So, have you read the works of one of the most impressive authors of human history yet?
http://radfem.org/dworkin/
Personal list:
>Woman Hating
done
>Right Wing Women
done
>Pornography: Men Possessing Women
done
>Our Blood
done
>Life and Death
almost done
>Letters From a War Zone
have yet to read
>Intercourse
Too fucking deep for me. (Maybe it's because I'm a virgin.)
>Pornography and Civil Rights (co-authored by Catharine MacKinnon)
done
Bonus:
>The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism (includes speeches by Dworkin, MacKinnon, and other very interesting people)
done
(Can also be downloaded from http://radfem.org/.)
Get on my level, nerds.
>>7421674
Can you divulge more about these texts and her ideology?
>>7421674
>Ice & Fire
That's the one with the dragons in it right?
>>7421679
Woman Hating is just about 200 pages and serves as a manifesto of sorts.
I have an 8 year-old sister. As soon as she's 14-16 years old, I'll force-feed her Dworkin.
>>7421886
I think her anti-porn message is good.
>>7421674
sex-negative transphobic white 'feminist' scum
>>7421925
>sex-negative
Good
>transphobic
Good
>white
Meh. At least she has good ideas.
>>7421928
>Dworkin
>"sex-negative"
>Dworkin
>transphobic
>Dworkin
>"white"
hue hue hue
>>7421925
Dworkin is literally every single one of those, funnily enough, despite the image reeking of librul feminism.
It always irritates me when anti-porn, anti-sexual-violence feminists are called "sex negative."
It shows how deeply entrenched the association between sex and violence is for people.
To think that what you see in most porn is a proper way for humans to enjoy their sexuality... It's sick, to say the least. And incredibly woman-hostile.
The prostate in the male body is better positioned for rectal stimulation, than the clitoris in the female body is positioned for vaginal stimulation. If the way most people have sex made sense in any way, you would see more anal penetration of men than you see vaginal penetration of women. But alas, most men get their arousal from a feeling of dominance and control over a woman, not from genuine feelings of love and sympathy.
>>7423949
Decent satire; got a bit too obvious towards the end
>>7421886
Please don't
>>7423958
>implying that it wasn't 100% true
>>7423958
tfw he convinced me
>>7423977
The rectal penetration being more pleasurable than vagina sex is where it jumped the shark tbqhwy
>>7423985
>his gf pretends that he satisfies her
>>7423991
>he thinks that forcing a woman to comply with his weird fetish is more pleasurable to her than actually stimulating her genitals
>>7424005
>no I don't
>>7423949
>yfw radical feminists actually believe that the act that conceived them and propogates the entire human race is unfair to women
Might as well be angry that nature gave women brests and smaller feet
>>7423985
It's actually true.
It's a biological fact.
A man can easily reach orgasm from anal penetration, given enough relaxation and some lubricant. The prostate is easily located and offers a very reliable way to orgasm.
A woman can only hope for enough incidental clitoral stimulation while getting vaginally penetrated. The g-spot is not well understood and not as reliable as the prostate in offering pleasure.
Literally from simply googling "percentage of woman having orgasm":
>[According to some research] about 75 percent of all women never reach orgasm from intercourse alone -- that is without the extra help of sex toys, hands or tongue.
>>7424023
>appeal to nature
0/10 try again
>>7424023
>recreational sex should be done the same way as procreative sex because logic
>>7424037
Complete and utter bullshit. As a trans aficionado, the concept of someone with a prostate reaching orgasm from anal penetration alone is so rare that videos where it occurs are treasured and spread. It's far less than the 25% your "evidence" suggests. Also, if vaginal penetration wasn't very pleasurable, why do so many women own phallic sex toys? Your statistic only suggests that woman don't get off from the boyfriends alone, not that they don't get off from vagina penetration.
>>7424039
You're dumb. Do you understand why sex is pleasurable in the first place?
>>7424037
>>appeal to nature
I'm not saying that it's moral because it's natural, i'm saying that denegrating an act that's necessary for our continued existence is pretty retarded. Might as well be angry that humans have to piss every now and then.
For those who actually didn't know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_massage
>>7424056
#rekt
>if vaginal penetration wasn't very pleasurable, why do so many women own phallic sex toys
Because men are marketing them. Now look at the number of vibrators that are designed for clitoral stimulation. "Bunny ears", massage devices like they use in J-porn, etc. All those who actually give a fuck about female orgasm go for toys that stimulate the clitoris. And sometimes g-spot.
>Your statistic only suggests that woman don't get off from the boyfriends alone
Sex toys, hands, and tongues usually stimulate the clitoris a lot more than simple vaginal penetration by a penis.
>>7424061
You have to understand that evolution is a chaotic process with tons of glitches. Why would there even be a thing such as prostatic orgasm if everything made perfect sense for recreation?
>>7424068
Still appeal to nature. Humans constantly bend nature for their better well-being. If having to piss every once and then were so bothersome, we'd work on a solution for it.
Women found out that enjoying sex with men is increasingly impossible once they start caring about their sociopolitical power and standing in society as credible, worthy human beings, so you get feminism.
>>7424061
>all the statistics about women not orgasming from intercourse should be ignored for some reason
>>7424078
>All those who actually give a fuck about female orgasm go for toys that stimulate the clitoris. And sometimes g-spot.
This isn't a zero-sum thing; women can reach orgasm by a mixture of both clitoral and vaginal stimulation. No one is denying this. You're the one contending that vagina stimulation is somehow an invention intended to please men in particular, despite the numerous women who claim to be able to only get off through vaginal stimulation, or the various sex toys that only take vaginal stimulation into consideration.
Also, what does this have to do with prosate stimulation? Surely vaginal sex would be more pleasurable to women than a sex act where only the man is being pleasured (prostate massage).
>Sex toys, hands, and tongues usually stimulate the clitoris a lot more than simple vaginal penetration by a penis.
Most of which are dildos, many of which don't even vibrate.
>>7424108
>You're the one contending that vagina stimulation is somehow an invention
No he wasn't.
>>7424078
>Women found out that enjoying sex with men is increasingly impossible once they start caring about their sociopolitical power and standing in society
According to fucking whom? Women are having more sex than any other period in recent history. The orgasm gap between men and women is shrinking
https://www.yahoo.com/health/women-are-having-more-orgasmsalmost-as-many-as-126538550428.html
>>7424116
>yahoo.com
>>7424078
>Vigorous prostate massage has been documented to have injurious consequences: periprostatic hemorrhage,[7] cellulitis, septicaemia, possible disturbance and metastasis of prostate cancer to other parts of the body, and hemorrhoidal flare-up, and rectal fissures
yeah, we should really replace vagina sex with this
>>7424114
The implication is that it's only normalized in order to keep women subjugated, not to please either men or women.
>>7424133
Literally a more trustworthy source than wikipedia
>>7424134
>The implication is that it's only normalized in order to keep women subjugated, not to please either men or women.
That's very different from saying that it's an invention.
>>7424136
>I eat my poo instead of using a toilet.
>>7424138
The agument is that it's artificially propagated, which is what I mean by "invention."
>>7424140
The yahoo story itself, like any decent publicly-edited wikipedia pseudoarticle, cites a source.
>>7424150
Well in that case it's true.
>>7424152
And it's not like news sites ever quote research incorrectly.
Dworkins>all feminists
>>7424153
That's bullshit though. First, it's an act that both men and women find pleasurable. Rather than cunnilingus, which is mostly pleasurable to women, or prostate stimulation, which is mostly pleasurable to men. And it's the act that continues our entire species; an act that's natual and inherent can't be artificially propagated.
