Ultra-Feminism In The Media

[Dis]

I'm tired of men whining about feminists.

I think most of them exibit troll like behaviour now days. They say outrageous things for attention. They are attention whores.

It's best just to ignore them. I do.

[:) Smiley]

They say that gun control means the person with the gun has control.

Therefore, birth control ought to mean that the person giving birth has control.

QED.

[Dis]

edit: theremine. that seems obvious

[Akka]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If it wasn't for feminism in the past decades, we'd still be living in a society where woman beating would be rampant, where the role of women would be to bear children and raise them, not to work or simply be equal to men. We'd be living in a world where raped women would be called "sluts", and where any woman who wants to live her life the way she wants would be an anomaly.

Ah, the good ol' days.
Seems I was born a bit too late....

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Lunacy = Every time a man looks at a woman, he's raping her...in his MIND!!!!

Darn, I was sure I was keeping my thoughts to myself... How did she know ?


Sorry, I couldn't resist, it's because of my inherently flawed manhood, sorry

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo

these would be those of us who attended a major university and were required to take certain classes which are taught by anti men feminazis and recieved low grades for everything we wrote.

backlash is to be expected when you have been mistreated.

Yea, we had some notorious instructors like this when I was in college. After one instance of this I learned to only take courses from teachers which my friends had had previously, or who were highly rated in the "Grading the Profs" books (a huge student survey done every semester), or were men.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The scary thing is that they are both true, but on more abstract levels than you propose. Of course taken literally the "extreme" statement is self-contradictory, but civilisation still "thinks" and "acts" like a male, so to speak... it is emotionally conflicted, overly rational to the point of irrational, straight lines, black and white with a great, huge metaphysical penis with which to **** others.

Raping her in his mind? Well not literally of course. Dreams of sex? Not always, at least in my experience. The testicles want possession, want power, and of course power=sex. What women generally don't understand about men is that we are not run by the contents of our scrota, but rather we are conflicted in that regard, brain vs penis, put in very simple Freudian terms (that I disagree with though it works as an illustration...) Id vs Superego.

We shouldn't dismiss the "extreme" feminist arguments, we simply should not take them on face value. Look into them, and you will find them to be remarkably explanatory and even somewhat egalitarian! (the point about civilisation implying a gender-composite method of thinking as a civilisation). This hasnt been explained too clearly, but I am rather stoned. This post has taken nearly 15 minutes to type out...

And it wasn't even worth the 20 seconds it took to read it.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon. They are the ultra-conservatives of the feminist movement, being rapidly opposed to sex. Their views on female sexuality are neo-Victorian.

Andrea Dworkin is not anti-sex.

People interested in ultra-feminism should go to her website and read. Interesting

(she is accused of once having flipped the bird to Allan Derschowitz, so she can't be all that bad)

[Whaleboy]

But this isn't about how society thinks, this is about discrimination. Society may be rational, but I would disagree with that. People as a whole panic, and act emotionally. To be honest, I think the whole thing about the metaphysical penis is crap. However I will accept it is set up mainly for men, in the sense of working regulations, the way business works, and the male domination of the upper echelons. But we have legislation (such as maturnity leave, and discrimination laws) to counter this.

If you consider the aim of feminism to eliminate discrimination, then its role is nearly complete, indeed in some respects has gone too far with regards to paternal rights etc. Of course the pay gap is still an issue but its my view that this shouldn't be challenged with legislation, but attitudes instead. I consider feminism to be something wider, more philosophical and semantic as opposed to merely legal and historical.

I stated that society seems to mirror the male disposition, rational but emotionally conflicted... violent at times, stupid, which translates into vigilante acts and generally small-picture idiocy. Not that I'm bitter...

The metaphysical penis is best illustrated like this: If this were a world run entirely by women, would you think there would be wars, or at least, nearly as many as we do have today? Hell no! Societies would be too busy going to the toilet with each other, so to speak. I'll lift an analogy I'm using in my novel. Imagine 130'000 years ago, twenty men and twenty women sitting in a circle, alternating male/female. They are debating whether or not to leave Africa. Ten men and ten women want to, ten men and ten women do not. The women discuss, remain relatively civil and peaceful, the conversation is largely constructive. The men become entrenched in the first example of liberalism vs conservatism. They become stubborn. Soon it degenerates into a fist fight. See?

