|
I can do a massive effortpost about women and men in Japan from like the 1800's to the modern day if anyone is interested in that derail. Doing a Japan and race thing in Negrotown at the moment
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Got a question. I get how hegemonic masculinity is the problem for feminist movements, but how do feminists approach emphasized femininity and the women who propagate it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Is hegemonic masculinity the problem or is the patriarchy? Be careful not to conflate the two. Personally, I think Connell's analytical framework is too narrow on that. Also, she's very binary. Yeah, sorry, I worded my question badly. I meant to ask how you approach, from a feminist position, women who do propagate emphasized femininity (without inferring it is women that propagate it). I.E, at what point is it harmful to the feminist movement in how any particular woman chooses to gender herself in her dress, mannerisms and behaviors? Genocyber posted:I would be very interested in reading about this, I will probably get on it, but likely after the Womens Marches are over as I can see this thread will probably be busy and now is probably not the best time to introduce a big TL;DR or five. Just as a disclaimer: I know very little about feminism, but I can historicize womens issues in my one field of expertise. I'll likely touch on things such as employment in Japan for women, and the contradiction of the Japanese governments liberal abortion policy and conservative contraception policies in respect to women. Childcare as well, will probably appear.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'd definitely be interested in reading this too. Can you link to your Japan/race post too? Click mah quote name. Posted a few times in that thread so far.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Go plan your next rape. Okay you are being ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Oh hey sup rakosi, bumbling into another conversation you have no understanding of the context behind? Well I'm sure you know best! Male snap judgments outweigh female informed opinions every time. Maybe you could accuse male allies of "groveling" in here too. stone cold posted:Get out, rakosi. You don't get to tell the women of this thread to not yell at a pig who comes in to be a rape apologist and denier, and then who posts unspoiled sexual assault details. I don't have to kowtow to every statement you make to be an ally to your cause. Explain to me how suggesting he should go "plan his next rape" was even remotely constructive. You know, I really tried to put in effort and contribute with posts from within my area of expertise but it is apparent that even very slight differences in tone are not just unwelcome here but are considered literal accessories to sexual violence and such. You are utterly, provably not on this forum to debate if this is your reaction to someone who has honestly tried to contribute, but has called you out on posting something rather extreme and ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I'm not even mad at anyone. I'm really confused at the sudden and uncalled for vitriol. For the record, I was referring to your reaction to me, not to your reaction to the other guy. You flipped your poo poo big stylie at me, for saying "Go plan your next rape" was probably an inopportune choice of words, and that is odd. If this dude is an arch-nazi-anti-feminist I am utterly unaware, but I would've thought my attempt at contributing to some conversations here would've at least given me half a second of benefit of doubt. Apparently not. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:LeJackal is a known gimmick poster who likes to be contrarian and weird about poo poo, especially but not exclusively gun politics. Him waltzing into the feminism thread to tell TB, a woman, that she's silly and making things up, while me, a good upstanding man, gave good information, is preposterously patronizing. That what she was talking about is easily provable makes it even funnier. Thank you for the heads up and that explanation. For the record, I never saw any unspoiled version.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
botany posted:that is the exact explanation that TB and stone cold gave you multiple times but you had to wait for a man to say "oh thanks i didn't know that", lmao. Only after they flipped their poo poo at me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Lol neeeever fails, never fails, never fuckin' fails. Women can line up and repeat the same statement until the heat death of the universe, but Mr. Expert can't hear it until a man repeats it for him. It was a conscious decision not to get into some silly flame war by replying in kind to the sort of vitriolic responses I got; instead I tried to ignore them best as I could and replied instead to a post which was rhetorically less of a minefield in an attempt to maybe defuse this a little. Him being an apparent man did not at any point enter into my mind, but I am not convinced you would believe that. I'm not an "expert" in anything, either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Also feminism 101, and I'm telling you this sincerely under the assumption that you're posting in good faith but from a position of ignorance: when a woman, or other marginalised person, is angry and calling out problematic behaviour, the correct response is to shut up and listen. If you can't understand why they are angry, the correct response is to figure that out for yourself without questioning or invalidating their anger. I will leave and think about this; though I refute that carte blanche language should be acceptable anywhere on the forums in any circumstances, but that's my own personal forums politics. I won't bother this thread again, until I've thought about things more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 23:18
|
|