No Sex For You, Young Man - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15115604
Politics_Observer wrote:@Godstud @wat0n @Pants-of-dog

I guess I have ran across a little more extreme versions of feminists in my time. Plus, I am definitely a masculine guy. A lot of them seem like domineering, masculine, strong and on constant mission for equality. I am not attracted to a woman that projects a masculine sort of energy given I am a guy and not gay. Not to mention, I could see where I am basically going to end up clashing and so I steer clear of those type women and just treat them like a guy friend minus talking about sex or romance or gender issues with them. Those are minefield issues with feminists.

My current wife and I share a pretty equal relationship and are very happy. I don't feel like she is trying to be domineering or masculine or is constantly obsessed with being on a mission for equality for women. I am not like always trying to "take charge" all the time or dominate though I can take charge at times and make a decisive decision when I need to and it's necessary. Sometimes, she makes decisions on things. It just sort of goes back and forth.

But the feminists you run across you feel like you will eventually enter a mind field with them where if you step right, you step on a mine and if you step left you step on a mine. Given that is the case, it's probably a good idea not to enter the minefield in the first place and steer clear of them. You are very unlikely to be able to come out unscathed if you come out at all walking into a minefield.

I guess it depends on how extreme the feminist is. My wife doesn't describe herself as a feminist nor would I describe myself as a feminist. I just like to be known as a regular person who is a guy. And it's OK to be a guy. It's not a crime. Just like it's OK to be a woman and it's OK for a woman to project feminine energy if that is who she is. I am attracted to women who are more feminine.


What you are describing is a specific sector of radical feminists. And yes, those do exist - some radical feminists do want to live separated from men, some do believe lesbianism is a political choice and of course some have that special fashion with them. My girlfriend is not one of those feminists, naturally, since they don't have boyfriends.

Politics_Observer wrote:Another thing I have noticed about feminism here in the U.S. is that feminism has benefited white women but NOT black women. And I am going to tell you, I think Trump is a white supremacist and I think at it's core, the Republican party is ultimately a white supremacist party. So, when I hear feminism I also associated it with hypocrisy where it's about only white women getting equality here in the U.S. and tell hell with everybody else.

Feminism here in the U.S. has strengthened white supremacy and harmed the cause of the equality it supposedly is fighting for. So, I am very suspicious of the true motives of feminists here in the U.S. especially when I see how white supremacy has benefited from feminism here in the U.S. and the fact that white women voted for Trump in large droves. This all provable facts.

It seems, the beneficiaries of feminism here in the U.S. that preach the notion of equality seem to turn a blind eye to white supremacy and have forgotten black women for example. Feminism seems to be geared towards white women and white women on a big scale enthusiastically supported and voted for Trump who came to power on a backlash of white supremacy towards the Obama presidency. So, I am not sure feminists are really about equality as much as they say they are.


Sounds like the usual criticism by intersectional feminists. I think it's only partially correct, as the idea of interserctionality taken to its logical conclusion becomes an absurd oppression grocery list and the original analogy to support it is pretty nonsensical when you try to visualize it.

You could read some of Kimberlé Crenshaw's writings on that matter. She's the one who introduced intersectionality into our lexicon in 1989.
#15115606
@wat0n @Godstud

Here is an opinion piece on how white suffergettes sold out black people and compromised with white supremacy:

Brent Staples of the New York Times wrote:Americans are being forced to choose between a cherished lie and a disconcerting truth as they prepare to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment in 2020. The lie holds that the amendment ended a century-long struggle by guaranteeing women the right to vote. The truth is that it barred states from denying voting rights based on gender but “guaranteed” nothing. More than a dozen states had already granted millions of women voting rights before ratification, and millions of other women — particularly African-Americans in the Jim Crow South — remained shut out of the polls for decades afterward.

While middle-class white women celebrated with ticker tape parades, black women in the former Confederacy were being defrauded by voting registrars or were driven away from registration offices under threat of violence. When the black suffragist and civil rights leader Mary Church Terrell petitioned her white sisters for help, they responded that the disenfranchisement of black women was a race problem — not a gender problem — and beyond the movement’s writ.

This counterfeit distinction was familiar to black suffragists, who had argued for more than 50 years that they could no more separate gender from race in themselves than shed their skins. The movement, however, had tended toward a definition of “women” that was implicitly limited to people of the gender who were white and middle class. Its most prominent advocates — Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony — drove home that notion by rendering black women nearly invisible in their hugely influential “History of Woman Suffrage.” As the push for white women’s rights neared its goal — a constitutional amendment — the movement hedged its bets by compromising with white supremacy.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/opin ... emacy.html
#15115608
wat0n wrote:Feminism goes well beyond just that, though. And I do agree with equal rights for people of all genders.

