How do I navigate through the rabid throngs of SJWs as a moderate gay man?
I find these vile people repulsive. Please tell me I'm not alone here....
>In b4 radfem anon.
>>5445772
Navigate in what context? Are you in college?
>>5445772
What is there to navigate? If you are over the age of 20 I hope you'd learned by now the delicate art of not engaging anyone in conversation if you don't like conversing with them.
>>5445784
Yes, I am. I'm transferring to UCLA.
>>5445796
Believe me, I try. There are like a virus; they have spread everywhere! Gay bars, acquaintances (my friends are based, though), LGBT groups, you name it.
I will not be intimidated, but there are times when it is more beneficial to hold my tongue, like when I could use the tyrant SJW in some way. Obviously, I would prefer to avoid these Nazis altogether.
>>5445817
its not hard to walk away from people who are annoying. you dont have to engage. its extremely satisfying to just go 'heh' whenever they say something, smile, and say 'gotta go'.
only place you cant do this is work, but at work you always have the option of saying 'sorry cant talk, working'
>>5445803
I don't. But sometimes people will try to bully me or others if something seemingly innocent is said eg (How DARE you be bisexual! You need to be PANSEXUAL, you intolerant bigot!)
>>5445817
Their habit of infesting support groups for LGBT individuals does make things a bit tricky, if you're in need of such resources and don't want to interact with them. I'm having trouble seeing how they could infect gay bars though.
>>5445828
right... so dont engage. its as easy as just giggling and leaving.
you have to learn that just because something negative exists doesn't mean you have to let it anger you every time. thats catholic talk. just dont engage it, and at worse, laugh.
>>5445801
>Avoiding SJW
>UCLA
>>5445834
Sorry, I'm not going to turn down an opportunity to attend an excellent law school due to SJWs. That would give them power over me, which I will no longer tolerate!
>>5445828
If they say something bigoted like that just go "what business is it of yours" or "why would you say something like that". Something that puts them down in an introspective but non-invasive way. Treat their words like insults and politely remove yourself from the situation.
>>5445850
>law school
>infested by SJWs
But that sounds almost as bad as an art school infested by SJWs
Clearing up some misconceptions... Radfems:
- Are all about structural analysis of our society (culture, politics, economy), and shit on "personal empowerment" when it ignores structural problems. It's a legitimate move for woman's lib to criticize a "slutty" woman for being that way; after all she causes this whole notion of "dirty sexuality" to be strengthened. It does not mean wishing harm to that woman. It does not make radical feminism "misogynist", it makes it intelligent, and means it doesn't get swayed by shallow notions of "personal empowerment" that ignore deep, structural problems with the situation of women in our society.
- Argue for civil rights remedies for women who can prove in court to be hurt by specific publications of porn. They are also opposed to porn that reinforces the idea that sex is something inherently dangerous, related to dominance, etc. On the other hand, they are opposed to obscenity laws because those laws have the same implication that sexuality is inherently dirty.
- Oppose prostitution and other things furthering a conception of sexuality as something commodified, rooted in objectification, etc. However they are sex positive in the sense that they wish for people to genuinely love each other as much as possible.
- Criticize the dominance/submission based sexuality in some gay communities and gay porn. They are not opposed to gays in general; to the contrary, homosexuality is essentially a statement against patriarchal marriage ideals.
- Criticize the strengthening of gender stereotypes due to some people's misinterpretation of transsexuality ("being a woman means wearing dresses and being submissive"), and some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of women's rights. However they don't support discrimination of transsexuals; transsexuality is a way of shitting on the patriarchy by saying fuck you, I live whatever gender identity fits my brain.
>>5445857
pls take this copypasta back to Tumblr you 1/10 troll
>>5445862
>troll
It's all true.
radfem.org
>>5445865
No it isn't, "radfem" is an umbrella term for all different colours of retardation and craziness which doesn't even have a place on 4chan. I'd sooner discuss the finer points of national socialism than radical feminism.
>>5445869
Oh anon, you really sound like an intellectual person. I'd love to hear more about your opinions on feminism.
Surely your ideas about radical feminism are more authoritative than what's written in the books that define the ideology.
>>5445772
>ucla
wanna grab a coffee?
>>5445857
You need to stop forcing your talking points in every thread. It's OK if it's relevant to the thread - here it's basically spam.
It's higly autistic, (and counterproductive to your goal, if I might add.) Also it's butt flustering me and probably every regular lurker.
>>5445876
I've heard enough of what people who have read about it talk about to know that I don't need to read any of that shit to know it's fucking retarded. Again, using my Nazi analogy, most of the world hasn't read Mein Kampf but still hates the ideology. Go pretend your opinion has importance elsewhere.
>>5445881
>It's OK if it's relevant to the thread - here it's basically spam.
This part was relevant and I just used my copypasta:
>Criticize the dominance/submission based sexuality in some gay communities and gay porn. They are not opposed to gays in general; to the contrary, homosexuality is essentially a statement against patriarchal marriage ideals.
Could have formfitted it for this thread. I'm a lazy bum.
>>5445886
>using my Nazi analogy
Making an analogy between Nazi and feminists is like making an analogy between Islamists and human rights activists.
Which is to say, it's so fucking idiotic it hurts my brain. Congrats, you managed to hurt me over the Internet.
>>5445908
>insulting muslims
>equating Islam with Fascism
You're really doing this to yourself.
>>5445918
Anon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
So yeah, this is the level of political ignorance of the people I'm debating with. Why the fuck am I even getting frustrated.
>>5445857
So what your saying, is that radfems are retarded.
Thanks, tumblr. Now go back to your hole.
>Radical Feminism
>>5445931
What's the problem with the one on the right?
>>5445925
Hi /pol/, is crossboarding fun?
>>5445801
>congrats were also neighbors
Like the other anon I would just not engage them. Since youre gay and moderate Id say they wont have any reason to single you out.
>>5445908
>Making an analogy between Nazi(ideology) and feminists(ideology) is like making an analogy between Islamists(ideology) and human rights activists(not ideology).
Seems pretty intelligent to compare ideologies to ideologies. But what you seem to be doing is comparing comparing pots v. kettles to comparing apples v. oranges.
>>5445941
I don't know /cgl/, you tell me.
>>5445941
Sorry buddy, liberal pro gay marriage college fag here, everyone thinks radfems are psycho.
Except radfems, but morons always think they're geniuses.
>>5445976
I'm a morbidly obese straight man with poor hygiene. I placate radfems in hopes of being rewarded with sex.
>>5445961
What actually is wrong with it though?
>>5445961
Great job answering the question
>>5445772
Just don't act like an edgy teenager, resist the urge to say things like:
>but feminists are the REAL misosgynists
>feminism is destroying western civilization
>it's men who are REALLY oppressed
>women are only good for sex
>why is it wrong to objectify women if they like sex?
>>5446050
Beheading males for just being male? You're wondering why that's wrong?
>>5446108
Why are you assuming he's being beheaded "for just being male?"
look at those nasty as fuck dreads.
>>5446108
desu he's probably awful just look at him he's a filthy male
sleep, eat, lift, school, study, eat, sleep
do this and ignore everyone else.
>>5446108
>for just being male
Huh, why would you ever assume that?
Since she's a radical feminist, I thought it was obvious that he's a rapist, child molester, wife batterer, or something equally horrible.
"Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it. In life, they commit it." -- Andrea Dworkin
>>5445994
If by activism you mean the production and distribution of propaganda. Makes the nazism comparison rather fair honestly.
>>5446191
>RadFems don't hate men!
>Men love murder and I imagined that the man in the picture was a rapist
>>5446397
Everyone please remember to report the shitposter who spams shit about feminists being nazis who spread propaganda about LGBT being rapist murderer pedophiles.
>>5446535
Radfems don't hate men *for biological reasons*.
Some of them very much hate men in this culture in general though.
I mean I'm a guy and I generally hate men because they're almost always assholes. Problems?
>>5446535
>>I imagined that the man in the picture was a rapist
That's the most reasonable conclusion, doesn't require much "imagination". Whereas it takes a great deal of bias and imagination to conclude that the man is innocent.
>>5446543
Being an aggressive, assertive male is rewarded. Women incentivize the behavior and then pretend they're against it.
>>5446551
>guilty until proven innocent
By that logic if it were a picture of a female getting beaten, I'd have to be biased to assume that she didn't deserve it.
>>5445908
>analogy between Nazi and feminists
1. Blaming their own faults and flaws on people who have nothing to do with it.
2. Demonise said groups and attempt to silence them through shaming/aggression
3. Silence any dissenting opinion through burning books or once again aggressively silencing them with threats of violence
4. Use the political system to enforce their views on all people, crush freedom of speech and create an allround thought police.
Already sounds pretty Nazi to me, and that's not even taking into account the #killallmen
>>5446538
>rapist murderer pedophiles.
Never said anything of the sort. Radfem's produce propaganda based on shitty statistics crafted purposefully and via ignorance and the repetition of feminist dogma, the result being a belief system based on their fucked perception of reality.
Your gender studies proff is your Fuhrer, you are a gulible German ranting about Jews controlling everything.
But yes, do report me because my opinion is different than yours.
>>5446552
Maybe some women do, but aggressive behavior is something that many branches of feminism disapprove of.
>>5446557
If you changed your statement to "a female getting beheaded" then I would agree. Beatings and beheadings are two very different things with very different implications. Beheadings have been traditionally been used as a form of legal execution. Beatings are more typically associated with individuals or groups inflicting extralegal punishment.
>>5446574
>fuck off retard
>Zhe thinks Zhe's an intellectual.
>>5446594
honestly you deserve to be attacked with an ice pick for being this dumb
>>5446574
>I'll call him a retard, that'll learn him
>>5446614
epic meme o.o xD
>>5446595
>Maybe some women do, but aggressive behavior is something that many branches of feminism disapprove of.
I'd argue that most women due, most women are straight and most straight women prefer masculine men. The most masculine men are assertive and aggressive. This is where feminism falls into a hole, they're advocating for the end of behavior (male bread-winners, male-driven relationships) that most women find attractive and comforting at a sexual and emotional level. How is that advocating for the best interest of women?
>If you changed your statement to "a female getting beheaded" then I would agree. Beatings and beheadings are two very different things with very different implications. Beheadings have been traditionally been used as a form of legal execution. Beatings are more typically associated with individuals or groups inflicting extralegal punishment.
I understand the distinction between different types of violence, but the distinction doesn't matter in this instance. It's a punishment, and the immediate assumption was that the male deserved it, which is an anti-male bias.
>>5446615
And you deserve a nice pat on the head and a colouring book.
>>5446619
>I'd argue that most women due, most women are straight and most straight women prefer masculine men. The most masculine men are assertive and aggressive. This is where feminism falls into a hole, they're advocating for the end of behavior (male bread-winners, male-driven relationships) that most women find attractive and comforting at a sexual and emotional level. How is that advocating for the best interest of women?
There's a difference between masculinity and aggression (at least aggression in the way feminists use it as a criticism of "male culture"). When feminists say men are too aggressive they're mainly talking about men who use violence as a "solution" to problems where it's uncalled for, and as a means to "prove" one's manhood. There are plenty of men who are able to be masculine without exhibiting these sorts of unhealthy behaviors.
>>5446626
lmao is this your first time using condescension? you probably think youre fucking blowing everyone's minds
>>5446646
The types of aggression you are talking about are already illegal and shunned in western culture. Thinking that there's even a medium-sized group of people that believe they're ok is attacking a straw man.
The types of aggressive behavior I'm talking about are things that I mentioned previously - male bread-winners, male-driven relationships, men as the initiators of relationships and sexual encounters, etc.
Feminists claim that there's a masculine alternative to these, but they cannot define it without using feminine traits. Masculinity loses its meaning when you rip away masculine traits from it.
>>5446630
>>5446672
epic
>>5446616
https://youtu.be/C34T-fx2pzw?t=59s
>>5446676
>shunned in western culture.
Except for pockets of the "manosphere" types who actually think women prefer men who actually beat them.
>male bread-winners, male-driven relationships, men as the initiators of relationships and sexual encounters, etc.
None of which really has anything to do with aggression.
>>5446676
>Feminists claim that there's a masculine alternative to these, but they cannot define it without using feminine traits.
That's kind of circular reasoning, because in our society everything is either masculine or feminine. The point they're trying to make is that there is a place in society for feminine men just like there's a place in society for masculine women. But acceptance of feminine men is something a lot of people have problems with, since femininity is viewed as inferior, and so a feminine male is viewed as someone who is "giving up" and choosing to be inferior, while for a woman to be masculine is seen as self-improvement.
>>5446669
People who show childish behavior should be treated like children.
>>5446690
>Except for pockets of the "manosphere" types who actually think women prefer men who actually beat them.