Dreams of sex are not confined to men, and do not constitute "raping with his mind". I do not claim to know how men think, but I would not agree that sex is power.

In the male mind, invariably though on variant levels of course, it is. The best people to ask about this are women.

Rape has been cited as being a power thing, and I would agree, thar is probably the motivation in many cases, but the stuff about the testicals wanting possession?

Power play. Sex, sex related matters, or male thinking regarding women is very rarely, if ever not about power, domination or subordination of one side or the other. In the majority of cases it is male dominating women, though I would contend when it is the other way round, on a deeper level it is. Not that I'd know of course... .

We may have used rape as a tool for procreation as apes, and maybe even cavemen, but I think we have evolved from then.

You honestly think that rapists do it for procreation, or rather to satisfy their libidos?

We have evolved to do what is best for our children, and choosing a partner as such too. Which is why women naturally go for men with power, since in evolutionary terms, they could protect their offspring, and why men go for women with beauty, so as to have beautiful offspring who can get a mate easier, and so continue their genes.

Precisely, and we build our civilisation and even modes of thinking upon that.

I don't see that rape is an intrinsic part. Rape sickens me. To be accused of raping someone with my mind is abhorrent, and I would disagree with vehemently.

You misunderstand. I do not suggest that all men are rapists in either act or direct thought, but rather I interpret the feminist statement (probably a strawman) that I originally quoted as a reference to a more metaphorical notion of rape... power play or possession. One sees a beautiful female, one wishes to possess her. What that means exactly, in terms of sexual, material, mental, emotional, intellectual etc depends on the individual.

To think that consensual sex is rape is a contradiction in terms, IMHO. Women have maturnal instincts, which in evolutionary terms would have been thier reason for sex. To say women are never willing partners is silly.

I think you will find that I didn't say that .

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I stated that society seems to mirror the male disposition, rational but emotionally conflicted... violent at times, stupid, which translates into vigilante acts and generally small-picture idiocy. Not that I'm bitter...

I disagreed. I don't think society is either male or female. It is asexual. I don't think it particularly acts 'like a man' or 'like a woman'.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Imagine 130'000 years ago, twenty men and twenty women sitting in a circle, alternating male/female. They are debating whether or not to leave Africa. Ten men and ten women want to, ten men and ten women do not. The women discuss, remain relatively civil and peaceful, the conversation is largely constructive. The men become entrenched in the first example of liberalism vs conservatism. They become stubborn. Soon it degenerates into a fist fight. See?

I don't think that would happen. I think women are likely to degrade into shouting and screaming as much as men are into fighting. IMHO they could be both civil and peaceful, or they could both degenerate into slagging/slugging matches.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In the male mind, invariably though on variant levels of course, it is.

Unsupported crap. To some, in some situations, yes. To others, in other situations, no. To you, sure. To me, no. Until you are every single male in existance, don't assume we're all like you.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The best people to ask about this are women.

You think women are the best people to ask about how a man thinks about sex? Why would a woman know how a man thinks about sex? Women may think it is about power to me, just as men may think it's about emotions to women. In truth, we each think differently. But women probably have less of an idea how men think about sex than men do. All they see are the effects, not what goes on inside a man’s head when he is doing it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Power play. Sex, sex related matters, or male thinking regarding women is very rarely, if ever not about power, domination or subordination of one side or the other.

To you, maybe. To others, no. You are not qualified to say how men think about sex, because all you know is how you think about sex. To me, sex is not about power, domination or subordination (that's what BDSM's for ). You'd need some evidence, some justification if you're going to make blasé generalisations and statements like that.

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Quote:

We may have used rape as a tool for procreation as apes, and maybe even cavemen, but I think we have evolved from then.

You honestly think that rapists do it for procreation, or rather to satisfy their libidos?

