That doesn't explain the backlash against my ideas!
The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere
- Thread starter ?!..!?
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a bunch of trolls trolling each other aesthetic jihad chicks dig guys with money cia lesbian david lesbian do you tongue punch the dirt star? dolezal1977 eating pussy without asking everyone on this board is a troll extraterrestrial bisexual feminist travis bickle justified ancients of noncing lesbian separatism luka's crop top malelesbian: english rp boy toy malethespian mansplaining feminism mr tea confirmed pegging freak mrs tea eaten out 24/7 prevent prevent! sarlacc pit taking the filth the art of trolling the feminonce massive the perils of self-publishing the viper of cunnilingus undisciplined lockerroom pussy eating unimaginable anguish version's throbbing penis
ghost
Well-known member
i did this upthread, extensively quoting your posts, and you denied saying the words I was quoting.
ghost
Well-known member
the backlash against your ideas is because everyone here has unanimously agreed that they're at best an image of total banality clothed in terribly inconsiderate and obtuse language, not even worth engaging with, and at worst a foul kind of gender essentialism
Ok, then link to that post. I'm so generous I'll even respond to you twice!
This actually isn't really a criticism of me or Butler. Yes, Butler's ideas represent banality, in other words, they represent our ordinary, everyday experience of gender. There is no better theory of our commonsense experience of gender than Butler's theory. Butler just says what pretty much everyone already believes, hence why her view serves as the basic of most contemporary identity politics. Your failure to understand this just reinforces my claim that you don't actually know what gender anti-essentialism is. The whole reason you're talking about gender anti-essentialism is because of Butler. Know your history.
So many of you identify as queer, non-binary or atleast non-traditional heterosexual men. Then you purport to disagree with me, but you miss the fact that, your identification as queer, non-binary, or even non-trad concedes my point. My goal is to subvert the gender binary. I do this by acting feminine, by living for others. How exactly do any of you subvert the gender binary? Ironically, ghost of beiser claims to have a strategy for subverting the gender binary, but its a pathetic failure. He thinks good treatment of women subverts the gender binary. I assure you, eating a meal with a woman for non-romantic purposes or just treating women well does not subvert the gender binary. Trads do those kinds of things all the time. All men should treat women well. But only some men will subvert the gender binary.
"Please consider being normal, being friends with women, and having a nice time chatting instead. Maybe buy them a cute souvenier you see on vacation. Make dinner with one of them and listen to some tunes. Tell a woman a funny story." This was what ghost of beiser said. This was his radical plan to fight the redpillers and blackpillers. It is a laughable notion to think that talking to women and buying them gifts subverts the gender binary. We need to fight the gender binary to fight the manosphere. Things like beiser listed are just kind things to do for women, things I and most people already do.
And screw being normal. All that means is being a trad. And you call yourself a non-trad?
You have no real criticism of my view because you basically agree with me. You strain to find the smallest morsels that will motivate a disagreement. But there is no real disagreement.
This is toxic masculinity at its finest: you see any view different than your own and it doesn't matter if you basically agree with it: you just have to argue against it, fight it to prove your phallic dominance. This is no pissing contest. This is a matter of describing the universal categories of our experience.
Ok, the notion that my language is inconsiderate doesn't even make sense. You mean to tell me my arguments hurt your precious feelings? If so I'll try to treat you more sensitively. Ahahaha
And if I'm such a bad writer, that doesn't say anything about my arguments. I'm not interested in writin clear beautiful prose. I'm interested in ideas. You have no argumets against my ideas, just rhetoric about my bad style and misrepresentations. Maybe you'll consider some ideas someday and then you'll learn how to make cogent criticisms of my view! Until then, keep hoping.
Why not? All ideas are worth engaging with. Even idiots are worth engaging. To think anything less means submitting to the claws of anti-intellectualism. Not like you ever bothered with intellectual life anyway...
I guess if my ideas aren't worth engaging with, then you can just engage with misrepresentations of them, things I never said, right?
