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

[AbraCadaver]

Christ this thread really is a fuckin daycare.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Let me reiterate -



If you agreed with me, you aren't someone that disagreed with me. That means that you aren't one of the people I asked you about, because I asked you about people that disagreed with me, but still agreed that some form of regulated legalization was still a viable option, and is potentially a better option.

There are numerous people that have disagreed with me about sex work, but you're not one of them. I even agree with you that even legal sex-work isn't a glamorous job, no matter how it's spun, but you and I don't disagree, based on this comment -



I can't find where I "thunk'd" that reply, and the comment that I did "thunk" was the one where you specified "but I think it's a basic duty as a society, right or wrong, to clearly illegalise things or legalise them, and not leave some kind of bizarre half-legalised system in place.", which doesn't read as openly being in favour of legalization, it's being in favour of make the case clear.

I guess I'm not the one that isn't reading the thread.



I'm saying that the majority of the performers with HIV appear to be male, based on the majority of HIV infections occurring among men that have sex with men, according to the US gov't. (Source) I'm also suggesting that when the CDC notes that a single male performer testing negative for HIV was responsible for 17 infections, 12 at shoots, and 5 in private sexual encounters, in a short time frame, that it supports that proposition. (Source)

And I'm also saying that making claims about HIV prevalence in porn (which, as in society, affects more men than women) as a reason to ban the industry sounds like the same excuses the Christian Right used to try to rationalize sodomy laws.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that the societal prevalence of HIV is highest among gay and bi men, and I'll bet we all remember August Ames being bullied until she committed suicide, because she refused to work unprotected with an actor that had unprotected with other actors and private partners. I'm going to flat out tell you that any argument that HIV prevalence in porn being an excuse is the same kind of excuse that Christians have and still use to justify trying to ban homosexuality.

What the fuck does this have to do with what I just wrote? I'm not talking about gay male porn, I am speaking specifically about HET porn that by definition involves women, and by definition is germane to the thread.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

How dare you politeshame here on our tranny murder BBS. That's not very debate positive of you.

It is pretty funny how stances on sex work that aren't "yay hookers, sling that pus$" or whatever are getting this weird reaction from @TerribleIdeas™ (great username btw) and @Ashenthorn of "sounds like you're religious lol owned". So, A, most old-country religions are nowhere near the positions second-wavers advocate for based on their stances on marriage alone and B, the implication that conservative values with regards to sex are inherently religious and can't come around just from thoughtfully examining the interaction of IRL human nature vs. big, big, big piles of money is pretty naive to the point of being embarrassing to read.

Except that you're still attempting to control the sexual and reproductive autonomy of women for specific phenomena just like the Christian Right does. Apparently, feminists here think women shouldn't be able to decide to be surrogates or sex-workers, but are in favour of women deciding about abortion, personal promiscuity, etc., without interference. I'm a big fan of accepting that women are capable of agency with regards to all of those.

Your reasons being different is irrelevant, you're still decreeing that women are to be trusted as autonomous for some things, but not for others. Her body, her choice, right? Why do you support the right to access abortion, but not the right to be a surrogate, or a sex-worker? It's her decision, in each of those cases, right? Or should we ban abortion, because some unknown number of men (boyfriends, fathers, etc.) have absolutely coerced a woman into having an abortion, and therefore coercion has existed, concerning that unknown number of abortions? It's the next logical step, right?

What the fuck does this have to do with what I just wrote? I'm not talking about gay male porn, I am speaking specifically about HET porn that by definition involves women, and by definition is germane to the thread.

I mean, the fact the majority of performers that have HIV are going to be men, the majority of people are going to be infected by such men, there's lots of bisexual male performers, and the most common vector for infection is having unprotected sex with a man that also has unprotected sex with other men?

Seriously, were you unaware that men that have unprotected sex with other men are the majority of people infected with HIV, and are the most likely to spread HIV, through unprotected sex, regardless of who they sleep with?

 

[2nd_time_user]

Except that you're still attempting to control the sexual and reproductive autonomy of women for specific phenomena just like the Christian Right does. Apparently, feminists here think women shouldn't be able to decide to be surrogates or sex-workers, but are in favour of women deciding about abortion, personal promiscuity, etc., without interference. I'm a big fan of accepting that women are capable of agency with regards to all of those.