For instance, although I don't have any issues with those concepts, I also don't think sexism is necessarily the main reason for the wage gap. Good luck finding a feminist who doesn't believe sexism is the main reason for any and all ways women may be worse off than men.

THere's lots of feminists who say really dumb shit. But I still consider myself a feminist.
#15115611
Unthinking Majority wrote:THere's lots of feminists who say really dumb shit. But I still consider myself a feminist.


It all depends on how you define the term. But if you define "feminism" as simply equal wage for equal work or equal civil rights then of course most people are feminists and have been since... Well, since the '60s or something. This is something a fairly standard socialdemocrat or a liberal could support (the latter would probably believe that it would probably be more efficient to understand why the market equilibrium is like that while the former would just mandate it by law).
#15115613
@wat0n @Unthinking Majority @Godstud @Pants-of-dog

Yes, but HERE IS THE THING, why did feminism throw black women under the bus and compromise with white supremacy? It seems that feminism in it's true form is just about white women getting theirs and to hell with everybody else. That's bullshit man! It's nice to talk about lofty ideals and all that but at the end of the day, it's just talk if you don't back your spoken principles up with actual substance and action.

People who really pay attention won't take you seriously if all you do is talk about your ideals but don't fully back them up with action. They will also question if you really mean what you say. If you really have principles, you don't compromise on those principles and you stick to your guns. I watched the election of 2016 where white women, who have benefited greatly from feminism, just basically threw minority groups under the bus and voted for Trump.

And white women did so, because they actually enthusiastically supported white supremacy. Is that really supporting equality? So, while feminism sounds nice and has lofty ideals, the reality of the real world tells a different story. I don't pay attention to peoples words. I pay attention to people actions. The actions of people tell the true story. I say this as a white guy now. I am white. I am not black. But I also like to pay attention to the actual facts of the real world and what people actually do rather than what they say. You set the example by your actions and not your words.
#15115617
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n @Unthinking Majority @Godstud @Pants-of-dog

Yes, but HERE IS THE THING, why did feminism throw black women under the bus and compromise with white supremacy? It seems that feminism in it's true form is just about white women getting theirs and to hell with everybody else. That's bullshit man! It's nice to talk about lofty ideals and all that but at the end of the day, it's just talk if you don't back your spoken principles up with actual substance and action.

People who really pay attention won't take you seriously if all you do is talk about your ideals but don't fully back them up with action. They will also question if you really mean what you say. If you really have principles, you don't compromise on those principles and you stick to your guns. I watched the election of 2016 where white women, who have benefited greatly from feminism, just basically threw minority groups under the bus and voted for Trump.

And white women did so, because they actually enthusiastically supported white supremacy. Is that really supporting equality? So, while feminism sounds nice and has lofty ideals, the reality of the real world tells a different story. I don't pay attention to peoples words. I pay attention to people actions. The actions of people tell the true story. I say this as a white guy now. I am white. I am not black. But I also like to pay attention to the actual facts of the real world and what people actually do rather than what they say. You set the example by your actions and not your words.


That's what intersectional feminists try to address. But again, the concept does have its own fair share of problems.

I think you should read this:

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi ... ntext=uclf

If you read it critically you will see both the pros behind intersectionality (it acknowledges a person's gender-based problems may depend on the person's race/ethnicity) and the cons (it effectively creates a grocery list of both real or imagined classes of oppression to which people are being subjected to with more elements on the list meaning you are being victimized, or oppressed, more. If you place this idea under scrutiny, you should be able to see it doesn't make sense either. The analogy she uses to illustrate the idea is also really, really bad if you try to visualize or draw it).

But that the radical feminists have been thinking about these things, well, yeah they have.
#15115620
@wat0n

I am not a serious student of feminism as I am a guy and have always viewed feminism designed for and aimed at the interests of women and not men. So, naturally, I am not going to take much interest in it given that it doesn't concern my interests as a guy and is aimed at the interests of women. However, once I finish doing some studying for my CompTIA A+ exam, I'll take a read. I appreciate you sharing the link.
#15115621
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n

I am not a serious student of feminism as I am a guy and have always viewed feminism designed for and aimed at the interests of women and not men. So, naturally, I am not going to take much interest in it given that it doesn't concern my interests as a guy and is aimed at the interests of women. However, once I finish doing some studying for my CompTIA A+ exam, I'll take a read. I appreciate you sharing the link.


