>
I recently ran across this picture online, which is evidently from a feminist protest in Mexico City in 1991; it was part of an exhibition of photos tracing the history of the feminist movement in Mexico City. (Here’s a link to a Google Translated version of a web page on the exhibition,.)
I think the slogan is a pretty good description of how most feminists would like women to be regarded: Not as saints, not as whores, but just as women.
Or, in language more understandable to a lot of the MRAs/MGTOWers out there: “Not as pretty princesses, not as Ameriskanks, but just as women.”
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>It is a silly concept, trying to define over 1/2 the worlds population with a bumper sticker slogan. Certainly, all movements, all "isms," all distinct groups and communities do some branding of their own. People are catagorized. The truth about stereo-types is that they are often true. We are all people. So what?
>Indeed, the virgin/whore false dichotomy is something women still have to contend with, even today. Either way, their value as a human being is measured by how they use their genitals, and particularly whether or not they use their genitals in accordance with male-imposed rules.The truth about stereo-types is that they are often true.Hey cool, I haven't seen this argument since the last time I talked to a high school student.Stereotyping is one of the privileges enjoyed by the privileged class. I mean, you can make up stereotypes about privileged classes – there are stereotypes about men and white people – but they're not imposed with any real seriousness. Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots – funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women. That's a bit of irony that MRAs would do well to clue themselves into. My point is, you'll hear non-feminist women talking about men being stupid all the time, but they're still more than happy to let men run the world. Stereotypes only hold power over oppressed people.When I read lists of stereotypes about white people, they never make a lot of sense to me. Most of them don't apply to me. As a white person, I've enjoyed a lifelong privilege of not being judged by those stereotypes. The thing is, stereotypes about black people aren't any more accurate. But the privileged class gets to pretend they are because that's part of the process of othering – stripping members of the oppressed class of their individuality.
>That's a bit of irony that MRAs would do well to clue themselves into.Not really. Many MRAs are as hard on "patriarchal" women and anti-feminist women are they are on folks like you; indeed, the argument of guys such as Pro-Male/Anti-feminist tech is that there's little difference between antifeminist and pro-feminist women in how they treat men.
>This is why I'm not thrown when misogynists trot out female lunatics to prove their arguments.I don't believe women are perfect, I believe women are people! A certain number of female crazy people and assholes is not only accounted for but predicted under this theory.
>Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots – funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women. That's a bit of irony that MRAs would do well to clue themselves into.That and the fact that, at least in the U.S., proposed amendments that would have paved the way for, amongst other things, gender equity in such things as alimony laws and child custody laws were proposed by feminists… it was non-feminist traditionalists (one in particular) who fought tooth and nail against that happening. Traditionalist non-feminist women wanted men to continue to be bound by law to provide for their wives, even after divorce.
>indeed, the argument of guys such as Pro-Male/Anti-feminist tech is that there's little difference between antifeminist and pro-feminist women in how they treat men.MRAs don't often seem able to distinguish between women and feminists. They often talk like all women (or at least all Western women) are feminists and that things like alimony are a feminist conspiracy because they primarily benefit women.I mean, their anger is incredibly incoherent, which is natural given that it's based far more on emotion than logic, but at times they deride women for wanting to be indedenpent, and at other times they seem to think that feminism's goal is to leech of men (the opposite of independence).
>What you describe represents one of the (many) things MRAs fight amongst themselves over rather than a monolithic view, although it is commonly held. Even if that's the case, one of the core premises of the MRA movement is that women have codified a bunch of anti-male policies into law, and they seem to conflate these anti-male laws (somehow enacted by a Congress that has never been more than 20% female) with feminist activism. That, I argue, is grossly inaccurate.
>Again, even that isn't necessarily an accurate summation of the MRA positions. One of the most persistent of their memes is that men can be divided into two groups–betas, the average guys (like them) who comprise the vast majority of society, and alphas, the top 10% or so of men who hold the real power (and whom women love). In their view, the anti-male laws can just as easily be explained as the small minority of alpha males passing legislation that benefits themselves while screwing over the vast majority of men, with women simply being beneficiaries on the side. This accounts for how "anti-male" laws can be passed while Congress is only 20% female–all the men in government are alphas, and are fucking over the rest of their fellow men.
>“This is why I'm not thrown when misogynists trot out female lunatics to prove their arguments.”I don't believe women are perfect, I believe women are people! A certain number of female crazy people and assholes is not only accounted for but predicted under this theory.”So how many feminists believe there are just as many sexist/evil women than there are men?I hardly see feminists complaining about the other side of the story. And in this blog alone, when sexist/evil women are mentioned, in most cases, feminists try to pull it under the rug with some lame excuse.
>MRA positions are generally self-contradictory, incoherent, and driven by emotion rather than logic. How is it possible to describe such a mish-mash "accurately"? The thing itself doesn't map to any meaningful concept of accuracy.
>I think it was Simone de Beauvoir who said that "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Or something along those lines.
