"Incel" terrorism

[o_O.Q]

Jaicee said:

Aeolus451 said:

Meh. I never liked that expression "as a" woman or some other identity. It doesn't really mean anything  because people aren't monolithic in general. It doesn't even work "as a feminist" because as you explained, there's different kinds. Anyway, I like conversations  like this believe it or not. They're entertaining and mentally stimulating. I'll check out that vid as I'm going thru my daily podcasts and what not.

I don't think I'm projecting. I think that the vast majority of women and men want to get along and for there to be equality. I think the vast majority of women and men (people in general) want to have sex with, form lasting relationships, have a family with eachother. For the most part, western feminism/the MGTOW movements are antithetical what people want and poisonous to relationships. If anyone is projecting their interests, it's feminists onto women and MGTOWs onto men.

Collectivism and the collective good aren't mutually exclusive. I get what you're saying about rad fems being more interested in the collective good but I disagree about liberals  of today and the conventional left being more individualistic. They are obsessed with collectivism but only with certain groups in society being a part of their umbrella group. Everyone else they demonize. There's also alot of sex negative fems in there. The way you're using liberal in context with feminists makes me you're talking about sex postitive fems. I don't consider them liberal. This ties into the marxists and I agree with ya on them in general. 

I agree on with ya on the born gay thing but likely for different reasons. I think that people make the choice and not their impulses. Alot of people don't like this because it means that people are ultimately the one responsible for their choices and not something that's convenient to blame. Some might misinterpret my stance on that because they think that I'm religious because I'm right leaning. I just think that a person's choice is a very powerful thing and a person gets to choose most of their life and not some god or their impulses. My stance on "born gay" ties into my interactions with lesbians and my opinion on choice.

I agree with you on lesbians in general. I used to be friends with alot of them (shared interests). I get along with them well except for the man haters and the ones who became one because of sexual abuse/sponsal abuse. I was introduced to and became friends with lesbians thru dating bisexual women. Lesbians kinda think like guys when it comes to women. Conversations were pretty intriguing, entertaining and enlightening for me. I realized fairly quickly that lesbian is more of a mutable term rather than a absolute one. 

I think the non-binary stuff is nonsensical but hey people can do what want but therein lies my problem with them, they or their advocates want to dictate thru law how others refer to them. I'm just not okay with that authoritarian shit. I'm fine with using the intended gender of trans women and men when look like that gender because it falls in social norms to some extent but again they shouldn't force people thru law. 

Yeah, sometimes I enjoy these types of conversations too, as long as they don't get too bitter. It's a challenge, you know, trying to communicate productively with someone you disagree with almost entirely, but precisely for that reason, it can feel good to succeed and I think we have to some degree here. It makes for a worthwhile learning experience!

Anyway, you say that "there are a lot of sex negative feminists out there". Really, because I've seen exactly one self-described sex-negative feminist lifetime total so far (this one five years ago), and she wasn't exactly a radfem, or for that matter anti-sex or particularly unreasonable at all. She was simply someone who felt that society should not actively promote sex as a life goal, but rather should be publicly neutral on.

"Sex-positive" or "pro-sex" are what I like to call posturing terms. They're terms that some liberals use to imply that anyone who brings a feminist critique to the conduct of the sexual arena (e.g. opposing sadomasochism and other so-called kinks or the commercialization of women's bodies or polygamy or supporting age-of-consent laws, or maybe even just supporting #MeToo) is just simply uncool. Of course radfems don't actually oppose sex! Or the inclusion of sexuality in media or whatever for that matter. We just feel that sex should be egalitarian and that makes us unsexy in the eyes of a sexist society.

I think that for you the "sex-negative" moniker here probably just means that you didn't like Anita Sarkeesian's critiques of sexual objectification in games or something. That's not the same thing as actually opposing sex or the inclusion or sexuality in mainstream media.

Okay, I've gotta go to work now. Had a few, figured I'd finally get around to responding.

 

"Of course radfems don't actually oppose sex!"

what are your thoughts on this?

"Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all."

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

 

"We just feel that sex should be egalitarian"

how could this ever be the case when men and women are asymmetrical in their physicality and psychology? even from a mechanical standpoint the act itself is fundamentally equal in how it plays out... which obviously is a problem but it does not only have to be regarded as a problem 

you yourself have said that its a grave mistake to not acknowledge those differences or we run serious risks such as destroying the categories entirely... which i don't think many feminists understand COMPLETELY undermines their cause which relies fundamentally on acknowledging that women are a distinct group from men

 

"She was simply someone who felt that society should not actively promote sex as a life goal, but rather should be publicly neutral on."

the desire for sex is one of the primary base instincts all complex organisms have... its not a social construct, i'd agree that society overemphasizes it to certain extent but regardless it would still be one of the primary forces in a person's life regardless

 

"They're terms that some liberals use to imply that anyone who brings a feminist critique to the conduct of the sexual arena (e.g. opposing sadomasochism and other so-called kinks or the commercialization of women's bodies or polygamy or supporting age-of-consent laws, or maybe even just supporting #MeToo) is just simply uncool."

i think the problem people have with this is that it moves from critique of social pressure and moves into critiquing women's behavior? if a group of women choose for what ever reason to have a relationship with one man what can you really do about that? take away their free choice?