and experiences.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,425
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

12 May 2019, 11:14 am

I think what helped catalyze my lens on the particular issue your talking about, ie. dismantling patriarchy by dismantling gender, was hearing Sam Harris talking to a guest on his podcast (could have been Mark Lilla, I believe this was shortly before his Cass Sunstein interview) on which the structure of what was being contemplated was similar - ie. identity politics. The interviewee was talking about identity politics in the US and after listening to him say enough about identity politics Sam asked him 'Couldn't all of what you've been saying really just be encapsulated in economic conditions and outcomes?' at which point the guest agreed but said that there was no public will for something like, say, a radical overhaul or removal of capitalism and therefore these were really in a lot of ways movements substituting for that shortfall.

With gender I think the issue is even more dire in just how much of it is immutable.

Pretty much there have been desired outcomes, these were attempted the second-wave feminism way and result were found wanting. That's where the thing started turning into a bit of an introspective nightmare and the conclusions seem to have been led, since then, more by panic at the results than careful consideration about what this says about the geography of the landscape.

I think part of where Jordan Peterson gets really controversial for a lot of people is that he does try to address the shape of that landscape and how much of it is reflexive based on how each gender delegates. He'd never argue that women can't have a much better shake of things but running at work delegation itself, who has the time or interest to be working 60 to 80 hours per week to make it to the top-of-the-top (narrowly useful but ultimately very specialized/limited people) which Jordan rightly says aren't just 'men', they're a freakish minority of men who are runaways on the Pareto distribution.

Something much more controversial, and while it almost assuredly starts a firestorm it has to be looked at soberly or at least debunked very carefully, is the different shape of male and female intelligence distributions which show men having more outliers in both directions than women.

If that mapping is accurate then we have a really nasty fundamental problem and there's only one way I can think of to solve that problem - ie. cutting the knot on human life being valued at profitability. Raising and educating children, cultivating useful adults, these are things that are critical for both men and women to be doing and yet they don't economically scale. Someone out doing road work, fixing infrastructure, they're doing critical work (unless you have no problem with Flint, MI water) and what they're doing doesn't economically scale. The trick to solving that last problem needs to be something like a) much better valuation techniques for weighting scalable vs. non-scalable goods and their trade-offs, and b) avoiding both the excesses of 'your worth is your economic profit' and 'your worth is whatever you feel like it is'.

There has to be a way that we can do this objectively and yet not have it be strictly economic. If it's strictly economic then I think we'll be stuck with increasingly solipsistic movements that amount to vomiting pain on the world and without any belief that this does anything more than 'make the comfortable uncomfortable'. I mean, those people have been with these movements since the 1970's, they're not new, but the degree to which they'll guide the shape of everything in the future if we don't resolve this will likely keep increasing.


_________________
“Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.” - Friedrich Nietzsche


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,255
Location: Queens, NYC

12 May 2019, 11:23 am

I like that quote by Nietzsche.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,974
Location: US

12 May 2019, 11:25 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
I think that true radical feminists often have reasons for feeling the way that they do. Maybe they’ve suffered some extreme abuses by a man (or men), so I really don’t like to criticize their perspective even though I don’t entirely agree with all of their views. (Not that all radical feminists believe that all men are evil but, certainly, some of them do.)

Sometimes radical groups (as long as they don’t resort to violence) can push for more positive changes. For instance, I don’t agree with PETA in many respects, but they have brought a lot of awareness towards the abuses of the fur industry which I’m grateful for.


Do you apply this logic to neonnazis, kkk, and racist? I don’t think past experiences make up for ones behavior.
My mom would defend people who steal, rob and manipulate, cause they were abused as kids. I was abused as a kid and I’m not a horrible person so I don’t find past bad experiences as excuse and forgive people. People can control their behavior. Lots of people have bad experiences without become some horrible radical extremist.

So I have to wonder are you giving them a past cause their females and feminist or do you give all radical extremists a pass cause they may have had bad experiences that guided them to this?

Mean maybe a racist got abused by black bullies as a kid, doesn’t make them being a racist ok.


