Gender, Objectification, Feminism & Asexuality

[Diforto]

1 I would say that feminism is about destroying bloody patriarchy

2 gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, gender, GENDER

3 There is something about women being seen as passive and men as active (patriarcat) behind it

4 The gendered expecation are more about brainwashing women in a opressed position and brainwashing men in a kapo position

5 Such critics were always there

6 And he have everything under his control

7 There is a too big correlation between non-binariness and asexuality to be not interconnected.

1. What patriarchy? All I see is a society where women have equal rights (save for the unequal pay issue). Go to a third world country where female oppression is still relevant and you might have a case for calling society patriarchal.

2. Why are you repeating the word "gender"? Are you saying I should have said "gender" instead of "sex"? Well, I meant "sex", and repeating "gender" doesn't at all explain what your counterargument is supposed to be.

3. Well, that stereotype is ridiculous and is unproductively supported when feminists overly concentrate on female rape, ignoring the issue of male rape.

4. Kapo position… er, so men are brainwashed to attack other men for female favour? Or is kapo brainwashing men in order to have women slave away in competition against other women to benefit men? Is this even close to what you mean? I'm kind of lost on the relevance of a concentration camp .-. Either way though, stereotypes work for and against both men and women. They do not exclusively benefit men and exclusively restrict women.

5. I didn't mean crazy man-hating women didn't exist before modern feminism, rather that's mostly what modern feminism is now. Feminism used to be mostly comprised of advocates for women's rights, in spite of a /few/ "enslave all men" crazies. But now these crazies are the norm, with only a few feminists who are actually for women's rights. But nowadays, women already have rights, so even the sane feminists aren't doing much good. Only those for equality, not for only empowering women or whatever, are being beneficial.

6. And great for the guys who want all the control. But some don't. Some are too timid to propose, some can't afford to take her out to nice places. Forcing the expectation of control onto someone just because they happened to be born with a penis is oppressive. Oppressive means to force hardship and constraint onto someone, and this is what every stereotype can do, including the one that men should have more power. It's unfair to expect leadership from someone based on biology. To expect responsibility and toughness from men, when many aren't comfortable in such a position, is not empowering men, it's forcing them to fit a stereotype they'd be happier not conforming to. Sure, some guys like control, but not all do. This controlling expectation for men does not benefit all men. Furthermore, it doesn't detriment all women, as some like to be doormats for their man, so long as he's happy. Point being, no stereotype empowers everyone of any group. It affects individuals in different ways. It benefits some men, detriments others, and the same applies to females. Having everything under your control does not by default benefit someone. Some are terrible and uncomfortable with handling power. Every single individual is different.

7. Non-binary gender and a lack of sexual attraction are still two separate things, and sexuals can have non-binary genders as well. Yes, a lot of asexuals have unconventional genders, but we still can't classify an asexual orientation as equivalent to an agender mindset. Nor can we say agenders or non-binary genders should be feminists or egalitarians just because of their gender identity.

1 Why are women paid less?

2 Transwomen will suffer sexism a lot more than transmen, it is discrimination based on gender AND sex for gender assigned at birth is legitimation of oppression against transpeople and non-binary people.

3 Totally agree with you.

4 I would say that a big part of today society is based of oppression of women, and that women I brainwashed to agree with it. Therefore (most) women lose at living under patriachy. But (most) men are also losing at living under patriachy. Patriachy will brainwash men to oppress women and collaborate with patriachy. This is was I compared men under patriachy to kapo. Kapo were victim of the holocaust who helped the system that attact them like men are victim of patriarchy who help patriarchy.

5 Feminism always had that stigma attached to it. And second wave feminist were slighty like that but today feminist aren't, exluding a very small frange.

6 During the middle ages, we didn't ask kings if they wanted to be king in an oppressive system, but nobody said that the king is oppressed. I never said that men wanted to be at the top, I only said that they are. Because of patriarchy. I never said that patriachy was for men. Patriarchy is for the elite.

7 Two thing can be strongly linked without being the same thing and everybody shoud by for equality, watever gender they are or are not.

[Mark Leafton]

1 KKK didn't had a reactionnary backlash, they where a reactionnary backlash themselves. They reacted to abolitionisme, a successful progressist movement. There is a definition of reactionnary.

2 I can find MRA citation demonizing each small step that feminist did, I can find a lot of MRA rape apologist (PUA), I can find MRA who are jerk to queer people, to ace, to trans, to racialized people, ect but can find MRA trying to fight prostate cancer for fighting prostate cancer does not demonize women.

