Feminism Thread

[Qalbert]

HE WOULD NEVER BE IN BED WITH A BUDDY THAT WOULD BE GAY

[Ksandra]

Honestly, i've always worried that you'll soon start going homophobic too. Anti feminism and homophobia are two comfortable bed fellows.

I would worry more about char's repub leaning than that.

Feminism up until recently has been very anti transgenders so I am surprised you would think this way.

[Kuya]

I sometimes wonder if char was a drag queen in a past life. He's the bichiest straight man i've ever met. Never seen him engage in a conversation with somebody without also throwing a catty insult.

[Charismatic]

Honestly, i've always worried that you'll soon start going homophobic too.

If this was ever a real concern, you don't know me even half as well as you seem to think you do.
Gay dudes are the bee's knees, idk how I could ever be homophobic.

I sometimes wonder if char was a drag queen in a past life. He's the bichiest straight men i've ever met. Never seen him engage in a conversation with somebody without also throwing a catty insult.

You see what you want to see as evidenced above. Got nothing to do with how I actually am.

[Kuya]

I would worry more about char's repub leaning than that.

Feminism up until recently has been very anti transgenders so I am surprised you would think this way.

Feminism was also anti lesbian until recently. You know, on account straight people being anti lgbt until recently.

[Ksandra]

Feminism was also anti lesbian until recently. You know, on account straight people being anti lgbt until recently.

then why did you combine the two?

[ringthree]

Feminism was also anti lesbian until recently. You know, on account straight people being anti lgbt until recently.

While the feminist movement is the farthest thing from monolithic and there have been definite divisions within the movement that included criticism of the mainstream movement as too white and too straight, the notion that "feminism" was "anti lesbian" at any point is pretty uninformed.

Also, just to be explicitly clear, being "too straight" or ignoring LGBT issues (especially at the times when the first criticisms of intersectionality was leveled, a la bell hooks) were criticisms made from within the movement, not from without. That can hardly be called "anti" anything.

[Kuya]

then why did you combine the two?

Because conservartives tend to be anti feminist AND anti-lgbt. Is this something you are disputing?

[Waraji]

Char's a Republican?

[Charismatic]

Char's a Republican?

Independent would be far more accurate, but I'm sure someone who isn't me is dying to tell you otherwise.

[Kuya]

While the feminist movement is the farthest thing from monolithic and there have been definite divisions within the movement that included criticism of the mainstream movement as too white and too straight, the notion that "feminism" was "anti lesbian" at any point is pretty uninformed.

Also, just to be explicitly clear, being "too straight" or ignoring LGBT issues (especially at the times when the first criticisms of intersectionality was leveled, a la bell hooks) were criticisms made from within the movement, not from without. That can hardly be called "anti" anything.

"Betty Friedan herself was against lesbians in the feminist movement, going so far as to use the term “lavender menace” to describe lesbians during the November 1969 Conference to Unite Women which the New York NOW chapter organized. She argued that lesbians would delegitimize the greater feminist movement and “was adamant that the women’s movement present itself as reasonable, moderate, heterosexual, family-loving not family-destroying, man- loving not man-hating in its approach.”[18] Such homophobia is extremely ironic to the feminist movement as by stating that lesbians should remain separate from the greater movement, one was essentially arguing that lesbians were not in fact women.

By denying lesbians the right to join the feminist movement, the movement defined woman as one that was heterosexual. It also shows a refusal to delve into sexual politics and by doing such empowers the patriarchy. It is actually quite surprising that heterosexual women did not adopt the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” manner of thinking which would have allowed them to ally themselves with lesbians even if it were only for a short while. In this alliance, there could have been a chance to come to a sort of understanding about lesbians and the realization that lesbians were not a threat to liberal feminism, but rather could be major allies of it."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sex-hom...minism/5318605

Don't just take it from me though. Talk to some lesbian feminist activist above the age of 50 and they can recount their stories to you.

[Kuya]

Char's a Republican?

Char maybe a lot of things but he's no uncle tom.

[Ksandra]

Because conservartives tend to be anti feminist AND anti-lgbt. Is this something you are disputing?

no but i would say the anchor in all that is the conservatism. but semanitics

[Ksandra]

Char's a Republican?

fwiw I said rebub leaning, not repub.

Last I saw, Char doesn't like SSM, but iirc that was awhile ago when he said it so he may have changed.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Having sex with someone without their meaningful consent is rape.If they refuse consent, but you do it anyway, it's rape. If you hold a gun to their head, and they agree to have sex, their consent is not meaningful, and it's rape. If they are unconcious, and they cannot give consent, and you do it anyway, it's rape. If they are drugged and cannot understand the consequences of their actions, it's rape even if they agree.

It does not matter how any of these conditions came about. Whether you are holding the gun yourself, or someone else, whether you found them sleeping, or hit them in the head to knock them out, or whether you drugged them, or they drugged themselves. If they cannot give meaningful consent, and have the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, having sex with them is rape.

The problem with saying "Drunk sex is rape" is that you're making rape about sex.

It's not. It's about power. It's about taking it-- power, not sex-- from someone else; it's just done in the form of sex.

