Discordian Feminists

[Junkenstein]

Garbo, yes, more the federal side of things. I was guessing the change of heart regarding medical reform would have been shelved first off. I don't know how accurate that assumption is, it's mainly based on the stance seeming to change over the years from quite left to fairly right wing. In fairness my sources are pretty biased here though so I won't pretend to know the intricacies.

JN - Voter's preference is difficult for me to discuss. In a world where the tallest or "best hair" candidates win incredibly more frequently, I have very little respect for many voting systems.

I think what I was trying to get at was a "Black candiate" winning is a "direct win" for (15%?) of the population, whereas a "female candiate" winning could be seen as a "victory" for (50ish%?) of the nation. People love bandwagons.

You make a fair point about how voting freedoms tend to occur, I guess I'm asking what you think would happen if this process got radically altered and say the next president was, for sake of argument, Hispanic female.

[The Johnny]

You make a fair point about how voting freedoms tend to occur, I guess I'm asking what you think would happen if this process got radically altered and say the next president was, for sake of argument, Hispanic female.

Well, other than a bunch of rednecks screeching "GET IN DA KITCHEN" or "OMG COUNTRY RUINED" or "YOU ARE A BAD WOMAN, NOT LOOKING AFTER YOUR CHILDREN AND FAMILY" or even "IS HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE REAL???"

Id say it would speak more about the ideology of the voters rather than what practical changes it would bring about.

To me, it would mean that the voters think that given Hispanic female is thought of as a competent leader worthy of their vote and a better option of their probably male opposition.

This has nothing at all to do with assuming said given president would bring about benefitial reforms for females nor hispanics.

[The Johnny]

On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?

Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.

I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.

No real answers or insights here, just questions.

Are you talking about the federal level, Junk? 'Cause I thought Obama's been relatively good on that score. Clinton would have put her foot down, definitely though. That's kind of one of her things, iirc.

"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.

And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.

Take welfare as an example

"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"

Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.

The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.

The reverse discrimination aversion thought process, to me, seems this way:

"Them blacks or hispanics arent really qualified for the job, they are getting a free pass"

I kind of think we're interpreting that phrase differently, JN. "reverse discrimination" = POC/women/queers fucking over white people/men/non-queers over the way they've been screwed over (essentially).

I meant affirmative action aversion, sorry.

[Freeky]

W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.

Also, getting punched sucks.

The end.

Well using physical violence on someone smaller and physically weaker than you is a douchebag move, irrespective of sex.

That it is, but I've heard no-troll arguments where the guy was arguing boys being taught to not hit girls when they're young is sexist against guys and he should be able to hit girls; tiny, large or in between.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

 

W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.

Also, getting punched sucks.

The end.

Well using physical violence on someone smaller and physically weaker than you is a douchebag move, irrespective of sex.

That it is, but I've heard no-troll arguments where the guy was arguing boys being taught to not hit girls when they're young is sexist against guys and he should be able to hit girls; tiny, large or in between.

you cannot be sexist against a group that holds the majority share of the power. this is not how Kyriarchy is formed. 

domestic violence from any party is not on. A dude yelling at me is one of the few things that will make me break down and get scared, due to witnessing DV in my parents relationship.  women, not so much, but that's how learned behaviour is formed.

[Freeky]

Domestic violence is one of the worst things.  One of many, sure, but still one of.

And also there's the fact that guys are, generally speaking though by no means always, way, way bigger and stronger, and precisely like you said, beating anyone smaller than you--unless for some reason you're both into that sort of thing--is not on.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

you cannot be sexist against a group that holds the majority share of the power. this is not how Kyriarchy is formed. 

And racial minorities can't be racist as long as it's aimed toward white males?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, that's not how it works. Racism and sexism are two way streets. Bigotry is a one-way street from the empowered to the disempowered. People often conflate the two.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Also, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?

I've been a self-identified feminist well before colliding with discordia and it has survived intact.

[Placid Dingo]

I didn't explicitly identify as a feminist until after Discordia but they're not really connected.

What Discordia has done for me is a process of questioning what something IS, or the idea that an ideology can BE anything in an objective sense. I know that feminism is different things to different people, there's division between feminists who think feminism can include men's issues or not (and I have an obvious vested interest in the former). So it's important to me to understand that my feminism may not be your feminism.

