you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]a_blue_bird 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don't know what else to write beyond what I already wrote. But one thing really can't be explained away with ''women are just raised to be docile and to go along with the stream" - the political lesbians among radfems. They're very clearly going against the stream. And there is plenty of men who think at least as badly of women as radfems think of men, yet those men aren't ''switching teams''. For all the different cases that you can imagine where a woman ''changes'' her sexuality there just don't seem to be analogue behaviors among men.

[–]Astrid2448 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You mean like straight men sleeping with each other in prison? Sexual behavior can be weird anywhere, people just hide it depending on how it’s seen by their demographic of interest. In the case of radfems, they aren’t trying to impress men, they’re trying to impress their radfem friends who see lesbianism as some pure higher existence (which it is not). They are trying to show that they are independent and don’t need a man to those people, often after something bad like abuse. Gay men are not seen as pure by anyone, because what they do isn’t trivialized and fetishized. Instead it tends to mark whoever does it as feminine (which is seen as insulting) and disgusting, especially historically.

Edit: person above me explained this very well

[–]a_blue_bird 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're giving various explanations, but it doesn't really matter. The question of the topic is ''why women's sexuality is taken less seriously'', I replied ''because of women's actions''. You write that women act that way because they are trying to break away from patriarchy, are trying to appeal to men, are trying to get back at men, are trying to create a certain image, etc., etc. Ok. But none of that affects the claim that women are taken less seriously because of their own actions. Even if every word that you write about women's motivation is true.

Edit: ok, that comment wasn't by you, but it applies to both of you.

[–]TalerTest 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said, "I think it has to do more with women's own actions than with misogyny." If you just said "because of women's actions" I don't think I would have even replied to that. You can't separate those types of women's actions from misogyny. If we were not living in a man > woman world, I have no doubt that those women would behave differently.

But none of that affects the claim that women are taken less seriously because of their own actions.

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with this either. The comments I see are disagreeing with those actions not having much to do with misogyny.

[–]a_blue_bird 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay, I see your point.

You can't separate those types of women's actions from misogyny.

Why not?

If we were not living in a man > woman world, I have no doubt that those women would behave differently.

If by man > woman you mean men holding most of power and wealth in the world, in relationships etc., then I think you're wishing for an unrealistic world. Yes, if our biology was different, women were biologically the same as men, we could have that world where women would act just like men. It's just not going to happen.

Plus, the way I saw it, the behaviour vs misogyny argument was between whether a person who dismisses women's self-ID'd sexuality is doing that because this person is a misogynist, or because s/he has observed the way how women tend to behave and then drew some conclusions.