_________________
TRUMP 2020!!


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691

12 May 2019, 11:37 am

sly279 wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
I think that true radical feminists often have reasons for feeling the way that they do. Maybe they’ve suffered some extreme abuses by a man (or men), so I really don’t like to criticize their perspective even though I don’t entirely agree with all of their views. (Not that all radical feminists believe that all men are evil but, certainly, some of them do.)

Sometimes radical groups (as long as they don’t resort to violence) can push for more positive changes. For instance, I don’t agree with PETA in many respects, but they have brought a lot of awareness towards the abuses of the fur industry which I’m grateful for.


Do you apply this logic to neonnazis, kkk, and racist? I don’t think past experiences make up for ones behavior.
My mom would defend people who steal, rob and manipulate, cause they were abused as kids. I was abused as a kid and I’m not a horrible person so I don’t find past bad experiences as excuse and forgive people. People can control their behavior. Lots of people have bad experiences without become some horrible radical extremist.

So I have to wonder are you giving them a past cause their females and feminist or do you give all radical extremists a pass cause they may have had bad experiences that guided them to this?

Mean maybe a racist got abused by black bullies as a kid, doesn’t make them being a racist ok.


I think that people should try to rise above unfortunate early childhood experiences but numerous studies have shown that there is a link between negative child experiences (neglect and various abuses) and crime.

There’s also something to be said for cult indoctrination that makes people believe that it’s morally right to be prejudiced against groups of people. Having been raised in a misogynist cult, I’ve seen how decent people can be indoctrinated into holding specific values that normal people would find repellent. If you’re interested, the book by cult expert Steven Hassan titled Freedom of Mind shows how pervasive and all-encompassing indoctrination can be.

That’s not to say that people can’t rise above past experiences and indoctrination, but it’s not easy and it usually involves multiple steps instead of a sudden shift in one’s thinking.

Radical feminists aren’t necessarily horrible people. Many of them have done positive things to make this world a better place for all women.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,425
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

12 May 2019, 11:42 am

A quick thought on MGTOW since you brought them up, I think some of these guys (thinking-ape for example) are exceptionally sharp in a lot of ways and do what they can to be honest about what they're perceiving. Yet, I do see significant flaws in their analysis of blue pill, red pill, black pill, etc. model and in particular I think what they lump as 'blue pill' is much more complex in its content, it's degrees of detail resolution, and they tend to kick the low-hanging fruit in the societal narrative.

The best way I can describe this one - I thought about some of this quite a bit last night in terms of sizing up my own marital prospects. What I'd say is that I absolutely don't want to live the 'single adventuring life' for the remainder of my years, the hedonic treadmill is a great way to describe the pointlessness of that and by the time I'm 40 (in a few months actually) I'll have enough pictures of places I've gone and neat things I've done that most of the value to be gleaned from that will be maxed out. Heck, push comes to shove, I'd rather take the sacrifices of settling with the girl who I can make a family unit with who doesn't drive me wild but reflects me back to myself, and that we may both see ourselves in a similar predicament - ie. great capacity to parent and mentor, shaky on the genetics, and in that case we may consider adopting if we decide to have kids. The primary point - social capital is a big thing. I love my parents, I love how close I feel to them and other parts of my extended family. I'm an only child and when my parents pass I really want to have assembled my own 'flight' of the structure so to speak - ie. someone who I can be as close with as my mom and dad are, obviously that can start rocky and take s a lot of adjustment to get to but the end results - ie. having 'family' in the proper sense - is critical. The work world especially makes that obvious because I spent 13 years jumping from melting ice float to melting ice float and I feel like my family unit, ie. me and my aging parents, are similarly a slow-melting ice float.

