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

[troon patrol]

...Did you just see Black Hawk Down or what, dude.

Its great film but, I have trouble sitting through it; us infantry dying for nogs,who are just going to keep a country if you can even call it that, in a destabilized state for at least the rest of my lifetime. Ask me to rant about africa some more if you feel so inclined. Now "hotel Rwanda", now that was a laugh riot of a comedy.

 

[SourDiesel]

Honestly it's like we need a new thread just for butthurt dudes. Daycare for the emotionally troubled indeed. I'm sorry that women aren't feministing exactly as you guys all wish they were. It must be really hard to deal with a bunch of women who don't give a fuck about your angry opinions*. Maybe the next feminist thread will have the correct amount of racism and xenophobia for you. It's going to be difficult to get a bunch of second wave feminists to rally against Africa, I'm afraid.

*by "don't give a fuck about", I don't mean hate. I mean don't give a fuck about. I know sometimes that gets confused.

 

[HG 400]

Its great film but, I have trouble sitting through it; us infantry dying for nogs,who are just going to keep a country if you can even call it that, in a destabilized state for at least the rest of my lifetime.

I heard they cast Australians and Scots in that movie because American actors would have looked too comfortable using firearms to convincingly portray the weakness and incompetence of the US Army in Mogadishu.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

You can never have equality of outcome, only try for equality of opportunity. Even then, you can do it for some stuff and not others. Is it right that rich children have better health outcomes? No, so progressive countries have good quality early years care and health provision. Should women make up 50% of deep sea divers, roughnecks and whatever else requires physical strength? No, because men are stronger.

I'm not sure that women in "1st world" or "progressive" countries are lacking opportunities; there's been loudly advertised, publicly lauded, and taxpayer funded affirmative action initiatives for decades.

Third wavers. All that girl power sex positive intersectional shit is bollocks. Old gits like me remember when women genuinely didn’t have equal rights and protections. We work towards making sure they’re maintained and not rolled back. If men can say they’re women, women and girls will lose their rights to safety, privacy and dignity. If surrogacy is normalised it fucks women over.

How is normalization of surrogacy fucking women over? Or is that an example of a position held by 3rd Wave Feminists? I'm honestly not sure which it is, so if you could clarify, that'd be great.

There are battles to be fought at home and abroad, but I can’t affect what happens in Saudi or Sudan. I can write to my MP and tell them they lose my vote if they put the rights of Male fetishists above girls and women.

Can you specify some of the battles you think still need to be won? I look around, and don't see a lot left, in terms of rights denied to women, or anything like that.

My take on feminism is working towards full equality in terms of rights and protections. Not daft shit like microgressions, or demanding half of profession x be women. I don’t hate men, and I don’t have any time for the intersectional shit or grievance culture.

Again, I'm not sure what women are lacking for rights and protections, in 1st world/western/progressive countries. Can you elaborate on what you think remains to be secured for women, or what they're being denied that men enjoy?

There are areas where men need focus too - suicide rates in men are terrible. Mental health provision is terrible. Aspirations for young working class boys in poor areas could be miles better. It’s not a zero sum game. The sooner third wave feminism is replaced by something less stupid the better.

I'm assuming you're from a Commonwealth country, based on your reference to being able to contact an MP, so I'm hoping you're familiar with the behaviour of MP Jess Phillips, when it was suggested that the exact issues you mention should really be examined by a Parliamentary Committee - she laughed at the very notoin that men and boys deserved Parliamentary attention, despite a huge number of metrics showing them as suffering from "failure to launch", and continuing to under-perform all the way along, after that.

It's hardly the only place such attention to men's issues is lacking, either; Canada has a 200:1 ratio of intimate partner violence crisis shelters, F:M, even though the Canadian gov't's own statistics show that men have been ~50% of the victims of IPV for the last 20 years. There's 40 years of data on IPV showing gender parity in victimization, and in the US, male victims get less than 1% of the crisis resources, and are frequently the victims of "predominant aggressor policies" which were designed based on the "domestic violence is a form of Patriarchal Terrorism" outlook of the Duluth Model, which is very much a late 2nd-wave invention. The vast majority of 1st world LEO's use the Duluth Model as the IPV invention paradigm, and it presupposes that the larger, least emotionally communicative partner is the perpetrator, regardless of the evidence or circumstances at the scene, which means the second police arrive to a domestic call, if they arrest anyone, it's most likely to be the man. Meanwhile, the CDC has stats showing that the least likely sexual orientation to experience IPV is gay men, and the top 3 most likely (bi women, bi men, lesbians) all coincidentally date women. If men were as inherently dangerous as feminist theory proposes, then gay men should reasonably be expected to be beating the shit out of each other far more than lesbians, at any rate.