I've read those kinds of articles. Women prefer men who are authoritative, and unfortunately abusive men are authoritative. The violence isn't the attractive part, and even those articles give a big thumbs-down to domestic abuse.
>None of which really has anything to do with aggression.
Call it what you want, it is still a collection of masculine traits that the feminist movement wants to see discouraged.
>>5446710
e u p h o r i c
>>5446712
>Call it what you want, it is still a collection of masculine traits that the feminist movement wants to see discouraged.
When feminists talk about "toxic masculinity", they're mainly referring to actual aggression. Not just healthy masculinity. The fact that they want to do away with certain aspects of masculine behavior (the aforementioned aggression) does not mean they want to eliminate masculinity entirely.
>>5446701
That is true, and I do want to make sure feminine men and masculine women aren't mistreated. The issue is that feminism seeks to discourage masculine behavior as a means to achieve this end, which denies the true feelings that most men and women have about what they want in a sexual and romantic partner.
>>5446715
Well memed mein freund.
>>5446624
>Ayaan Hirsi Ali
>not a feminist
>Rebecca Watson
>feminist
Well meme'd.
>>5446721
As I said, going after "toxic masculinity" is a straw man. The fact that violence and abuse is roped together with masculinity is intended to associate masculinity with evil. Abuse is not tolerated in western culture, most men do not approve of it, and any attempt to suggest that men find it appropriate in any meaningful sense is slander to further the goals of feminists.
And yes, discouraging masculine behavior is in fact an attempt to eliminate masculinity. I challenge you to define masculinity without those types of behavior.
>>5446624
>>5446630
>>5446637
>>5446672
Everyone please remember to report shitposters.
>>5446740
Can we report feminist shitposters instead?
>>5446737
>And yes, discouraging masculine behavior is in fact an attempt to eliminate masculinity. I challenge you to define masculinity without those types of behavior.
What do you mean by "those types of behavior"?
Some actual feminist writing, for those interested.
>>5446740
>Everything I don't like is shitposting
>>5446751
Yeah just give me a tl;dr on that one.
>>5446752
>spamming memes without contributing to the conversation isn't shitposting
>>5446751
Literally nothing of this applies to the modern day so I don't see why it's relevant to SJW's. Do they believe this crap? Would explain why they're so detached from reality.
>>5446748
When there are feminist shitposters, sure.
I'm not seeing any feminists in this thread posting cheap "infographs" on the intellectual level of /b/.
>>5446750
>male bread-winners, male-driven relationships, men as the initiators of relationships and sexual encounters, etc.
These kinds
>>5446757
>Waaaaah, people shouldn't be able to disagree with me
>>5446737
i'm going to rub your face in some dog shit. i will stop at nothing to do just that. i'll wait outside of your window at night until you've drifted off and then when you're sound asleep and dog shit being rubbed over your ugly countenance is what you least expect, i'll take out a bag of dog shit and rub it on your face.
>>5446764
There doesn't really seem to be anything wrong with those kinds of behaviors (unless of course people try to shame people who don't partake in those behaviors).
>>5446761
>Literally nothing of this applies to the modern day
Except that the book is about pornography and pornography is thriving.
How about you read more than the first 4 pages of a book before reaching a conclusion about it?
>>5446765
>spamming cheap meme "infographs" containing facts pulled out of /pol/s anus
>"disagreement"
All we want is to increase the level of intellectual discourse in here.
>>5446765
If you have a point to make, why don't you make it like an intelligent person rather than spamming memes and strawmanning?
>>5446773
>feminism
>intellectual discourse
Pick one.
Then again someone getting butthurt over satire should just stop trying.
>>5446780
its just a prank bro
>>5446768
Well that would be abuse, which is actively discouraged by most men and women in western culture.
:-)
>>5446780
>feminism
>entered academia
>revolutionized the western world
>the UN openly acknowledges the existence of a patriarchy
>not intellectual discourse
>>5446785
no it's not you feces gobbler
>>5446778
Make an intelligent statement and I'll reply with intelligence.
Be a spoiled retard and I'll insult you with memes.
>>5446792
I can recommend everyone the book Our Blood.
>>5446773
Infographs from pols anus vs feminist philosophy.
I really don't think there's a chance in hell for this conversation to be intellectual.
>>5446771
>male bread-winners
Wage Gap, encouragement of women to be stay at home mothers, glass ceiling
>Male-driven relationships
Patriarchy
>Men as the initiators of romantic and sexual relationships
Rape culture, positive consent
See what I mean? They take perfectly natural tendencies and slander and misinterpret them.
>>5446799
Do you understand that feminism is one of the humanitarian movements that has shaped the world the most in the past centuries?
>>5446797
The feminists weren't arguing with memes. You're the one who made a conscious effort to lower the level of intellectual discourse in this thread.
>>5446807
>perfectly natural tendencies
Argument by assertion?
We just had a whole thread where deniers of the pay gap have been blown the fuck out.
>>5443600
>>5446811
aristotlian.
>>5446808
Indeed, but these days feminists spend there time telling men not to oppress them by sitting the wrong way and tweeting #killallmen.
>>5446811
>hurr durr retards!
Great argument, my friend.
>>5446820
strawmanning again
>>5446820
Their*.
correcting myself.
>>5446820
http://feministcurrent.com/
>>5446807
>encouragement of women to be stay at home mothers
Is okay as long as encouragement isn't TOO strong. Then again, the idea of a stay at home parent isn't really practical for people below upper middle class anyway.
>glass ceiling
Shouldn't exist, even if most breadwinners are male, one's ability to advance in their career shouldn't depend on their gender.
>Rape culture
Does not refer to male-initiated relationships, it refers to the attitude SOME men have that "it's not rape if she kissed you earlier" and so on.
>>5446813
The green texted concepts are the natural tendencies that most men and women (by virtue of being straight and having a preference for emotional polarity) are satisfied sexually and romantically by. The concepts in plain text are what the feminist movement create in an attempt to destroy the green texted realities.
>>5446811
>Doesn't make them less retarded.
It does make them less retarded (at least in behavior) than the MRA's who came in here and started spamming memes.
>>5446835
>are satisfied sexually and romantically by
If that were true, feminism wouldn't exist.
Feminism exists precisely *because* women are not satisfied with life.
Sweden, one of the countries with the highest gender equality, is also one of the countries with the highest reported satisfaction of life, along with other countries with high gender equality (like Norway).
>>5446821
Well I would, but I can't be bothered.
After all this post
>>5446574
made it clear to me that there simply is no arguing.
It's just ranting feminist spearpoints and anyone who disagrees is a retard/uneducated/bigot/whatever insult comes to mind.
So why would I bother arguing at all when my arguments will be ignored and I'll be called a retard?
>>5446839
"fight fire with fire"
>>5446834
>Does not refer to male-initiated relationships, it refers to the attitude SOME men have that "it's not rape if she kissed you earlier" and so on.
I get that, but the problem is that masculine males have to be the initiators in order to be attractive. Initiating a sexual encounter by expressing uncertainty of your partner's interest (court-provable consent) is not attractive to feminine women, because they interpret it as a lack of confidence. It's funny how many straight feminists are hung up on 100% positive consent when they actually do want men to take the initiative and start the encounter.
>>5446843
>Feminism exists precisely *because* women are not satisfied with life.
One should also add that "not being satisfied with life" is often the result of rape, battery, sexual harassment, forced prostitution, forced pornography, and otherwise having to live in terror.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women
Lest anyone here thinks that getting 80% the money men get is the one and only reason women are being all uppity.
>>5446848
>I can't be bothered
Ah yeah, that's an interesting way to admit not having any arguments left.
>"fight fire with fire"
I don't see any feminists in this thread spewing memes and idiotic "infographs" of the intellectual level of /b/ or /pol/.
>>5446848
there is no arguing because you're so fucking thick skulled. lay down and just die already
>>5446848
>"fight fire with fire"
Except, had you actually read my post, you realized you are not fighting fire with fire, you are interrupting proper conversation by spamming memes.
>>5446839
>Everyone who disagrees with me in an MRA!
Let me tell you a little secret.
There's SJWS and radfems, a tiny portion of western men and women with their heads up there asses, and then there's everyone else that doesn't buy your bullshit.
>>5446865
>Everyone who disagrees with me in an MRA!
I literally did not say that at all. If someone disagrees with me, I am willing to listen to and consider their argument - provided they present it in a mature way, not by spamming /b/ tier strawman memes.
>>5446856
>>5446858
As I was saying:
"anyone who disagrees is a retard/uneducated/bigot/whatever insult comes to mind."
>>5446862
There is no proper conversation.
A proper conversation goes 2 WAYS
That's 2, got it?
1+1?
Not 1 person barking orders around and the rest has to listen.
That's not how conversations work.
>>5446865
enlightened reactionary detected
>>5446865
>SJWS and radfems, a tiny portion of western men and women with their heads up there asses
You might want to read about the legal accomplishments of Catharine MacKinnon, one of the most prominent radical feminists and a personal friend of Andrea Dworkin.
They co-authored 'Pornography and Civil Rights' that I like to quote so often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon
>MacKinnon's book, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination, is the eighth most-cited American legal book published since 1978, according to a study published by Fred Shapiro in January 2000.[17]
>MacKinnon represented Bosnian and Croatian women against Serbs accused of genocide since 1992. She was co-counsel, representing named plaintiff S. Kadic, in Kadic v. Karadzic and won a jury verdict of $745 million in New York City on August 10, 2000. The lawsuit (under the United States' Alien Tort Statute) established forced prostitution and forced impregnation as legally actionable acts of genocide.
>>5446877
>Not 1 person barking orders around and the rest has to listen.
That doesn't describe what's going on in this thread. There's a great deal of debate going on in this thread, mature, intelligent debate. If you're willing to argue on our level, we will consider what you have to say. But if you're going to just spam memes, then no, don't expect us to take you seriously.
>>5446881
Rainbow bearded example of white diversity detected.
>>5446871
>In a sexual and romantic sense, that is exactly what they're most happy with.
Wrong again.
75% of women don't even orgasm from "normal" sex.
>We've already established that violence is not acceptable to most men
Then why is it still endemic? And why are men so happy to ignore it?
https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story
>>5446887
you should make a statement by killing yourself tbqh
>>5446895
You should pull that stick from your ass and enjoy your life.
>In 1996, Fred Shapiro[who?] calculated that "Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence", 8 Signs 635 (1983), was the 96th most cited article in law reviews even though it was published in a non-legal journal.[27]
Damn, feminists are so non-intellectual!
>>5446902
no. i cant stop cumming
>>5446890
>Wrong again.
>75% of women don't even orgasm from "normal" sex.
And I suppose they'd orgasm more frequently with a less assertive and more feminine male?
>Then why is it still endemic? And why are men so happy to ignore it?
The only thing men are responsible for is to NOT rape people, and the massive majority of them don't, and therefore did enough. They are not responsible for the actions of a very small minority of men, so there is no "ignoring" for them to be accountable for.
It's endemic because crime is endemic. It's a social/economic phenomenon that can't be completely eradicated.
>The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women states that:
> "violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women" and that "violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men."[4]
So, the United Nations agree that there is a patriarchy (as feminist literature calls it).
>>5446915
>The only thing men are responsible for is to NOT rape people, and the massive majority of them don't, and therefore did enough. They are not responsible for the actions of a very small minority of men, so there is no "ignoring" for them to be accountable for.
So then I suppose you don't hold feminists as a group responsible for what the more extreme members do?
>>5446885
>There's a great deal of debate going on in this thread, mature, intelligent debate.
"Feminism is right and you are wrong lalalalala" is not a mature intelligent debate.
It's feminists making faulty arguments, consequently discard everything that opposes their veiws as "moronic nonsense made by /pol/" and as a result you get shit flinging, which results in you concluding that you have won the debate.
Which is retarded.
If this actually were a debate you would have actually refuted these arguments instead of discarding them.
But you don't. You never do.
Which is why I can't take you seriously.
>>5446915
>And I suppose they'd orgasm more frequently with a less assertive and more feminine male?
They would certainly orgasm much more often if they had sex with men who aren't obsessed with penetration and dominance and rather focus simply on stimulating the woman's main sex organ: the clitoris.
Consider the fact that the clitoris is the female penis (literally the same tissue that grows to a penis in males and a clitoris in females) and that the sexual practices which we see as most "normal" (penis entering various orifices) do little to stimulate the clitoris.
>>5446915
>The only thing men are responsible for is to NOT rape people, and the massive majority of them don't, and therefore did enough.
And the massive majority of whites in 1950 USA have not lynched blacks to death or whip their servants violently. And that does not prove that racism was not a problem and did not lead to said violence.
Crimes against women are crimes commit by men, to women, because the men are men and the women are women, and currently the women are socially subordinate to men. Just like the lynchings and whippings of blacks were done because the whites were white and the blacks were black, and the blacks were socially subordinate to whites.