Your reasons being different is irrelevant, you're still decreeing that women are to be trusted as autonomous for some things, but not for others. Her body, her choice, right? Why do you support the right to access abortion, but not the right to be a surrogate, or a sex-worker? It's her decision, in each of those cases, right? Or should we ban abortion, because some unknown number of men (boyfriends, fathers, etc.) have absolutely coerced a woman into having an abortion, and therefore coercion has existed, concerning that unknown number of abortions? It's the next logical step, right?



I mean, the fact the majority of performers that have HIV are going to be men, the majority of people are going to be infected by such men, there's lots of bisexual male performers, and the most common vector for infection is having unprotected sex with a man that also has unprotected sex with other men?

Seriously, were you unaware that men that have unprotected sex with other men are the majority of people infected with HIV, and are the most likely to spread HIV, through unprotected sex, regardless of who they sleep with?

I was referring to two outbreaks that occurred in a HETERO context. Or don't you believe women can get HIV too?

Seriously, I have no idea how you have six figures of discretionary income to fling about (if this isn't bullshit) so you and wifey can engineer your genetic product the way you want including enslaving women, and you defend this as "choice"? These are arguments that incels in their mom's basement makes. Incels like Yaniv.

 

[GenderCop]

Not particularly, since the farms are (regardless of being a place that documents the shit out of lolcows) not people that have any significant power, as opposed to any number of prominent feminists that have substantial social and academic power. The difference between us and Julie Bindel is fairly obvious - she regularly writes articles, gives talks, gets no-platformed for daring to suggest that troons are astroturfing and generating a backlash against women's rights (and civil rights in general), and the pair of us are on a board that shitposts, catalogs lolcows, and shitposts about lolcows.

how do you know this? how are you so certain who "them" & "us" are? could you share your inside-knowledge of KF-posters' demographics, incomes, academic standing?

see, i assume Julie Bindel (or her equivalent), is right here arguing in this thread. i think its odd that you don't.

i am regularly surprised/impressed at the level/variety of knowledge (academic & otherwise) exhibited on KF & its obv to me some ppl have been published, have advanced degrees, etc. why do you assume shitposting means someone has no social or academic power? it seems obv to me that if they do, they might be pretty good at shitposting & prob enjoy it.

there are powerful & non-powerful alike reading this thread. "it rains on the just and the unjust".

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I was referring to two outbreaks that occurred in a HETERO context. Or don't you believe women can get HIV too?

Seriously, I have no idea how you have six figures of discretionary income to fling about (if this isn't bullshit) so you and wifey can engineer your genetic product the way you want including enslaving women, and you defend this as "choice"? These are arguments that incels in their mom's basement makes. Incels like Yaniv.

I'm referring to the primary vector for HIV exposure being unprotected exposure to men that have unprotected exposure to men. That means that the majority of the women infected were exposed as a result of unprotected sex with men that had previously had unprotected sex with other men. The Christian right makes dumb arguments about the spread of HIV as grounds to ban sodomy, and you're alluding to the spread of HIV as a reason to ban pornography.

And I never said I had "six figures of discretionary income to fling about", I said that if surrogacy become the only option available to us, people here are arguing to ban our access to it. If it was the only option available, we'd find the means to pursue it. On the other hand, our financial means are irrelevant, and now that you're mad on the internet, the insults are going to start flying, because you don't have a rebuttal to present.

Since I keep getting thrown far-fetched hypotheticals, what about this one - a lesbian couple where both have had some form of reproductive cancer, and are therefore not able to have either partner carry a fetus, want to pursue the option of contracting a surrogate instead of adoption. Each wants to donate an egg, so they can have fraternal twins. Are they permitted to do so? If so, why, and if not, why?

how do you know this? how are you so certain who "them" & "us" are? could you share your inside-knowledge of KF-posters' demographics, incomes, academic standing?

see, i assume Julie Bindel (or her equivalent), is right here arguing in this thread. i think its odd that you don't.

i am regularly surprised/impressed at the level/variety of knowledge (academic & otherwise) exhibited on KF & its obv to me some ppl have been published, have advanced degrees, etc. why do you assume shitposting means someone has no social or academic power? it seems obv to me that if they do, they might be pretty good at shitposting & prob enjoy it.

there are powerful & non-powerful alike reading this thread. "it rains on the just and the unjust".