That's another thing I need to point out about the 2nd Wave - "Patriarchal Terrorism" as a theory to explain domestic and sexual violence is very much something that was developed during the 2nd Wave, byMcKinnon, Brownmiller, Koss, and their contemporaries, so the 2nd Wave isn't all just "We need to secure rights for women!", some of it was very clearly finding excuses to blame men for absolutely everything. Maybe it wasn't a large section of that period in feminism (I think it was more that, than not), but a lot of the modern "Men are a worse villain than literal Lovercraftian monsters that devour the universe after Sunday tea!" derives from the strongly misandrist nature of that sector of the 2nd Wave, in my opinion.

Women are still granted at least some single-gender spaces (although I'll definitely grant that troons are trying to make that a thing of the past), but spaces for men and boys are increasingly expected to be opened up to women, and while it' a small concern, Nora Vincent was quite convinced that men needed spaces to bond and communicate too, after spending a year living as a man. She came out the other end of that experience really disturbed at how little support men got from society.

PS - Only reason I sectioned your post up was to address the various points more directly and particularly.

 

[*extremely mom voice*]

@Dynastia how did you wind up in the radfem camp? Seems like you're not just regurgitating the talking points of YouTube cranks, at least.

Also, which famous radfem would make the best lolcow? Currently active ones don't count.

 

[SourDiesel]

How is normalization of surrogacy fucking women over? Or is that an example of a position held by 3rd Wave Feminists? I'm honestly not sure which it is, so if you could clarify, that'd be great.

This is a lot but this one right here is easy so I'll answer it quickly. Normalizing surrogacy is bad for women in the same way anything that commodifies women's bodies is. That is to say it sounds like great choice for more privileged women but is frequently not a choice for less privileged women and in practice, it's very poor women who "choose" to do it for lack of other, better ways of making money. It encourages (mostly gay men) to buy the use of a woman's body and desperate women with few to no other choices are the ones usually "choosing" to do this. It's the same as how middle class third wave feminists claim sex work is a great job and "real work!" but only because they cannot conceive of ever being in a place where it's the best or only option and they completely ignore the abusive elements. At the end of the day, only desperate women fuck for money because it's a shitty shitty job where you get abused frequently. Whenever a woman's body being bought or sold is normalized, abuse of women follows. Sex trafficking is massive in north america and surrogacy will come with a similar dark industry behind it.

 

[2nd_time_user]

The normalization of surrogacy fucks women over even in a more pernicious way than prostitution. It makes women into broodmares, objects based on reproductive capacity, which is what the 2nd wave was against. They don't get paid for their labor per se, they get paid on delivery for a healthy product. And if it's detected not to be earlier, there might be a "kill fee" for an abortion and no payment if it's taken to term. In India (which has made international surrogacy illegal), the surrogates would have to live at these "wayward mom" houses that were normalized in the US to facilitate adoptions during the Baby Scoop Era (1950-1980).

Surrogacy is wrong because it's basically baby-selling.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I'm really confused by the notion that women should be considered competent agents, capable of self-determination, but also if they choose to to commodify (spell-check doesn't like that word. O.o) their sexuality or bodies, that's the wrong kind of agency. I'm especially confused by the dichotomy, because the Sexual Revolution very much fell into the same chronological period as the 2nd Wave.

Feminists quite correctly make an argument of personal autonomy when they say "her body, her choice!", but at the same time, you're saying that a woman making choices about her body are terrible ones? That sounds every bit as bizarre as Anita Sarkessian and her claim that "feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a class... not personal choice."

Spoiler: Where she said that

You're going to have to explain to me how women should be allowed to exercise reproductive and sexual agency (birth control, abortion, etc.), but also not allowed to exercise reproductive and sexual agency (surrogacy, sex work, etc.)

 

[Horus]

This is a lot but this one right here is easy so I'll answer it quickly. Normalizing surrogacy is bad for women in the same way anything that commodifies women's bodies is. That is to say it sounds like great choice for more privileged women but is frequently not a choice for less privileged women and in practice, it's very poor women who "choose" to do it for lack of other, better ways of making money. It encourages (mostly gay men) to buy the use of a woman's body and desperate women with few to no other choices are the ones usually "choosing" to do this. It's the same as how middle class third wave feminists claim sex work is a great job and "real work!" but only because they cannot conceive of ever being in a place where it's the best or only option and they completely ignore the abusive elements. At the end of the day, only desperate women fuck for money because it's a shitty shitty job where you get abused frequently. Whenever a woman's body being bought or sold is normalized, abuse of women follows. Sex trafficking is massive in north america and surrogacy will come with a similar dark industry behind it.