>>7424160
>women find pleasurable
>about 75 percent of all women never reach orgasm from intercourse alone
>Rather than cunnilingus
If only there was a way for a woman to please a man while receiving cunnilingus
> And it's the act that continues our entire species
If you're gonna use this argument you have to disregard all sex done using birth control.
>>7424108
>numerous women who claim to be able to only get off through vaginal stimulation
There is literally no such thing as "vaginal stimulation" because the vaginal walls lack nerve cells, but anyway, semantics. (You can get indirect stimulation of the clitoris, g-spot, or even just psychological pleasure, from vaginal penetration. Just like there's many men who have a fetish for (i.e. get psychological pleasure from) getting penetrated.)
Also, I'd like to hear of those women. What is their percentage? How prevalent is the inability to reach orgasm without vaginal penetration?
>what does this have to do with prosate stimulation
I'm merely pointing out that if men were just concentrated on what gives them physiologic rather than psychological pleasure (result of socialization/culture), then they would care a lot more about prostate stimulation and a lot less about vaginal penetration. You would have many couples alternating between cunnilingus and prostate massaging, for example. But you don't see that because men are terrified of the idea of getting penetrated, because they intuitively know that getting penetrated means being less than a fully worthy human. So they only want to penetrate others, not get penetrated themselves.
>Most of which are dildos
Because sex toys are a male invention and a dildo is a simple imitation of a penis. What else would you expect? As I said, the more elaborate and well-thought-out toys all concentrate on clitoral stimulation in one or another way.
>>7424116
>The orgasm gap between men and women is shrinking
Yes, incidentally at around the same time feminism popped up!
>>7424134
>Vigorous prostate massage
Who talked about that?
>>7424162
>>about 75 percent of all women never reach orgasm from intercourse alone
This isn't an adomishment against vaginal sex. All that statistic implies is that men cum before women, or that most men are concerend with making a woman cum. It's a useless statistic for the argument you're making.
>If only there was a way for a woman to please a man while receiving cunnilingus
How is mutual oral sex more moral than vaginal sex? You can just as easily say that vaginal stimulation isn't the only only way for a man to please a woman during vaginal sex.
>>7424172
>moral
You're the only one that has used this word.
>All that statistic implies is that men cum before women, or that most men are concerend with making a woman cum.
How the fuck does it imply the second part?
>>7424169
>There is literally no such thing as "vaginal stimulation" because the vaginal walls lack nerve cells
Utter, complete, embarassing nonsense. How can you still type after this?
>The outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains nearly 90 percent of the vaginal nerve endings and therefore is much more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel.
Your misremembering facts. All this implies is that big penises aren't necessary. And that the nerves taper in the vaginal barrel.
>But you don't see that because men are terrified of the idea of getting penetrated, because they intuitively know that getting penetrated means being less than a fully worthy human.
No, you don't fucking see that because >>7424134, and because, as anyone who's tried it will tell you, it hurts and feels weird. Even many gay men don't enjoy the practice, and prefer mutual oral sex. The notion that being penetrated makes you less worthy is a dumb fabrication, and an insult to your mother who conceived you by being penetrated. Also, the notion that you'd argue that while simulatiously arguring that men should be penetrated betrays your fetishistic masochism.
>Because sex toys are a male invention and a dildo is a simple imitation of a penis.
Nonsense, if they didn't give women pleasure then they wouldn't sell so well. All of the biggest selling sex toys on amazon are dildos, and the reviews imply that women are the ones enjoying them.
>>7424195
>*aren't concerend
typo
>You're the only one that has used this word.
Forget what the word is, the point is that you're making a value-judgment. You're arguing that one is more "right" than the other.
>>7424208
You didn't explain how that implication was supposed to work.
>>7424199
>The vagina as a whole, however, lacks nerve endings, which commonly hinders a woman's ability to receive sufficient sexual stimulation, including orgasm, solely from penetration of the vagina.[32][33][34]
#rekt
>as anyone who's tried it will tell you
>implying I haven't tried it
>what is /a/, what is /soc/
>The notion that being penetrated makes you less worthy
How is that even what I said?
>if they didn't give women pleasure then they wouldn't sell so well
Bullshit. Do you even marketing?
The dildo is the go-to sex toy because it's an imitation of a penis and our society as a whole (including women) believes that vaginal penetration is the "normal" way to have sex.
>>7421674
Where do you start with her?
>>7424216
>The concentration of the nerve endings near the entrance of the vagina (the lower third) usually provide pleasurable vaginal sensations when stimulated during sexual activity, and many women additionally derive pleasure from a feeling of closeness and fullness during penetration of the vagina.
>Although some scientific examinations of vaginal wall innervation indicate no single area with a greater density of nerve endings, or that only some women have a greater density of nerve endings in the anterior vaginal wall,[35][36] heightened sensitivity in the anterior vaginal wall is common among women.[35][37] These cases indicate that the outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains the majority of the vaginal nerve endings, making it more sensitive to touch than the inner (or upper) two-thirds of the vaginal barrel
kek. You post the one out-of-context setence couched in the middle of setences that prove my point: the nerve endings are concentrated on the first third of the vaginal opening, not deep in the barrel. This area is still stimulated by penetration.
>How is that even what I said?
"because they intuitively know that getting penetrated means being less than a fully worthy human." - Quote from you like 20 minutes ago
>Do you even marketing?
Sex toys have been considered shameful until recently. They wouldn't exist if women didn't enjoy them.
>>7424229
Woman Hating.
>>7424230
>Sex toys have been considered shameful until recently. They wouldn't exist if women didn't enjoy them.
This logic doesn't work. The conclusion may be correct, but the argument isn't.
>>7424237
If something is taboo, then its popularity bespeaks some sort of enjoyoment.
>>7424241
If something is advertised and popularized, then its popularity bespeaks of its popularization.
>>7424241
No, you can only infer that they thought they would enjoy them when they bought them. It doesn't say anything about whether it lived up to their expectations.
>>7424230
It doesn't change the fact that the vagina as a whole is lacking in nerve endings, which is also the reason women don't generally enjoy vaginal penetration nearly as much as you would be made to believe. This shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
>"because they intuitively know that getting penetrated means being less than a fully worthy human."
You should learn to interpret better. I'm exposing males' logic. It's obviously ludicrous to begin with to suggest that what *happens* to one determines one's worth. The absurdity of that is what I'm pointing out.
>Sex toys have been considered shameful until recently.
Relevance to the topic being?
>They wouldn't exist if women didn't enjoy them.
Still bullshit. It's enough that men enjoy them for them to exist.
They now also serve women to some degree, but since sexuality as a whole is still under the control of men, you get this situation where crude penis imitations are the most "normal" sex toy for women.
Do you also believe that the fact that it's generally mothers who have their daughters' clitoris cut, or that it was generally Chinese mothers who bound the feet of their daughters, proves that this was done for their own autonomous sake? No, it's a very good (and extreme) example of how a male-dominated culture can lead women to follow practices incredibly hurtful to themselves. In the case of dildos, they are merely sub-optimal; there is not even much of a reason to actively oppose their use, so they thrive as the norm, despite being based on male-serving conceptions of sexuality.
>>7424162
The fact that you people equate pleasure with orgasm is kind of disturbing
>>7424253
I've never argued that vaginal intercourse is completely unpleasurable for women. I only meant that it's popularity is a result of men's pleasure taking precedence.
>>7424253
Orgasm is the result of physical sexual pleasuring. You would expect people to aim for it in sexual activity.
