Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

At least you're a feminist who's honest!

It has nothing to do with honesty but rather allowing men to come to the realization of female superiority themselves.
There is no way a woman can directly tell a man that females are superior but it is no secret that this is what women wish for.

no, we don't wish for that.

I think he's pulling our leg.

i can never tell.

Wrt. Dworkin, Hyperlexian is correct: she was describing sex in a patriarchal paradigm. It is no less valid to describe the woman as enveloping, encompassing, or covering the man than it is to describe the man as penetrating the woman; both descriptions leave out the fact that it generally occurs because the two are mutually drawn together.

It was Catharine MacKinnon who promulgated that all heterosexual sex is rape in a "patriarchy".

If this is a patriarchal society, then how come rape of a woman is considered worse than murder in our society, while rape of a man is the subject of jokes or people just assume the man is lucky and wanted it anyways?

I never find any form of rape funny man or woman just as I find it offensive every time a person is raped and people say they were asking for it. There is no excuse for sexual violence and molestation against an unwilling victim man or woman.

This is a great example of what I was trying to say before regarding advertising. One does not have to be a straight male to appreciate female beauty. And, indeed, most people do respond to it. It seems we are in agreement, sir.

Btw, how does the fact of whether a society is patriarchal or matriarchal change the act of copulation? Unless you are referencing female "circumcision" or the habitual rape of females in some third world countries?

Yeah adding "within patriarchal cultures" to "All sex is rape" makes it so much less of a melodramatic persecutory delusion . It isn't rape in any type of society that gives you the right to give consent.

So it's within the context of sex being the most effective means of oppression within an evil patriarchy. Well no s**t, I sort of figured that out already. But I guess adding "within patriarchal cultures" supposedly makes my argument irrelevant even though it's just stating the obvious. So would you care to specifically address it rather than dismiss it with something vague like "Ohhh you took it out of context"? Because you know, "within patriarchal cultures" doesn't give it some deep hidden meaning that can't be derived from a single paragraph.

It doesn't change the act of copulation, it changes how it is read. In a patriarchal society, the man 'f***s' the woman. There's an inherent violence and domination in that paradigm. In an equal society, the man and the woman have sex - in that sentence the man is not the subject and the woman is not the object being verbed (f****d).*

Plus, you can't have straight sex and deny that the traditional paradigm is very phallocentric. Even the idea that PIV (penis in vagina) is** sex and that you can't have sex without PIV reflects a patriarchal culture. The idea that women get to orgasm too is a relatively new one in Western culture, although no doubt some couples discovered it privately before the feminist movement.



* Before BDSM people jump on me about some women getting off on being treated that way, the fact that they get to make a choice to be objectified means that they are not operating in the same traditionally patriarchal way, because traditionally female submission was not a choice.

** In the sense that only PIV is sex and nothing else counts as sex.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 22 Mar 2012, 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Um, the "idea" that PIV intercourse is sex is something that is understood in all cultures[as is the "idea" that PIA(penis-in-asshole) is sex; regardless of whether the receiver is male or female]. Any culture that has ever tried to brainwash and delude its constituents into thinking that it's not sex and therefore should be avoided is one that is doomed to extinction(just like the Shakers of the 19th century). This idea of "phallocentrism" comes from the postmodernist crackpot Jacques Derrida who in tern extrapolated it from logocentrism which I'm quite certain is absolutely correct because certain word definitions become circular. Especially when they describe emotive forces like want.

BDSM is so much fun but make sure you use a safe word

I did not elaborate enough, by italicising is, I meant 'the idea that PIV is sex and nothing else is sex'. Of course, penis in anus was always included in that definition but that form of sex was taboo in Western cultures until recently (and still sort of is).

That idea is the one that has led to the attitude that lesbians can't have sex because no penis is involved. The penis is taken as the defining attribute of sex. That is phallocentrism.

That really falls under LGBT rights, not women's rights. Also, you've neglected the fact that gay male sex isn't traditionally accepted either (probably even less so).