Your argument could be the same for any person in a position of having to do something they don't want to do, in order to survive. It is not specific to a gender. Plenty of dudes have had to use the military as their only venue out of crushing poverty. Additionally, in the U.S. at least, an Amazon warehouse is pretty much the only job around for able bodied men and women without many skills.
There is nothing unique or gender related about doing what you have to do in order to survive.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Your argument could be the same for any person in a position of having to do something they don't want to do, in order to survive. It is not specific to a gender. Plenty of dudes have had to use the military as their only venue out of crushing poverty. Additionally, in the U.S. at least, an Amazon warehouse is pretty much the only job around for able bodied men and women without many skills.
There is nothing unique or gender related about doing what you have to do in order to survive.

Both sexes can enlist in the military and fight. Both can pack boxes at Amazon or do other shit jobs. Prostitution and surrogacy are financed by men wanting to rent women's bodies for literal use. Even if the woman consents, this sends a chilling message throughout society that this is what women are for--fucking, making babies and being subservient to men.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Both sexes can enlist in the military and fight. Both can pack boxes at Amazon or do other shit jobs. Prostitution and surrogacy are financed by men wanting to rent women's bodies for literal use. Even if the woman consents, this sends a chilling message throughout society that this is what women are for--fucking, making babies and being subservient to men.

Female findoms, e-thots (Belle Delphine), and camgirls soaking men for money happens. Any exchange of a person's capacity/skills/etc. is a commodification of some kind, whether it's intellectual, physical, sexual, or professional.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Female findoms, e-thots (Belle Delphine), and camgirls soaking men for money happens. Any exchange of a person's capacity/skills/etc. is a commodification of some kind, whether it's intellectual, physical, sexual, or professional.

True but when this occurs in a purely sexual context, the commodity being traded isn't just a woman's body but the whole idea that women can be bought and sold. This does happen with men individually (I suggest Tyler Knight's book as a reference or if you can find "Bukkake" online anymore, read that) but it doesn't extend into the society as it does with women. The latter is the second-waver's larger beef.

 

[AnOminous]

Sex trafficking is massive in north america and surrogacy will come with a similar dark industry behind it.

It already has. In some states, like Michigan, it's actually a felony. Other states, like New York, prohibit it by simply refusing to enforce surrogacy contracts. If you read surrogacy contracts, they virtually amount to slavery.

The fact is that gestating and bearing a child is always a tremendously psychologically unpredictable event and it is unfathomably cruel to enforce such an agreement against a mother who changes her mind.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

True but when this occurs in a purely sexual context, the commodity being traded isn't just a woman's body but the whole idea that women can be bought and sold. This does happen with men individually (I suggest Tyler Knight's book as a reference or if you can find "Bukkake" online anymore, read that) but it doesn't extend into the society as it does with women. The latter is the second-waver's larger beef.

I'm still missing something about the whole scenario. Women should be recognized as capable of exercising sexual and reproductive agency (birth control, abortion, freedom to be as sexual as one desires, etc.), but when they exercise certain kinds of sexual and reproductive agency (sex work, surrogacy, etc.), it's suddenly a bad thing.

As pointed out above by @Horus, men from the lower classes often have little to no choice but to pursue military enlistment, in order to get any kind of education, and there's no way I'd describe enlistment as not exposing someone to abusive (and potential lethal, during deployment) environments, even if we're just talking about things as mundane as predatory loan agencies that set up shop down the street from the main gates, or being targeted by "tag-chasers". There's no way that military enlistment can't be considered every bit as much a form of physical commodification.

 

[FI 665]

Your argument could be the same for any person in a position of having to do something they don't want to do, in order to survive.

While the same could be said for being put in a position where you must do the job to survive, the sex trade is being glamorized left and right to impressionable young women on platforms like Instagram, Twitter, etc., as "empowering" and "omg u will make money hand over fist goooorl" by libfems (3rd wave feminists). Nobody is glamorizing jobs where you need to open cans or stock shelves with dragon dildos. Those in favor of sex work forget to mention emotional labor, violence, rape, STDs and trafficking. Sex trafficking in North America is still very much an issue; what does this say about these issues as a whole if the loudest message being sent is basically 'yo, add to the problem, because fuck it'?