(Which is not to say you can't reach an orgasm while being under great psychological pain (as is often the case in rape), or that physical sexual pleasure is the sole or even main purpose of sexual activity, etc. etc.)
/lit/ = in depth arguments about sexual stimulation
>>7424251
>It doesn't change the fact that the vagina as a whole is lacking in nerve endings
No, it actually does change the fact. It changes it to the opposite of what your stated. The nerve endings are concentrated in the first third of the vaginal tube; that's the opposite of "lacking nerve endings."
>You should learn to interpret better.
You should have stated it better. Fuck me for taking your comment at face value. Multiple comments of yours implied that there was an implicit power dynamic to vaginal sex even if the people practicing it didn't personally subscribe to that dynamic; i'm glad you're walking that ridiculous sentiment back.
>proves that this was done for their own autonomous sake?
Dildos don't exist because of Western culture norms, they exist despite them. They've been taboo for centuries, and still are to a certain extent. People don't break taboos in order to perpetuate a self-delusion.
>>7424257
>I only meant that it's popularity is a result of men's pleasure taking precedence.
You said that prostate stimulation is more plesurable. Wouldn't that, according to your beliefs, be the norm if men found it more pleasurable?
>>7424273
>Dildos don't exist because of Western culture norms, they exist despite them.
Wrong.
>>7424278
>You said that prostate stimulation is more plesurable.
That wasn't me. Also
>Wouldn't that, according to your beliefs, be the norm if men found it more pleasurable?
No, that doesn't follow from that persons arguments.
>>7424257
Which is a lie, and if you actually spoke to women rather than sitting in your computer you'd know that. Women enjoy penetration and while most would tell you there should be more cunnilingus, they wouldn't ask for less penetration.
>>7424258
Yes but you can have pleasurable sexual simulation that does not result in orgasm. Nipple simulation rarely does and it's still appreciated.
>>7424287
>there should be more cunnilingus, they wouldn't ask for less penetration
That would mean that penetration would become a smaller percentage of sexual acts. It also doesn't negate the idea that vaginal penetration shouldn't be considered the 'normal sex'.
>>7424279
>The world's oldest known dildo is a siltstone 20-centimeter phallus from the Upper Palaeolithic period 30,000 years ago that was found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm, Germany.[8]
>The first dildos were made of stone, tar, wood and other materials that could be shaped as penises and that were firm enough to be used as penetrative sex toys. Dildo-like breadsticks, known as olisbokollikes (sing. olisbokollix),[9] were known in Ancient Greece prior to the 5th century BC.[10] Chinese women in the 15th century used dildos made of lacquered wood with textured surfaces. Nashe's early-1590's work The Choice of Valentines mentions a dildo made from glass.[11]
A history spanning thousands of years bespeaks an enjoyment that's more than symbolic.
>>7424290
>"Dildos would be less used if vaginal penetration wasn't seen as the normal kind of sex."
>HAHA, YOU IDIOT. YOU CLAIMED THAT WOMEN DON'T ENJOY DILDOS AT ALL. DO DO YOU EVEN TALK TO WOMEN????!??!??
>>7424294
>it also doesn't negate the idea that vaginal penetration shouldn't be considered the 'normal sex'.
Oh you're right, I don't disagree. My beef is only with the fact that you seem to believe women do not enjoy penetration, and that you and many anons are speaking as though no orgasm = no pleasure.
>>7424273
>No, it actually does change the fact.
No, it still doesn't change the fact. The vagina is lacking in nerve endings, which makes vaginal penetration not very pleasurable for women. That's all. What's so difficult to get?
>Multiple comments of yours implied that there was an implicit power dynamic to vaginal sex even if the people practicing it didn't personally subscribe to that dynamic; i'm glad you're walking that ridiculous sentiment back.
I'm not walking anything back, it seems you just misinterpreted multiple posts.
It's no surprise, given how defensive men get when you criticize their sexuality.
>>7424278
Our patriarchal socialization makes us derive psychological pleasure from dominance over women, and value this type of pleasure over everything else. Thus, common sexual practices tend to reflect this type of male pleasure, regardless of what women *and* men would truly derive pleasure from if it weren't for the socialization.
>>7424297
>20 centimeter phallus
>physically pleasurable in any way
My sides. It was probably a religious relic or something.
>>7424294
Vagina penetration is considered "normal" because it's an act that both parties can enjoy at the same exact time, and use the instraments that allow them to enjoy it (their genitals) together and simultaniously. Why would you denegrate it? Clitoral and vaginal stimulation can even occur at the same time, so more clitoral stimulation wouldn't necessarily mean less vaginal sex.
>>7424297
Interesting info, thanks. I hope you don't think that it contradicts the post you were replying to though.
>>7424312
And yet 75% of women can't reach orgasm from it. For men that's probably <1%.
>>7424303
What a dishonest way to argue. You made like 10 posts implying that the use of dildos is a sexual practice heavily influenced by cultural norms.
>>7424315
>And yet 75% of women can't reach orgasm from it
That's not true, though. No statistic posted proves that. All it states is that most female orgasms don't occur through vaginal sex, not that 75% of women are incapable of having an orgasm through vaginal sex.
>>7424316
>What a dishonest way to argue
>employs strawmen and makes illogical arguments with tenuously-related information
>>7424316
>You made
Wrong.
>like 10 posts implying that the use of dildos is a sexual practice heavily influenced by cultural norms.
Which wouldn't imply that women never enjoy them.
>>7424325
Did you miss:
>about 75 percent of all women never reach orgasm from intercourse alone
?
>>7424310
>No, it still doesn't change the fact. The vagina is lacking in nerve endings, which makes vaginal penetration not very pleasurable for women. That's all. What's so difficult to get?
The fact that evidence disproves it, that's what makes it difficult to get.
>It's no surprise, given how defensive men get when you criticize their sexuality.
Nice ad hominem bro. First step to realizing you're wrong.
>makes us derive psychological pleasure from dominance over women,
I thought the practice of vaginal sex didn't involve a form of dominance? It's a perceived sexual dominance that doesn't actually exist? Also, you're wrong. Sexuality is inherent, read Pinker's Blank Slate.
>>20 centimeter phallus
>>physically pleasurable in any way
That's literally the size of most modern dildos.
>>7424315
>pleasure = orgasm
This is how I know I'm talking to men. So poorly versed in subtlety they only recognize pleasure if it's of the explosive, in-your-face kind. And you lot claim you understand literature. Psh.
>>7424348
>Pinker
>>7424333
The study only states that 75% of women acheive oragams with the help of sex toys, not that they're incapable of reaching an oragasm from vaginal stimulation.
>>7424349
>>pleasure = orgasm
Except no one claimed that. Also, do you really think women in general don't want orgasms?
>>7424327
If you concede that women enjoy dildos, then you concede that women enjoy vaginal stimulation. This entire argument is pointless.
>>7424352
More trustworthy than a feminist whose evidence is asserted rather than empirically proved.
>>7424360
>then you concede that women enjoy vaginal stimulation.
I never said that no woman ever enjoys penetration in any way whatsoever. You should learn how to read before going to a literature board.
>>7424321
>Because women are clearly getting less out of it than men.
Were you the one who brought up prostate stimulation?
>>7424360
>I know: I can avoid their arguments by attacking strawmen!
>>7424367
M'scholar.
>>7424354
>anon 1 says it's pleasurable
>quoted anon says AND YET... then mentions orgasms
I'd say you're in the very least making a very strong connection.