No to both, I think most rapists do it for power. As I said, we have evolved since then, and as such rape is not the best way for procreation and survival of offspring.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You misunderstand. I do not suggest that all men are rapists in either act or direct thought, but rather I interpret the feminist statement (probably a strawman) that I originally quoted as a reference to a more metaphorical notion of rape... power play or possession.

Firstly, I don't think her statement was necessarily about the metaphorical notion of rape, it could be about either. Secondly, my point still stands, taking rape as metaphorical, as you claim it was. I do not think sex is about possession, I don't think it's power play. I think it's about pleasure: it feels nice, so you do it. I think it can be about emotions.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
One sees a beautiful female, one wishes to possess her. What that means exactly, in terms of sexual, material, mental, emotional, intellectual etc depends on the individual.

As I have said, I don't think it's about possession. I don't want to own a concubine, I don't want a slave. I'd want someone I respect who I can share myself with, emotionally. For me (as that is all we can really talk about) sex is not about possession, or power, it is about emotions and pleasure.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I think you will find that I didn't say that .

I think you'll find that quote you were relating too, which was talking about a statement that sex is rape, even in marriage, did say that. If you were only referring to the part of that statement regarding a man raping a woman with his mind every time he looks at her then that didn't seem the case. I thought you were also referring to the rest of her statement about sex, even in marriage, being rape.

You're whole argument seems to hinge of the premise that sex is about a man possessing a women. While that may be true for you, to say that all men see it as possessing a women, and no women see it as possessing a man, is bull. I am sure some men do, and some women do, and I am sure some men don't, and some women don't. I could imagine that possibly more men than women see it as them possessing their partner; however you have provided no evidence, or indeed anything, to back that up. In other words, I think you're speaking out of you ass, and trying to presume that all men desire to possess women.

To me, sex is either about pleasure, as in I see a beautiful female who turns me on, or about emotions, as in being with someone I love and respect. For me, possession/power is not a part of it. I don't want to own someone, I don't want control. I want to be myself, and for the person I'm with to be themselves. It's about spontaneity, not about oppression and power.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Surely you dislike stereotyping men no matter its source

Not at all. It is not the source, but the intent of the stereotype. :

[Whaleboy]

I disagreed. I don't think society is either male or female. It is asexual. I don't think it particularly acts 'like a man' or 'like a woman'.

Compare the Minoans (and to a lesser extent, the Athenians) with the West then.

I don't think that would happen. I think women are likely to degrade into shouting and screaming as much as men are into fighting. IMHO they could be both civil and peaceful, or they could both degenerate into slagging/slugging matches.

Again, thats with the Women of the west, whereas that would not have been the case with others. A feminist would argue that male civilisation transplants its own thinking upon women, whose more emotional nature results in townie scream fests.

Unsupported crap. To some, in some situations, yes. To others, in other situations, no. To you, sure. To me, no. Until you are every single male in existance, don't assume we're all like you.

You cannot merely say it is unsupported merely because you're a rare exception (though I would say it still holds on some level, though of course thats merely my interpretation and again an example of a different level of abstraction). I happen to know that it is supported beyond my own experiences but I'm not prepared to go into that.

You think women are the best people to ask about how a man thinks about sex? Why would a woman know how a man thinks about sex? Women may think it is about power to me, just as men may think it's about emotions to women. In truth, we each think differently. But women probably have less of an idea how men think about sex than men do. All they see are the effects, not what goes on inside a man’s head when he is doing it.

Male thinking regarding this area seems to be rather vague at best, and after all, women see it from a completely different point of view. You ask an oppressor if they are oppressing and they will say no, and probably believe it. You ask the oppressed. Bad analogy, the term oppress is not directly applicable, only abstractly in the sense of feminism that I'm talking about.

To you, maybe. To others, no. You are not qualified to say how men think about sex, because all you know is how you think about sex. To me, sex is not about power, domination or subordination (that's what BDSM's for ). You'd need some evidence, some justification if you're going to make blasé generalisations and statements like that.

