Well, that's your opinion, which you're entitled to. We strongly disagree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does Feminism view Men?
- Thread starter Akivah
- Start date
Well, that's your opinion, which you're entitled to. We strongly disagree.
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
I don't like it when people use racial preferences as a gotcha because I do believe that in the wider context racial preferences can be racist. Especially under white supremacy and white beauty standards. For example where I'm from most models who appear on beauty magazines are white.
Even on Asian magazines where there is big issues in regards to colourism they put Asian models who look the closest to white on their magazines. Black women are deem the most unattractive usually in racial preference surveys and I think that has a lot to do with socialisation.
However physical sex is different.
People are not attracted to the sex in your head.
This cotton ceiling nonsense, evident by that "you're missing out on great sex" coercive article, primarily targets lesbians who are being forced into a corner having to defend themselves against this genderist nonsense.
Yes some radfems genuinely cant stand transpeople, that's true.
But absolutely everything radfems are concerned about is deemed transphobic. Not wanting a male rapist in a female prison is transphobic. A lesbian not wanting to sleep with males is transphobic.
Women's safety and sexuality are under attack in favour of making certain people feel validated.
Even on Asian magazines where there is big issues in regards to colourism they put Asian models who look the closest to white on their magazines. Black women are deem the most unattractive usually in racial preference surveys and I think that has a lot to do with socialisation.
However physical sex is different.
People are not attracted to the sex in your head.
This cotton ceiling nonsense, evident by that "you're missing out on great sex" coercive article, primarily targets lesbians who are being forced into a corner having to defend themselves against this genderist nonsense.
Yes some radfems genuinely cant stand transpeople, that's true.
But absolutely everything radfems are concerned about is deemed transphobic. Not wanting a male rapist in a female prison is transphobic. A lesbian not wanting to sleep with males is transphobic.
Women's safety and sexuality are under attack in favour of making certain people feel validated.
Thana
Lady
Um, I don't really want to get in to the intricasies of sex with a transexual... But yes they can have sex, just like homosexuals can have sex but if you're not into that then it becomes an issue. And it's not transphobic, it's just preference. Some people just don't like that kind of thing, and I think it's completely justified. Same as someone who only likes vanilla ice-cream. They just do, so you really shouldn't judge.
And I'm sorry you feel that it's wrong and discriminatory, but it is what it is. The fact of the matter is, Hetero doesn't always automatically include trans and there's nothing to be done or said about it. Let's be honest, the only difference between sex with you and sex with a woman is that you have a beard and she more than likely doesn't. And some hetero people just don't swing like that, regardless of how you portray yourself. And I know saying things like that can affect you, but I don't think pandering to you is any better. You are who you are, but don't expect the world to bow down to your perspective and ideals just because you say so.
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
Straight people do not even get the worst of this drama because they are the dominate group and people rush in to defend them as soon as a straight man's sacred sexuality is under atrack, as seen in this thread.
Lesbians or bi women who don't want to sleep with males get the worst of this cotton ceiling nonsense. The misogyny and lesbophobia is so obvious to me.
Lesbians or bi women who don't want to sleep with males get the worst of this cotton ceiling nonsense. The misogyny and lesbophobia is so obvious to me.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
What you and @Saint Frankenstein seem to argue, to me, is that basically everyone should be pansexual. If you reject someone based on bits, then you're in the wrong? Then aren't heteros, lesbians and gays in the wrong solely because they reject someone's bits?
There is a bit of binary thinking going on here and it's not just as simple as you are man or a woman. Really, transsexuals form an in-between gender class or middling of folks at one side of the trans spectrum, that for the most part and that new thing is another group itself. You can't expect people to treat you exactly the same as another sex when in their view you are not. It is not simply a matter of having the physical appearance altered enough to be acceptable either. You're basically agitated because they are aware of the difference and they prefer that gender and physical sex match. It's just a decision you don't get to make, ever. But, it has nothing to do with slighting transsexuals or whatever at all.