I'm genuinely pissed that you people are adamantly arguing that women would be happier with less vaginal sex. If this is bait or troll I give you a 10/10. And I hope you are becauseas a grillI'd like to believe men are not seriously thinking such things.
>>7424376
No.
>>7421674
Just dropping by to say that I don't read books written by women.
>>7424372
>>7424379
The entire argument was predicated on "evidence" that the vaginal walls don't have nerve endings and that vaginal sex isn't particularly plesuable when compared to clitoral stimulation.You argued from this starting point. Now you've moved that point to something as minimal as "vaginal stimulation is pleasurable, but more men should care about clitoral stimulation," which no one would argue against.
>>7424382
>I'd say you're in the very least making a very strong connection.
I'll admit to believing in a certain correlation between orgasms and pleasure.
>>7424404
>Still doesn't understand that there has been more than one poster.
>and that vaginal sex isn't particularly plesuable
Never made or tried to make that argument.
>>7424419
If you reply to someone's post without making it clear that you don't completely agree with the person they're replying it, then you shouldn't be mad that they assume that you share views. This is why anonymity isn't conducive to good conversation. I can't know that you aren't the person who made that argument.
>>7424404
It's also worth pointing out that these aren't even opposing views. Plenty of women enjoy vaginal sex with men with a vibrator on their clit.
>>7424434
When I replied to someone replying to someone else I was pointing out faults in their logic. Only an idiot would think that that implied agreeing with them.
>>7424404
>which no one would argue against
Then why isn't it already the case?
Prostate sex gives you hemorrhoids and cunnilingus gives you oral cancer. Nature knows better than feminist theorists.
>>7424449
"Vaginal sex transmits STDs so you should remain celibate!"
>>7424449
Giving birth to children gives you immense pain and often lasting damage.
>>7424446
If someone replies to you, it's not idiotic to assume that that person is the one you initially replied to.
>>7424458
Except I frequently talked about them in the third person.
>>7424448
It is. Women rub their clit during vaginal sex all the time. When was the last time you were with a woman?
>>7424462
Not in replies to me.
>>7424463
I misread the post. I thought it used the word 'more'. Sorry.
>>7424453
Hemorrhoids are the result of the act itself. STDs are spread through vaginal sex but don't occur because of vaginal sex.
>>7424472
What about vaginal prolapse or air embolism?
>>7421679
Dworkin is the type of feminist who believes that all sex is analogous to rape because women as a class (in a marxist sense) are oppressed by men as a class.
She's an insane, fat, disgusting, hairy, rad-fem ape.
>>7424508
>>>/reddit/
>>7424478
Would love to see the frequency of vaginal prolapses in people have normal vaginal sex to the frequency of hemoirroids in people who have quotidian anal sex. Being an active gay male is part in parcel with having hemorrhoids.
>>7424508
What I got from your post is that you're an idiot who makes emotionally-charged, uninformed opinions. Thanks, I suppose?
"I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you'd need good silver." - Andrea Dworkin
>>7424533
A true master of modern prose.
"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women’s bodies." - Andrea Dworkin
>>7424533
>I can't discern a fictional character or an emotional response to a reaction from a person's bona fide beliefs.
It's pretty funny regardless though.
>>7424540
Are you trying to convince us to read Dworkin? You're doing a pretty good job at that.
>>7424541
I'm mearly demonstrating her transcendent prose.
>>7421886
Why?
>>7424544
>sex is hate
How innovative
>>7424557
>equating intercourse and sex
>>7424568
She wasn't talking about conversation
>>7421925
>fat positive
>only one is fat
>>7424572
If you're trolling you're good.
>>7424511
>>7424515
Ok m80s.
I'm not going to waste my short life reading someone this deluded.
>Pic related
Yes, certainly she denied it, but her premises are incredibly off-base anyways. Madame Bovary's fate is sealed by her own actions, and -contrary to her idea that it would serve to normalize a perverted concept of sexuality- it was fucking tried for vulgarity.It was considered vulgar just to depict or suggest that a single woman could act her way. Homais' wife doesn't have an affair, in fact no one but Bovary is implied to be misled in any way.
Dracula appears even more idiotic given that interactions between the dead and humans are MEANT to be horrific or unsettling.
>every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman
Please waste your time reading her garbage, don't bother with anything outside of it, I'd hate to see scum like you infect discussion or analysis of authentic literature.
This -- >>7424540
>>7424169
>if men were just concentrated on what gives them physiologic rather than psychological pleasure
The psychological is physiological, you obscurantist agenda shilling fuck.
the idea that vaginal sex is propagated solely to subjugate women is the most insanely egotistical statement. I can't even fathom how fucking fat that dworkin bitch's head is.
It's beyond tinfoil hat levels of paranoia, this is literally illness.
Feminism should have ended when Wollstonecraft got what she wanted.
>>7424588
>I'm not going to waste my short life reading someone this deluded.
So you're discussing someone you haven't read and are going off hearsay? This demonstrates that you are willfully ignorant and too stupid to be reasoned with.
>Yes, certainly she denied it, but her premises are incredibly off-base anyways.
Says one who hasn't read her work or even that wiki page. I doubt you actually come to /lit/ to discuss literature and are only here to mouth your asinine views.
>Please waste your time reading her garbage, don't bother with anything outside of it, I'd hate to see scum like you infect discussion or analysis of authentic literature.
I will read others along with her because I'm not some emotional, reactionary plebeian who gets offended by dissenting views,
>>7424597
Why? I only called you out for sex with intercourse.
>>7424592
Yes, only the successful upper class matters.
>>7424603
They're literally synonyms you fucking sophist
>>7424607
You call oral sex intercourse?
>>7424251
>It's obviously ludicrous to begin with to suggest that what *happens* to one determines one's worth.
did these words come directly out of your pussy? cause i don't think i've ever read a more vaginal sentence.
if I win the lottery, (something happens to me) my worth skyrockets. If my investments bottom out (something happens), then my worth plummets.
You are fucking wrong.
Fucking.
Wrong.
>>7424609
Do you call sexual intercourse sex?
>>7424601
fucking rekt
>>7424613
Yes, but this doesn't refute my argument. You took a quote talking about intercourse and generalized it to be about sex.
>>7424348
>evidence
How many more times does it need to be mentioned in this thread that 75% of all women literally cannot reach orgasm from vaginal intercourse?
>what is ad hominem
>I thought the practice of vaginal sex didn't involve a form of dominance?
People practice penetration (and most other sex, even something like cunnilingus ironically) as a form of dominance.
>>7424349
No need to go all strawman. See >>7424258.
>>7424353
It literally says they NEVER REACH ORGASM FROM INTERCOURSE ALONE.
Am I still in /lit/ or is this /illit/?
>>7424611
On a scale from 9/10 to 10/10, how fucking retarded are you?
1. If you stopped reading everything with your ass you would probably have noted that I'm not a woman.
2. Monetary worth has shitfuck to do with human worth in terms of dignity and respect.
People who aren't even interested in reading Dworkin's works before trying to argue against the points made in them should probably leave /lit/.
>>7424601
fedora btfo
>>7424616
I took a quote referring to one form of sex and used the all-encompassing colloquial "sex" to refer to it.
>>7424601
>Didn't even read her wiki page.
I fucking screen capped it and you're still going to make that accusation? Its just so hard to discern sincere idiocy these days and masterful trolling, rad-fems tend to straddle Poe's law precariously.
Based on the thesis provided, and the fact that it provides Dworkin's own defense to her work I think we can agree that its not a biased page. Not overtly anyways.