Someone who is drunk-as-a-skunk but says "YES!" from the get-go hasn't had power taken from them; they've stripped themselves of their own good decision-making, but they haven't had a damn thing taken from them by someone else. Someone who's drunk-as-a-skunk but says "No" repeatedly but gets badgered down has had their power taken from them (they simply have less than they would have had sober), and has been raped; the same is true of any sober person who says "No" repeatedly but gets badgered or harassed or coerced into saying "Yes."

"Meaningful consent" may matter with legal contracts, but sex isn't a contract. When you're drunk or high, you are still liable for actions you do while drunk, whether it be driving a car, robbing a store, attacking another person, whatever. You don't just get to say, "Aw, man, I didn't have mental capacity to know what I was doing." You are still accountable for your actions-- provided you got drunk and/or high voluntarily. It is no different in the case of sex: you are accountable for what you do. No one made you get drunk, and no one made you bang that chick/dude, however diminished your thinking process. *THEY* had the power to say no, *AND THEY RELINQUISHED IT OF THEIR OWN WILL*. And not all drunk people go out and bang the first person in sight; it's diminished, not *poof* magically gone.

I will *READILY* admit it is easier to rape a drunk person, and I am not saying drunk people cannot be raped. They can be, and it can be even harder to prove, because their memories of exactly what happened are less reliable. But to call it rape every time a drunk person has sex is to so severely misunderstand and misrepresent the nature of rape that it'd be laughable if it weren't so insulting.

[ringthree]

"Betty Friedan herself was against lesbians in the feminist movement, going so far as to use the term “lavender menace” to describe lesbians during the November 1969 Conference to Unite Women which the New York NOW chapter organized. She argued that lesbians would delegitimize the greater feminist movement and “was adamant that the women’s movement present itself as reasonable, moderate, heterosexual, family-loving not family-destroying, man- loving not man-hating in its approach.”[18] Such homophobia is extremely ironic to the feminist movement as by stating that lesbians should remain separate from the greater movement, one was essentially arguing that lesbians were not in fact women.

By denying lesbians the right to join the feminist movement, the movement defined woman as one that was heterosexual. It also shows a refusal to delve into sexual politics and by doing such empowers the patriarchy. It is actually quite surprising that heterosexual women did not adopt the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” manner of thinking which would have allowed them to ally themselves with lesbians even if it were only for a short while. In this alliance, there could have been a chance to come to a sort of understanding about lesbians and the realization that lesbians were not a threat to liberal feminism, but rather could be major allies of it."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sex-hom...minism/5318605

Don't just take it from me though. Talk to some lesbian feminist activist above the age of 50 and they can recount their stories to you.

I don't think you can say that Friedan has spoken for the entire movement for a long time. In fact, she was one of the reasons it splintered and became so divergent. I don't know if we really disagree, because when you say feminism, I think you mean mainstream feminism only, and not only that but old mainstream feminism. To me, that notion of feminism has been dead since at least 1990, or at least overtaken by intersectional feminism at that time.

[Kuya]

The discussion with ksandra was in past tense.

[ringthree]

The discussion with ksandra was in past tense.

Ahh, that's what I get for not reading the whole discussion. Sorry.

[Correction]

To me, that notion of feminism has been dead since at least 1990, or at least overtaken by intersectional feminism at that time.

I wouldn't say overtaken, there's still quite a bit of active debate on how best to fit in the intersectional viewpoints, and a lot of continuous anger about the divide between white and not white feminism. Witness the current attempt by Annie Lennox to police Beyonce for her hashtag feminism.

The movement evolves, and the infighting is pretty normal. 'Acceptance' usually comes at the cost of more reactionary 'radfems' splintering off and sticking with the old messages.

[Milkster]

The problem with saying "Drunk sex is rape" is that you're making rape about sex.

It's not. It's about power. It's about taking it-- power, not sex-- from someone else; it's just done in the form of sex.

Someone who is drunk-as-a-skunk but says "YES!" from the get-go hasn't had power taken from them; they've stripped themselves of their own good decision-making, but they haven't had a damn thing taken from them by someone else. Someone who's drunk-as-a-skunk but says "No" repeatedly but gets badgered down has had their power taken from them (they simply have less than they would have had sober), and has been raped; the same is true of any sober person who says "No" repeatedly but gets badgered or harassed or coerced into saying "Yes."

"Meaningful consent" may matter with legal contracts, but sex isn't a contract. When you're drunk or high, you are still liable for actions you do while drunk, whether it be driving a car, robbing a store, attacking another person, whatever. You don't just get to say, "Aw, man, I didn't have mental capacity to know what I was doing." You are still accountable for your actions-- provided you got drunk and/or high voluntarily. It is no different in the case of sex: you are accountable for what you do. No one made you get drunk, and no one made you bang that chick/dude, however diminished your thinking process. *THEY* had the power to say no, *AND THEY RELINQUISHED IT OF THEIR OWN WILL*. And not all drunk people go out and bang the first person in sight; it's diminished, not *poof* magically gone.

I will *READILY* admit it is easier to rape a drunk person, and I am not saying drunk people cannot be raped. They can be, and it can be even harder to prove, because their memories of exactly what happened are less reliable. But to call it rape every time a drunk person has sex is to so severely misunderstand and misrepresent the nature of rape that it'd be laughable if it weren't so insulting.

Rape isn't always about power. Just like murder isn't always because you're angry. You can't make crimes so one dimensional there's a whole reason as to why someone would "rape" another person.