No worries, I view it (mostly) on the same terms.
#15115622
@Politics_Observer When I mean masculine traits, I was not referring to physical ones. :D Most of those traits we'd associate with a strong and sexy woman, are "masculine" traits.

Few things are sexier than a brave, intelligent and independent woman. We'd like to think that certain traits are masculine, but are they? really?
#15115623
Politics_Observer wrote:@wat0n @Unthinking Majority @Godstud @Pants-of-dog

Yes, but HERE IS THE THING, why did feminism throw black women under the bus and compromise with white supremacy? It seems that feminism in it's true form is just about white women getting theirs and to hell with everybody else. That's bullshit man! It's nice to talk about lofty ideals and all that but at the end of the day, it's just talk if you don't back your spoken principles up with actual substance and action.


I do not see the white US suffragettes as the one true feminist movement. This might be because I was not raised in an Anglophone family or in the USA. This seems like just one of many feminist movements at the time, even if we only look at the USA. If we look worldwide, we see other suffragette movements. Haudenosaunee women were able to vote several centuries earlier, for example.

It seems arbitrary to decide that this is the one true feminism. It seems more correct to see it as one particular example that became the most famous because the people were white, had money, and were from the USA.

Even your quoted text discusses a woman’s suffrage movement by black women that occurred at the same time; the ones that the white women threw under the proverbial bus. Why would this black women’s suffrage movement be any less true than its white counterpart?
#15115631
@Pants-of-dog

Why would this black women’s suffrage movement be any less true than its white counterpart?


What do you mean and what does that to do with my assertion? Are you saying my assertion is false? That feminism does not benefit primarily white women at the expense of minorities here in the US? It seems like what you are saying is that minorities are totally liberated and not oppressed. And that white women can never be an oppressor and never be racist and would never use their vote to maintain white supremacy nor would they never compromise with white supremacy to get the right to vote at the expense of others. If so, that sounds pretty naive. It also seems like you might think white supremacy ONLY exists in the U.S. and has NEVER existed elsewhere. Is this what you think?
#15115681
Politics_Observer wrote:@Pants-of-dog



What do you mean and what does that to do with my assertion? Are you saying my assertion is false?


You said that the white US woman’s suffrage movement was the one true feminism.

I am pointing out that it is not. It is just one example of feminism.

That feminism does not benefit primarily white women at the expense of minorities here in the US? It seems like what you are saying is that minorities are totally liberated and not oppressed. And that white women can never be an oppressor and never be racist and would never use their vote to maintain white supremacy nor would they never compromise with white supremacy to get the right to vote at the expense of others. If so, that sounds pretty naive. It also seems like you might think white supremacy ONLY exists in the U.S. and has NEVER existed elsewhere. Is this what you think?


No, I am not claiming any of these things.
#15115757
@Godstud @Pants-of-dog @Unthinking Majority @wat0n

Aside from all that and like I said before, I am not a serious student of feminism so I don't know much about it. I think women should have the right to vote just like anybody else, but it shouldn't come at the expense of minority rights. The right to vote for women should also include the right to vote for minority groups and minority women too. It shouldn't be about white women getting theirs and to hell with everybody else. White supremacy is a very serious problem here in the U.S. I think white supremacy is a threat to our republic quite frankly speaking and could turn us into a dictatorship. Right now, as we speak, Trump and his republican enablers are seeking to rig the election by engaging in voter suppression in battle ground states.

Another thing to consider, when American white suffragettes made a deal with the devil to get the right to vote for white women at the expense of the rights of blacks and minorities, they could ultimately lose that right to vote under a Trump dictatorship that Trump is trying to install here in the U.S. Make no mistake about Trump. He is a white supremacist who is dangerous. Trump certainly doesn't care about women's rights but he is happy to use women who vote for him to help him install his dictatorship here in the U.S.

He is also a weak man who wants to be dictator and he will suppress the vote of minorities to do it and once he's dictator, he'll turn on those white women who voted for him. And white women voted for Trump in large droves because they supported white supremacy too. You cannot understand American politics without understanding the role that race and white supremacy has played in American politics.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The photo in the article showing tunnels supposedl[…]

Warnings for civilians to evacuate, including drop[…]

What interests are those? He is an honorary US […]

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]