How does Feminism view Men?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Leaving sexual preferences aside, Women have a right to reject a man that cannot fulfill certain desires. Like having a penis to give them biological children, or sexual intercourse. It's not evil to want those things Saint. Most heterosexual people consider it a given.

Trans men can have sexual intercourse with a woman and not everyone with a penis is fertile, anyway.

Whatever, though. I'm done here.

 

[Sunstone]

On the level of your gender identity or ethnicity?

On the level of self-identity, Frank. If you're going to assert that gender identity and/or ethnicity is deeper than any other form of self-identity, then I'll be forced to laugh at such a notion.

 

[freethinker44]

Are you attracted to everyone equally?

I would never and have never excluded anyone from the dating pool for purely physical reasons.
But this isn't even what we're talking about here. This is what you morphed the discussion into because you know you can't reasonably defend the real argument, and may not even want to defend it but you want to defend the person defending it.
We're talking about whether it's acceptable to have prejudice against an entire group, in this case a gender, because one was victimized by a very tiny percentage of members of that group.
So, go ahead and explain how this is acceptable and they shouldn't instead be seeking treatment for this behavior rather than seeking to become a separatist.
And if you can find any psychological studies that support this that would be great.
Good luck though, this behavior is called "avoidance coping" and it's usually thought of as something people suffer from and should be treated for and not something they should aspire to.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would never and have never excluded anyone from the dating pool for purely physical reasons.
But this isn't even what we're talking about here. This is what you morphed the discussion into because you know you can't reasonably defend the real argument, and may not even want to defend it but you want to defend the person defending it.
We're talking about whether it's acceptable to have prejudice against an entire group, in this case a gender, because one was victimized by a very tiny percentage of members of that group.
So, go ahead and explain how this is acceptable and they shouldn't instead be seeking treatment for this behavior rather than seeking to become a separatist.
And if you can find any psychological studies that support this that would be great.
Good luck though, this behavior is called "avoidance coping" and it's usually thought of as something people suffer from and should be treated for and not something they should aspire to.

The core of my argument regarding this is that I think a person has the right to choose who they sleep with. It's easy to judge from the outside, but to be the person in the given situation is a different story.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is what you morphed the discussion into because you know you can't reasonably defend the real argument, and may not even want to defend it but you want to defend the person defending it.

I noticed that, too.

 

[Flankerl]

and not everyone with a penis is fertile

This is along with the "not everyone with an uterus is fertile"-argument is completely stupid.
These people are not fertile, yes. But its not because their bodies are working as they should be. They are not fertile because they have a medical condition or simply are way too old.

To compare people with a medical condition to Transpeople... well uhm... sure you want to go that way?

I would never and have never excluded anyone from the dating pool for purely physical reasons.

That moment when you know someone is spouting something utterly ridiculous that is in no way true.

 

[freethinker44]

While it is about race, I don't think the word, "racist", applies when talking about sexual attraction preferences.
That's different from judging a person's value, smarts, employability, etc.
Attraction can be narrow, to....age range, height, weight, hair, fashion sense, sveltitude, religion, etc.

I get that, but in the context of this conversation it would totally be racist.
If someone said they aren't generally attracted to black people, fine.
But if they say I wouldn't date a black person because I got robbed by a black person once, that's racist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To compare people with a medical condition to Transpeople... well uhm... sure you want to go that way?

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition. Why do you think so many of us are on hormone therapy and get surgeries?

 

[freethinker44]

That moment when you know someone is spouting something utterly ridiculous that is in no way true.

It's true though. For a while I thought I had a problem, you know, how is it possible to have no physical preference, but I don't.
But like I said, that's not even what we're discussing here. That's just a red herring being used so people don't have to justify sexism.

 

[Revoltingest]

If someone said they aren't generally attracted to black people, fine.
But if they say I wouldn't date a black person because I got robbed by a black person once, that's racist.

I don't disagree.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would never and have never excluded anyone from the dating pool for purely physical reasons.
But this isn't even what we're talking about here. This is what you morphed the discussion into because you know you can't reasonably defend the real argument, and may not even want to defend it but you want to defend the person defending it.
We're talking about whether it's acceptable to have prejudice against an entire group, in this case a gender, because one was victimized by a very tiny percentage of members of that group.
So, go ahead and explain how this is acceptable and they shouldn't instead be seeking treatment for this behavior rather than seeking to become a separatist.
And if you can find any psychological studies that support this that would be great.
Good luck though, this behavior is called "avoidance coping" and it's usually thought of as something people suffer from and should be treated for and not something they should aspire to.

To share more thoughts on this, I never said a single time in this thread that I agreed with separatism in and of itself (not that I recall, anyhow). I think it's a right for people to do it at their own will, however, and I think sometimes it stems from circumstances and experiences that not everyone is going to understand unless they have had similar experiences or been in similar circumstances.

 

[freethinker44]

To share more thoughts on this, I never said a single time in this thread that I agreed with separatism in and of itself (not that I recall, anyhow). I think it's a right for people to do it at their own will, however, and I think sometimes it stems from circumstances and experiences that not everyone is going to understand unless they have had similar experiences or been in similar circumstances.

That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. And they shouldn't be defended or encouraged. At best you're enabling a mental disorder or keeping them from recovering from PTSD, and at worst you're perpetuating hate.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. And they shouldn't be defended or encouraged. At best you're enabling a mental disorder or keeping them from recovering from PTSD, and at worst you're perpetuating hate.

Nope, sorry. I defend people when I think they're being needlessly demonized and when I know things about them that prove certain negative statements about them wrong.

 

[freethinker44]

Nope, sorry. I defend people when I think they're being needlessly demonized and when I know things about them that prove certain negative statements about them wrong.

Sexism is never needlessly demonized.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sexism is never needlessly demonized.

As opposed to people? Sure.

 

[freethinker44]

As opposed to people? Sure.

Sexists are also never needlessly demonized.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sexists are also never needlessly demonized.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think demonizing everyone we disagree without considering their experiences and circumstances is counterproductive at best.

 

[freethinker44]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think demonizing everyone we disagree without considering their experiences and circumstances is counterproductive at best.

It's not counterproductive at all. I guess if you valued their existence it would be, but I don't.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not counterproductive at all. I guess if you valued their existence it would be, but I don't.

Yeah, I value people's existence unless they have done something as heinous as, say, murder or rape.

 

[freethinker44]

Yeah, I value people's existence unless they have done something as heinous as, say, murder or rape.

Nope, they should be pressured to change or demonized, never defended. If they're unwilling to change then the world would be better off without them.