>>5446923
>"Feminism is right and you are wrong lalalalala" is not a mature intelligent debate.
It's also not what's going on in this thread.
>It's feminists making faulty arguments, consequently discard everything that opposes their veiws as "moronic nonsense made by /pol/" and as a result you get shit flinging, which results in you concluding that you have won the debate.
Okay, why don't you explain what's so faulty about our arguments, or make an argument of your own?
>>5446921
Feminism does encourage anti-male attitudes because it is anti-masculine, it's a false equivalency. Being male does not encourage rape. Being a rapist encourages rape.
>>5446938
Feminism is not anti-masculine, unless you consider things like equal pay for equal work to be "anti-masculine".
>>5446938
You are implying that the cultural construct of masculinity is related to the biology of males.
That is a false premise.
>>5446932
>And the massive majority of whites in 1950 USA have not lynched blacks to death or whip their servants violently. And that does not prove that racism was not a problem and did not lead to said violence.
This is another false equivalency, being white does not lead to racism, and being male does not lead to rape. Racism leads to racism and rape leads to rape.
This is another example of where the "intersectionality" meme is a failure.
>>5446938
why are women taught how to avoid being raped
why aren't men taught to not rape people
>>5446950
The cultural construct exists around male behavior, which is driven as much by hormones as it is by "social norms".
>>5446951
Nobody here said that being male leads to rape.
Glorifying masculinity leads to sexism, which leads to rape. Akin to how glorifying whiteness leads to racism, which leads to lynching.
>>5446957
Aren't both taught?
>>5446933
>It's also not what's going on in this thread.
It clearly is. Otherwise this whole meme spamming wouldn't have happened.
>why don't you explain what's so faulty about our arguments
A majority of arguments cite things without presenting any source at all. Just a few posts have an image of a chapter of a book.
And secondly writing someone off as retard and then completely ignore everything that person said is not something that happens in an intellectual debate. It's how trump debates by calling people stupid.
>>5446957
Men are, in fact, taught not to rape people.
>>5446964
>driven as much by hormones
You can assert that, but even if it were true, it would still not justify a culture of masculinity that leads to sexism and therefore violence against women.
Tribal pride is probably biologically rooted. That does not justify glorifying one's own ethnicity, leading to racism and violence.
>>5446975
it doesnt stop them from doing it anyway
>>5446968
>A majority of arguments cite things without presenting any source at all. Just a few posts have an image of a chapter of a book.
I'd say that counts as a pretty solid citation. At least, you could ask the name of the book before resorting to shitposting.
>And secondly writing someone off as retard
It was the anti-feminists who called the feminists retards. Not the other way around like you claim.
>>5446971
>writing someone off as retard and then completely ignore everything that person said
Nobody's forcing you to respond to those who simply call you names.
I would like to see you get mad at those doing the very same thing on the other side of the debate though. Because there is a bit of a discrepancy in the numbers there.
>>5446980
So how do you think we could stop them from doing it? Is there some underlying, informal aspect of male socialization that encourages it?
>>5446966
>Nobody here said that being male leads to rape.
>Glorifying masculinity leads to sexism, which leads to rape. Akin to how glorifying whiteness leads to racism, which leads to lynching.
Rape is a combination of theft, assault, and battery with a sexual motive. It has nothing to do with masculinity. Lynching is violence with a political motive, and it does not stem from being proud of your race, but rather hating other races.
>>5446989
You could start by listening to women's opinions about sexuality. Specifically those of feminists, who are explicitly concerned with the issue of rape.
>>5446989
see: frat boys and games of chicken
it is those that are desperate to prove to others their machismo and assertiveness. perhaps some are even pressured to do so.
>>5446991
Hate against other races is intricately tied with a glorification of one's own race. History is full of examples of this.
Hate against the other sex is intricately tied with a glorification of one's own gender. History is, again, full of examples of this.
>>5446978
Masculinity does not lead to sexism or violence. That's the kind of slander that I pointed out earlier in the thread.
>>5446994
Which ones specifically? Once again, rape is not encouraged in western society and male culture, it's an invalid argument to say that men support it.
>>5446998
Oh the good old frat bros and dick games meme. Crimes like rape are assertive, but they're still not encouraged behavior. Not all assertiveness is good, but many attractive traits are assertive.
>>5446983
>I'd say that counts as a pretty solid citation.
I never said it isn't. But it's a few posts out of many.
>At least, you could ask the name of the book
That name had been given many times. And I always responded in a reasonable manner to these posts.
>It was the anti-feminists who called the feminists retards. Not the other way around like you claim.
Au contraire.
>>5446999
Hatred of other races inherently exists in cases of glorification of a race, but glorification of a race does not necessarily include hatred of other races and crime. Correlation is not causation.
>>5447032
don't au contraire me you little french bitch
>>5447038
Ma belle pêche, dont say that.
You'll make me feel like a pêché myself.
>>5446966
>Glorifying masculinity leads to sexism, which leads to rape
The causal link is not there. If you think it is you have to prove it.
>>5447021
>Masculinity does not lead to sexism or violence.
Correct. However, worship of masculinity very often leads to sexism, much like worship of whiteness leads to racism.
>Crimes like rape are assertive, but they're still not encouraged behavior.
Obviously feminists don't think rape is OPENLY encouraged, but many think that rape is encouraged in more informal ways. I don't completely believe that, but it's something to keep in mind.
>>5447048
baguette croissant oui honhonhonhonhon
>>5447052
Not the person you're replying to, but it's pretty clear that glorifying masculinity goes beyond just enjoying being male, it means thinking masculinity is better than anything else. Which means femininity is viewed as inferior, and it should be obvious how that is sexism.
>>5447021
>Masculinity does not lead to sexism or violence.
It very much does. Human history and even contemporary western media is full of examples of glorification of manliness that goes over the subjugation and sexual domination of women. Oftentimes, the women are portrayed as willingly submissive in the mythology and media. The phenomenon of submissive male fetishes is enough proof that this is an acquired fetish in the case of either gender, yet glorification of masculinity relies on painting women as submissive and wanton, or docile and weak. Inevitably, this leads to a whole array of discrimination, justification of harassment, and in extreme cases, gang rapes and even murder. Akin to how racism leads to lynchings, castrations, and murder in the most extreme cases, whereas the more ubiquitous, "normal" kind of racism is merely the assumption that blacks are biologically somewhat inferior.
This line of thinking that I'm explaining is accepted by the United Nations, is held highly in academia worldwide, has dozens if not hunders of books written about it, and has ubiquitous proof throughout human history and contemporary culture. You can still deny it, since it's impossible to have clear-cut evidence of this and make double-blind studies (since whole societies cannot be put in laboratories), similar to how one cannot prove so clearly that racism leads to violence. So if you still refuse to agree, then I'm afraid I can't convince you, but maybe you should consider it.
And maybe you should read a couple feminist classics to understand why so many people have come to agree with this analysis. http://radfem.org/dworkin
>>5447060
The idea that masculinity is glorified is staged so that feminists can take shots at masculinity. A big claim is that feminine men are not as respected, and that is frequently true. However, masculine women are frequently viewed as inferior as well, so how can masculinity be the glorified concept? Deviation from the norm is what those kinds of people hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2chtS8cMqI why is this encouraged
>>5447077
>masculine women are viewed as inferior
because they're not performing femininity in the right way, you fucking idiot.
>Tfw you're a regular bi guy, but every other LGBT person you have ever come in contact with is a libtarded, feminist, pan-fluid, quadri-gendered transatlantic homogenous robo-kin.
>>5447077
Masculine women are generally seen in a more positive light than feminine men. For a girl to be a "tomboy" is often seen as a good things, saying a girl is "one of the boys" is a compliment. Positive terms for feminine males don't really exist outside of the LGBT community, and you never hear a boy being praised for being "one of the girls". While glorification of masculinity may not be QUITE as widespread as some feminists claim, it definitely does exist.
>>5447088
wow i have NEVER HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE
>>5447086
Just like how feminine males aren't performing masculinity in the right way? Thanks for proving my point.
>>5447077
Most women are willingly submissive in sexual and romantic settings, to deny that is to deny reality. Why do you think 50 Shades of Gray had such a staggering amount of sales to women?That doesn't mean the alternative is a bad thing by itself, but denying the bulk of women's attractions is a bad start to any line of thinking.
I've seen your UN/"Accepted Theses" posted many times, but an appeal to authority does not make the idea correct in its own right.
>>5447106
Then I wouldn't call it glorifying. If you're just talking about people being happy about being male and not thinking it makes them better than non-male people, it doesn't really seem to fit the definition of glorification.
>>5447109
>Just like how feminine males aren't performing masculinity in the right way? Thanks for proving my point.
what are you even trying to say lol
gnc/masculine women are harassed and turned down jobs for not being Sexy Demure Feminine waifs
>>5447066
>>implying that violent masculinity is a bad thing
This bitch don't know how reality works.
The real world is real mean, and real scary.
We live on a sociopathic, dog-eat-dog deathworld; a skim of dirty water matrices atop thosands of kilometers of magma. A tiny dot of dust suspended in infinite vacuum punctuated only by thermonuclear furnaces millions of times bigger than our dust speck.
Reality is scary as hell, scarier than hell, and it only gets more scary the more you know.
Masculinity worships at the altar of power, because otherwise we'd all be dead.
Power and violence keep us alive.
>>5447123
Aren't feminine males harassed and turned down jobs too? At least as a girl you can be a tomboy (which lots of people think is cool) as long as you aren't TOO masculine, but any amount of femininity in men gets them labeled a faggot.
>>5447123
And feminine males are not as respected as masculine males.
The deviation from the norm is what causes this phenomenon. If it were masculinity that was truly glorified, masculine women would be respected more than feminine women.
>>5447099
YELLING ON TEH INTERNAUT!!!1!!1
>>5447128
Unnecessary violence against other people isn't beneficial in any way at all. And that's what worship of violent masculinity often results in - people turn to violence not because it's necessary, but because they feel it is the only way to prove their manhood.
>>5447140
In that instance, committing violence is an attempt to gain masculinity through someone else. If you have to get masculinity from someone else, you never really had it to begin with.
Violence in the defense of yourself and others, however, is masculine. And although a tragic occurrence, it is sometimes necessary and women rely predominantly on men to provide that service.
>>5447132
lmao look up toxic masculinity
also i'm sure there are people who greatly appreciate tomboys, with their dick. that isn't good enough :^)
>>5447153
Yeah true, I'm just saying that there is this pervasive attitude where people are unnecessarily violent because they feel inadequate and think that's a good way or proving their manhood. That attitude doesn't help anyone.
>>5447128
what's it like being born in 2000 and watching fight club for the first time. i'm sure it's thrilling
>>5447156
We talked about toxic masculinity, it's a bullshit term.
I do agree with you that masculine women aren't respected, and the best way to measure that is to consider how VERY masculine women are treated, not just tomboys. It does also prove, though, that being masculine is not always respected.
>>5447156
What exactly does toxic masculinity have to do with it?
>>5447160
No, it doesn't, but feminists claim that it's a problem with masculinity. Masculinity doesn't cause that attitude, though. It's mostly linked with socio-economic problems like poverty.
>>5447109
>Most women are willingly submissive in sexual and romantic settings
[citation needed]
We do not even know how deep social conditioning can shape a person's sexuality.
Going by the amount of men with a fetish for getting anally dominated, I would say that it is very, very likely that the ubiquitous cultural images of women in sexual servility causes many women to gain a fetish to put themselves into that position.
This has been talked about in feminism decades ago already.
>50 Shades of Gray
Good marketing. Why do you think Justin Bieber and Kanye West are so popular?
>>5447170
feminine men are pressured to conform otherwise they're ostracized by their peers
>>5447167
I think it's more telling to look at how slightly to moderately masculine women are treated compared to slightly to moderately feminine men. There definitely is an element of deviance from the norm being viewed in a bad light, that applies to pretty much everything. But it seems that feminine men are seen as failures at masculinity, whereas masculinity in women is seen as self-improvement, as long as they don't take it so far as to make themselves unattractive or make men feel insecure.
Of course the thread about SJWs uses the word "toxic" about 10,000 times. It's everyone's favorite feminist buzzword.
>>5447122
>If you're just talking about people being happy about being male
I'm not trying to imply anything. I'm just calling the earlier person out for making assertions without evidence.
>>5447190
Of course the thread about feminists uses the word "SJW" about 10,000 times. It's everyone's favorite far-reaching buzzword.
>>5447185
>whereas masculinity in women is seen as self-improvement, as long as they don't take it so far as to make themselves unattractive or make men feel insecure.
Because if they failed to do that, they'd be rejecting femininity. It's still deviation from a polar system that causes it, not masculinity.