It is not specific to a gender.

Men and women are not socially recognized as sexual equals, though, and because of this, the woman's body is the commodity, and not the sexual act itself.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

It already has. In some states, like Michigan, it's actually a felony. Other states, like New York, prohibit it by simply refusing to enforce surrogacy contracts. If you read surrogacy contracts, they virtually amount to slavery.

The fact is that gestating and bearing a child is always a tremendously psychologically unpredictable event and it is unfathomably cruel to enforce such an agreement against a mother who changes her mind.

Not to mention the literal surrogate farms in places like India where the women are housed in bunkers, prohibited from seeing their families, kept under strict control as to diet and activities (for "quality assurance") and so forth. And some third world surrogate farms specifically advertise that they will accept gay men with HIV to knock up their broodmares. They "wash" the sperm first, which lessens but not eliminate the risk of transmitting grids to the unfortunate slave handmaiden.

 

[RadicalCentrist]

I'm still missing something about the whole scenario. Women should be recognized as capable of exercising sexual and reproductive agency (birth control, abortion, freedom to be as sexual as one desires, etc.), but when they exercise certain kinds of sexual and reproductive agency (sex work, surrogacy, etc.), it's suddenly a bad thing.

As pointed out above by @Horus, men from the lower classes often have little to no choice but to pursue military enlistment, in order to get any kind of education, and there's no way I'd describe enlistment as not exposing someone to abusive (and potential lethal, during deployment) environments, even if we're just talking about things as mundane as predatory loan agencies that set up shop down the street from the main gates, or being targeted by "tag-chasers". There's no way that military enlistment can't be considered every bit as much a form of physical commodification.

lol no one cares what happens to men

hundreds of thousands died drafted into vietnam. the survivors make up the majority of the homeless population. the homeless are universally despised.

reminder that the voting majority (including women) supported the war in vietnam until it became too costly!

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Not to mention the literal surrogate farms in places like India where the women are housed in bunkers, prohibited from seeing their families, kept under strict control as to diet and activities (for "quality assurance") and so forth. And some third world surrogate farms specifically advertise that they will accept gay men with HIV to knock up their broodmares. They "wash" the sperm first, which lessens but not eliminate the risk of transmitting grids to the unfortunate slave handmaiden.

In India (which has made international surrogacy illegal)

Okay, which is it? India is a cesspool of "surrogacy farms", or they've banned international surrogacy?

And I'm still waiting for the explanation how some kinds of sexual and reproductive agency (birth control, abortion, sexual activity) are fine, but other kinds (surrogacy, sex work) are not fine. Are women competent adults, able to exercise agency, or not?

While the same could be said for being put in a position where you must do the job to survive, the sex trade is being glamorized left and right to impressionable young women on platforms like Instagram, Twitter, etc., as "empowering" and "omg u will make money hand over fist goooorl" by libfems (3rd wave feminists). Nobody is glamorizing jobs where you need to open cans or stock shelves with dragon dildos. Those in favor of sex work forget to mention emotional labor, violence, rape, STDs and trafficking. Sex trafficking in North America is still very much an issue; what does this say about these issues as a whole if the loudest message being sent is basically 'yo, add to the problem, because fuck it'?

Men and women are not socially recognized as sexual equals, though, and because of this, the woman's body is the commodity, and not the sexual act itself.

Nobody glamorizes the shit jobs that men do, either. Especially not the ones with high risks of injury, mortality, or that require intense physical output, or isolated work environments. I'm also not sure how women aren't treated as sexual equals, unless you're referring to what was mentioned up-thread about the difference in how sexual grooming is described, based on the sex of the predator involved. Otherwise, men and women are generally considered as having the same amount of sexual agency, and I'd argue men actually got the most recent bit of help in that regard, since sexual deviance laws affected gay men more often in legislative definitions.

I could even argue that women have greater sexual freedom, since they're granted more control over what happens, concerning pregnancy, and concerning the ability to inflict the state on men for claims of sexual misconduct, parental responsibility, and the capacity to deny men parental access WHILE demanding the state enforce a man's financial responsibility as a parent, since there's states that will jail men for failure to pay pay child support, even if a mother has been interfering with parental access. Feminist groups have actually fought against presumptive shared parenting, putting forth claims that the only men that want parental access are doing so as a means of retaining abusive control over a former partner, without any sort of data to back it up. Ironically, such lobbying actually reinforces the stereotype that "women are forced to be the primary child-raising partner", because it's putting more of the responsibility on women to scale back their personal economic development, because they're being forced to be available for more of the child-rearing.