I can tell you for a fact that you are not qualified to talk about my qualification in this regard .

No to both, I think most rapists do it for power. As I said, we have evolved since then, and as such rape is not the best way for procreation and survival of offspring.

And yet you imply an evolutionary/genetic predisposition, which isn't going to be changed by socialisation.

Firstly, I don't think her statement was necessarily about the metaphorical notion of rape, it could be about either.

No, that was my interpretation. Her statement was probably intended as a piece of deliberate extremism that unwittingly had sense.

Secondly, my point still stands, taking rape as metaphorical, as you claim it was. I do not think sex is about possession, I don't think it's power play. I think it's about pleasure: it feels nice, so you do it. I think it can be about emotions.

Of course, on variant degrees of superficiality. Id, ego, superego. No matter how dominant the superego, when it comes to sex, the Id always has the last laugh.

As I have said, I don't think it's about possession. I don't want to own a concubine, I don't want a slave. I'd want someone I respect who I can share myself with, emotionally. For me (as that is all we can really talk about) sex is not about possession, or power, it is about emotions and pleasure.

Id, ego, superego.. one of the few Freudian ideas that had any merit.

I think you'll find that quote you were relating too, which was talking about a statement that sex is rape, even in marriage, did say that. If you were only referring to the part of that statement regarding a man raping a woman with his mind every time he looks at her then that didn't seem the case. I thought you were also referring to the rest of her statement about sex, even in marriage, being rape.

I was not.

You're whole argument seems to hinge of the premise that sex is about a man possessing a women. While that may be true for you, to say that all men see it as possessing a women, and no women see it as possessing a man, is bull.

It is no more true for me than it is for any other male, but it is still true because I do not believe it to be a conscious thing. Remember Id, ego, superego? You claim it is bull yet you do not understand the concept I am purporting.

[quote]
To me, sex is either about pleasure, as in I see a beautiful female who turns me on
[/quote

or about emotions, as in being with someone I love and respect.

Quad erat demonstrandum

For me, possession/power is not a part of it. I don't want to own someone, I don't want control. I want to be myself, and for the person I'm with to be themselves. It's about spontaneity, not about oppression and power.

Consciously of course not, especially with you. That does not affect my argument.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You cannot merely say it is unsupported merely because you're a rare exception (though I would say it still holds on some level, though of course thats merely my interpretation and again an example of a different level of abstraction). I happen to know that it is supported beyond my own experiences but I'm not prepared to go into that.

I'm saying it's unsupported because you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I gave myself as an example of it not holding. You made a statement with no backing, which for at least one person is untrue. You still are. I don't agree that you can answer for most men either, let alone all men, as you tried to claim.

You cannot merely say something without any support whatsoever.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Male thinking regarding this area seems to be rather vague at best, and after all, women see it from a completely different point of view.

Exactly! They see it from a womens point of view. We're talking about how men think. Women see and experience men's actions, they do not see/experience how we think.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You ask an oppressor if they are oppressing and they will say no, and probably believe it. You ask the oppressed. Bad analogy, the term oppress is not directly applicable, only abstractly in the sense of feminism that I'm talking about.

Yes, but only the oppressor knows if he is oppressing in his mind. We're not talking about pressure or action, we're talking about thoughts.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I can tell you for a fact that you are not qualified to talk about my qualification in this regard .

I'm not talking about your qualification. I am saying you have not provided a shred of evidence to support you claims, yet you continue to make them. If you want to make blase generalisations, then support them. If you can't show some evidence to support it, don't make it. You know how you think. You do not know how most men think. You haven't met most men, or conversed with them.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And yet you imply an evolutionary/genetic predisposition, which isn't going to be changed by socialisation.

I didn't mention socialisation. I think we've evolved since we were apes. I think we don't think the same way as we did then.

Originally posted by Whaleboy - my bold
No, that was my interpretation. Her statement was probably intended as a piece of deliberate extremism that unwittingly had sense.

Exactly! Then why defend extreme feminism, when you say it has no sense?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Of course, on variant degrees of superficiality. Id, ego, superego. No matter how dominant the superego, when it comes to sex, the Id always has the last laugh.

