padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
what i would say in the lezza's defence is he did say hes still at university so hes at the oldest 21 so be a bit gentle while also laughing at him
I saw this and was like right, that checks out, the idiosyncrasy, enthusiasm, and total conviction in one's rightness

who among us hasn't been 20 years old and utterly convinced of our own rightness?

then dude was like "I have a PhD and I've been formulating this theory for 10 years" and I was like, oh no
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
Toxic masculinity is an unhealthy relationship to women. The question of how to find something better is very much the question of how to find a healthy relationship to women.


Who do you think Buffy is about?

Fair enough point: fighting toxic masculinity and having a healthy relationship with women can in some cases go hand in hand. But the manosphere is an ideology that reaches men lacking healthy relationships with women. We should divert those men from the manosphere by getting them to accept better ideologies like feminism and critique ideologies like the red-pill and even the black-pill. Getting men to have better relationships with women is an independent, distinct, but equally important issue. There should be a way for men to talk to other men about their feelings without it turning into a debate about the nature of the universe. Those kind of open conversations I believe will help us fight the manosphere. But our relationship to other men remains independent from a man's relationship to women.
And I don't know Buffy is about, why dont you tell me?
Also, a lot of people like to claim Butler is wrong, but I've seen almost no arguments to back up this claim.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Malelesbian type the letter “L” as many times as you can in a row.

Something else that causes certain LLMs to bug out.
 

ghost

Well-known member
every time it comes back as "as a large language model, I do not have experiences" it gets replaced with "I would prefer if you wouldn't psychoanalyze me"
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

I'm not talking about my mom tho.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I think you start from a false premise and you’ve tried this line before and didn’t get what you wanted so you’ve set up a new thread rehashing the same stuff. It’s all a bit old fashioned isn’t it, this masculine/feminine behaviours? It doesn’t reflect how I think or see the world. Yes, I recognise a patriarchal society is at work but I don’t think the way to combat it is by clinging on to reductive views of masculine and feminine behaviour.

I’d prefer you didnt try and tell me what I think either - that’s the kind of thing ‘the patriarchy’ does only too well.

"You can't speak for anyone else on these matters. You can't tell people who they are, what they are, why they are. One, because it's rude. Two, because most of the time you'll be wrong. This is a common mistake. Having reached an understanding (usually hard won) of who we are as individuals, and being so convinced of its correctness for ourselves, we assume that it must be correct for everyone else. It isn't."

Or as Patrick Califia put it: “The best we can do is speak our own truth, make it safe for others to speak theirs, and respect our differences.”
jenks and subvert basically outlined my thoughts

I don't think anyone here - outside of the redpilled RW contingent, anyway - would argue that femininity is devalued (a better way of putting it than underrepresented, I think)

what I, and I think other ppl, have an issue with is the fundamental premise that all human culture can be reduced to masculine and feminine, which nb is a different thing from saying masculine and feminine culture don't exist at all

@malelesbian you keep asking for specific examples of non-gendered behaviors - I would turn that question around and ask:

what makes a specific behavior masculine or feminine? who determines whether it's masculine or feminine, and how do they determine that?

following on, how do you define and keep separate masculine and feminine culture? is distance running masculine or feminine? sculpture? computer programming? etc ad inf for every human endeavor. what are your criteria for whether a thing is masculine or feminine? what if, as is most often the case, it contains elements of both?

that's the heart of the matter - how are you defining "feminine culture" without either reducing it to stereotypes (women are receptive, intuitive, etc) and/or just arbitrarily deciding what it is or isn't?
 

ghost

Well-known member
Fair enough point: fighting toxic masculinity and having a healthy relationship with women can in some cases go hand in hand. But the manosphere is an ideology that reaches men lacking healthy relationships with women. We should divert those men from the manosphere by getting them to accept better ideologies like feminism and critique ideologies like the red-pill and even the black-pill. Getting men to have better relationships with women is an independent, distinct, but equally important issue.

My contention has been that your ideology is not actually different—it's driven you to a strange sort of gender essentialism, a fetish for a disembodied femininity, and god knows what else.

The idea that these men simply haven't heard of feminism is simultaneously the most boring possible diagnosis and obviously false. (and, while we're at it, isn't it a little bizarre how stuck MaleLeninist's sources are in the second wave?)