You have never even once explained what makes my view an essentialist one. My guess is, you're just saying that because you're a contrarian. You know the main gender anti-essentialist is Judith Butler, so you accuse me of saying the opposite of what she says. If that's true, why don't you point out where my view actually differs from Butler's? I'm warning you, it won't be an easy task. Because clearly you're not saying Butler's a gender essentialist right? Like I said, Butler's view is THE major representative of gender anti-essentialism. As I've said before, if I'm an essentialist, so is Butler (unless you can prove otherwise) and if Butler's an essentialist, you need a new anti-essentialist theory. The problem is you don't have one. There isn't a surplus of competing anti-essentialist theories about gender. There's Butler and not much else.
despite your best efforts, you make trad sound fun, and actively desirable my friend. it's like matt and liz bruenig, don't give em rope.
In islam, fun is haram so this doesn't phase me, I'm immune to all hipster politics including identity ones. But just keep this in mind.
In islam, fun is haram so this doesn't phase me, I'm immune to all hipster politics including identity ones. But just keep this in mind.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Just to simplify my above post here's the problem: no one but me has an actual argument in support of anti-essentialism.
You can call me an essentialist all day, but none of you have a real argument for an alternative kind of anti-essentialism.
I doubt that anyone here except me can even define anti-essentialism in positive terms. That means no defining anti-essentialism as "any view that isn't essentialist" or "the view that genders hae no essence".
You can call me an essentialist all day, but none of you have a real argument for an alternative kind of anti-essentialism.
I doubt that anyone here except me can even define anti-essentialism in positive terms. That means no defining anti-essentialism as "any view that isn't essentialist" or "the view that genders hae no essence".
Someone would need to play referee if this feminin fight thread ever gets made. Who would it be? You, Third?
Looks like @ghost of beiser is ducking me because he doesn't know what essentialism or anti-essentialism is!
Anyway, about this debate with @mixed_biscuits . What would the topic be? Anyone have any suggestions?
Anyway, about this debate with @mixed_biscuits . What would the topic be? Anyone have any suggestions?
Admit that you don't know the difference between essentialism and anti-essentialism, troll. You can't even name the main representative of anti-essentialism. But thanks for confirming that your goal here is to hurt my feelings rather than engage in any sort of significant intellectual discourse.
Let's not forget, @ghost of beiser is the guy whose main proposal for how to fight the patriarchy is to have good relationships with women. So I guess lonely men can't be feminists huh? If a man has no female friends he's not a real feminist says Beiser. I guess there's no way to for men to do feminism among men, right? So since there are basically no women on this forum, it's impossible for anyone here to fight the patriarchy in the way beiser desires. Brilliant.
Not to mention, there are plenty of men who have good relationships with women but still support patriarchal institutions and still do nothing for feminism. We don't consider someone anti-racist just because they have a lot of black friends! Try again, beiser. Having good relationships with women will do nothing to change systems. Building communities around emotional availability, altruism and openmindedness will.
Having good relationships with women is a matter of individuals, not institutions. Beiser has no idea how to change institutions. For example, there are too few positive female characters represented in art. That won't change if I make friends with a lot of women. We need to actually create female characters who represent feminine values, like diversity, unconditional love and respect, and sensitivity.
Not to mention, there are plenty of men who have good relationships with women but still support patriarchal institutions and still do nothing for feminism. We don't consider someone anti-racist just because they have a lot of black friends! Try again, beiser. Having good relationships with women will do nothing to change systems. Building communities around emotional availability, altruism and openmindedness will.
Having good relationships with women is a matter of individuals, not institutions. Beiser has no idea how to change institutions. For example, there are too few positive female characters represented in art. That won't change if I make friends with a lot of women. We need to actually create female characters who represent feminine values, like diversity, unconditional love and respect, and sensitivity.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
But we might consider it a bit suspicious if a white person who's built their whole persona around being anti-racist had no non-white friends, despite living in a neighbourhood where non-white people make up half the population.
A suspicion isn't a substantial argument though. And in this case, it's more like an ad hominem attack. You're criticizing someone's personal life and acting like you can draw conclusions about their politics from it.
ghost
Well-known member
You can draw conclusions about people's politics from their personal lives. It's actually not hard at all, and it's often very accurate. People ask you not to do it and it's often more polite not to. But, how do you say this… the personal is political, isn't it?