>>5447177
Most women are willingly submissive, pulling a [citation needed] for that is the equivalent of doing it for stating that birds fly. Not all do, but denying the main concept is ridiculous.
While we're on [citation needed], you really can't prove that submissiveness is a fetish for women. Additionally, fetishes are deviations from the norm, such as FemDom (which you mentioned). Once again, women are predominantly sexually submissive, so how could it be a fetish if it exists on such a grand scale?
>>5447212
>Because if they failed to do that, they'd be rejecting femininity. It's still deviation from a polar system that causes it, not masculinity.
I'm saying it's a combination of both. The fact that "one of the boys" is a compliment but "one of the girls" is not is pretty telling.
>>5447231
"One of the boys" only lasts as a positive up to a certain age, though.
Why? Why did the LGBT community drink the Tumblr femtard kool-aid? This could have been prevented.
>>5447177
>Good marketing. Why do you think Justin Bieber and Kanye West are so popular?
Nice dubs and nice denial.
>>5447252
There's still really no circumstance (outside of the LGBT community) that a male being feminine is seen as a good thing at all.
>>5447253
I don't know.
I still cry.
>>5447253
put your nose in my crack and take a big whiff
>>5447267
A lot of girls dig feminine guys.
>>5447212
>Most women are willingly submissive, pulling a [citation needed] for that is the equivalent of doing it for stating that birds fly.
No anon, there is a huge burden of proof on you.
Do you realize how ludicrous you're being? Random 20-something year-old on 4chan makes a claim about the innate nature of female sexuality all around the globe and expects not to be challenged on it.
It's on the same level as saying that blacks are biologically inclined to be servile.
>>5447280
Yeah but in general calling a guy feminine is almost never a compliment.
>>5447212
>how could it be a fetish if it exists on such a grand scale
Because all of human history, mythology, fairy tales, traditional gender roles, ancient philosophers' opinions, modern TV series, movies, video games, books, and everything else a person starts seeing from age zero throughout their whole mental development, is full of the story of women being submissive and men being dominant in sexuality and relationships.
Given that, it would be *expected* that people accept these roles upon themselves. It entirely erases out any claim to be made about a biological inclination. Resets it back to zero, means we cannot know whether it's nature or nurture. A chicken-or-egg problem if you will: have humans become this way because men constructed such cultural images through political domination, or have men come to politically dominate because humans were biologically predestined to be so? (It doesn't need to be black-and-white either though.)
If you ask me, given the psychological flexibility of humans, given the lack of sexual dominance/submission in our closest relatives in nature (bonobos), and given the number of people who do *not* want to conform to these roles in *spite* of growing up with them from age zero, with the addition of the fact that these dominant/submissive roles lead to justification of violence against women, it is perfectly rational to lead a political movement to stop this mode of human sexuality and relationships.
Anyway, that's a load of bullshit to counter a simple claim of women wanting to be submissive. Ask them and see what response you get. Fantasies of *seduction* are the most you'll get out of most women, no submission and dominance.
>>5447287
I accept your challenge, but the only way to challenge it is to claim that it isn't true, and that most women are not in fact submissive, but aggressive actors. There's a lot more work cut out for you than there is for me.
And no, roping racism into the discussion is not acceptable, it's just more slander. This is a sexual, romantic, and social discussion, and all races have masculinity and femininity.
>>5447334
>but the only way to challenge it is to claim that it isn't true, and that most women are not in fact submissive, but aggressive actors.
Not neccessarily. You could claim it's an even split, or that say 2/3 or 3/4ths or whatever of women are naturally submissive, not the 90% or so that seem to be.
>>5447334
Sexism and racism make very good analogies. The only reason people don't realize this is that the old style ubiquitous racism and how it used to look has been forgotten, whereas sexism is still ubiquitous and deeply rooted in people's minds therefore invisible.
A close analysis reveals how equivalent they really are.
It was the main defense of slave owners that blacks were supposedly biologically inclined to be servile due to their lacking intelligence. Blacks would, in fact, get servile in practice because they were living under oppression, were uneducated, had their life force drained out of them, and were being told that they are destined to be servile by the only people around them holding power.
The very same argument is being made about women now. Men hold power in the sexual sphere; they define the language used to talk about sex, define the roles men and women take in sex, define how sex is done, and overall control our conception of it. They state that women are destined to be submissive in sexuality due to a biological inclination of wantonness. Women, having their sexuality oppressed, have no other choice than to believe this most of the time. Thanks to neoliberalism the commodification of sexuality, and some mistakes of liberal feminism, we have now even reached a point where some women actively take on that form of sexuality onto themselves.
Natural human sexuality would probably look most similar to that of bonobos. I would encourage you to look into them.
Why didn't the other anon just cite women being submissive. There's research on this and it's not exactly a secret. It's actually common among men too.
>64.6 percent of women had fantasized about “being dominated sexually”; 53.3 percent of men had
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/03/study-up-to-60-percent-of-women-fantasize-about-being-dominated/
>>5447332
Art tends to imitate reality, and trying to prove that the "norm" of human sexuality is constructed is going to be very difficult to do.
>given the number of people who do *not* want to conform to these roles in *spite* of growing up with them from age zero
A small number, and small numbers of people do not dictate the norm. Those people aren't wrong for wanting something different than the default, but it does not change what the norm is in reality.
>it is perfectly rational to lead a political movement to stop this mode of human sexuality and relationships.
No it isn't, because you're attempting to dictate to the majority what their sexual and romantic lives should be, it's very egotistical and controlling.
>Fantasies of *seduction* are the most you'll get out of most women, no submission and dominance.
And what exactly do you think a masculine form of seduction is?
>>5447371
washingtonpost
>>5447371
>It's actually common among men too.
Then it doesn't really prove anything.
>>5447371
Wow wow wow, 64% of women and freaking 53% of men fantasize of being sexually dominated, and that after
>all of human history, mythology, fairy tales, traditional gender roles, ancient philosophers' opinions, modern TV series, movies, video games, books, and everything else a person starts seeing from age zero throughout their whole mental development, is full of the story of women being submissive and men being dominant in sexuality and relationships
I can go to bed and sleep in peace now. Have a good day Murrican anons. It's 4:20 AM here.
>>5447384
The study is from the Journal of Sexual Medicine
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12734/abstract
>>5447398
Doesn't that just mean that cultural portrayal of relationships is relatively unimportant if we are all indeed brainwashed into thinking that women are submissive and men are dominant as you claim?
>>5447399
>What do you mean? Fantasizing about being dominated is pretty common.
I'm saying that if it's common in both males and females it doesn't really tell us anything about gender.
>>5447371
>"Among women, it was found that SF of being dominated, being spanked or whipped, being tied up, and being forced to have sex were reported by 30%-60%,” according to the study. ” … The fantasy of being dominated was significantly greater for women than for men, on average, whereas the fantasy of dominating was statistically stronger for men than for women, on average.”
>>5447056
>Obviously feminists don't think rape is OPENLY encouraged, but many think that rape is encouraged in more informal ways.
So it's basically a conspiracy theory based on pure conjecture?
>>5447736
It's not "pure conjecture" so much as awareness that social norms can encourage behavior without there being a conscious effort to encourage that behavior. I mean, most social norms arise that way.
>>5447185
>But it seems that feminine men are seen as failures at masculinity
It should be noted that this is not a universal sentiment.
>>5445830
Because SJW's believe that as a part of accepting gay culture they have to experience gay culture. It's all fine and good until there are more straight people in the bar trying to prove a point than gay folk trying to have a good time.
I am glad that there is support for the agenda, I do not need to be reminded about it when all I'm trying to do is get some ass.
>>5448180
Ah yeah, I can see how that would be annoying. Who the fuck goes to a bar to "show solidarity"? Christ.
>>5445857
Don't you have SCUM meeting to attend? Go tumblr elsewhere please.
>>5447754
>social norms can encourage behavior without there being a conscious effort to encourage that behavior
But what are these social norms that encourage rape? Is there any evidence that this is happening in the first place?
>>5448676
>feminist
>evidence
That's just mean, senpai
>>5447754
There might be some merit to your claim if rape was just avoided as as a subject of discussion, but it's actively discouraged through laws, social campaigning and popular doctrine. It's very hard to argue that there's a social subtext saying "rape is okay" when there are very overt, regular social reminders to the tune of "rape is bad."
Some people steal, even though society says stealing is wrong and we have laws against it. Are you saying that we are subtly encouraging people to steal?
People who break laws are generally pretty aware that they're doing something wrong. If they think they're in the right, then that usually implies they have a concept of morality that runs perpendicular to the cultural standard and therefore social conditioning failed to instill in them the same values as the rest of the population.
>>5445817
LGBT groups are shit, so are gay bars.
>>5448881
Most people don't even know what rape is.
Little anecdote on how fucked up men's thinking can be (only tangentially related to the topic but I like to give this anecdote): this one time I'm arguing with a dude who claims that women totally cheat more often and he says he can think of many women in his life (friends' wives and girlfriends) who cheated, yet can't think of a single man who cheated when he thinks about it. First I accept this, but as the discussion is stalling a bit after a minute or two, I think again, decide I kinda can't believe his claim, and ask again: "did you *really* never know a dude who was married and went to a brothel?" Phrasing the question like that was natural to me, since the most common cheating men do is to go to a brothel. To him, it was a mindfuck. He had to stop for a moment, come to terms with this new found realization that paying a prostitute to have sex with her is also cheating on your partner, and then stuttered "but that's different!"
Now, rape is most commonly committed by people a woman is close to. Date rape, drunken rape, spousal rape, you name it. And then, after it happens, there's tons and tons of denial, and men not even grasping that what they did *was* rape. Men don't understand that "having sex with someone who is not really willing" is literally rape. No, it doesn't have to include violence, drugging, and bondage. Being pushy and insistent like so many "pick-up artist" guides recommend can very much make you rape a woman, because women so often are utterly terrorized under the emotional forcefulness of men. You've been raised male, you've been taught to hit people in the face when you feel uncomfortable; women are taught to be quiet, polite, and docile. "No, fuck off, I don't want to have sex" can be impossibly difficult to bring to words for a woman who has been socialized as a "sweet girl" her whole life. Quite likely, she will painfully accept it, regret it, blame herself, and not talk about it.
>>5449493
>Quite likely, she will painfully accept it, regret it, blame herself, and not talk about it.
And recently, thanks to feminism, she has a new option. To call what happened what it truly is: a form of rape.
It's obviously outrageous for the "pushy" guy who thinks of himself as a cool master of seduction that what he did was coercive sex, i.e. rape, because he thinks he was being a benevolent womanizer when he "convinced" the woman to have sex and "help her overcome her unwillingness." That is how far male brainwashing/entitlement/arrogance goes; they cannot accept the premise that emotionally coercing someone into sex is a form of rape.
Oh and then there's the more blatant willingness to disbelieve women because "lol bitches be crazy."
Read https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story for a very good example of how a psychologically damaged woman (lots of abuse and switching households in her childhood) can actually fail to convince people that she was bound to a bed and raped at knife-point. The fucking police convince her to admit it to being a lie, and then they sue her. Can you fucking believe it?
People like to spread the myth that rape is most common in Sweden. In truth, Sweden is one of the countries with the highest gender equality and care given to women's issues, which leads to a much higher rate of rapes being reported by the women it happens to, more convictions, and more thorough documentation in the legal system, which makes their rape statistics get blown out of proportion in contrast to countries that simply fail to handle cases of rape properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
Rape is not what men think it is. It doesn't happen the way they think. It doesn't have the effects on women they think it does. It doesn't get reacted to the way they think they would react to it, because they fail to fucking call something rape when it is.
>>5445857
>It's a legitimate move for woman's lib to criticize a "slutty" woman for being that way; after all she causes this whole notion of "dirty sexuality" to be strengthened.
So much for giving women the freedom to make their own choices.
>Criticize the dominance/submission based sexuality in some gay communities and gay porn.
Why is that your problem? If that's what some people get off to, it's what they get off to. As long as they keep it "in the bedroom" so to speak and don't try to control and dominate their partners in a non-consensual, non-sexual way, I don't see anything wrong with it. Telling two consenting adults what they are and aren't aloud to enjoy sounds a lot like puritanism to me.
>Criticize the strengthening of gender stereotypes due to some people's misinterpretation of transsexuality ("being a woman means wearing dresses and being submissive"), and some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of women's rights.
"Some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of woman's rights." Are you even reading what you wrote? Swap "transsexual rights" for "black rights" and "women's rights" for "white rights" and you might as well jump right over to /pol/. Transgender women ARE women. Rights for transgender women IS THE SAME DAMN THING as women's rights.
>>5445772
Once you leave college avoid living on either coast of the US.
>>5449493
>I can't say no because I'm socially crippled so you raped me
This is why everyone thinks you're insane.
>>5450082
>So much for giving women the freedom to make their own choices.