In other words you're trying to use Freudian psychobabble to distract from the fact that you have not, nor cannot, provide any shred of support for your claim that sex is about possession, as opposed to pleasure.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I was not.

In that case my apologies. I thought you were defending extreme feminism, so I was arguing against extreme feminism.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It is no more true for me than it is for any other male, but it is still true because I do not believe it to be a conscious thing. Remember Id, ego, superego? You claim it is bull yet you do not understand the concept I am purporting.

I understand the concept, I just think it's wrong. You can speak for yourself and your reasons. I can for mine. Unless you have some decent evidence, you cannot speak for other people's reasons. You may think on some level it is about possession. I don't.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Consciously of course not, especially with you. That does not affect my argument.

You don't have an argument. You have a load of comments, resulting from your own opinions of men, that have no supporting evidence. I'm not just saying conciously. I don't think possession comes into it at all. Being the personal Utilitarian that I am, I think the underlying thing for everything is pleasure. There is no reason to procreate other than to cause pleasure to your offspring. Even with power, having the power to rule people is a pleasure to some. However I know power does not come into sex for me, and I have seen no evidence or support as to why it would for anyone else, bar you (since I believe you on how you see things).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Andrea Dworkin is not anti-sex.

Okay, she's just anti-heterosex. From the critique of other feminists towards her, plus what little of her work I have read, I cannot agree with you. Maybe she's softened her views, I dunno.

[Whaleboy]

I'm saying it's unsupported because you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I gave myself as an example of it not holding. You made a statement with no backing, which for at least one person is untrue. You still are. I don't agree that you can answer for most men either, let alone all men, as you tried to claim.

Ok. The vast majority, not including those with neurological abnormalities.

An example, two born-again Christians that I know who upon their self-imposes celibacy have realised what I am saying regarding the power-seeking nature of all men, which I suppose is difficult to realise unless you really look inside of yourself and your actions, and meditate on their motivations.

A number of gay guys that go to college with me have discussed with me a similar notion that heterosexual sex = power over women. I politely pointed out that there was no difference between that and gay men, since males are involved, though of course this was not accepted.

The famous Hobbes quote "all men seek power until they are dead"

"all men seek power' - Thucydides

http://www.grazian-archive.com/quant...chizo_1_06.htm

Is one interesting article about this topic...

http://www.bookrags.com/books/prsty/PART12.htm

And again

In all men the desire for power and the desire for fellowship blend and interplay in their ambitions and activities

http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20...atures_1.shtml

Samantha: Money is power, sex is power, therefore, getting money for sex is simply an exchange of power.
Carrie: Once again, Samantha managed to up-sex me.

(From Sex and the City)

http://www.healthysex.com/comparison_chart.html

That is an interesting page... look on the chart and note the correlation between female and male traits.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departme...537282,00.html

A good article by Jeanette Winterson, author of two of my favourite books; "Oranges are not the Only Fruit" and "Sexing the Cherry".

I rather like this:

http://ndpr.icaap.org/content/archiv...-friedman.html

Need more evidence? There seem to be many intellectuals and a not inconsiderable number of psychologists and philosophers that support my position. Hell, look at the entire field of feminist philosophy!! I think it's fair to say that I am going to take more seriously the above, rather than your protestations.

Furthermore, a little etymological highlight for you:

The study of history is probably one of the most important things that a civilisation can involve itself in. If one is not aware and familiar of ones mistakes, one is condemned to repeat them. History. His story.

Exactly! They see it from a womens point of view. We're talking about how men think. Women see and experience men's actions, they do not see/experience how we think.

Yes, but only the oppressor knows if he is oppressing in his mind. We're not talking about pressure or action, we're talking about thoughts.

But he doesn't though. Read "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt and "Mein Kampf" by Mr Schicklegrueber. These people did not think that they were oppressors. History and the emancipated oppressed only judged them as such. Do you honestly think that men of the 19th century and before thought they were oppressing women? It is the behaviour I am interested in, not how the perpetrators classified it.