I just provided you an argument that undermines that central thesis. Madame Bovary and Dracula fundamentally don't fit the proposed model of normalizing a woman's subordinate sexual attitude. Anyone that has read them would likely come to the same conclusions, many even believe Madame Bovary to be a feminist text.
>>7424601
Off hearsay? From this thread alone most people would have reason enough not to read her. Moreover, I've listened to in-depth analysis of her work, I relegate it to videos that can occupy me between classes and reading substantive literature.
I have read, and intend to continue reading the occasional feminist or social-science text, but Dworkin? No.
>Get's offended by dissenting views
What are you doing now then retard? Saying I come to "mouth your asinine views" isn't being offended by dissenting views?
>hurr durr its cause you're uninformed.
But i'm not, i've merely come to the conclusion that naturalistic or empirical explanations account for the majority of the hypothesized behavior that is criticized. These finds are BACKED UP by observations, this is just ONE example: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/
Face the fact that Dworkin's opinions are spouted by a minority because -as impressive as its volume is- its not very accurate.
>>7424626
Exactly, you misrepresented her viewpoint. She didn't think all sex was hate.
>>7424623
>that 75% of all women literally cannot reach orgasm from vaginal intercourse?
Until you realize that you're misreading that study. It doesn't suggest that 75% of women aren't capable of reaching orgasm from vaginal stimualtion, which is what you're implying.
>People practice penetration (and most other sex, even something like cunnilingus ironically) as a form of dominance.
Which you've conceded isn't an act of dominance in and of itself. So your concern is that men think they're dominating women?
>>7424634
No, only the heterosexual sex that most people have and is paramount in the continuation of our species. i.e. what people people refer to when they say "sex"
>>7424623
>I'm not a woman.
I don't believe this and even if it's true you might as well be a woman.
>2. Monetary worth has shitfuck to do with human worth in terms of dignity and respect.
This is absolutely wrong if we're going to be real about life instead of living in fairy-tale land.
People who have more money get more respect.
You're fucking wrong.
>>7424629
>Poe's law
>>>/r/eddit
Go back to your Sargon of Akkad vids.
>I just provided you an argument that undermines that central thesis.
Good for you thinking it does that even though you haven't read her work and derive your info from forums and summaries online.
>Off hearsay?
You don't know what hearsay means, do you?
>I have read, and intend to continue reading the occasional feminist or social-science text, but Dworkin? No.
So why should anyone bother to hear what you say? Provide the lectures on her work instead.
>What are you doing now then retard? Saying I come to "mouth your asinine views" isn't being offended by dissenting views?
I'm only offended by your stupidity and willful ignorance. I don't care if you hate women or hate Dworkin. But it see,s Dworkin's ideas personally offends you to the extent that you can't stomach her work.
>But i'm not, i've merely come to the conclusion that naturalistic or empirical explanations account for the majority of the hypothesized behavior that is criticized. These finds are BACKED UP by observations, this is just ONE example: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/
Good for you. Nowhere did I say I supported or thought Dworkin is right. I just detest ass-hats like you who trhink their uninformed opinions matter. If you haven't read her, shut up.
>>7424637
>you're misreading that study
Let me quote if for the bazillionth time:
>about 75 percent of all women never reach orgasm from intercourse alone
How can you post if you're illiterate?
>>7424637
Men experience domination and women experience submission during intercourse, most of the time.
Dominance and submission are emotional states first and foremost.
Of course, a fairly obvious act of physical violence with no resistance from the victim would be a pretty clear indication that dominance is happening, without needing to further analyze the involved people's emotions. And indeed, a lot of porn looks an awful lot like simple physical violence done to the woman. But even that I consider secondary when compared to all the dominance and submission narrative that's ubiquitous in all portrayals of romance and sexuality.
>>7424642
>even if you're not a woman you're a woman
I think you can stop posting now.
Oh, or are you a male supremacist who uses the phrasing "you're a woman" as a form of insult? That would be pretty hilarious in the context of this thread, and probably still means you can stop posting.
>>7424629
>Face the fact that Dworkin's opinions are spouted by a minority because -as impressive as its volume is- its not very accurate.
So majority views are always based in absolute truth and minority ones shouldn't be read or considered?
>>7423991
for what purpose? it's the current year, this meme has so infiltrated the public unconscious that I seriously doubt any women are wasting time with unsatisfying men
Is all of /lit/ this disgustingly far left? This is like a negative print of /pol/
>>7424648
>I'm mad someone said I sound like a woman
Sounds like someone has some unexamined prejudices. Take some time to think about it. You read it as an insult. I didn't say it that way.
I bet your pussy stinks tho
You're still wrong and you can't even formulate an argument, fucking loser.
>>7424650
If she's settling for a chaner she probably don't have to many men to choose from.
>>7424657
>I bet your pussy stinks tho
>You're still wrong and you can't even formulate an argument, fucking loser.
Redditors should stay on reddit.
>>7424660
and women should stay in the kitchen
>>7424664
Ok reddit.
>>7424644
Top kek m8.
You're right, having a video wherein specific excerpts of a book are read verbatim and then refuted is hearsay, I guess I'll just have to go out and buy her books to argue! After all, there's no way that I can take HER quote of HER book's thesis seriously right?
You have done nothing to undermine my central premise, unless you can find a reason WHY the article I linked is somehow biased then there's no reason to take your criticism seriously. I highlighted HER quote in the book, in an article that -by all appearances- faithfully represents the thrust of her book.
Based on that information, it is entirely reasonable to erect MY argument based on what I HAVE read. Madame Bovary and Dracula simply don't fit it.
>I'm not offended by your stupidity and willful ignorance
And yet you're clearly in the state of mind to resort to insults, you realize that its ok to say that you're offended by stupidity and ignorance right? That's probably the most reasonable thing in the world to be offended by, and yet I suppose you're too afraid of being told to go back to >>>/reddit/ or some idiotic statement.
>Dworkin's ideas personally offends you.
And yet I didn't say that, what i said is that its a fringe opinion that's fringe for a reason: its not particularly accurate, especially in light of the empirically proven facts.
If I proven sources of information that prove the counter-argument to Dworkin (its VERY obvious WITHOUT reading her that she's a social constructionist) then there's hardly a point.
Why would you continue shilling so fucking hard for her if you hadn't supported some of her notions. Not unless you were a troll. And guess what? Secondary sources are a thing you fucking autist, when you're using a credible source which does the work of analysis for you you're still getting a trustworthy intermediary of knowledge without having to dedicate your fucking life to her entire body of work.
>>7424649
Nope, If you've read this thread at all you've seen the arguments against her.
But I think that popularity of a view, especially decades after its proposal, CAN be a good indicator of its worth. If her ideas were accurate than she'd have compelling enough arguments to be added to canon or to contemporary discourse.
But even among some radfems, and even less moderate feminists her views are considered unpalatable.
I believe in meritocracy, I think that over decades the most tried-and-true ideas will tend to be held in majority because they've been proven, while minority ones will take time or will be proven false.
No idea should be censored, and popularity isnt always reliable, but if you've had decades of argument about it then generally you'll have parsed through the details enough.
>>7424671
it's funny cos you gave up arguing your point and switched to lazy ad hom when you realized you were FUCKING WRONG
Your argument is full of holes, just like a women
fite me irl
>>7424689
>I believe in meritocracy,
>>7424701
I wasn't the guy you were arguing with.
Nice puns reddit.
>>7424703
Sure you aren't ;^)
>>7421674
Is that the order in which you should read her?
>>7424718
It was sorta kinda the order I followed and I'm content.