Individual choices are meaningless if they further structural oppression.
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/12/14/shit-liberal-feminists-say-choice/
>Why is that your problem?
Because this culture of intricately tying dominance, submission, and other forms of violence with sexuality harms all people and women in particular.
Practice whatever fetishes you have in private, but don't normalize the notion of sexuality being inherently violent.
>"Some people's obsession over transsexual rights at the expense of woman's rights."
Yes, read
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/10/why-i-no-longer-hate-terfs/
>>5450125
>I can't say no because men socially cripple me
FTFY
This is why feminists hate you with a passion.
>>5450215
Externalize your own failures in character as much as you want, lady, you're as bad as those loser straight "nice guys" who dog your heals hoping that you'll throw them a pity fuck.
Just know that you're sabotaging legit feminists with your stare rape insanity.
>>5446050
Beheading is a barbaric practiced that's only used by the most retarded countries and people in history, if the condemnation was ever incorrect or wrong, the person would have no way to defend him/herself because the damage would be already done.
Furthermore the justice system puts people on jail time to get that person away from the society so he/she can't do any more damage, beheading is nothing more than revenge.
Lastly death penalties can always be used as a political maneuver to get someone from the opposition killed legally.
>>5450242
>lady
kek
>legit feminists
Oh yeah, tell me more about those.
>>5450092
Meh I live in Boston and hang out with a crowd primarily ranging in ages 21-28 and I mainly know about SJWs from the internet. It's really overblown.
>>5450347
>Beheading is a barbaric practice
Seems fitting for a barbaric criminal.
>thinking feminists actually, non-ironically support execution
>forgetting that this whole joke started with a ridiculous anti-feminist caricature
The intelligence is stunning in this one.
>>5450211
>Individual choices are meaningless if they further structural oppession
Please explain to me how the viewpoint expressed in that article is any different from the "I know what's best for you even if you don't, so shut up and do what I tell you" attitude that men had back in the 1800s.
>Practice whatever fetishes you have in private, but don't normalize the notion of sexuality being inherently violent.
I agree it's not inherently violent, but there's no reason people shouldn't be allowed to make it violent in private if they both agree to it and enjoy it.
>The "why I no longer hate terfs" article
The entire article is built upon the same "seperate but equal" argument that the US used for years to justify racism.
>>5450405
>Please explain to me how the viewpoint expressed in that article is any different from the "I know what's best for you even if you don't, so shut up and do what I tell you" attitude that men had back in the 1800s.
Because those men were making recommendations that would serve to uphold power hierarchies harming people.
These women are making recommendations that would abolish said power hierarchies.
>in private
Sure, what (radical) feminism criticizes is our porn culture that teaches people that sex is inherently violent and based on dominance.
>The entire article is built upon the same "seperate but equal" argument that the US used for years to justify racism.
I don't see this at all. Care to elaborate?
>>5450383
>Ask a question
>"lel you didn't answer"
>answer the question
>"lel you answered the question how dumb"
Might I remind you that someone did ask what's the problem? And that I never at any point said anything about feminism?
>>5450452
Whatever you say anon, whatever you say.
>>5450483
>"I'll post a smug anime face and no argument at all, that will surely show him"
>>5449493
>I talked with one guy in denial, so therefore men don't understand what rape is.
Feminists everyone.
>>5450509
>using "double quotes" in a quote
>>5450522
>I talked with one guy in denial
>implying implications
>assuming assumptions
>>5450524
>"not using double quotes in a quote"
>>5450532
>men are all obviously being brainwashed into being rape machines. Why can't everyone see?
>>5450562
>using a straw feminist argument
>>5450242
>Just know that you're sabotaging legit feminists with your stare rape insanity.
>>5450615
I'm exaggerating a little bit, but honestly it's not far off. Radfem anon's main argument in >>5449493 is that society brainwashes men into being violent and dominant. Hence, the statement "men don't understand that "having sex with someone who is not really willing" is literally rape." Because you know, this is a totally an unbiased viewpoint and not skewed by personal experience at all.
>>5450445
>These women are making recommendations that would abolish said power hierarchies.
And build new ones that conveniently happen to have women on top.
>sex and porn
I'm going to let this one go. I think we agree in spirit, if not in letter.
>the separate-but-equal argument
Let's take a quote from that article and swap the demographic to see if it still applies:
"Yes, [black people] deserve to be protected from employment and housing discrimination. Yes, they deserve to be protected from [racist] workplace harassment and referred to [with the respect they ask for]. Yes, they deserve to be protected from street harassment and violence. But do they really have the right to demand access to every [space] reserved for [white people]? Should a [white person] in prison really be forced to share a prison cell with a [black person]? (Or vice versa — the danger of having [black skin] in a [white] prison cuts both ways…) Whose needs come first and why?"
Seems like a Civil Rights era racist argument to me.
>>5450641
Do you have any "unbiased" sources that say otherwise?
>>5450677
That's not how burden of proof works.
>>5450682
That's an appeal to ignorance.
>>5450708
So neither of us can support our claims with evidence, but you're arbitrarily deciding he's right? Based on what?
>>5450675
>And build new ones that conveniently happen to have women on top.
LOL
>"Yes, [black people] deserve to be protected from employment and housing discrimination. Yes, they deserve to be protected from [racist] workplace harassment and referred to [with the respect they ask for]. Yes, they deserve to be protected from street harassment and violence. But do they really have the right to demand access to every [space] reserved for [white people]? Should a [white person] in prison really be forced to share a prison cell with a [black person]? (Or vice versa — the danger of having [black skin] in a [white] prison cuts both ways…) Whose needs come first and why?"
This falls apart here:
>But do they really have the right to demand access to every [space] reserved for [white people]?
White people are not an oppressed group.
>>5450740
No, but they did have spaces exclusive to them back in the 1950s and 60s.
>>5450749
Right, because they were oppressing others, not because they needed protection from their oppressors.
>>5450771
How exactly ARE men being brainwashed into raping machines? I am DYING to know, SJW.
With all the false rape bullshit going on, it's tempting to just say no to all sex. This is what your retarded "social justice" does.
>>5450771
>proving a negative
Phew, feminists everyone. Take a course in logic and learn what burden of proof is.
>>5450756
Denying others access to their space is still something they would have done, even if we recognize it as wrong.
>>5450784
>It's not my job to educate you shitlords! Blindly believe everything I say or it's rape!
>>5450793
Are you serious? If you want to claim that men are all brainwashed to being rape machines, the burden of proof is on you not me. You don't typically go around proving negatives because it is generally hard, impractical and unnecessary.
>>5450790
I don't understand your point.
Women create segregated spaces for themselves to get some comfort, since normally they feel under constant threat. Insisting that this and that group of people *must* be allowed into these spaces is pretty bad.
I don't see how an analogy of racist white-only spaces makes sense, unless you mean to claim that women are the real oppressors.
>>5446085
those first 3 lines are the truth though nigga
>>5450827
>Doesn't understand that my post was satire
Oh sorry. I appeal to poe's law.
>>5450827
What safe spaces and why would men ever need them? Who oppresses men?
>>5450827
>Then why do feminists insist on destroying any safe spaces men have?
I'm not sure how much of that is a feminism thing and how much of that is just a "woman desperately feel the need to intrude on any male spaces whenever possible because they want the attention".
>>5450901
>Who oppresses men?
The government forced me to sign up for the draft just because I was born male.
>>5450901
>What safe spaces and why would men ever need them?
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot, all men are rocks and completely impervious to emotional or physical trauma. You're a fucking idiot.
>Who oppresses men?
You do realize that oppression can happen at an individual level, and not just a societal level, right?
>>5450782
>How exactly ARE men being brainwashed into raping machines? I am DYING to know, SJW.
I'm not the person that made that claim, but I suspect it has something to do with how society encourages this view of masculinity as involving proving your dominance, taking things by force and so on.
>With all the false rape bullshit going on, it's tempting to just say no to all sex.
And why is that a bad thing? If people have shown that they can't have sex without raping people, why should they be allowed to have sex?
>>5450814
Why don't you prove a positive then? Prove that men are taught that rape is bad.
>>5450824
Even if they are, there's such a thing as being tactful and knowing when to keep your mouth shut.
>>5450910
Doesn't sound like women's doing.
>>5450917
>You do realize that oppression can happen at an individual level
Anon, the whole topic is structural oppression. I'm fucking facepalming here. What do you think is a safe space for? It's to protect an oppressed group of people from their oppressors.
>>5450949
>It's to protect an oppressed group of people from their oppressors.
So it's okay for abused women to have a safe space from their male abusers, just as an example, but not okay for abused men to have a safe space from their female abusers?
>>5450949
>Doesn't sound like women's doing.
Not specifically, but all of society including upholds this law.
>>5450937
>Prove that men are taught that rape is bad.
That is taught in practically every school in the west. From elementary school onwards you're taught that touching someone when he/she doesn't want you to is a bad thing.
1st class highschool you're taught that sex without consent is bad, causes psychological damage and might land you in jail.
Let's not forget all the educational posters hanging around in school campus.
Anyone with basic sex education is taught that rape is bad.
>>5450817
> normally they feel under constant threat
Not all women feel under constant threat. Do they get access to safe spaces too?
Some men feel under constant threat. Don't they need safe spaces?
What about Whites who feel under constant threat? Do they deserve safe spaces? How about Blacks? What about if you're in China - who deserves safe spaces there?
There's a difference between being under constant threat and feeling that you are. The former is unilateral oppression - of the real sort - while the latter is known as paranoia when it's unwarranted. Nobody in a first-world country is under constant threat by society at large, with a few minor exceptions such as pedophiles. Some people may feel that they're under threat and they should certainly have access to a "safe space." That's why we have domestic abuse shelters, therapists and rehab centers.
The problem is that when you decide to regulate safe spaces based upon how people feel, rather than facts, you lose the ability to decide who deserves a safe space. Why does someone in a majority not deserve a space if they feel threatened? Feelings are often irrational, but that doesn't mean they always are, nor does that mean they should be written. Should men have domestic shelters available, since men who suffer from domestic abuse are statistically-significant? What about support groups for men who suffer emotional abuse at the hands of family? What about gay men - and if so, how do you handle safe spaces for people who might feel threatened by others who qualify to enter them? This applies to lesbians, too. Or is it wrong to assume that a gay man feels threatened by all men just because he's been abused by only one, or perhaps a handful? Would that mean it's wrong to assume a woman is threatened by all men just because she's been abused by a one or a few? Do men and women internalize abuse differently - and if so, is that based on biology and natural instinct or upbringing and experience or even both?
>>5450965
By that reasoning you'd have to agree that the draft is 50% men's doing as well.
>>5450937
>Why don't you prove a positive then? Prove that men are taught that rape is bad.
Violent crime has been on a constant decline across the board in the US for decades.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls
>>5450966
>That is taught in practically every school in the west. From elementary school onwards you're taught that touching someone when he/she doesn't want you to is a bad thing.
Which is something that's pretty much dropped after 4th grade. In middle school kids would routinely punch each other in front of the teacher and no one would even do anything about it; even if bullying is verbally reported to the teacher they wouldn't do anything about it.
>the radfem shitposter continues across another thread
Jesus christ this is almost impressive levels of autism.
>>5450949
> Doesn't sound like women's doing.
Who said it was? What does that have to do with whether or not it qualifies as oppression? Someone claims that men deserve safe spaces, lists the draft as an example of difficulties men experience just for being men, and you immediately go on the defensive with the assumption that he's blaming women.
>>5450975
>I have no idea how this is relevant to the topic.
>"What safe spaces and why would men ever need them?"
>>5450982
Why would someone go on the internet and tell lies?
>>5450990
>>anecdotal evidence
It is illegal in every single western country.
That's pretty fucking obvious 'this is bad guys'.
>>5450982
Most teachers have their hands tied. Even touching a student can land you in serious hot water if the student decides they want to give you grief. Want to talk to a student alone? Better record the whole conversation on video to defend yourself.
Many teachers have also just stopped giving a shit a long time ago, particularly in poor urban areas.
>>5450998
Thank you. That's a much better argument against radfem anon's delusions.
>>5450998
>It is illegal in every single western country.
Only fairly recently, if you're talking about ALL forms of rape. And legality isn't really directly connected with whether something is socially encouraged and discouraged. It certainly is possible for social norms to encourage illegal behavior.
>>5450972
Anon, you seem to be lacking fundamental knowledge on the point of women-only spaces.
I don't feel motivated to teach you so much of the basics, sorry.
>>5450986
>>5450988
>>5450989
Are we still actually talking about the same thing? Let's rewind back, because there's some serious shifting of goalposts here to save face from losing a point in the debate.
