There's some censorship going on in the newly popular feminist subs and it needs to be openly addressed.

submitted by [deleted] from (self.SaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nonpenishaver 140 insightful - 13 fun140 insightful - 12 fun141 insightful - 13 fun -  (191 children)

GenderCritical was a sub for women who know that patriarchy exists. Who know that gender identity is bullshit. We will never be able to have productive discussions if we constantly keep having to "debate" men who come in and try to convince us that the very foundations of our beliefs are wrong. It'll go around it circles forever. There's no point to it. Personally I feel you should be able to comment but I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

Edit: whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"? Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs. This is something men on reddit do and it's fucking annoying.

[–]rdh2121 83 insightful - 7 fun83 insightful - 6 fun84 insightful - 7 fun -  (47 children)

whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"?

It's still alive and well. If you don't like a comment someone made on /s/GenderCritical, hide it and move on. If the sub is on /s/all, the sub is not a safe space, and exists for all users on Saidit. If that's not what the users of /s/GenderCritical want, all you have to do is remove yourselves from /s/all, and you can be as exclusive as you like.

Saidit was created to combat exclusion and censorship. You came here for that very acceptance of diverse viewpoints, so that's what you're getting. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[–][deleted] 49 insightful - 6 fun49 insightful - 5 fun50 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

The rules quite aside, saying the patriarchy doesn't exist when you can read the news and tell it does isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie.

Saying women aren't in more danger in heterosexual relationships than men are isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie. Look at the domestic murder stats sometime. We can argue all day long about what constitutes abuse but no one can debate dead, and usually not who caused the death either.

Saying abortion should be outlawed isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's denying pregnant women basic bodily autonomy and literally giving them fewer rights than a corpse (unless the person signed an organ donor card when they were alive, you can't take anything from them after death, whereas a fetus in an abortion-outlawed country can take its mother's blood, nutrients, and even life and she can't legally do anything about it even if the pregnancy endangers her). Saying that's OK is douchebaggery, not a "diverse viewpoint."

We have to go by the rules here, but I had to speak to this, because I'm tired of bad-faith debaters pretending like women's lives mean jack shit. I'm a woman. My life means a lot to me. My perspective of a man's arguments will necessarily be colored by that. I'm not sitting here pretending that men are not in danger from one another -- you are worse enemies to one another than you ever are to us! How you react to that is your business. How we react to our situations is ours.

But yes. We should definitely not be on /s/all if it's going to be that much a point of contention. God forbid teh menz not be able to correct women at every possible fucking turn. (That's how it looks from here. That's all we ever see online anymore.)

[–]xigoi 24 insightful - 7 fun24 insightful - 6 fun25 insightful - 7 fun -  (11 children)

saying the patriarchy doesn't exist when you can read the news and tell it does isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie.

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Saying women aren't in more danger in heterosexual relationships than men are isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie. Look at the domestic murder stats sometime.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

God forbid teh menz not be able to correct women at every possible fucking turn.

I'd prefer to not judge people's arguments by their gender.

[–]ankh 30 insightful - 4 fun30 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Ah, yes. Women should totally forget being raped to death since before written history because they get to be token hires and get huge

scholarships for useless liberal arts degree. I think you overestimate the benefits of being a Democratic political pawn.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

Relationships don't start off abusive, and why are women are responsible for violent men?

I understand that there are a lot of crazy feminists, but most GC talking points just boil down to "men rape A LOT". Do you feel that this is up for debate?

[–]voi_che_sapete 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Maybe check actual data next time.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

About a quarter of the women I know have experienced physical abuse. With only one exception, you would never have guessed the man was violent. They are often kind, wellspoken people with decent jobs and social skills. Also, terrifyingly, the abuse tends to appear years into the relationship.

I'd prefer to not judge people's arguments by their gender.

That's your privilege. On an individual level, I do the same, but when a class of people is making your life miserable in a specific context, you make policy accordingly. That's just logical.

[–]xigoi 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe check actual data next time.

According to actual data, men are less likely to win custody, receive higher sentences for the same crimes, have to pay in order to enter some bars, don't have men-specific abuse shelters, etc.

With only one exception, you would never have guessed the man was violent.

(X) Doubt
I mean, if you assume that good-looking men are always good, yes.

when a class of people is making your life miserable in a specific context

How is every single of 4 billion people on the planet making your life miserable?

[–]voi_che_sapete 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to data, actually, men gain custody a disproportionate amount of the time when they're the primary caregiver and ask for it; contrarily women who profess to being abused in court often lose custody, even in cases where the abuse is corroborated and acknowledged by the court. As for sentencing, that does hold up under scrutiny, and I hope it is talked about more and something is done about it.

Regarding bars: world's smallest violin. No reasonable person cares that much. Maybe try socializing in settings like house party scenes, musical subcultures, and the like - particularly places where consent culture is a big thing. In my experience, the more egalitarian a group is, the more the whole thing isn't just some race to populate a party with single females and everyone is valued (plus dating is way more relaxed and fun).

Regarding shelters: more and more domestic violence shelters for men are popping up and I'm all for it. None of these things disprove or discount feminism, and thinking so is incredibly simpleminded.

I mean, if you assume that good-looking men are always good, yes.