>>7424689
>But I think that popularity of a view, especially decades after its proposal, CAN be a good indicator of its worth.
Holy shit, no it isn't. That's like arguing that the cultural ubiquity of patriarchal opression proves that women are inherently inferior, or that racism has value because it has lasted for so long.
>>7424725
Ok buddy, let's take this slowly.
First, notice the word in all caps, "CAN" and meditate upon the difference in meaning between "CAN be" and "is" in the sentence in question. Then, read on.
Racism's value. Consider warfare.
Racism is essentially a system for making very quick decisions around people who register as visually different from you. In warfare situations it kept people alive effectively enough to achieve near ubiquity in humans.
Patriarchal oppression isn't even really happening, persons can only be rated as inferior or superior against criteria, of which there is no all consuming criteria by which to judge humans, so none can be considered "inherently" inferior or superior to another, whereas they can be inferior or superior in certain contexts, such as a 100m dash.
In the future try to build your thoughts out of non-stupid ideas, thx
>>7424745
>Patriarchal oppression isn't even really happening
>>7424725
>That's like arguing that the cultural ubiquity of patriarchal opression proves that women are inherently inferior
Sadly, that belief isn't too uncommon.
Slightly modified Sturgeon's Law: most people are fucking idiots.
The way I see it, a small to moderate number of exceptional people have to carry the blunt of social change for the good of the rest. Not to say average folks shouldn't participate at all, rather they just have to be shepherded by benevolent leaders because otherwise they simply won't participate. (One might also think there's something of a pyramid, but those at the top are nevertheless the most central and rarest.) It's a depressing way to look at things but it's how I see things so far.
Brilliant radical feminist authors and activists have started an amazing movement, and we see some of their sheep (in a good way) trampling around now. Hopefully, new shepherds will appear as the older generation dies out. (The original econd wave/radical feminists are kinda dying out, and the mainstream librul feminism nowadays seems pretty misguided. But then you see some of the most prominent ones, like Sarkeesian, shift more and more towards the radical teachings, so that's good I think.) Otherwise the movement will spiral into irrelevance as the sheep run around in discord.
>>7424745
>Patriarchal oppression isn't even really happening
Kekkest of toppest of keks.
>>7424745
>Patriarchal oppression isn't even really happening
>>>/r/edddit
Why did you delete your previous post?
>>7424751
>>Patriarchal oppression isn't even really happening
>Kekkest of toppest of keks.
The origin of and reasons for female disempowerment matter more than whether or not "patriarchy" is the right term to describe that disempowerment.
>>7424760
>[...] matter more than whether or not "patriarchy" is the right term
So let's just stick to that term, since it's long been established. (Around 40 years now IIRC. Sexual Politics by Kate Millett methinks.)
patriarchy is a good thing
>>7424750
>women making as much money as men in the same job
>women doing better in high school
>more women than men going to college
>far more men homeless than women
yeah darn patriarchy
>>7424751
>But then you see some of the most prominent ones, like Sarkeesian, shift more and more towards the radical teachings, so that's good I think.)
I don't have a problem with the axioms Sarkeesian is working off, but she tends to heavily misrepresent the games she covers, which does her ideas a huge disservice. She really doesn't understand the difference between emergent and game-sanctioned gameplay.
>>7424750
>>7424751
there is no cabal of old men (successfully!) conspiring to keep women down, that is some tinfoil shit.and if there were it would only prove the superiority of men
seriously though, calling the situation in the west "patriarchal oppression" is like calling candle a bonfire. Any feminist not in Saudi Arabia is a slacktivist fool.
>>7424757
reddit is a feminist cesspool and I didn't delete any previous post, you must be dumb.
>>7424771
>the aristocracy had three times more syphilis than the general population, how dare you say that the peasants are oppressed
>>7424776
>I didn't delete any previous post
There was a post that was deleted.
>>7424779
s/are/were
>>7424781
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv5fqunQ_4I
>>7424779
The argurment used for the basis of establising the idea of surf opression isn't that they had more syphilis. Dumb analogy.
>>7424779
if the peasants had the same economic opportunities as the aristocracy and were allowed to do the same jobs and made the same amount of money when they chose the same job, if the peasants suffered from severe poverty less than the aristocracy, if the peasants had better education than the aristocracy, then perhaps it would be incorrect to say the peasants were oppressed.
>>7424771
>women making as much money as men in the same job
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States
>women doing better in high school
Relevance when they get paid less?
>more women than men going to college
Relevance when they get paid less?
>far more men homeless than women
[citation needed]
And if true, that would be one of a couple ways in which patriarchal norms hurt men.
Women, on the other hand, get exploited and oppressed as a class.
>>7424773
I'm not a games expert but I have no reason to trust your judgment more than hers.
Yeah, I seem to remember some complains about "but you don't *have* to kill those women, you even get a penalty for it!" which may be true in some instances, and that would still be far from disproving her general point. She doesn't have to be 100% accurate 100% of the time to prove a point.
>>7424776
>cabal of old men conspiring
So you literally don't know what patriarchy means, and are actually brainwashed enough to believe the narrative that it's some sort of inane conspiracy theory rather than a deep analysis and critique of cultures.
>reddit is a feminist cesspool
kek
>>7424780
>>>7424771 is right
No.
>>7424788
>if the peasants had the same economic opportunities
Accepting, for the sake of argument, that women get payed the same for the same job doesn't entail this quote.
>>7424796
what barriers do women have?
>>7424805
I don't have to argue for the opposite argument to point out faulty logic.
>>7424792
The patriarchy is literally defined as a system that oppresses women and benefits men. How are you going to twist that definition to say that it now hurts men? This is why feminist theory is fucking garbage. Either say gender norms hurt men or fuck off.
>>7424810
>say gender norms hurt men
This wouldn't contradict the statement that men are privileged and oppress women.
>>7424792
>So you literally don't know what patriarchy means, and are actually brainwashed enough to believe the narrative that it's some sort of inane conspiracy theory rather than a deep analysis and critique of cultures.
this is bullshit
i believe the actual name of the fallacy is "motte-and-bailey"
the feminist narrative presents itself initially as a conspiracy theory (the motte), does a whole lot of shitfucking with that stance (men are rapist pigs, gib moni nao), then when attacked retreats to "nuh uhhh it's a deeep critischism of culturrrr" (the bailey)
this disingenuous bullshit is toxic to the quality of discourse here and I'll kindly ask you to fuck off with that shit.
paygap stats have been a controversial mess ever since it was measured, the amount of confounding factors is stupendous (maternity, time off, etc) so the whole thing becomes a contest about which side can lie most convincingly with statistics.
>And if true, that would be one of a couple ways in which patriarchal norms hurt men.
you (not you, but everyone who argues your points) always do this, and it reveals your disingenuous nature. Everything is the fault of men, because according to you, men are responsible for literally every facet of society.
Sickening.
>>7424814
any 'oppression' blacks face due particularly to their being black (rather than any 'oppression' they face equally with poor whites due to being poor) is caused by the fact that poor blacks are more personally violent and criminal than poor whites.
any disadvantages women have in terms of income is due to women making different career choices. if they wanted to make the same choices men do, they would be 100% able to do so. they choose not to.
the 'disadvantages' women and blacks face are the result of personal actions taken by blacks and women and not 'systematic oppression'.
>>7424821
>motte-and-bailey
>slatestarcodexspeak on /lit/
We lost. Let's just give this board to Reddit.