3 OK

4 Media is a problem because it is controled by the elite.

5 Media is still controled by the elite, they would still find way to demonize feminism without it for they are against social progress. And I try to fight identity politics when I find it. Starting to zero will make you lose all their theoritical work.

6 Why can't we do that with feminism?

1. Right. Didn't know that. I still see this kind of push back as an unsolvable problem, as well as a universal one for all progressive movements though.

2. And all of those can be said about feminism as well. My point is that an argument must and should always be taken at face value for what it is regardless of who is making it. If the most vile person in the entire world made an argument for/neutral/against an issue, it doesn't matter who that person is. What matters is the argument and the foundation it stands on. Feminism brings up a lot of good arguments in regard to society, so does MRA. MRA brings up a lot of horrid arguments in regard to society, but so does feminism. If there exists a line for how many vile arguments a movement can make before it should face automatic expulsion from the debate and the MRA have crossed that line, then so has feminism. I do not believe this line exists. Because anyone, no matter their background, has the potential to make a good argument once in a while, and passing that argument over just because of the persons past, would be unethical. Especially so if society as a whole can benefits from it.

4. Basically yeah. And most of those elites tend toward a conservative way of thinking. Progressive media has, and always will be found in the alternative media. Change scares the elite because they love the situation they find themselves in now. And this will be no less true for the next generation, and the one after that.

5. In a debate, you will almost never convince the opposition. The reason why we have debates is to convince those who don't have a particular opinion on the matter. Conservatives will always demonize any progressive movement, so the people such a movement focus on should never be conservatives, but those that are undecided. But that's beside my point. Feminism as it stands right now is actually better at demonizing itself than conservatives are. The reason being fringe feminism having pushed itself to the front of the movement and into the view of the public. This means that when people who are undecided take a look at the arguments being made, and what they find is extremism, they will run away as fast as they can. That is why feminism needs to take a good hard look at itself as a movement.

6. We can, but only if these problems are fixed. We can't run a marathon with a broken foot.

[Diforto]

1. Right. Didn't know that. I still see this kind of push back as an unsolvable problem, as well as a universal one for all progressive movements though.

2. And all of those can be said about feminism as well. My point is that an argument must and should always be taken at face value for what it is regardless of who is making it. If the most vile person in the entire world made an argument for/neutral/against an issue, it doesn't matter who that person is. What matters is the argument and the foundation it stands on. Feminism brings up a lot of good arguments in regard to society, so does MRA. MRA brings up a lot of horrid arguments in regard to society, but so does feminism. If there exists a line for how many vile arguments a movement can make before it should face automatic expulsion from the debate and the MRA have crossed that line, then so has feminism. I do not believe this line exists. Because anyone, no matter their background, has the potential to make a good argument once in a while, and passing that argument over just because of the persons past, would be unethical. Especially so if society as a whole can benefits from it. 1

4. Basically yeah. And most of those elites tend toward a conservative way of thinking. Progressive media has, and always will be found in the alternative media. Change scares the elite because they love the situation they find themselves in now. And this will be no less true for the next generation, and the one after that. 2

5. In a debate, you will almost never convince the opposition. The reason why we have debates is to convince those who don't have a particular opinion on the matter. 3 Conservatives will always demonize any progressive movement, so the people such a movement focus on should never be conservatives, but those that are undecided. But that's beside my point. Feminism as it stands right now is actually better at demonizing itself than conservatives are. The reason being fringe feminism having pushed itself to the front of the movement and into the view of the public. This means that when people who are undecided take a look at the arguments being made, and what they find is extremism, they will run away as fast as they can. That is why feminism needs to take a good hard look at itself as a movement. 4

6. We can, but only if these problems are fixed. We can't run a marathon with a broken foot. 5

1 I agree that MRA can have good argument (people of every political ideology can have good argument) but that don't make MRA right for that. I am not dismissing argument only because it was done by an MRA nor would I dismiss an argument done by a fascist but I would still disagree with both fundamentally even if I can agree with them on one point. I still believe MRA to be false an antagonistic to freedom. I will explain further in an edit when I will have time. Done

2 Unless we overthrow the elite.

3 In debate, I strive toward a better understanding of the world. I know I am not good at rhetoric and don't try to be, I like more dialectic.

4 Conservative are better than feminism in demonization. Feminist position that people see are not seen because they are more extremist but because conservative media filter every other positions.