>"Yes, [black people] deserve to be protected from employment and housing discrimination. Yes, they deserve to be protected from [racist] workplace harassment and referred to [with the respect they ask for]. Yes, they deserve to be protected from street harassment and violence. But do they really have the right to demand access to every [space] reserved for [white people]? Should a [white person] in prison really be forced to share a prison cell with a [black person]? (Or vice versa — the danger of having [black skin] in a [white] prison cuts both ways…) Whose needs come first and why?"
This falls apart here:
>But do they really have the right to demand access to every [space] reserved for [white people]?
White people are not an oppressed group.
Can we agree on the base line that it's ludicrous to compare white-only spaces to women-only spaces?
>>5450990
>Yes means yes
>all these feminist efforts to promote consensual sex
It's almost contradictory to deny that men are taught not to rape, when a sufficient percentage of feminist actions are about promoting consensual sex.
Like seriously, this and all previous likeminded actions
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/yes-means-yes-sexual-assault-california-high-schools
Apparently don't teach men that rape is wrong.
That's ignorant of your own cause.
>>5450990
Have you never seen anti-rape advertisements? I'm pretty sure that "if they're both drunk, the guy committed rape" poster is still floating around here every so often. It's a terrible poster with a terrible message, but it's still saying rape is bad.
>>5451027
Here you go, buddy.
>>5451021
>I don't know where you've been living, but in the western world schooling is now a libtarded zero-tolerance hugbox where no one can stand up for themselves.
I live in the northeastern United States, and was in public schools just a few years ago. Bullying was openly condemned, but when it actually happened the staff frequently did nothing. They were like "Well, we did our job telling them that bullying is bad, now we don't need to worry about it and it's just boys being boys."
>>5451021
>I'm glad the radfem shitposter is here. I need to vent my frustrations at someone.
If you pay a little attention you'll note that I devote the least energy to those who seem the least interested in an actual discussion.
Yesterday a couple people got blown the fuck out after denying structural inequality leading to a wage gap. After it was shown conclusively that there is a gender wage gap caused directly by sexism, people lost their minds and started to shitpost. It feels a little as today is still the aftermath of that, because the level of intellectual discourse is *significantly* lower than the previous days, in this and other threads.
Admitting openly that you want to vent is a good way to tell me that this is indeed the case.
>>5450211
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/10/why-i-no-longer-hate-terfs/
tl:dr :
>I swear I am totally trans inclusive
>Some trans did things that are bad for feminism
>(Also tranny should not go into true womyn space, they are not womyn eww amirite)
>Thus, i'll respect the hateful, provably wrong position of terf.
>You tranny shoud accept and embrace it too, support people that hate you on a fundamental level ([irony warning])
The choiciest quotes :
>"Personally, it costs me nothing to embrace the womanhood of transwomen"
Indeed, it costs nothing to announce one accepts transfolk - and refuse any demands for equal treatment.
>"Transphobia cannot survive the dismantling of male supremacy. "
Because obviously women can't into transphobia... These terf are obviously hatin' cause of partriarchy.
>"I will not reject my so-called “trans-exclusive” sisters either. [...]. And if transwomen are smart, they’ll do the same."
kek
>"Or will your transition serve to reinforce those injustices?"
>" you can’t really blame some women for questioning how well you’ve overcome your male socialization. "
Your terf is showing... pic related (christmas special just for you, excerpt from a book)
>>5451019
>only fairly recently
AND YET
It is still illegal.
Crazy how that works out, huh.
Besides, its not like children are told DONT MURDER. DONT KILL OKAY? ALSO DONT MURDER all day every day at school.
Yet, that's okay.
Also, you know, people joke about killing and death all the time, yet we dont have 'murder culture'.
Funny how that works out.
>>5451020
>I don't feel motivated to teach you so much of the basics, sorry.
What a not-so-subtle way of conceding defeat.
>>5451040
>Yesterday a couple people got blown the fuck out after denying structural inequality leading to a wage gap. After it was shown conclusively that there is a gender wage gap caused directly by sexism, people lost their minds and started to shitpost. It feels a little as today is still the aftermath of that, because the level of intellectual discourse is *significantly* lower than the previous days, in this and other threads.
I know this is kind of off-topic, but could you explain the wage gap and what evidence there is of it? Not trying to attack you or anything, but what I keep hearing from non-feminists and anti-feminists is that: A) the wage gap is just that women are less likely to take high-paying jobs, not that they're paid less for equal work and B) if women are paid less, why do people hire men instead?
>>5451023
A significant portion of feminists actions are about giving women zero accountability and zero power in sex. They are literally de-empowering women.
>>5451037
Really? Where I went to school everybody got in trouble during fights no matter who started it. This was 10 or so years ago before they became even worse.
>>5451040
Damn. I would have liked to have seen that. If there is a problem in society, I want it solved. SJWs hurt their own cause by looking like a bunch of lunatics. This is part of the reason I hate them.
>2015
>people still believe the wage gap myth
>>5451048
>Besides, its not like children are told DONT MURDER. DONT KILL OKAY? ALSO DONT MURDER all day every day at school.
>Yet, that's okay.
And that law has been around much longer than laws on say marital rape. That means it's had much more of an opportunity to influence social norms. Not to mention "thou shalt not kill" is an ancient aspect of Western culture, while thou shalt not rape is not.
>>5451061
And yet, it's STILL illegal.
And people KNOW its illegal.
>>5451058
>Really? Where I went to school everybody got in trouble during fights no matter who started it. This was 10 or so years ago before they became even worse.
Usually the only one who got into trouble was the victim if they fought back.
>>5451058
>A significant portion of feminists actions are about giving women zero accountability and zero power in sex. They are literally de-empowering women.
Stop undermining my position like that.
>>5451066
Okay, well if you're just going to keep ignoring the existence of social norms, then I see no point in trying to continue discussing this with you.
>>5451042
Congratulations, you managed to create an amalgam of two entirely different bodies of text and pretend that they are one and the same.
You seem like a highly intellectually honest individual.
>>5451050
Anon, imagine you're trying to teach someone calculus and you realize they can't add 2 and 2.
>>5451054
>could you explain the wage gap and what evidence there is of it
You can skim over it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States#Sources
>>5451074
>stop arguing against my position using logic
A man and a woman are both drunk and fuck, it's the man's fault. If two people fuck and the woman regrets it later, it's the man's fault. Yes means yes laws and Title IX are unfairly stacked against men.
Some guy invented nail polish meant to detect date-rape drugs, and feminazis smeared him for "victim blaming." Feminists do not want women to have power because then they are no longer needed. They do not care about reducing rape, they care about scaring people as much as possible.
>>5451020
>Can we agree on the base line that it's ludicrous to compare white-only spaces to women-only spaces?
I don't believe it is, to be honest. I believe it can be, but that depends on the context. If you're talking a modern first-world country where Whites are a majority, I'm inclined to agree - women do not face meaningful oppression in these countries, but they can have individual experiences that merit women-only spaces such as gender-segregated domestic abuse shelters. I'm not going to entirely discount the possibly of White-only safe spaces being valid in the future, however - depending on how social rhetoric proceeds in the next few decades, you may start to see some White children grow up extremely self-conscious about being White in the same way some Black children do about being Black. I'm not talking country clubs - the idea of a white-only social club has about as much merit as a black-only or women-only social club. Instead, I'm talking support groups, which are some of the few kinds of "safe spaces" that really hold any rationale.
>>5451092
>A man and a woman are both drunk and fuck, it's the man's fault.
You can generally count on the guy starting the sex.
I mean, are we living in the same world?
>>5451020
>Are we still actually talking about the same thing?
Probably not. I was just reacting to a post that strongly implied that men are not structurally oppressed and have no need for safe spaces.
>>5451103
>starting sex is rape
Phew
>>5451103
If a sober woman were to have sex with a drunken man, would that be rape?
>Still no response to my post here >>5450979
Can you explain to me, radfem anon, how your claim that dominance based sexuality leads to rape and violence if the statistics clearly show all of these dropping across the board everywhere? In fact, with the advent of the internet, the promotion of this kind of sexuality is more common now than ever before. And yet, rape incidents have been dropping. Can you explain that?
>>5451092
>Some guy invented nail polish meant to detect date-rape drugs, and feminazis smeared him for "victim blaming." Feminists do not want women to have power because then they are no longer needed. They do not care about reducing rape, they care about scaring people as much as possible.
I know all that shit. I'm just pretending it isn't the case so I can prove that the feminist notion of "all men are taught to rape" is completely untrue using their own machinations and actions against them.
Which is more fun than using your own things.
>>5451075
There was never a point.
You're a radfem.
You're never going to see any point to your contrary, because you MUST be right. Because you just have to be
>>5451084
>not reading the pic
>not reading the post
or alternatively
>thinking only Raymond is problematic
>thinking anybody that cites dworkin / says they are trans accepting (such as in the article) are indeed that
Anyway not answering the criticism...
>>5451109
If the other person is unable to consent, yes it is.
>>5451110
And presumably you mean the woman is the one who initiates it?
>>5451125
>the promotion of this kind of sexuality is more common now than ever before
Hasn't "dominance-based sexuality" been the primary form of sexuality for most of human history? If anything, feminism and the internet are making other forms of sexuality more acceptable.
>>5451133
Would you believe it if I said a woman can get up on stage and admit to having sex with a blackout drunk man while sober, and others would praise her for her "brave" story because SHE felt used?
>>5451134
>You're never going to see any point to your contrary, because you MUST be right. Because you just have to be
And the same clearly applies to you. You're insisting that laws change social norms the moment they're passed, because to believe otherwise would mean there's the tiniest chance of you being wrong, and you're unwilling to accept that.
>>5451144
Didn't Lena Dunham do that?
>>5451140
>And presumably you mean the woman is the one who initiates it?
A man who is blackout drunk and suffering from sleep deprivation drunkenly calls a woman with the intent of propositioning her for sex.
She arrives at his place, realizes he is blackout drunk and barely even capable of remaining conscious. At that point she is not inside his apartment. She chooses to enter the apartment and initiate sex with him. He falls asleep multiple times during the act and mostly cannot even remain hard. Is that rape?
>>5451150
Yes.
>>5451149
So your position is that the "social norm" is that rape is acceptable?
>>5451125
Things are overall improving recently.
And really, any sane person would understand that feminist efforts are one of the prime factors in decreasing violence against women. What you're saying proves that it's working. It just isn't finished yet.
>>5451136
Anon, you seem to have entirely misinterpreted the whole point of the article you linked.
>>5451144
Crazy shit happens. Source?
Obviously, I will point out next that 1. I don't exactly see this being an endemic problem, 2. likely, though not necessarily, men don't feel quite as "used" when someone puts the man's dick in their orifice, compared to how used women feel when someone puts a dick in the woman's orifice. But I'm not going to press on that argument.
>>5451149
>the moment they're passed
I never said that actually, but as a minority lesbian Im MORE than used to SJWs putting words in my mouth.
>>5451040
Please clarify what you mean by wage gap.
Are you saying that if a man and a woman are in the same position, at organizations of similar size, with similar levels of seniority, experience and ability and in areas of similar economy and cost of living, that the man on average makes notably more than the woman? Because I've repeatedly seen evidence to the contrary - plus, it begs the age-old question of "why don't companies just hire women so they can pay them less?"
Or are you saying that if you calculate average income between all working men against the average income between all working women, that the average between men is notably higher? Because that seems a bit of a gross simplification of data. Women don't typically express any desire or intention to become coal miners, for example, despite coal miners making a lot of money. Same with garbage collectors and plumbers, which are jobs that don't have the same physical requirements as coal mining.
>>5451154
>>5451150
Wait, derp, no she didn't (though that's another can of works IIRC. It was Amy Schumer.
>>5451156
https://archive.is/GKDGV
>2. likely, though not necessarily, men don't feel quite as "used" when someone puts the man's dick in their orifice, compared to how used women feel when someone puts a dick in the woman's orifice.
You're basically rewording the argument female rapists and their societal enablers use against their victims. "They enjoyed themselves!" "They got lucky!" Fuck off.
>>5451156
What's the end-game? When is the work finished?
>>5451163
The real reason the wage gap exists.
>>5451154
>A man who is blackout drunk and suffering from sleep deprivation drunkenly calls a woman with the intent of propositioning her for sex.
>She arrives at his place, realizes he is blackout drunk and barely even capable of remaining conscious. At that point she is not inside his apartment. She chooses to enter the apartment and initiate sex with him. He falls asleep multiple times during the act and mostly cannot even remain hard. Is that rape?
In that situation, I would say that the woman is a rapist.
>>5451155
My position is that MAY be the case. Among certain parts of the population it certainly seems to be. Overall the point is that legality, especially when it comes to fairly recently passed laws, doesn't really say much about social norms.
>>5451176
I'll grant that legality and social norms are not one in the same. See weed.
How do you feel about Islam? Why is it that feminism seems to bend over backwards to accommodate Islam while ignoring its obvious rape culture?