Can you point to anyone that's involving themselves in advocacy and activism that they admit to here? I'm not disputing that people here aren't doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, street-sweepers, or burger-flippers; I'm pointing out that none of us here, on these accounts, are engaged in IRL activism, using this account in that activism. The power they have outside is hidden, because people here are repeatedly warned to not powerlevel.

 

[2nd_time_user]

how do you know this? how are you so certain who "them" & "us" are? could you share your inside-knowledge of KF-posters' demographics, incomes, academic standing?

see, i assume Julie Bindel (or her equivalent), is right here arguing in this thread. i think its odd that you don't.

i am regularly surprised/impressed at the level/variety of knowledge (academic & otherwise) exhibited on KF & its obv to me some ppl have been published, have advanced degrees, etc. why do you assume shitposting means someone has no social or academic power? it seems obv to me that if they do, they might be pretty good at shitposting & prob enjoy it.

there are powerful & non-powerful alike reading this thread. "it rains on the just and the unjust".

I find @TerribleIdeas™ posts on the topics of porn, prostitution and surrogacy to be disingenuous. Even when presented with sources, he diverges onto a topic not involving women. Even while powerleveling about wife's miscarrages as a reason they're considering surrogacy, he's said very little as to how far thesecontracts should extend. His terrible ideas come down to anyone signing a contract should be liable because we're all equal after all. Honestly, I do not see how a contract stipulating a woman for example eat vegan food, fuck only those approved, submit to abortion at the payer's request to have any semblance of equality here. He keeps bringing lib buzzwords like "Christian right" and "homophobia" when that has nothing to do with what he says, expecting we'll bend over like Reddit.

ETA: I see he's still sperging at me, "I never said I had six figures but we will pursue surrogacy the state might not let us wahh" Dude, your surrogacy will cost well into six figures and from rudimentary research you'd know that. Getting your and wife's gametes together to make a zygote is probably going to take more than one attempt and even good insurance caps them at two. The procedure to successfully implant your genetic product into a third-party, more attempts, typically not covered by any insurance. And then there's the costs of the surrogate gestating it. If you're IRL seriously looking into this, I would expect you to provide a more informed argument than "her body her choice just like abortion" and "Christian conservatives are bad.."

 

[HG 400]

The power they have outside is hidden, because people here are repeatedly warned to not powerlevel.

My name is Matthew Craig and I live in New South Wales. Not everybody here is a frightened pseudoanonymous autist, dude.

 

[Ashenthorn]

@Ashenthorn of "sounds like you're religious lol owned". So, A, most old-country religions are nowhere near the positions second-wavers advocate for based on their stances on marriage alone and B, the implication that conservative values with regards to sex are inherently religious and can't come around just from thoughtfully examining the interaction of IRL human nature vs. big, big, big piles of money is pretty naive to the point of being embarrassing to read.

That's what you got from my post? heh.

So the fact that the published mission statement of the cited source for the abolishment of surrogacy (discussed at length in this thread) is closely aligned with the conservative christian agenda is just a coincidence? And this shouldn't matter when evaluating the veracity of the source because it aligns with your views?

*shrug* It's fine if you think that.

@TerribleIdeas™ has pointed this out several times the inconsistency of thought, but it seems to me that some folks have a problem with just saying, "Yes, in this case, we DO side with the moral majority - women should not be allowed to exercise their agency with regard to surrogacy (or sex work)". Don't be afraid, people probly won't label you as a republican nazi, and invalidate your femcred (I think?).

I personally just disagree with that view. nbd.

I also find it disheartening that the hippies (and many second-wave feminists) seem to have gone from "Fuck the establishment" to "People need to be protected BY the establishment - it's for their own good."

 

[GenderCop]

Did your baby die to escape being asked for citations?

prob an abortion. she just told him it was a miscarriage. that's a tried-and-true one here in the South.

woman gets preg, finds out guy is Objectivist or Pentecostal or something, quickly bails.

pretty sure my own cousin did.

 

[HG 400]

I also find it disheartening that the hippies (and many second-wave feminists) seem to have gone from "Fuck the establishment" to "People need to be protected BY the establishment - it's for their own good."

You're aware that second-wave feminism is literally an extension of Marxism, right?

 

[FI 665]

That's what you got from my post? heh.

SMUGLY CHUCKLES

So the fact that the published mission statement of the cited source for the abolishment of surrogacy (discussed at length in this thread) is closely aligned with the conservative christian agenda is just a coincidence? And this shouldn't matter when evaluating the veracity of the source because it aligns with your views?