5 Terry Fox did it...

EDIT:

Correct me if I am wrong somewhere.

There was a time where society was evely biased toward a group of people. A progressist political movement was created to opposed such biased and, after success in doing so, an other political movement opposed to the first one was created. The new political movement is reactionnary for it was created in reaction to the first who was progressive.

Such analysis can be used to explain why political movement like conservativism, KKK, or MRA where created after liberalism, abolitionnism and feminism.

The opposition of MRA toward feminism is based on the idea that men right and women right are oppositional and giving more right to women will cost right to men and that giving more right to men will cost right to women. Such analysis see right distribution like a zero sum game. With is antagonistic to gender equality.

While most feminist would say (at least nominally) that gender is not essential, I think that most MRA would see gender as essential. This is also antagonistic to gender euality.

The MRA seem more like an ideology where an essential category "men" have to fight against an other essential cathegory "women" for right. As I see it, MRA ideology is:

against solidarity;

against full right for everyone by taking a zero-sum game analysis of riegt;

very alike reactionary ideology;

and necessarily binarist.

[soalone]

The first person I ever met who called themselves a feminist was a man.

And twenty years later, he's still the coolest person I know.

[R.Million]

I am an agender asexual feminist. I am a feminist because I was born with looks and genitals that people culturaly treat me as weak for, or germaphobic, or fickle, or bitchy, or irrational, whatever. I have to prove myself as intellectually valid in ways my more masculine peers don't. And people who don't know me have said and attempted to do sexually agressive things to me because that level of disrespect is socially acceptable against people with titties. Even though I don't identify as female I feel like there's an irritating arbitrary target on my back because, so far, I look like a lady.

I'm also feminist because most of the insults people throw at men liken them to women. And most of the insults people throw at women liken them to undesirable women. When I see unfair, I see unfair. Really I'm for total equality but I'm more for lifting standards to be better for everyone than evening any "scores".

[Arte]

I think you're looking for egalitarianism.

[BerenErchamion]

I think you're looking for egalitarianism.

No, "egalitarianism" is "I'm good as long as I slut-shame both men and women" without realizing the structural systems of oppression that make the impact of slut-shaming women so much worse than for men.

Feminism is necessary to undo the male privilege that is toxic for both men and women.

[Gizamaluke]

I think you're looking for egalitarianism.

Sounds about right.

[Roy M.]

I think you're looking for egalitarianism.

No, "egalitarianism" is "I'm good as long as I slut-shame both men and women" without realizing the structural systems of oppression that make the impact of slut-shaming women so much worse than for men.

Feminism is necessary to undo the male privilege that is toxic for both men and women.

Since when has that ever been egalitarianism? Your post seems more like a reflex made in the heat of debate than an actual retort rooted in facts. Egalitarianism is an idea system that stretches back many generations and inspired events such as the French Revolution. Feminism is a movement, hardly a century old, that emerged in a very egalitarian culture, in a culture where prior egalitarians had laid the groundwork by establishing political rights for those other than the landed elite, on the notion that people are equal by consequence of their equal capacity for feeling and understanding. You can say whether or not feminism in today's world is good or bad, a debate that I think should occur, but you can't begin to fathom that the good feminism, the kind that got women into the workplace and into the polls, could have ever existed without egalitarianism.

[DannyXIV]

I don't like Anita, but I wouldn't go as far as death threats. I just think she's not a good image for feminism.

Anyway I'm moving this to Philosophy Politics and Science

Can you explain to me how's she bad for feminism? I don't get how.

She puts forth the idea that women in video games are always treated like damsels in distress, sex objects, or a punching bag. She fails to mention that in order to save the damsel in most games you have to kill, abuse, torture, main or use countless numbers of men. The violence against men in video games is 99% yet in her quest for equality she never advocates for the equal treatment of women in video games, which ironically would mean more female npcs for the player to kill, maim, torture and abuse. Her arguments are asinine at best, I don't even know why she's taken seriously.

[Neon Rainbow]

I think you're looking for egalitarianism.

No, "egalitarianism" is "I'm good as long as I slut-shame both men and women" without realizing the structural systems of oppression that make the impact of slut-shaming women so much worse than for men.

Feminism is necessary to undo the male privilege that is toxic for both men and women.

What is this. Granted, I don't interact with the egalitarian community (if there is one), but that's what I consider myself, and I definitely think slut shaming needs to stop. There's nothing wrong with having sex.