>>5451163
>wage gap
Skim through the reasons here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States#Sources
>>5451170
David R. Hekman and colleagues found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women. Customers who viewed videos featuring a female and a male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance although the actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. In a second study, they found that male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally well performing female doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance and should not be uncritically used to determine pay and promotion opportunities. They contend that customer biases have potential adverse effects on female employees' careers.[73][74][75][76][77]
Similarly, a study (2000) conducted by economic experts Claudia Goldin from Harvard University and Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University shows that when evaluators of applicants could see the applicant's gender they were more likely to select men. When the applicants gender could not be observed, the number of women hired significantly increased.[78][79]
And so on. Let's not repeat this. Deniers of the wage gap got BTFO pretty bad yesterday.
>>5451181
>How do you feel about Islam? Why is it that feminism seems to bend over backwards to accommodate Islam while ignoring its obvious rape culture?
I think it's due to how many humans tend to see things in overly simplistic terms, you're either for or against something, there are no other options. So many feminists and other socially liberal people are opposed to Islamophobia (i.e. senseless hatred of Muslim individuals) but it ends up getting distorted into being pro-Islam when people (either feminists or non-feminists) try to simplify complex attitudes into "for" and "against".
>>5451170
It's not the entire reason, but it's certainly one of the reasons. Nobody who goes into academia or social sciences should expect to be paid well.
That said l, there is some merit to the claim that many women are not brought up to perceive many of the better-paying career options as ones that are particularly desirable to them based on social influence over their tastes and preferences, but that's an extremely difficult issue to tackle, particularly because it's unclear if that's really an "issue." Say we systematically encourage women to go into business, medicine, law and the sciences and it works - is that a good thing? Is encouraging men toward those fields a good thing, for that matter? I worry about the prospect of pushing any field of study as "more desirable" than others.
Some women have no problem going for high-powered careers even if they're actively discouraged from doing so - should we be passively encouraging anyone, regardless of race or sex, toward any field instead of just presenting the options and letting them pick?
Of course, it's more complicated because what careers we want are often determined by what we like doing, which is in turn determined by horribly complex alignments of neurons in our brains that are established by not only our genetic predisposition but also how we're raised and how we react to how we're raised. The illusion of choice is indeed an illusion, because we don't choose how we develop - it can be influenced by others, but even they don't really choose. There is no real "self," because who we are is constantly changing, so there's really no way to free children up to the point they can meaningfully "make their own choice" while simultaneously influencing them toward certain careers. Encouraging anyone into the sciences is possible through selective encouragement and discouragement of behaviors during early development and continuing into adulthood. The problem is, that's disturbingly like child ptogramming.
>>5451140
>Hasn't "dominance-based sexuality" been the primary form of sexuality for most of human history? If anything, feminism and the internet are making other forms of sexuality more acceptable.
From what I've gathered, one of radfem's fundamental tenants is being against dominance based pornography (AKA most of it) and that culture. But that's more prevalent today than ever before in the past. The internet caters to all kinds of domination fantasies.
>>5451156
>And really, any sane person would understand that feminist efforts are one of the prime factors in decreasing violence against women.
Feminists who helped get abortion more common, sure. But it has nothing to do with speaking out against pornography that hurts your feelings. In fact, that kind of pornography is more common and more viewed today than ever before and yet rape and violence has gone down.
>>5451239
Could I see that report? I'm curious to see what the differences were between the two performers. General attractiveness, for example, or even acting ability or personal charisma.
I'd be interested to see if there was any difference on the perception of performance differences by men and women between men and women. To clarify, does the average man have the same degree of bias between men and women compared to the average woman? What about when you adjust the performers' level of attractiveness?
>>5451347
>I would say it has gone down in spite of porn getting more common.
Can you prove that? There's evidence that literally goes directly against one of your core stances. It's not something to gloss over.
>>5451336
When controlled for factors like occupation, hours, etc. wage gap numbers vary, but it's usually around 5-7 cents.
>>5451347
Arguably, giving people an easy outlet for sexual frustration that can basically be catered specifically to their tastes could very well be reducing the level of violence, which can often be the result of said frustration, and rape.
>>5451359
Why does "eighty cents on the dollar" keep getting touted, then? Or possibly seventy, I forget.
>>5451375
For sensationalist purposes usually. That number comes from an average of men's salaries vs an average of female's salaries which is woefully insufficient.
>>5451439
Oh wow, you are glossing over this. Here let me go through this again and tell me where I'm going wrong.
As a radfem, one of your core stances as is being against dominance based sexuality. The reason for this is because this culture "obviously" leads to violence and rape against women.
The rise of the internet has allowed this kind of pornography to grow dramatically in number and be consumed by anyone virtually anywhere. This culture thrives more than ever before.
So therefore, if what you said is true, then we should be seeing increases in rape and violence since everyone is growing up with the internet now, but that's not happening at all. In fact, the opposite is true, rape and violence is going down.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls
So in light of that, how can you still be sure your premise is even true?
>And really, any sane person would understand that feminist efforts are one of the prime factors in decreasing violence against women.
Like I said before, it makes sense with regards to abortion, voter rights, and stuff like that. But with your stance on pornography? Not at all.
>>5451486
>But with your stance on pornography? Not at all.
If anything, it's the exact reverse.
>>5451486
The prevalence of pornography is not the only thing that influences the prevalence of sexual assault.
Hence
>I would say it has gone down in spite of porn getting more common.
The publicity and laws around violence against women (including sexual) has skyrocketed thanks to feminism, after all.
>>5451501
Elaborate. I thought you were against the depiction of women in porn.
>>5451507
>The publicity and laws around violence against women (including sexual) has skyrocketed
Too tired to grammar properly but I hope it's understandable what I meant with that sentence.
>>5451439
Incidental sexual frustration has negligible effects, I believe, while consistent, repeated sexual frustration is what causes problems. Sex is wired into pretty much everywhere in the brain; even those who self-describe as "asexuals," despite whatever you think of them, will commonly describe sexual arousal and energy that may not be directed at anything. Low sex drive is a medical problem, after all, and often indicative of other, more serious health concerns.
I'm not saying self-control goes out the window by any means, but not everyone is the wired the same: some people can better tolerate severe deprivation of a biological drive than others, which is why not everyone goes batty in solitary confinement. We don't have foolproof means of screening the population of mental and physical problems, meaning some people will have issues that go undiagnosed until they explode.
>>5451507
You're ignoring the main point here.
>how can you still be sure your premise is even true?
>>5451508
I'm a different person anon, I agree with you entirely.
Porn/bdsm/sex-negative radical feminism can go choke on a dick.
>>5451406
> 7%
That's much better than everyone seems to make it out to be. Not perfect by any means, obviously, but 7% hardly seems worth emphasizing over other concerns unless it's really your biggest issue.
>>5451516
I'm talking about sexuality being associated with violence.
See bonobos and how they solve the problem.
>>5451520
>>how can you still be sure your premise is even true?
Well, because it makes a ton of sense. If we waited for clear-cut academic-study level evidence for every social problem, no deep change would ever happen. The crusade against racism never waited for studies to find conclusively that racist beliefs about blacks directly or indirectly lead to real violence against them.
>>5451522
>sex-negative
Calling anti-porn feminists sex negative is like calling someone criticizing McDonald's "eating-negative."
>>5451594
Except they're not just porn-negative and you know it.
>porn negative
As long as you stay away from gay porn.
My dick will be very angry if you don't.
>>5451587
>Well, because it makes a ton of sense.
How the fuck does this make any sense? I don't see literally a shred of evidence or a single logical connection that supports your argument.
>The crusade against racism never waited for studies to find conclusively that racist beliefs about blacks directly or indirectly lead to real violence against them.
What? People argued against racism because it was legally enforced and on the books (slavery and jim crow laws). Please don't pretend your stance is equivalent at all.
I think this is the crux of the argument here, and it says a lot about your character. You're just simply assuming that dominance based porn is clearly bad and obviously leads to violence and rape. And yet, there is not a shred of evidence to support that. In fact, there's even evidence that suggests the opposite and what do you do? Question your premise? Wonder if there's a good explanation for it? No, you just say you are obviously right and how could anyone question your judgment?
>>5451603
Yeah, they're also against prostitution, and against the idea that sex is inherently violent and tied with dominance and submission.
>>5451617
>How the fuck does this make any sense?
How does it not make sense that a whole culture associating sexuality with violence, dominance, occupation, owning women, using women, and fucking as hard as you can to prove your "manliness", would not lead to more sexual violence and assaults?
>People argued against racism because it was legally enforced and on the books
Only half the story. Pic related.
I think it's conceivable that in a 100 years, if everything goes the way feminists want it to go, people will look back at the times where men and women would DRESS DIFFERENTLY and think wow, holy shit, what an incredible segregation they had, the oppression was apparent even in the dress codes, and women would actually indulge in it. Like how FGM and foot binding is often done by mothers to their daughters.
It's a crazy thing to think about, but I can see it happening. Our imagination of how racism really used to look is probably pretty skewed too; if you went back to those times you would surely see people being very natural and casual about it, such that someone grown up in that culture would find it laughable to think that people would one day find the segregation and dress codes of blacks outrageous.
>>5451823
Exactly.
Sex-work negative.
For no reason.
The way to fix sex work is to legalise it, legislate it, and protect the women doing it.
Not to try and remove it wholesale. That has never worked and will never work.
And also sex isnt violent and dominance and submission is fun as fuck with a loving partner.
>>5451832
>For no reason.
Yeah, not like the biggest majority of women in prostitution are suffering from incredible violence and coercion.
>legalise it, legislate it, and protect the women doing it
Isn't working.
>Not to try and remove it wholesale. That has never worked and will never work.
http://www.feministcurrent.com/tag/the-nordic-model/
>>5451823
>How does it not make sense that a whole culture associating sexuality with violence, dominance, occupation, owning women, using women, and fucking as hard as you can to prove your "manliness", would not lead to more sexual violence and assaults?
Sounds like you're greatly exaggerating the actual impact of this culture to me. And again, I don't see any evidence of this happening; the opposite in fact. Again, why should I believe your premise to be true?
>Pic related
Not really, they're both intrinsically related. De jure segregation is what caused De facto segregation (slavery), not the other way around. Removing the former doesn't instantly fix the problem, but it did allow blacks to slowly begin to turn their lives around and its still a problem today.
Dressing differently is not oppression or equivalently to segregation. Clothing is obviously often modeled after the different genders. That's not to say that men shouldn't be allowed to wear dresses, of course they can, but it's generally something for women for an obvious reason.
>>5451873
>Dressing differently is not oppression or equivalently to segregation. Clothing is obviously often modeled after the different genders. That's not to say that men shouldn't be allowed to wear dresses, of course they can, but it's generally something for women for an obvious reason.
There's a very strong attitude that people SHOULDN'T wear the clothing of the opposite gender. I think that's what they're referring to as oppression.
>>5451894
I guess that's fair enough; I don't think it's a very important point though.
>>5451863
>isnt working
It's legal in a small subset of countries, and in 90% of those it's looked down upon and any kind of organised form is illegal.
Remove the stigma, remove the blocks. If it's legal and work in a brothel or whatever is perfecty legal, then women stuck in those violent or coercive environments have legal recourse.
Right now, they dont, because if they go to the police, oh look, they're arrested for prostitution.
The way it works in Sweden is interesting, sure, with the whole punish-the-buyer-only thing, but it's not good enough.
As for your link, it didnt seem to have anything particularly relevant to proving my point wrong.
Perhaps Im missing something or perhaps you mislinked.
But no matter how illegal a thing has been, ever, you will find people doing it.
See the prohibition in the states, and "accepting money for sex" is much much MUCH easier to hide than an entire alcohol production line.
And for a more moden example, see literally every western country outside Portugal and their treatment of drugs.
>>5451873
>I don't see any evidence of this happening
It's as hard to prove as to prove that the anti-Jewish propaganda of the Nazi would actually lead to more violence. Or caricatures of black people, or whatever.
>but it did allow blacks to slowly begin to turn their lives around and its still a problem today
Exactly. And the end of women's de jure segregation ended *after* that of blacks. You could say, anti-sexism is barely catching up with anti-racism. Women's situation is still much worse than black people's situation. (Speaking in US terms.)
>>5451913
>Right now, they dont, because if they go to the police, oh look, they're arrested for prostitution.
They still suffer from violence in Germany and the Netherlands, where there's full legalization, no?
>The way it works in Sweden is interesting, sure, with the whole punish-the-buyer-only thing, but it's not good enough.
I would say full legal is not good enough. Punishing the buyer is one step farther. But of course I'm looking at things from an abolitionist perspective, seeing exploitation inherent in prostitution...
>As for your link, it didnt seem to have anything particularly relevant to proving my point wrong.