>>7424825
Stop being such a fag you goddamn nigger
>>7424792
>Yeah, I seem to remember some complains about "but you don't *have* to kill those women, you even get a penalty for it!" which may be true in some instances, and that would still be far from disproving her general point. She doesn't have to be 100% accurate 100% of the time to prove a point.
Many videogames have open worlds that, while they allow you to kill anyone, there are systems in place that punish the killing of anyone you aren't intended to kill. So, say, in a game where you can kill anyone from an accountant, store clerk, or cyclist (even while the game is punishing you for doing so), Sarkeesian gets upset that the game also allows you to kill a woman in a bikini on the beach. This gives the impression to non-gamers that the purpose of the game was to kill that woman.
>>7424821
>presents itself initially as a conspiracy theory
[citation needed]
Actually go read Millett or Dworkin.
>paygap stats have been a controversial mess
Yet Sweden is fairly successful in combating them by adopting (radical) feminist policies.
>according to you, men are responsible for literally every facet of society
Gee it's almost as if men are the ruling class.
Of course that can't possibly be the case, since we have about an equal number of women and men in parliaments and presidencies...
>>7424835
Anon, /pol/ is that way.
>>7424814
>Just see the wage gap articles on Wikipedia.
People still spouting this disproven meme? Women under 30 make more than men, and women in the same profession as men make about the same as men. Women intentionally choose lower-paying professions.
>>7424841
>Yet Sweden is fairly successful in combating them by adopting (radical) feminist policies.
>Swedish women earned 14% less than men – a pay gap just below the OECD average (15%) and higher than in many countries with comparable female employment rates. The pay gap is even larger (21%) among parents.
Look how much it helped
>>7424846
>Society values the work of women less than the work of men.
>Where's the sexism!?!??!
>>7424839
I watched most of Sarkeesian's videos. I don't think there were many instances where she criticized the possibility of violence against women in an open-world context. She usually focuses on how it's part of the story, or sometimes a specially programmed side feature (like it was in Duke Nukem 3D).
>>7424846
>Wikipedia
>disproven meme
I don't even know where to redirect anymore. >>>/x/ maybe?
>intentionally choose lower-paying professions
Don't fall for the trap of manufactured consent.
>>7424841
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
>>7424853
>doesn't understand basic economics
You realize that the pay is determined by external factors, right? No one decides to pay nurses less than engineers.
>>7424857
Not going to waste 40 minutes watching some MRA crap.
>>7424863
>Capitalism is the only possible way to organize a society and it emerged completely naturally without any use of force.
>>7424855
>I don't even know where to redirect anymore. >>>/x/ maybe?
The discriminatory component to the pay gap is quite small.
>Don't fall for the trap of manufactured consent.
Read Baron-Cohen. The preference for certain careers is inherent, and gender distinctions in this can be found in children who are days old. Simply listing how much women make and comparing it to how much men make in different professions proves nothing other than men are in higher paying professions. The numbers don't suggest why.
>>7424751
I actually wrote a response earlier but deleted it since I didn't say what I meant.
I actually agree with his rebuttal, I think that society before the civil rights movement isn't really analogous to ours, but that being said: its not a good precedent to defer judgement to the common-denominator/majority.
That being said, you're concept may be even worse. Yes, there are only going to be a small number of truly exceptional people, but to act as if this observation naturally grants credibility to subversive movements like radical feminism is just as misguided.
To grant it respect on that pretense is just as ridiculous as saying that /r/redpill might have a point because afterall just because they're so fringe that perhaps they just need to guide all of the poor blind people!
>Mainstream liberal feminism seems pretty misguided.
What do you define as mainstream? Because currently there are quite a few quite popular movements to eliminate guilty-until-proven-innocence law in cases of sexual assault accusations. Or in the case of "safe spaces" like in Missouri. Are these liberals still moderate to you?
>Anita Sarkeesian
>Worth anything
She literally goes to speaking conferences and then reads from a fucking script. Even among radical feminists she appears to be a pretty weak intellectual, at least others publish books and essays. Anita's body of work is comprised of over-funded videos that are infrequently released and which (in some cases) have objectively misleading/false observations (i.e. hitman's killing system ACTIVELY de-centivizes killing civilians, let alone women)
>>7424792
Doesn't that misreading make you doubt her findings in any way? She claims to have played the game, and developed a thesis behind the way in which it treats women which is fundementally based in misinformation. If you say that the player is meant/led to degrade women in a game where they are mislead/not-intended to do that then your credibility HAS to take a hit to some extent right?
>>7424792
I think that the issue at the heart of this is that the patriarchy argument is founded on a premise that is nearly un-falsifiable in any way. Evidence that it exists? Boom, it exists. No Evidence that it exists? Well, you're just being brain-washed.
There is objective proof that many social behaviors of children are dictated biologically as I linked to before, and when you adjust the "wage-gap" you will naturally find that it is reduced to almost 0.
The problem is that you have no evidence whatsoever that there isn't a naturalistic explanation. You're presupposing your conclusion by saying: "See! Women aren't equally represented even though we're equally skilled therefore the ONLY explanation is discrimination!"
But that premise pre-supposes equal enrollment/education/interest, and then equal skill, luck, and so many other things. We. Don't. Know. Assuming the conclusion without evidence is theistic logic.
>>7424866
This was Norwegian television documentary that was so influential it stopped the government from funding the social sciences. This isn't some fringe self-made video.
>>7424868
>primary school teachers provide as much value as chemical engineers
and garbage collectors, a male dominated field, make less than primary school teachers, a female dominated field, besides.
>>7424877
>The discriminatory component to the pay gap is quite small.
Translation:
>If you compensate for all the things that anti feminists claim makes the wage gap bogus, there is still a wage gap.
>>7424868
>i'm a Marxist in 2015
>>7424879
>Even among radical feminists
>Implying that Anita Sarkeesian is a radical.
>>7424891
BEING A MARXIST IN THE CURRENT YEAR IT'S 2015! COME ON!
>>7424887
>Advertisers provide more value than nurse's aides.
>>7424890
How many feminists claim that women make 4% less than men? The numbers used are misleading and alarmist.
>>7424898
More people are capable of being nurses than advertisers. If nursing was a more exclusionary job, then nurses would get paid more.
>>7424853
if women could be hired for less than men, every company would hire exclusively women in order to maximize profits.
the only people who make this argument do not understand economics at all.
>>7424905
>misunderstanding my post this hard
>Women twice as likely to be hired for academic posts as men
>Researchers in the US said they were shocked to find that, in a series of experiments designed to simulate the hiring process, women were twice as likely as men to be ranked first for a tenure track job.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/04/women-twice-likely-be-hired-men-academic-posts
>>7424909
>I can't refute his point
it's ok to be wrong, sweetheart, just apologize
>>7424887
How would we get chemical engineers without primary school teachers? And some engineers work on products that contribute absolutely nothing to society.
>>7424925
>You can't refute a counterargument to an argument you weren't even making.
>>7424868
>The concept of supply and demand is so unnatural as to require force to enforce.
That's what I got from your post, am I wrong for thinking that?
>>7424853
Give some examples. Doctors are worth more than Nurses, engineers more than art students, STEM more than social sciences.
And in women dominated industries this makes even less sense, why would a women CEO disparage the work of women? Oh wait, let me guess, its because they've been brain-washed by patriarchy.
I just don't ever see a way in which feminists lose ground on any issue, it can all reduce down to an undetectable bias that shapes all issues. I just don't understand how its so hard to believe that men and women are biologically different, and thus going to be interested in different things.
Why is this even a significance issue? If women are legally equal, and feminists argue based on the premise that men and women are intellectually/behaviorally equal than what difference does it make to elect women into 50% positions?