>So how many feminists believe there are just as many sexist/evil women than there are men?Jeezum crow, who except an 8-year-old would seriously pose such a question? "You've got more." No, YOU'VE got more!" Feh.
>"I don't believe women are perfect, I believe women are people! A certain number of female crazy people and assholes is not only accounted for but predicted under this theory.”So how many feminists believe there are just as many sexist/evil women than there are men?"OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT IS THE EXACT FUCKING THING HE/SHE JUST SAID. Has your reading comprehension failed again you indignant misogynist?
>triplanetary said… "The truth about stereo-types is that they are often true.Hey cool, I haven't seen this argument since the last time I talked to a high school student."That's because, unlike universities, high schools aren't yet completely infected with that bullshit communist religion of yours.A religion that evidently holds as dogmatic the idea that stereotypes are not the result of REPEATED observation by THOUSANDS of observers but instead that they are made to mysteriously appear out of thin air by the illuminati to hold back the 'genetically challenged'. "Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots – funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women."Yes non-feminist women are smarter than feminist women. You ARE a clueless idiot.
>"Has your reading comprehension failed again you indignant misogynist?"heh nope, just pointing out the obvious and unwanted truth of feminist bigotry.I wonder why they even call themselves feminists when they claim they are about gender equality. Which means, men’s problems are just as important as women's problems. But in a feminist perspective, only women’s problems are important enough to complain about.It's ironic accusing people of being sexist when the feminist stance within it's self is the very definition of sexism as they only feel the need to show concern towards women.
>in this blog alone, when sexist/evil women are mentioned, in most cases, feminists try to pull it under the rug with some lame excuse. [citation needed]
>That's because, unlike universities, high schools aren't yet completely infected with that bullshit communist religion of yours.Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about and how is that even relevant to what we're talking about?A religion that evidently holds as dogmatic the idea that stereotypes are not the result of REPEATED observation by THOUSANDS of observers but instead that they are made to mysteriously appear out of thin air by the illuminati to hold back the 'genetically challenged'.So, you're saying that stereotypes are completely true? All of them? Even those that contradict other stereotypes? Even cartoonish, racist stereotypes like "black people all like watermelon" and "asian people can't drive' and "jews only care about money?" Is that really the story you're going with?"Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots – funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women."Yes non-feminist women are smarter than feminist women. You ARE a clueless idiot. So, all stereotypes are true, therefore men really are clueless idiots? I repeat: what the fuck are you talking about, and why should anyone take you seriously?
>Last comment directed at evilwhitemale.
>Which means, men’s problems are just as important as women's problems.I will grant that there's a slight difference between race and gender in that there are "men's problems" to be taken into account. Testicular cancer, lack of paternity leave, higher car insurance premiums… By contrast, when it comes to the race issue there are no "white people's problems" that need to be taken seriously.That being said, men are the privileged class and women are the oppressed class. Society already cares plenty about men's problems. When feminists start asking society to care equally about women's problems, it's nothing but base sexism that would motivate you to sit there and whine, "But what about uuuuussssss?" You're like a child who suddenly has a sibling and can't stand that you're not the sole focus of attention anymore.
>David said:[citation needed] Now David, you know this would mean that I would have to take up plenty of time digging through threads to find each example. This is very time consuming. Just as it is when I asked you to prove to me how patriarchy exists in American society 2011. But instead you provided me links of feminist theory which would have taken me an hour or more worth of reading instead of just giving me a few paragraphs as it's supposedly so easy to point out.I can clearly see your tactic. You do this because it's convenient for you. You know that your opponent is not likely going to spend time consuming effort to prove a point in a single thread/opinion that will just be forgotten in a flash. And when they don't, you claim victory.I am sure you are familiar with my “perfect princesses” phrase. This is used often when I see the exact thing you are wanting citation for.
>I know, it's so sneaky and evil of me to ask you to back up your assertions with even a single fact.
>Nicko, you are spot on with David's tactics. He'll even venture into topics that have nothing to do with the one you are debating, to do this. Don't catch him out though, because he's just going to come back with "your arguments are dumb and I don't want to play any more." Check the previous topic, Part 2 on Lara Logan to see what I'm getting at.
>Chuck, I think you've done a better job arguing your points than many have (including myself, at times), but this is David's blog, neither yours nor mine. Since he's the proprietor, he has the right to participate or not as he sees fit on any discussion. He owes us nothing, while we are simply guests on his own little corner of the Internet.
>Thevagrantsv, I abide by one simple principle in any debate. Always respect the other person. That respect is unconditional, but that does not mean that I'm going to sit quietly by while David employs tactics that are disingenuous. This is an open forum, and it is fair game to call out the proprietor on tactics that he might employ with other guests. Nothing underhanded or unfair about that.
>"That being said, men are the privileged class and women are the oppressed class."—TriplanteryAnd this from someone who calls most MRAs racist and sexist pieces of shit. You are quite the authority.