I should have linked to a more direct article on it. What I had in mind was
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/08/11/actual-evidence-shows-the-nordic-model-works/
>But no matter how illegal a thing has been, ever, you will find people doing it.
Well nobody's proposing full legalization of child porn because people will always be doing it. I mean, the real question is are the harms of prostitution best minimized with something like the Swedish model, or with full legalization. I find the Swedish model superior because I think that people who are motivated to pay someone to have sex, without caring about her real willingness, are always going to be people motivated to exploit.
In my view, prostitution is inherently a form of rape. Rape is sex that you have with someone without their willingness. In prostitution, there is no willingness; money replaces it. So prostitution is buying rape, is how I see it. I know this is an extreme opinion to some.
>>5451992
>In my view, prostitution is inherently a form of rape. Rape is sex that you have with someone without their willingness. In prostitution, there is no willingness; money replaces it. So prostitution is buying rape, is how I see it. I know this is an extreme opinion to some.
As long as people aren't pressured into prostitution and are free to stop at any time, I don't think it's rape. Consent doesn't require you to be attracted to someone.
>>5451914
>It's as hard to prove as to prove that the anti-Jewish propaganda of the Nazi would actually lead to more violence.
The nazis were an explicit authoritarian ideology that was against Jews and would revoke many rights from them as their party platform said. Stop trying to pretend this is analogous to porn.
You STILL have no reason to believe that said pornography leads to rape or violence at all.
>Women's situation is still much worse than black people's situation. (Speaking in US terms.)
No, this is an outright lie. A black man has it far worse than your typical privileged white women. They are poorer, less educated, more likely to be incarcerated, more likely to be homeless, etc.
>>5451992
You cant say child porn and prostitution are the same thing.
Child porn is someone who literally cannot give consent, ever, under any circumstance.
Saying an adult woman who choses "You know, I'm attractive and smart and live in a cosmopolitan city. I can make money off my vagina." is in even a qarter of the same league as child porn is VASTLY out of order.
And yes, it's an extreme opinion.
Some women are forced into it by others.
They are the ones who need protecting - if their job is legal, and they wont get in trouble for it, then they can go to the police when theyre being treated badly.
Women who are forced into it by their situation (being poor, etc, rather than actual coercion), they're victims of a society that doesnt have enough social welfare. Women have the 'extra option' as it were of prostitution that men dont have as easy access to, but they shouldnt HAVE to exercise that. That's a problem, but not a problem with prostitution, that's a problem with welfare and the balance of riches.
Women who could do other work and CHOOSE to escort or whatever, they are in no way being 'raped'. They are being punished by law for what should in no way be illegal, anywhere. Its their body - if they WANT to accept money to allow someone else access to it for a while, then it is entirely their business.
We can agree that the Swedish model is good, since the people most likely to be victimised arent doing anything illegal and so they have recourse. It's an intelligent and elegant attempt at a solution.
Problem is that since it's still illegal, at least notionally, it's stigmatised - women are less likely to speak out against exploiters or abusers if admitting they do something like that is going to fuck them over.
>>5452020
I believe in willingness as opposed to consent.
Marx said all workers were prostitutes. That's also an interesting way to look at things. I think it's a lot more personal and cruel in prostitution though.
>>5452029
>You STILL have no reason to believe that said pornography leads to rape or violence at all.
See >>5452124.
>No, this is an outright lie. A black man has it far worse than your typical privileged white women.
Congrats ignoring all women in poverty and especially, you know, black women.
I believe we have more blacks in high positions than we have women in high positions now.
Anyway, I never intended to turn that into oppression Olympics, so sorry about that.
>>5452082
>You cant say child porn and prostitution are the same thing.
Well sure, I just think both are bad.
>They are the ones who need protecting - if their job is legal, and they wont get in trouble for it, then they can go to the police when theyre being treated badly.
As far as I understand, the experience in countries with full legalization is that illegal prostitution fosters around the legal prostitution anyway. You get this culture of normalized prostitution, and so people don't mind taking part in the illegal kinds.
Something like the Swedish model is an explicit commitment against the whole culture of prostitution.
>Problem is that since it's still illegal, at least notionally, it's stigmatised - women are less likely to speak out against exploiters or abusers if admitting they do something like that is going to fuck them over.
Women in prostitution never want to speak out generally, but the "morals" implied by the Swedish model at least supports them, saying "you are in an unjustly disadvantaged position and whenever you need it, the law is going to be fully on your side, no questions asked."
Anyway, I don't think I have any very persuasive arguments for the Swedish model for someone who strongly believes in full legalization. And my wrists are hurting a lot from typing, so I'll leave it at that for today. I'm happy we can agree that the Swedish model is good.
Would recommend reading more articles from Feminist Current BTW. They're very good.
>>5452164
As for the oppression olympics, the difference is that women are born into all classes of society while blacks are disproportionately born into the poorer class. So if you average it together, women come out much better off than blacks which should be pretty obvious given gang violence, incarceration rates, education levels and all that.
>anecdotal stories that I can't even confirm whether or not they are true is clearly proof
Sure thing. You have no evidence, I've shown a trend (decrease in rape and violence despite internet porn) that goes directly against your premise, and you STILL believe it's true? You need to rethink your position; this is fundamentalist tier doublethink.
>>5452210
Well women in high positions also suffer from sexual predation and discrimination so it's kind of a complicated thing. Poverty is only one clear marker of oppression.
>You have no evidence
Do you have evidence that racist propaganda leads to violence?
>I've shown a trend (decrease in rape and violence despite internet porn) that goes directly against your premise
The fact that feminism has flourished in the same time periods zeroes out that evidence for me.
There might also be tons of other confounding factors. Sociology be hard.
>>5452267
>Do you have evidence that racist propaganda leads to violence?
No why would it?
>The fact that feminism has flourished in the same time periods zeroes out that evidence for me.
Correlation != Causation
>There might also be tons of other confounding factors.
Legal abortion is far, far more likely.
>>5452282
>No why would it?
Are you opposed to racist propaganda? (Say if it were on TV all day every day.)
>Correlation != Causation
Er, exactly what I'm saying. The correlation between the drop in sexual assaults and raise of porn does not imply any causation. It's not counter-evidence to my claim.
>Legal abortion is far, far more likely.
Not sure what you mean. I was talking about confounding factors leading to decrease of sexual assault. Factors irrelevant to both porn and feminism... Like say better forensic methods, such as DNA matching.
>>5452314
>Are you opposed to racist propaganda? (Say if it were on TV all day every day.)
Legally? No. Personally? I don't care because I don't watch TV.
>The correlation between the drop in sexual assaults and raise of porn does not imply any causation.
Correct.
>It's not counter-evidence to my claim.
Incorrect. Your claim is essentially "if the culture around dominance based porn exists, then it will lead to more rape and violence." In other words, "if X is true, then Y." Right now you claim X is true, so Y should have happened, but we see that Y is false, so this statement is false. Obviously, it's not a 100% counter, but it is certainly counter evidence to your claim.
>Not sure what you mean.
You're not aware of this? Aborting kids you don't want leads to lower crime rates since they won't grow up in poverty. There's some criticism of course (for example, another theory is the decrease in exposure to lead).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
>>5452350
>Legally? No. Personally? I don't care because I don't watch TV.
Well you're very careless.
>Your claim is essentially "if the culture around dominance based porn exists, then it will lead to more rape and violence." In other words, "if X is true, then Y." Right now you claim X is true, so Y should have happened, but we see that Y is false, so this statement is false.
You're assuming a lack of confounding factors.
There is also Z, and Q, and P, and A and B.
>Aborting kids you don't want leads to lower crime rates since they won't grow up in poverty.
Oh I see, OK.
Yeah, that might be one of the many possible confounding factors.
>>5452366
>Well you're very careless.
Why? Racist propaganda is going to bother plenty of other people and it'll get thrown off the air quickly. Even hypothetically, it's not an issue.
>You're assuming a lack of confounding factors.
No that's why I said it's not a 100% counter. But it's still counter evidence and you still have yet to provide any supporting evidence.
>>5452377
Oh well, imagine nobody cares about the racist propaganda and even black people laugh at it.
But then imagine at the same time lynchings of black people are common.
How would you feel then? Fucking insane eh?
>But it's still counter evidence
Not really no, it's simply invalid since confounding variables aren't controlled for.
>you still have yet to provide any supporting evidence
As I keep saying, that's like asking for proof that ubiquitous racist propaganda leads to violence.
>>5452407
>How would you feel then?
I wouldn't care at all about black people laughing at racist propaganda. I mean they laugh at black jokes already, what's the difference? Lynching is bad for obvious reasons. Murder robs someone of their life without consent.
>Not really no, it's simply invalid since confounding variables aren't controlled for.
Wrong. It's simply evidence for the negation of your claim NOT the inverse. There's a difference. If, as you say, such sexuality leads to more violence and rape, then it should show in the statistics, but it has not. You can argue that other factors resulted in the outcome we see, but it is up to you to demonstrate that and you still have yet to however much you want to protest about it. It is a valid counter.
This article is interesting and relevant to the discussion.
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/09/14/melbourne-university-takes-bold-position-against-porn-students-turn-to-liberal-feminism/
>>5452423
You would not think the ubiquitous airing of caricatures of blacks as savage in all media all day is kind of worrying, especially if lynchings of blacks were happening all over the country?
If you still say "no biggie" then I give up.
>It's simply evidence for the negation of your claim
No anon, it is non-evidence. The thing you say is "evidence" is not evidence. It's invalidated by the fact that you have ignored confounding variables.
do u even science?
>>5452444
>You would not think the ubiquitous airing of caricatures of blacks as savage in all media all day is kind of worrying, especially if lynchings of blacks were happening all over the country?
I would think that the lynchings would be far more worrying than racist jokes. I don't think Tom and Jerry turned anyone into racists.
>do u even science?
Do you? If as you say, there are other confounding variables, you need to demonstrate clearly that those variables are what caused the decrease and also show a link from porn to increases in rape in violence when you remove those. And you still have yet to do so. All I am arguing is the negation of your claim, and I am not obligated to find those variables for you.
>>5452467
>you need to demonstrate clearly that those variables are what caused the decrease
You clearly don't understand how science works.
You don't need to demonstrate that confounding variables *did* cause this and that to say that, *without* considering the confounding variables, the evidence is valid.
*You* would need to prove that the confounding variables *don't* make a difference, for your evidence to be valid.
>I would think that the lynchings would be far more worrying than racist jokes.
Would you agree that the racist jokes are part of the problem?
>>5452520
The obvious mistake that you are making here is assuming your premise to be true. You're claiming there are other variables. Show them and show that they caused an overall decrease despite the increase caused by the abundance of porn. That's on you not me.
>Would you agree that the racist jokes are part of the problem?
No, what the hell is wrong with racist jokes? I laugh when people make fun of whites, spics, indians, chinese, or whoever.
>>5452541
>You're claiming there are other variables.
Didn't we just agree on e.g. abortion?
Also feminist efforts on raising awareness and changing laws.
Also forensic improvements.
These are off the top of my head.
lrn2science pl0x
>what the hell is wrong with racist jokes
In a culture where people lynch the targets of racism, the jokes are part of the culture allowing that violence.
If we cannot even agree on that, I quit.
Well I quit anyway because 2 AM, wrist pains, tired, got other stuff to do.
See you tomorrow.
>>5452601
Let's say all of those are valid (the validity of all of them are disputable even abortion). You still have to show that there would be an increase in rape and violence in the absence of those factors. Can you do it?
>In a culture where people lynch the targets of racism, the jokes are part of the culture allowing that violence.
Some who jokes about it, but is not directly involved in said lynching is not a part of the problem. They could, in fact, be making a social commentary to the opposite effect.
>>5452620
Omit "directly," that's too strong. Just "involved" will do.
>>5452601
Feminist efforts on using bloated statistics to make men as afraid as possible of satisfying their biological hard-wired urges.
Also, you're claiming that if I made less racist jokes Michael Brown would still be alive. Fuck privilege, give me concrete shit I can do to end racism and rape or fuck right off.
>>5454020
>biological hard-wired urges
[citation needed]
>if I made less racist jokes Michael Brown would still be alive
No. The right analogy would be:
"If we collectively made racist media highly punishable and enacted many other civil laws to send a strong message throughout our culture that racism of any sort is absolutely not acceptable, then there would be a higher chance that Michael Brown would still be alive."
But that's still not a good analogy, because racism in the media already doesn't fare in the US. The racism is suppressed, just not yet eliminated. Sexism on the other hand fares very well in media, and is otherwise ubiquitous, hence a much higher chance everywhere of women receiving workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, lower social standing, disbelief in their accounts of crimes committed against them, and ultimately sexual abuse and even killing in many more fringe cases.
Prostitutes are 40 times more likely than the general population to be murdered, and US media would like you to view ALL women as one or another kind of prostitute.