I do understand the skepticism Vex expresses. There's certainty too far (I know of the sincere argument 'all heterosexual sex is rape'.) It's certainly not the common thing found but there's a fair point that just because something represents a reaction to prejudice does not mean it shouldnt be judged singularly on it's own benefits. I do feel that most feminist argument, at least encountered in the mainstream, is not this kind of excess.

I get the argument tha Christianity is inherently prejudiced to women but I can't agree. I think we need to judge a 'living' ideology by it's active form. Saying that Christianity is anti-women because a technically correct interpretation says so seems like saying that China is looking after their people really well because communism is about equality. Maybe its just because Australia is less fundamentalist but i think in ten years Christians under 25 will give as little of a shit about homosexuality as they currently give about premarital sex.

[Pæs]

Yeah, that's not how it works. Racism and sexism are two way streets. Bigotry is a one-way street from the empowered to the disempowered. People often conflate the two.

Although the terms often require definition. There is a more specific definition of the terms used in discussion of power dynamics which requires sexism or racism to be prejudice combined with the power to act on or enforce it.

Short definition: Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

Which is fine, but it needs to be made clear that when the term is invoked in this way that we are discussing a different thing to simply being biased based on gender/race.

[Triple Zero]

Haven't read all 5 pages yet so maybe someone already mentioned but iirc Darth Cupcake is also an active feminist and she even has a blog on it iirc.

To answer the OP's question:

> Also, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?

Well I was brought up by a strongly feminist mother, so I got that before Discordia, and I also got over the rebelling against it before Discordia, so when I met Discordia I quickly questioned feminism, then decided it was this thing, we should probably have more of it, if it's done right.

Also, the particular Discord on this forum here, taught me the fun of calling people out on their shit and questioning their statements such that they find themselves in an awkward public position, which is useful against misogyny, all sorts of bigotry and even feminism itself But now that I think about it, I think in my every day life, I engage the strife in calling out (misogynist) people on feminist topics most often. Even sometimes women, which makes me extra furious because they usually cushion the supposed lower status in a reversed stereotype "but women are more sensitive/empathic/deal better with emotional topics/etc/wawawawa"

[Triple Zero]

When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.

Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.

To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.

Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.

Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.

You know you're making the exact same mistake in reasoning as mr. Youtube Beardo Realisticnihilist is making, judging followers of a religion by how they should act "by the book" even if it should be obvious that not all followers do so.

I can understand how things may seem to you to be like that but Christianity isn't the same all over the world like it is in the USA, nor did you even invent it or anything.

At any rate, YOU do not get to decide what "actual Christians" are, or what they're "supposed to" do.

On the other hand, calling them out like this IS useful in the sense that it forces the Christians that say they're not like that and "we're not all like that" to actively denounce the ones that ARE.

BUT that is IMO the only point you should focus on when pursuing that road. Which means it's only useful with actual Christians around, so you can force them to denounce the bad Christians. Otherwise you're pointlessly bitching about some religion in a circlejerk like one of those atheists.

[Triple Zero]

If anything Discordianism has made me more suspicious of arguments from both ends of feminism; the "we don't want no women runnin' the planet" bullshit, AND the "I have a vagina and people like me have been oppressed for centuries, therefore I am more equal" bullshit. I tend to have very little patience for people who argue for special treatment to compensate for poor treatment, and then call it "equality." I haven't seen much of that here, and the moderated, no-bullshit attitude of women who post on PD helps me avoid the pitfalls of making stupid pro- and anti- feminist assumptions.

I don't think I've ever met a feminist (radical feminist don't really count imo) who has ever said that. Also, how far are you taking this "special privilege" argument of yours?

I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.

I see, you just like to rant at people and behaviours that aren't actually here, or part of the discourse.

I feel exactly the same way about those radical Jedi that like to assrape puppies with their "light" sabres.

[Triple Zero]

On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?

Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.

I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.

No real answers or insights here, just questions.

Im talking about voter's preference, not about presidential actions.

This is within the scope of historical events, in which male minorities always get their rights before women.

Women's liberation and rights came after the segregation battles.

On the other hand it's arguable that white women have a much shorter and less painful trail to equality than African-Americans had, and their struggle for equality began decades later. Women got the vote in 1918, but even though blacks technically "could" vote in 1869, they were effectively (and brutally) denied that right for over a century in many cases -- well after women got the right.

HELLO? THIS IS WORLD

YES HELLO WORLD

I think this is a bit of a stupid comparison. Your black slavery segregation battles are rather unique to US history. And where there are similar histories elsewhere they happen between different parties. The fight for women's rights is happening all over the world, and it's the same gender.