 

[Horus]

While the same could be said for being put in a position where you must do the job to survive, the sex trade is being glamorized left and right to impressionable young women on platforms like Instagram, Twitter, etc., as "empowering" and "omg u will make money hand over fist goooorl" by libfems (3rd wave feminists). Nobody is glamorizing jobs where you need to open cans or stock shelves with dragon dildos. Those in favor of sex work forget to mention emotional labor, violence, rape, STDs and trafficking. Sex trafficking in North America is still very much an issue; what does this say about these issues as a whole if the loudest message being sent is basically 'yo, add to the problem, because fuck it'?

Men and women are not socially recognized as sexual equals, though, and because of this, the woman's body is the commodity, and not the sexual act itself.

Sorry everyone, I had a complete boomer moment on my ancient ass phone trying to reply to several threads at once, my bad.

You mean to tell me that marketers and profiteers are glamorizing poor life decisions, and hiding the dangerous parts of a career and/or industry? I am glad the military does not do that, nor heavy industry, fast food restaurants, automotive companies, big tobacco, liquor distributors, for profit prisons, corporate agriculture, student loan guarantors, or literally any other person/entity trying to extract money from any other person/entity. Glossing over the risks that girls face by being e-thots is not sexist or targeted towards women, it's what all humans do to all other humans when one human is attempting to convince another human to act against his or her interest.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Okay, which is it? India is a cesspool of "surrogacy farms", or they've banned international surrogacy?

And I'm still waiting for the explanation how some kinds of sexual and reproductive agency (birth control, abortion, sexual activity) are fine, but other kinds (surrogacy, sex work) are not fine. Are women competent adults, able to exercise agency, or not?



Nobody glamorizes the shit jobs that men do, either. Especially not the ones with high risks of injury, mortality, or that require intense physical output, or isolated work environments. I'm also not sure how women aren't treated as sexual equals, unless you're referring to what was mentioned up-thread about the difference in how sexual grooming is described, based on the sex of the predator involved. Otherwise, men and women are generally considered as having the same amount of sexual agency, and I'd argue men actually got the most recent bit of help in that regard, since sexual deviance laws affected gay men more often in legislative definitions.

I could even argue that women have greater sexual freedom, since they're granted more control over what happens, concerning pregnancy, and concerning the ability to inflict the state on men for claims of sexual misconduct, parental responsibility, and the capacity to deny men parental access WHILE demanding the state enforce a man's financial responsibility as a parent, since there's states that will jail men for failure to pay pay child support, even if a mother has been interfering with parental access. Feminist groups have actually fought against presumptive shared parenting, putting forth claims that the only men that want parental access are doing so as a means of retaining abusive control over a former partner, without any sort of data to back it up. Ironically, such lobbying actually reinforces the stereotype that "women are forced to be the primary child-raising partner", because it's putting more of the responsibility on women to scale back their personal economic development, because they're being forced to be available for more of the child-rearing.

India was a cesspit of surrogacy until they banned international surrogacy a couple years ago. I believe it's moved to Cambodia now.

Birth control and abortion are ways women use to control their own bodies. Surrogacy, prostitution and porn sell that control to others, and women are not afforded the protection afforded to anyone else in a workplace environment. Take porn. It's not like they get paid for partial work, they get paid only when the producer decides he has sufficient footage, after which the woman must do an on-camera interview saying everything was fine to get paid for any work. There are no residuals in porn, and your image remains up literally forever, and disproportionately affects women in finding different work. I'll reference Tyler Knight again as his book "Burn my Shadow" is in publication. He decided to walk away and work in commodities again for a while. He TOLD his coworkers he was in porn. He even had a blowup doll that was on Stephen Colbert. There was only laughter. He went back to porn eventually, where he still is. He's around 50 now.

Women can't do that. Not even if they're Ashley Blue, who was also famous in the oughts, who also wrote a book. Which ends with her meeting a nice man in the industry. Same goes back to Nina Hartley.

The analogy with the military and other occupations does not hold. There are more men in certain fields requiring physical strength, and no second-waver will say there's not a difference in strength and size between men and women on average. Women, too, enlist for financial reasons, go into combat, get taken POWs, get hurt. Some die. But most of both sexes don't see combat in most years, most get honorable discharges, and most are accorded benefits and elevated status for life. This is exactly opposite of prostitution and porn.