Sure, its nice to have role-models but I think that anyone that ever made a difference to a field did it irrespective of the gender of their role-model or by even having one. They simply did it because it was an interest based on the content involved.
i don't think anyone itt has had sex desu
>>7424943
Let me elaborate:
>To feminists
Please describe in a few sentences what your ideal (and sought for) society is. What is the end-goal of your movement? What are its substantive goals?
>>7424943
>STEM more than social sciences.
Citation needed.
>I just don't understand how its so hard to believe that men and women are biologically different, and thus going to be interested in different things.
Yeah, as long as something *sounds* sciency the burden of proof is on the others.
>>7424954
>Yeah, as long as something *sounds* sciency the burden of proof is on the others.
Read Pinker's Blank Slate.
>>7424957
>Pinker
give me a reason that we shouldn't have a patriarchy that doesn't boil down to a child like obsession with 'fairness'
>>7424957
ass
>>7424958
Read it, study the sources, then come back. The arguments and the evidence should speak for themselves. There's too much evidence of inherent gender differences in preference to ignore the idea.
>>7424967
Good argument. I'm sure you've read it extensively.
>>7424974
If women choose the jobs that they do because of biology this would mean that paying predominantly female jobs less is systemic oppression.
>>7424954
>Vaccination
>Anti-biotics
>Germ theory
>Physics
>Satellites
>Bullet trains
>The radio
>Planes
>Cars
>Solar energy
>Computers
>The Internet
>Trigonometry
>Optics
>Relativity
>Gravity
>Anthropology
>Evolution
>Fission
>Anatomy
>Robotics
>MRI
>X-ray
>infrared
>Assembly Line (industrial revolution)
>Combustion
>Sewage disposal
>Architecture/sky-scrappers
>Water purification
>Biological engineering
>Hybridization
>Food preservation
And so on and so forth. All of those are because of STEM fields. I love social science, i find it interesting and important in understanding our meaning in life and society, but its not as important as that which actually makes society operate. That's coming from an ENGL major.
>>7424957
ass
>>7424985
no it would mean that women are naturally less valuable
>>7424957
>>7424985
Only if you believe that people should be payed by some subjective criteria of "social value," not by how many people are capable of doing said job and how much wealth said job is capable of creating.
>>7424989
I love how much he triggers tumblr. He agrees with 99% of their veiws too, they're just mad that he's good ammunition for the other side.
>>7424996
>Cars
>Computers
>The Internet
>Robotics
>Planes
>Assembly Line (industrial revolution)
Prove that they have been net positive.
Also:
>Climate change
>Nuclear weapons
>"Better" weapons in general
>Pollution
>Various poisonous chemicals
>>7425018
>rube :(
Nice non-response you fucking void
>>7425020
its just funposting newfig :(
im not in this argument
steven pinker just likes ass :DDDD
>>7424996
>progress
>>7425002
>capitalism decides people's value
reminder that the entire history of feminism is merely men giving things to women because they complained enough and those things could be taken away at the drop of a hat
patriarchy isn't an artificial system that just appeared out of nowhere, it is the result of man's physical superiority and there is literally no way to escape this
>>7425048
>it is the result of man's physical superiority and there is literally no way to escape this
fucking lol'd
>>7424879
>to act as if this observation naturally grants credibility to subversive movements
>To grant it respect on that pretense
You misunderstood. I didn't say that fringe movements are automatically right. I only tried to point out that when the status quo is terrible, it requires a lot of effort by a relatively small number of people (because more of them simply don't appear, because most people are idiots) to change the status quo. The average folks are just stuck deeply in the status quo and blinded by it, thinking it's normal and fine because they can't envision a different world.
>What do you define as mainstream?
Whatever the mass media feeds. The mass media doesn't like to report on radical feminist issues because they're too uncomfortable to mention. But when some celeb is being a big strong gurl and spouting some vaguely feminist stuff which nevertheless fails to challenge the status quo in a deeper manner (for instance when an oh-so-progressive woman says something in *favor* of pornography for the sake of "sexual liberation of women") then the media will be all over that because it has good marketing value.
>reads from a fucking script
Don't see anything wrong with that.
>Anita's body of work is comprised of over-funded videos that are infrequently released
Whatever their relative quality to other radical feminist works in some "intellectual" aspects, she caused a massive upheaval, and that speaks a lot. Maybe one could say the value of her work is in having criticized a part of mass media which was so far mostly untouched. (Video games.)
>Doesn't that misreading make you doubt her findings in any way?
No. Why should one honest mistake make the whole difference? Rather the obsession over a single mistake tells me something about the intellectual honesty of the opposing side.
>Evidence that it exists? Boom, it exists. No Evidence that it exists? Well, you're just being brain-washed.
How can there be no evidence that it exists ... when there is evidence that it exists? Are you saying there *is* evidence that it exists, or isn't? There is a crap ton of evidence if you ask me. It's not necessarily trivial to understand, but once you get an idea of how patriarchal socialization works, you'll note that it's ubiquitous in people's behavior. On the other hand, when you're deeply into the patriarchal mentality, it will be essentially invisible to you since it seems like the order of nature. Such is sociology.
cont. in next post
>>7425016
You're insane. Utterly. Fucking. Insane.
>Computers
Why the fuck would i have to PROVE that these have been positive? I would think that this statement is non-controversial, and that the onus would be on you.
None the less, computers are what allows us to perform extremely delicate and sophisticated operations safely likely saving countless lives. Computers/robotics/ allow us to safely defuse bombs an other dangerous situations without being put into harms way.
>The internet
Seriously? You're going to argue that the internet hasn't been net positive? Under what possible view does that make sense? Look at the Arab springs, almost all of which were a revolt against authoritarianism that were enabled by social media or other readily-made communications. Unless you're arguing that events such as these are "negative" simply because their dictators reacted badly to VIRTUOUS action then you're completely wrong. Availability of education and information through internet cafes, long-distance education, long-distance business, long-distance employment are all great. They also made countless jobs and software that allows us to get around easier and better. The number of people that have self-taught valuable information that could save people (burn/bruise/concussion treatments if in isolation/camping) is a number that cant be found or even fathomed.
>Assembly line
Prove that it hasn't. It wasn't pretty in its inception, but its a fact that even in China's burgeoning industrial revolution their life expectancy and quality of life has risen because of better economic output. Industry doesn't raise the poorest at the same rate as the rich, but they ARE improved.
>Climate change
Hasn't killed as many as vaccination and anti-biotics has saved. Has yet to do be employed outside of one instance in which it was necessitated (as is the consensus among most historians i know of)
>Pollution
Bad for the environment, not bad for people in general. Again, compare the quality of life and savior of life.
>Various poisonous chemicals.
Would you rather die of gangrene or know that chemical weapons exist somewhere? Die of a snackbite or get bitten and then treated?
STEM is part of a continuous pursuit of knowledge, in searching for great energy sources there will be military implementations that come up. Without nuclear weapons, its not likely we'd have nuclear energy, and vice versa.
Knowledge that leads to one is often mutually connected to another. In learning to make a plane, the knowledge of physics is needed, etc. You can't just pick and choose retrospectively what knowledge is found and how its applied.
Unless you want to go back to before the Industrial revolution I think you're misinformed as fuck.
>>7425032
>men and women are equal
pure ideology
>>7425013
>I love how much he triggers tumblr
http://fucktheory.tumblr.com/post/57633497486/in-which-steven-pinker-is-a-total-ignoramus-who
>you will never trigger someone this hard