Here is the simplest, most babby way to explain the differences!

*shrug* It's fine if you think that.

SMUGLY SHRUGS

prob an abortion. she just told him it was a miscarriage. that's a tried-and-true one here in the South.

woman gets preg, finds out guy is Objectivist or Pentecostal or something, quickly bails.

pretty sure my own cousin did.

Yeah, it probably was. If I were @TerribleIdeas™'s wife, that's what I'd do tbh.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I find @TerribleIdeas™ posts on the topics of porn, prostitution and surrogacy to be disingenuous. Even when presented with sources, he diverges onto a topic not involving women. Even while powerleveling about wife's miscarrages as a reason they're considering surrogacy, he's said very little as to how far thesecontracts should extend. His terrible ideas come down to anyone signing a contract should be liable because we're all equal after all. Honestly, I do not see how a contract stipulating a woman for example eat vegan food, fuck only those approved, submit to abortion at the payer's request to have any semblance of equality here. He keeps bringing lib buzzwords like "Christian right" and "homophobia" when that has nothing to do with what he says, expecting we'll bend over like Reddit.

Pointing out that you're making the same argument as the Religious Right for restricting sexual agency (spread of HIV, in this case) isn't being disingenuous. It's pointing out that your argument is based on harms that can be addressed by legalization and oversight, instead of prohibition. The prohibition of porn and sex work does the exact same thing the prohibition of abortion does - pushes it into dark and dirty places where the risks and harms are vastly greater.

The majority of HIV sufferers are men, that have unprotected sex with other men. Women that have HIV are exposed via unprotected sex with men, the majority of whom were exposed by unprotected sex with HIV+ men. Claiming that your reason for banning porn is "because there were HIV outbreaks that affected women" is no different than the Religious Right saying "we can stop the HIV epidemic by banning homosexuality!" The HIV outbreaks, in both cases, would have primarily been the result of gay and bisexual men having unprotected sex, and then bisexual men having unprotected sex with women.

Produce examples of prohibition that have reduced harms, compared to legalization for the same phenomenon. I've pointed to drug legalization in Portugal, abortion legalization in much of the western world, gun legalization in states that aren't exceptional (and have lower gun crime rates than the exceptional states that try to ban them, and you've mumbled about "Germany still has problems with organized crime trafficking women", as though the gov't failing to act isn't the problem, rather than the legality of prostitution there. Give me a single case where prohibition reduces harms, compared to legalization. I'm not asking for much, but I am asking for you to stop derailing with books and forums that have negative opinions about the porn industry that ban be easily rebutted by people that have positive opinions about it.

And since we haven't looked into surrogacy at this point, I don't know what the current contracts applicable to various jurisdictions are, but I'll guarantee that they include things like restricting the surrogate from intentionally acting to harm the pregnancy. She's agreeing to a contract to act as a surrogate, which means she's being contracted to do so safely.

I still want to know if a lesbian couple that wants to choose surrogacy over abortion would be allowed to, though.

 

[GenderCop]

Can you point to anyone that's involving themselves in advocacy and activism that they admit to here? I'm not disputing that people here aren't doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, street-sweepers, or burger-flippers; I'm pointing out that none of us here, on these accounts, are engaged in IRL activism, using this account in that activism. The power they have outside is hidden, because people here are repeatedly warned to not powerlevel.

as we see on reddit, tumblr, etc claims of "activism" are mostly bullshit. the real activists & advocates just get it done, day in & day out, & don't grandstand. they don't have the time. the more they talk, the less they do.

the real activists know this, btw. talk is cheap & yet shitposting social media jabber has become the new definition of activism. its as gonzo as calling a white christian hetero southern male (me) a "terf", yet unaccountably, it continues. while it does, can't take any of it seriously.

example:
zinnia/zach calls itself an "activist" & so does the whole internet. he is routinely described that way, describes himself that way, as does his useless wife & troonmate, all "activists". zach spews bile day after day abt Trump, yet when Trump showed up at a rally within actual walking distance of his house , he couldn't be bothered to show up. i actually checked this fact after reading it over & over on twitter, since his address is in OP of his La Zorra thread.

he never does show up, never has, yet they call him "activist" when he is interviewed on "i am jazz" tv show. this obv means the word "activist" itself (like "terf") has lost any real meaning. (he also called himself a "mom" on the jazz show, dittos.)