Anyway, here's a nice piece on the subject, hopefully we can get this thread back on track: http://humaniterations.net/2017/05/23/authoritarians-and-ideology-of-love/
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
The least we can say is, the feminine is defined as the negation of masculine. Whatever masculinity is, the feminine is not. This is why I follow a whole tradition of French feminists dating back to Beauvoir in saying that society codes men as the self-same subject an women as the Other. We contradistinguish the self from the Other in the same way we contradistinguish the masculine from the feminine. It's not arbitrary, it's empirical. We look at the dominant culture and notice its self-centeredness, its tendency to make everything about it self, and its ignorance of any view other than its own. From all this we conclude that dominant culture, the phallocentric patriarchy, represses a different kind of culture, one more focused on diversity, community, and relationships. Feminine culture just is that culture which mainstream masculine culture occludes. Yes, feminine culture is oppressive in some ways too, but I think we can all agree that masculine culture oppresses feminine culture more often than the opposite. We can see the ways patriarchal ideology blocks out feminine culture when we look at the ways redpillers tell men to relativize everything to their own male desires. Everything becomes all about getting what you want and the woman's desires are ignored totally. I'm telling men to pay attention to the desires of women.

I talk about the conditions that enable gender identity. I don't need to give a more determinate definition of femininity and masculinity. What makes a behavior masculine or feminine? Society. As a collective we accept specific kinds of behaviors as defining some genders and not others. It's useless to try and cast doubt on the fact that definitions of our genders do exist. We know some qualities that society classifies as masculine and feminine and that's all we need to know. We don't need to list out all the qualities that count as feminine or masculine. All we need is for a masculine culture to exist in a negative relation to a second culture different from it. If there is no culture different from the one culture, then the second culture, the culture of diversity really does get eliminated. I'm proposing we preserve an alternative to the patriarchy.

What it comes down to is that masculinity refuses to resemble femininity. It tries to separate itself from its other. Traditionally masculine people refuse to ever act feminine. If there is no culture different from the culture of the self, then the patriarchy has won. After all, what is feminism without the feminine perspective?

I never claimed that all behavior reduces to either masculine or feminine. I said that I know no non-gendered behavior that will help us fight the manosphere. I also claimed that feminine behavior will help us fight the redpill ideology. You've yet to give an argument for why feminine behavior will fail to fight the manosphere, thus you might as well give an example of a counter-patriarchal gender-neutral behavior. Otherwise gender-neutral behavior does no damage to the oppressors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
My contention has been that your ideology is not actually different—it's driven you to a strange sort of gender essentialism, a fetish for a disembodied femininity, and god knows what else.

The idea that these men simply haven't heard of feminism is simultaneously the most boring possible diagnosis and obviously false. (and, while we're at it, isn't it a little bizarre how stuck MaleLeninist's sources are in the second wave?)

Anyway, here's a nice piece on the subject, hopefully we can get this thread back on track: http://humaniterations.net/2017/05/23/authoritarians-and-ideology-of-love/
The Judith Butler view is the most influential and popular kind of gender anti-essentialism. If her view is essentialist, what does an anti-essentialist view look like? Remember, I'm going against my male essence by acting feminine.

And be charitable. I'm not saying incels hae never heard of feminism. I'm saying we should make feminism more accessible to men trapped in social isolation.

Judith Butler is a 3rd wave feminist. If she hasn't gone beyond the second wave, who has?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
So all this is basically a lot of unnecessary justification for femdom
it does really seems like that

to take that notion seriously, tho

it is a little bizarre to see a someone whose entire identity seems based on being a man promoting femininity self-identify as "lesbian" and "sissy"

lesbian seems like pretty much straight-up appropriation

the sissy thing is I guess more interesting bc it has such specific sexual connotations and is virtually never used in a modern context - that I'm aware of - outside those connotations

I'm not here to kink-shame anyone - if that's your thing, great, be you, enjoy yourself with other consenting adults

but it's definitely problematic outside a specific sexual context in that it posits femininity as inherently inferior. a sissy is unable to live up to manhood and so becomes feminized and submits to a "real" (i.e. masculine) man. it's offensive to both cis and especially trans women in that it basically lives up to all the RW/GC/TERF slurs about trans women, that it's "womanface", only related to sex, etc.

