"Incel" terrorism

[Aeolus451]

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.

 Sex-negative fem and sex-positive fem aren't meant to be used as a self-described label but rather as a simple classification for the two general stances within feminism on sex work, modeling, sexual freedom, etc which is is the main point of contention within feminism.  Sex-negative feminist in particular, is not a self-described moniker because it has a negative connotation and it would make a person's stance clear which would make it easier to challenge. This is what should be labelled as the great debate on women's choice on what they can do with their body.

Sex-negative feminists ultimately want to do away with all sex work, modeling of attractive women (because it can be considered objectification by their standards), depictions of attractive women in fictional work (comics, video games, etc) and roll back the sexual revolution. They want to remove or limit all women's choice in relation to this stuff by removing the option entirely.  Their reasoning doesn't really matter because it will be something that sounds good PR-wise but won't be the truth. They're favorite tactic is "men like it" or "it's the result of the patriarchy". Believe it or not but sex-negative feminism is more prominent in feminism as a whole. They tend to have a sexist attitude towards men. I don't think that they don't like sex but they're more prudish in general and some don't like men.

In summary of sex-positive feminism, they believe that it's ultimately women's choice with what they do with their body and it's all okay just so long as it's their choice. They are t he most compatible with general society just because they don't demonize men and people have become open minded about sex. They are generally trotted out as the poster girls of feminism.

I said that about Anita because that's her stance on this and she's always playing the victim or making up shit for more "support" as in more money. 

I don't really know rad fems position on this stuff but my post is mainly about feminism in general.