in a world where you can snap yr fingers & be a baby girl or old man, you can role play at anything, including "activist" or "feminist" & in this thread, sounds like you've been listening to mostly the role players & maybe never met the real thing?

real life feminists are social workers & teachers & cops & basketball coaches & black lady preachers who visit lifers in prison when they are 80 & have no other family left. they get it done. imho.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Pointing out that you're making the same argument as the Religious Right for restricting sexual agency (spread of HIV, in this case) isn't being disingenuous. It's pointing out that your argument is based on harms that can be addressed by legalization and oversight, instead of prohibition. The prohibition of porn and sex work does the exact same thing the prohibition of abortion does - pushes it into dark and dirty places where the risks and harms are vastly greater.

The majority of HIV sufferers are men, that have unprotected sex with other men. Women that have HIV are exposed via unprotected sex with men, the majority of whom were exposed by unprotected sex with HIV+ men. Claiming that your reason for banning porn is "because there were HIV outbreaks that affected women" is no different than the Religious Right saying "we can stop the HIV epidemic by banning homosexuality!" The HIV outbreaks, in both cases, would have primarily been the result of gay and bisexual men having unprotected sex, and then bisexual men having unprotected sex with women.

Produce examples of prohibition that have reduced harms, compared to legalization for the same phenomenon. I've pointed to drug legalization in Portugal, abortion legalization in much of the western world, gun legalization in states that aren't exceptional (and have lower gun crime rates than the exceptional states that try to ban them, and you've mumbled about "Germany still has problems with organized crime trafficking women", as though the gov't failing to act isn't the problem, rather than the legality of prostitution there. Give me a single case where prohibition reduces harms, compared to legalization. I'm not asking for much, but I am asking for you to stop derailing with books and forums that have negative opinions about the porn industry that ban be easily rebutted by people that have positive opinions about it.

And since we haven't looked into surrogacy at this point, I don't know what the current contracts applicable to various jurisdictions are, but I'll guarantee that they include things like restricting the surrogate from intentionally acting to harm the pregnancy. She's agreeing to a contract to act as a surrogate, which means she's being contracted to do so safely.

I still want to know if a lesbian couple that wants to choose surrogacy over abortion would be allowed to, though.

You just said you expect whatever contract to include an anti-abortion clause. Which btw you'll have a lot of fun enforcing if she does get one. And wtf does a lesbian couple wanting to choose surrogacy over abortion have to do with this? You're seriously asserting that one of these lesbian partners will just abort a pregnancy so she can have it occur in a third party?

You've said absolutely nothing new. You're fucking trolling Dude, and it isn't even a good attempt at this point. Fuck off and fuck your Serena Joy if she even exists.

ETA:

SMUGLY CHUCKLES
View attachment 870868

I've seen this before. It's almost like r/gc's manifesto, but there are parts of it that strike me as liberalese.

Like the "war" vs "anti-war" part. FDR got us involved in WWII. Kennedy and Johnson in the Vietnam War (that Nixon got us out of). Obama didn't exactly pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like the "nuclear family" part. Why condemn them specifically rather than say other types of families should also be able to exist?

The rest of it makes a decent argument in how radfems differ from conservatives, true. But it doesn't mean conservatives cannot be fundamentally correct on, for example, the transgender issue.

 

[HG 400]

You've said absolutely nothing new. You're fucking trolling Dude, and it isn't even a good attempt at this point. Fuck off and fuck your Serena Joy if she even exists.

He's not trolling, he's just a droning reddit autist with near unlimited time and endurance for this kind of stuff. He mostly hangs out in A&H and the SJW thread where the local population leans very heavily conservative and alt-right, and even there they're baiting the shit out of him with stuff like 'Andy Ngo had it coming'. It's great lol.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

as we see on reddit, tumblr, etc claims of "activism" are mostly bullshit. the real activists & advocates just get it done, day in & day out, & don't grandstand. they don't have the time. the more they talk, the less they do.

the real activists know this, btw. talk is cheap & yet shitposting social media jabber has become the new definition of activism. its as gonzo as calling a white christian hetero southern male (me) a "terf", yet unaccountably, it continues. while it does, can't take any of it seriously.

example:
zinnia/zach calls itself an "activist" & so does the whole internet. he is routinely described that way, describes himself that way, as does his useless wife & troonmate, all "activists". zach spews bile day after day abt Trump, yet when Trump showed up at a rally within actual walking distance of his house , he couldn't be bothered to show up. i actually checked this fact after reading it over & over on twitter, since his address is in OP of his La Zorra thread.