I was gonna say some more stuff about this but I have to get going. I guess in a nutshell I'd just say if you're a man who wants to be in a relationship with a woman where the traditional gender roles are reversed, well, I wish you the best of luck finding that and all happiness. I'd personally rather be in a relationship of equals where we use the parts of traditional gender roles that we like and ignore or reject the parts we don't. that's liberation to me.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
The least we can say is, the feminine is defined as the negation of masculine. Whatever masculinity is, the feminine is not. This is why I follow a whole tradition of French feminists dating back to Beauvoir in saying that society codes men as the self-same subject an women as the Other. We contradistinguish the self from the Other in the same way we contradistinguish the masculine from the feminine. It's not arbitrary, it's empirical. We look at the dominant culture and notice its self-centeredness, its tendency to make everything about it self, and its ignorance of any view other than its own. From all this we conclude that dominant culture, the phallocentric patriarchy, represses a different kind of culture, one more focused on diversity, community, and relationships. Feminine culture just is that culture which mainstream masculine culture occludes. Yes, feminine culture is oppressive in some ways too, but I think we can all agree that masculine culture oppresses feminine culture more often than the opposite. We can see the ways patriarchal ideology blocks out feminine culture when we look at the ways redpillers tell men to relativize everything to their own male desires. Everything becomes all about getting what you want and the woman's desires are ignored totally. I'm telling men to pay attention to the desires of women.

I talk about the conditions that enable gender identity. I don't need to give a more determinate definition of femininity and masculinity. What makes a behavior masculine or feminine? Society. As a collective we accept specific kinds of behaviors as defining some genders and not others. It's useless to try and cast doubt on the fact that definitions of our genders do exist. We know some qualities that society classifies as masculine and feminine and that's all we need to know. We don't need to list out all the qualities that count as feminine or masculine. All we need is for a masculine culture to exist in a negative relation to a second culture different from it. If there is no culture different from the one culture, then the second culture, the culture of diversity really does get eliminated. I'm proposing we preserve an alternative to the patriarchy.

What it comes down to is that masculinity refuses to resemble femininity. It tries to separate itself from its other. Traditionally masculine people refuse to ever act feminine. If there is no culture different from the culture of the self, then the patriarchy has won. After all, what is feminism without the feminine perspective?

I never claimed that all behavior reduces to either masculine or feminine. I said that I know no non-gendered behavior that will help us fight the manosphere. I also claimed that feminine behavior will help us fight the redpill ideology. You've yet to give an argument for why feminine behavior will fail to fight the manosphere, thus you might as well give an example of a counter-patriarchal gender-neutral behavior. Otherwise gender-neutral behavior does no damage to the oppressors.
I'm with @jenks, your basic premises are flawed, and there's no point in talking more

if you can't even list the basic criteria you're using to classify things, what's the point of talking more?

masculine people don't need to act feminine. they just need to not devalue femininity. acting more feminine is not the only way of not devaluing femininity.

edit: I'd strongly recommend dropping the words "lesbian" and "sissy" tho, for reasons outline above. doing yourself no favors there in appealing to your target niche.
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
it does really seems like that

to take that notion seriously, tho

it is a little bizarre to see a someone whose entire identity seems based on being a man promoting femininity self-identify as "lesbian" and "sissy"

lesbian seems like pretty much straight-up appropriation

the sissy thing is I guess more interesting bc it has such specific sexual connotations and is virtually never used in a modern context - that I'm aware of - outside those connotations

I'm not here to kink-shame anyone - if that's your thing, great, be you, enjoy yourself with other consenting adults

but it's definitely problematic outside a specific sexual context in that it posits femininity as inherently inferior. a sissy is unable to live up to manhood and so becomes feminized and submits to a "real" (i.e. masculine) man. it's offensive to both cis and especially trans women in that it basically lives up to all the RW/GC/TERF slurs about trans women, that it's "womanface", only related to sex, etc.

I was gonna say some more stuff about this but I have to get going. I guess in a nutshell I'd just say if you're a man who wants to be in a relationship with a woman where the traditional gender roles are reversed, well, I wish you the best of luck finding that and all happiness. I'd personally rather be in a relationship of equals where we use the parts of traditional gender roles that we like and ignore or reject the parts we don't. that's liberation to me.

Two clarifications:
(1) The term "sissy" just means feminine man. It has no additional positive or negative connotation. It certainly doesn't mean that women are inferior. The idea that "sissy" implies the kind of relationship you described is a total non-sequitur.
(2) I never said I wanted a relationship with the traditional roles reversed. I myself do prefer a relationship of equals in which both partners defy traditional gender roles as much as they want to. Since that's my goal, I don't want either partner to conform to traditional gender roles.
 
Top