Most of the trans community is aware of this difference and have identified themselves as something special or different because they are. Put the shoe on the other foot: Would you break up with someone if they were lying about being trans similarly to how a hetero person in classical gender roles would reject you? There is also the problem that gets mixed up in the scenario about sex/gender in that most people expect the parts to match the role. A trans-man to a hetero woman wants gay sex, for example. It's not all about appearances it is about function.
Trying this again based on the idea that separatism is inherently bigoted.
For the arguments supporting separatism=bigotry, what would you suggest the Umoja women do?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not arguing everyone should be pansexual.
If someone is gay or lesbian because that's their sexual orientation, then great
If they're gay or lesbian because of resentment/contempt/distrust of the opposite sex, that's sexist.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I would put them in the same category MGTOW.
What should they do instead of creating their own village?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I don't know, what can they do?
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Their bad experiences demand some empathy and understanding. Them getting their own land to start a business is obviously a good thing. The women are clearly not trying to isolate themselves from men in that they continue to have relationships with them and get pregnant.
What appears to be happening is that they just don't allow men to be involved in the business. Without taking context into account that would obviously not look like a good thing. But perhaps women in that area are low on jobs and this venture has an affirmative action agenda. In that case it good that there is a business that fulfills a social need (providing an underemployed class of people preferential job opportunities).
So ultimately this does not deal with the actual type of separatism that was being discussed in this thread - what is being discussed in this thread is women who no longer want romantic relationships with any man because some men hurt them.
It's on their terms though. And no one else's.
Men are not allowed to live in the village nor be live-in fathers to children they've begot. The Umoji women created their own village and defend it against outside attackers as well as defend their decision to have only women and their children reside there. They escape FGM procedures, rape, and abuse as their reasoning. It is very much a separatist colony based on how they have been hurt and continue to be threatened by the local men.
Their village was a chapter in "Half the Sky." So this isn't a considerable radical fringe element in womanism. It's considered an improvement in the lives, health, safety, mortality rates, and welfare for women in these communities.
My question, then, is all separatism based on bigotry? It seems to have been implied here in this thread.
I'm not of the mindset that they are acting out of bigotry. So this is not a question for me to answer for an alternative.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you're actually saying here. Please clarify.
Well I didn't see this part in the"About" section of the website - that section made it sound all rosey.
Now I have a completely different mindset. Denying men the ability to live with their children and especially denying children the ability to live with their fathers is so many bad things including bigotry.
And what will they do when they sons grow up - chase them away? This sounds a bit like the arrangements matriarchal animals usually have.
They seem to have come up with this arrangement to protect their human rights but have, in the process, come up with a system that tramples on other people's human rights.
Who is explicitly gay or lesbian because resentment/distrust/contempt of the opposite sex? Is that what MGTOWs are? MRAs?
I know that it is a phenomenon among sexually abused children to have distrust color their sexual orientation to a certain degree. All very complicated and yada yada. But I've never known a person to be gay specifically because they hate the opposite sex. Is that a thing now?
I've known heterosexual men to be very sexist though. So I don't understand the premise of having one's sexual orientation be dictated by sexist attitudes.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with MGTOW or MRAs, it was mentioned earlier in the thread. I didn't realize it was a thing either but apparently it is.
Women not wanting to be with men because they were raped was brought up as a defense of whatever they were talking about.
And it's not a defense, at best it's enabling maladaptive behaviors, and at worst it's just sexist.
Really? Huh, how odd.
Well a woman who is raped wouldn't exactly jump at the chance to be intimate anytime soon. So how is that not a reasonable defense? Like I agree that victims might occasionally need a bit of a push so they could eventually get to a place where they are comfortable to be with a man, if they are heterosexual, but at the same time it's kind of a dick move to try to rush them. It's like expecting a little boy who was raped to be comfortable with strangers (appropriately) touching them. Psychological issues take time to cope with and they stay with you for life.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Yeah but it wasn't about healing or getting over avoidance it was about embracing their life without men now because men "used their penis as a weapon".
It started on page seven of this thread, that's where I jumped in if you want a better idea. I'm not really interested in rehashing the entire argument I just had, sorry, not trying to be rude.
Oh. This is the problem with coming into a thread 13 pages in. It's like accidentally missing like 3 episodes of a TV show.