Anyway—yes, I do agree that it's impossible to make meaningful political change in the world if you spend all your time on Dissensus and have no friends that are women. You can quote me on that.
This is the one of the most bonkers arguments I've heard in this thread. Apparently, women in media need to represent an idealized form of femininity? "Unconditional love" is not a "feminine virtue", it's an harmful ideal, not to be lionized. Let's post a classic image here, one that is actually a meaningful political statement:
Anyway—yes, I do agree that it's impossible to make meaningful political change in the world if you spend all your time on Dissensus and have no friends that are women. You can quote me on that.
If you want to spend time creating communities without knowing any women, then you're probably part of the problem. If you are seriously in that position, I would ask that you refrain from trying to engage society in any grand projects. This is a rare instance of the phenomenon of a Male Savior Complex, and it's going to be harmful, to everyone involved. Consider, I don't know, joining a lawn bowling club.
I agree with this.
"The personal is political" means the domestic is political. For example, issues between married couples are poltical, issues like domestic abuse. But no, "the personal is political" does not mean you can draw conclusions about a person's politics from ad hominem attacks, as you do.
Art should represent good morals and values. If those values are idealized, all the better: art should represent values our actual society fails to realize. Art is filled with idealized images of men. Do you want to say that Superman is evil, and no story about him can ever convey a good moral? There's nothing wrong with aspirational art. Art that draws from imagination rather than experience can be good art.
Suppose a man has only ever known abusive women. By your logic, this man should only ever portray women as evil and abusive in his art. How is that good representation of women in art? I want to represent female characters who portray positive role models for men and women. If I act like you, I can only do that if I've known female role models in real life. But incels lack female role models in their real life. Why not invent some female role models? Your vision of art is inimical to imagination.
Conditional love is way worse that unconditional love. Conditional love treats everyone like property to be owned. If you want to treat all women like sex workers, that's on you. I want to love people for who they are, real people valuable as ends in themselves. You want to love people like objectified tools for you pleasure.
You seem to think all ideals are harmful. Again, you lack imagination and promote anti-intellectualism. Worse, you excoriate others for having the imagination you lack. There's nothing wrong with having ideals. If we have no ideals, it becomes very hard to make any positive change to society. We may never fully realize our ideals, but we need an ideal to approach to know we've made progress.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether men can do feminism among men. Do men have any unique contribution to feminism? You say no. Well look, incels lack female friends, so according to you, they can't do feminism. It's not like there's this massive pool of women eager to make friends with men whom incels just refuse to draw from. Plenty of incels would have female friends if they could make any, but they can't. According to you, because of their unpopularity with women, they should just give up on feminism. Sorry, but that's a non-starter. It's also a non-starter to say, as you do, that feminism can't be done in all-male communities.
This is just more anti-intellectualism. I'm part of the problem because I want to do philosophy? I'm part of the problem because I want to build communities where there are no women around? I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if there were women on this forum, but there aren't. Therefore, we need a way to do feminism by men and among men.
You claim that feminism can only be done in relation to people born in female bodies or identifying as women. That is essentialism.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
How to be an ally to the woman in your life:
1. Always ask for seconds unless you can see that there's nothing left
2. Lift your feet up when the vacuum.'s coming round.
3. That'll do
But seriously, how about we be the change we want to see: I propose that no male forum member post until we have 100 consecutive posts by females. That will motivate us to make this a gender equal space.
1. Always ask for seconds unless you can see that there's nothing left
2. Lift your feet up when the vacuum.'s coming round.
3. That'll do
But seriously, how about we be the change we want to see: I propose that no male forum member post until we have 100 consecutive posts by females. That will motivate us to make this a gender equal space.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Exactly. "Have you tried unconditional love?" is something you can imagine a particularly shitty priest saying to one of his parishioners who's just confessed that she's not as into her husband as she used to be, on account of him drinking all the housekeeping money and fucking other women, and then hitting her when confronted about it.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I thought that good parenting and being a good friend requires unconditional love: those friends sticking up for Letby are doing it right, love is not meant to track the truth. Lots of people are messed up from having had parents who made their love conditional.