he never does show up, never has, yet they call him "activist" when he is interviewed on "i am jazz" tv show. this obv means the word "activist" itself (like "terf") has lost any real meaning. (he also called himself a "mom" on the jazz show, dittos.)

in a world where you can snap yr fingers & be a baby girl or old man, you can role play at anything, including "activist" or "feminist" & in this thread, sounds like you've been listening to mostly the role players & maybe never met the real thing?

real life feminists are social workers & teachers & cops & basketball coaches & black lady preachers who visit lifers in prison when they are 80 & have no other family left. they get it done. imho.

I don't disagree with most of that, and the last line, I particularly don't disagree with. But that supports my suggestion that nothing said here (or, as you point out, reddit, twitter, etc.) makes particularly much difference, compared to the work of actual feminists, whether they're teachers, preachers, academics, or whatever.

You just said you expect whatever contract to include an anti-abortion clause. Which btw you'll have a lot of fun enforcing if she does get one. And wtf does a lesbian couple wanting to choose surrogacy over abortion have to do with this? You're seriously asserting that one of these lesbian partners will just abort a pregnancy so she can have it occur in a third party?

You've said absolutely nothing new. You're fucking trolling Dude, and it isn't even a good attempt at this point. Fuck off and fuck your Serena Joy if she even exists.

Just from looking at a couple surrogacy websites, they make it really clear they don't take random people, and one of them specifically won't match a surrogate with a couple seeking surrogacy, if they disagree about the necessity and reasons that an abortion may be necessary.

You've thrown hypothetical cases at me, so I'm asking you to consider a hypothetical case where a lesbian couple wants to have genetically-related children, and neither is physically able to be pregnant. If that were to occur,should they be allowed to arrange surrogacy or not, and for either response, why?

The same stands for lesbian porn, obviously; if a lesbian wants to start a lesbian-only porn production company, no men involved in any aspect of the production, it's an entirely ethical process at all stages, and everyone involved is a consensual participant, would that be permissible? For either yes or no, why?

Neither of these hypothetical have men involved, so I want to know if your reasons for abhorring prostitution that involves men hold true where no men are involved.

He's not trolling, he's just a droning reddit autist with near unlimited time and endurance for this kind of stuff. He mostly hangs out in A&H and the SJW thread where the local population leans very heavily conservative and alt-right, and even there they're baiting the shit out of him with stuff like 'Andy Ngo had it coming'. It's great lol.

No, I see inconsistency between the claims of many in this thread, that they support women's sexual and reproductive autonomy, because they're only supporting it sometimes, alleging coercion prevents women from adequately exercising agency, for those cases. So let's explore that - if prostitution and surrogacy are subject to instances when financial concerns or outside individuals can cause a woman to be coerced into either, then the solution being presented by some here is to ban both, right?

If that logic stands for those 2 situations, it also stands for abortion, because there are undoubtedly cases where women are subject to the same kinds of coercion (financial or outside individuals), and the same solution should be acceptable to the people proposing to ban prostitution and surrogacy on those grounds, right?

 

[FI 665]

I've seen this before. It's almost like r/gc's manifesto, but there are parts of it that strike me as liberalese.

Like the "war" vs "anti-war" part. FDR got us involved in WWII. Kennedy and Johnson in the Vietnam War (that Nixon got us out of). Obama didn't exactly pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like the "nuclear family" part. Why condemn them specifically rather than say other types of families should also be able to exist?

The rest of it makes a decent argument in how radfems differ from conservatives, true. But it doesn't mean conservatives cannot be fundamentally correct on, for example, the transgender issue.

Oh sure, I don't agree with all of it, but it's the easiest way to respond to someone: "here's some differences" in broad strokes without putting in walls of text myself, especially because it seemed @Ashenthorn wasn't asking in good faith.

But that supports my suggestion that nothing said here (or, as you point out, reddit, twitter, etc.) makes particularly much difference

Why are you here, then?

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Why are you here, then?

The title of the thread. Why wouldn't I come here to ask 2nd wave feminists to elaborate on their positions?

 

[FI 665]

The title of the thread. Why wouldn't I come here to ask 2nd wave feminists to elaborate on their positions?

Of the two topics that you seem oddly hyper-focused on. Bye.