There are questions a guy might ask himself like 'Aside from having an appendage to pull when she's horny, what is a guy worth to a woman?' and the answer is 'That's not your place to answer or extrapolate - that's her responsibility'. One of the things that's scary for guys is that we're told that we have to have all of the answers, be able to anticipate everything, and if we can't then we're on our own to survive or not survive the consequences. I think that's part where MGTOW's wall of impressions on the battlefield gets persuasive. There can be plenty of elements of heterosexual misogyny but I think more of that than not is the result of a sort of hypertrophied sense of individual male responsibility for outcomes that aren't his to control and it ends up in the kind of navel-gazing into facts, figures, and statistics that a lot of these guys, wittingly or unwittingly, end up doing. So, starvation of social capital, financial predation, radical feminist activism of the sort that ends up in doxing campaigns on social media, these are the sorts of things that lead men into the MGTOW cul de sac, just that I think their leaders - while quite articulate and thoughtful in many cases - aren't in any position to lead them back out and it wouldn't surprise me at all that the rad-fem navel-gazing and cul de sac are nearly identical in many of these respects.


_________________
“Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.” - Friedrich Nietzsche


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,425
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

12 May 2019, 11:45 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I like that quote by Nietzsche.

To be fair I still have 'Basic Writings of Nietzsche' sitting on my night stand and so far only got through 2/3 of 'Birth and Tragedy', something like another 600 pages to get through the rest of it. Clearly I did scalp that quote but yeah, it does show that he took is contemplations and what they needed to be worth to properly qualify as a 'thinker' seriously.


_________________
“Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.” - Friedrich Nietzsche


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691

12 May 2019, 11:49 am

sly279 wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
I think that true radical feminists often have reasons for feeling the way that they do. Maybe they’ve suffered some extreme abuses by a man (or men), so I really don’t like to criticize their perspective even though I don’t entirely agree with all of their views. (Not that all radical feminists believe that all men are evil but, certainly, some of them do.)

Sometimes radical groups (as long as they don’t resort to violence) can push for more positive changes. For instance, I don’t agree with PETA in many respects, but they have brought a lot of awareness towards the abuses of the fur industry which I’m grateful for.


Do you apply this logic to neonnazis, kkk, and racist? I don’t think past experiences make up for ones behavior.
My mom would defend people who steal, rob and manipulate, cause they were abused as kids. I was abused as a kid and I’m not a horrible person so I don’t find past bad experiences as excuse and forgive people. People can control their behavior. Lots of people have bad experiences without become some horrible radical extremist.

So I have to wonder are you giving them a past cause their females and feminist or do you give all radical extremists a pass cause they may have had bad experiences that guided them to this?

Mean maybe a racist got abused by black bullies as a kid, doesn’t make them being a racist ok.


I wanted to add that it’s normal to get angry at people for having beliefs that are offensive to us. Trust me, I’ve been there!

Instead of getting angry and demonizing groups of people, it may be more helpful to figure out why they think the way they do. Then as a society (especially our educators) can work on the root of the problem.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,158
Location: temperate zone

12 May 2019, 11:53 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
It’s almost like Malcolm X was required as sort of a counterpoint to Martin Luther King.

Or as sort of a “bad cop” to King’s “good cop.”


This is the issue.

Some feminists are indeed the equivalent of Malcolm X. Same happens on this website. Autistics ranting about how horrible NTs are, and trafficking in theories of "autistic surpremacy".



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,182
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

12 May 2019, 12:50 pm

Quote:
They believe in things like, all heterosexual relationships are abusive to the woman. Women and men can't be friends. All men are inherently abusive to all women. Some of them even say it about animals


Do they say the same about spiders? (and almost all arachnids and insects)



KT67
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 94

13 May 2019, 4:14 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
They believe in things like, all heterosexual relationships are abusive to the woman. Women and men can't be friends. All men are inherently abusive to all women. Some of them even say it about animals


Do they say the same about spiders? (and almost all arachnids and insects)


Exactly.

Yes it probably sucks to be a female duck but they don't know any better, it isn't 'rape'.

I really can't handle misogynist or conservative mindsets. I've been masculine for as long as I remember so the only things which work for me are trans activism or radical feminism or just lasses faire attitude where I don't think about this stuff.

Maybe I'm coming to terms with being a trans guy?

The thing is, women around me are all feminine and I have little in common with them. Men around me are masculine and only annoying when they assume we have nothing in common but I get why because of the other women.