I'm not talking about your qualification. I am saying you have not provided a shred of evidence to support you claims, yet you continue to make them. If you want to make blase generalisations, then support them. If you can't show some evidence to support it, don't make it. You know how you think. You do not know how most men think. You haven't met most men, or conversed with them.

Any anything less is insufficient to draw a psychological correlation? . I think my assertations have been adequately supported here. I originally adopted this idea when I read an article I cannot find on literary analysis for English lit. To cut a long story short, everything in literature, in terms of metaphors, themes, characters, language etc, all boils down to one of two things; sex or power. And power=sex in all cases.

You imply that it is merely me that thinks the way I do, and you do not, thus the two of us as a consequence would seem to be equally represented among the male species. Do you honestly think this is the case, or do you think, as I have previously thought you thought, that you are a rare exception. And if I can show that this means you merely have a different interpretation of the innate male drive for power or "power-sex"? As a consequence, it just means that we have different ideas of what "power-sex" is, and what it does for us.

I didn't mention socialisation. I think we've evolved since we were apes. I think we don't think the same way as we did then.

Agreed, but I think that our testicles do .

Exactly! Then why defend extreme feminism, when you say it has no sense?

No you misunderstand. The statement was probably a strawman, not a serious point. However, it unwittingly had much worth to it. "Extreme feminism" imo, or at least the version I am purporting is probably the most egalitarian theory I can think of. Imagine a pendulum with lots of little pendula hanging off it, and pendula from them. While normative feminism may merely deal with one pendulum, what about its master? And sister pendula? This is the feminism with which I deal.. the whole system.

In other words you're trying to use Freudian psychobabble to distract from the fact that you have not, nor cannot, provide any shred of support for your claim that sex is about possession, as opposed to pleasure.

And yet, you have not refuted Freud's point. This is probably one of only two of Freud's points that has any worth, at least that I am aware of, the other of course being the Oedipus complex.

In that case my apologies. I thought you were defending extreme feminism, so I was arguing against extreme feminism.

Not the exact extreme feminism that was being discussed in the post, from which I took my quote.

Being the personal Utilitarian that I am, I think the underlying thing for everything is pleasure.

Advice: Your own interpretation of utilitarianism is not representative of the movement or concept as a whole, there are very valid, and I dare say more complete interpretations that are not hedonistic.

There is no reason to procreate other than to cause pleasure to your offspring.

Methinks you should rephrase that .

However I know power does not come into sex for me, and I have seen no evidence or support as to why it would for anyone else, bar you (since I believe you on how you see things).

None of us are aware of our subconsciousness, so I take more seriously the views of philosophers, psychologists and sociologists regarding that, particularly psychologists, rather than our own opinions of ourselves. Even the most frank and probing introspection on my part, I take less seriously, though of course it happens to concur.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Not at all. It is not the source, but the intent of the stereotype. :

Saying "not at all" and then re-iterating my point is confusing to me

[Whaleboy]

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by molly bloom
vagina dentata.

Isn't that a phrase they used on The Lion King?

[Ben Kenobi]

Before you're allowed to play any tunes, you're gonna get rid of that stupid santa cap.

Happy now, Mr. Fun?


Hakuna Mutata...what a beautiful phrase.

Hakuna Mutata...ain't no passing craze.

[MrFun]

But that's an avatar of a sexy woman, not of a sexy man.




sigh

[:) Smiley]

Most every place on the world evolved as a male-dominated society. This has to do with human biology and the living environment.

Today, we have changed the environment (I'll look mostly at two factors: Population and Technology) to a stage where there is no connection between the environment at the figurative 4000 BC, thus removing the original practical reasons for male dominance. Since the environment keeps changing, there could also be a point where we've moved past the equilibrium condition to a stage where female dominance makes sense.

On population: now that it is no longer a good idea to have as many offspring as possible, there is no need (and best to avoid) women constantly involved in reproduction.

On technology: Physical strength and size loses its importance when machines do the work, or in work where no physical labor is required.