Look at Mr. Data here just assuming all of these men were conventionally attractive? lol. Do you redpill-influenced people ever actually go out in the world? Do you date and have social lives with people you have things in common with? Engage in hobbies? Your arguments are so easy to dispel from the perspective of anyone who is remotely worldly. Some of these men were my good friends, and the weddings were universally applauded by their friends and family. It's still a huge mindfuck thinking about the fact these people struck their partners.

How is every single of 4 billion people on the planet making your life miserable?

Straw man via hysterical escalation. That's not what I said and if you'd rather paint it that way than use your brain and think in terms of generalities and systems, you're a lost cause.

[–]xigoi 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In my experience, the more egalitarian a group is, the more the whole thing isn't just some race to populate a party with single females and everyone is valued

Good point, but feminists often don't seem very egalitarian.

None of these things disprove or discount feminism, and thinking so is incredibly simpleminded.

I'd say feminism isn't a coherent ideology anymore, so I'd rather argue against specific points rather than an abstract word that everyone defines differently. (Before you ask, by “feminists” in the previous paragraph I meant people who identify as feminists, no matter what they think it means.)

assuming all of these men were conventionally attractive

Occam's razor.

you redpill-influenced people

I'm rather blackpilled.

Some of these men were my good friends, and the weddings were universally applauded by their friends and family. It's still a huge mindfuck thinking about the fact these people struck their partners.

This still seems fishy to me. Almost all of your male friends were pretending to be good for several years, without giving away anything about their actually evil nature until it was too late? That doesn't sound like something that could just happen. I feel like there's something more going on that I can't determine because I don't personally know them or you.

use your brain and think in terms of generalities and systems

If you see generalizations as a good thing, I don't even know what to say.

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–]radfemanon 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    We have removed GC from appearing on s/all.

    [–]voi_che_sapete 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    I think this is a solid choice. I don't think we need substantial traffic from the larger SaidIt community anyway.

    Now all the sanctimonious asshats on this thread can stfu. We don't need you to explain free speech to us. If you don't fully understand why some spaces need to be moderated even though free speech is important, listen to us and actually use your brains to understand where we're coming from next time.

    [–]radfemanon 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree.

    [–]Mein_Tarnaccount 15 insightful - 11 fun15 insightful - 10 fun16 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

    Poor wittle western wamen. The most coddled group of people to ever have existed, constantly complaining about how hard you have it. God damnit, you are a weak bunch. You can be glad so many men don't have their lizard brains under control, otherwise nobody would want anything to do with you non-contributing product sponge harpies.

    [–]voi_che_sapete 33 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 9 fun34 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

    Poor wittle western redpillers, so histrionic.

    It's so classic for men to project their problems onto women - claiming women are the lustful sex when they have the out-of-control sex drives, for instance, as the Greeks did. This "victimhood" accusation is just an extension of that: the reality is, you lot think you're the real victims, and can't shut up about how victimized you think you are.

    [–]Earl_Harbinger 12 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

    A viewpoint isn't a diverse viewpoint if I disagree!

    Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to debate.

    [–]Lostcarkeys 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

    Maybe saidit isn't for you. This isn't a place of echo chambers.

    Clearly you have a problem with your ideology being challenged. Maybe you should go back to reddit and start another radfem sub or join one of the existing ones. I'm sure there are many left.

    [–]malthuswaswrong 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Saying abortion should be outlawed isn't a "diverse viewpoint,"

    You had me up until here. Patriarchy does exist and is a good thing in my opinion. Males are disposable, females are not. A village with 100 females and 2 males has a fighting chance of survival. A village of 100 males and 2 females is doomed unless the males go on rape-raids to neighboring villages.

    Women do have a physical disadvantage compared to men. This isn't disputable.

    Women do not have a right to abort a pregnancy just because it's inconvenient. Only if the child is deformed or the life of the mother is at risk. "I want to keep partying" or "I want to finish my Master's Degree in Gender Studies" are not reasons to kill a baby.

    Edit: It occurred to me that I had to further expand on the Patriarchy thing. Women seem to think that "Patriarchy" means "men are in charge". What it really means is men pay the taxes, men are punished for abandoning the family, men go to war, men die in dangerous jobs. Anyone who is married can clearly explain how little "power" men have in society. Men face risk and punishment for failing to behave the way society expects them to behave. That's what Patriarchy is... and again, that's the natural order of the world. Societies that failed to prioritize the lives and health of women and children over adult men didn't make it into the modern age. They're all dead and dust and we look at their artifacts in our museums... that were built by men.

    load more comments (2 replies)

      [–]pink_lioness 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      Free speech just means you get to say what you want as long as you aren't enticing violence, it doesn't mean everyone has to listen and respond to you. I think that's what the person above is saying, that we should all be able to say what we want, but if men come in here and try to force us to debate we don't have to. I don't see how they're trying to 'have their cake and eat it too' honestly, free speech doesn't mean you owe everyone a response. Like for example, lots of feminist subreddits had separate debate or ask subreddits so that men could ask questions/debate there and not constantly derail conversations.

      [–]JustAnotherRevanFan 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      That's a great idea actually, we should open s/GCDebate or something for those of us who feel like answering men's inane questions and recycled arguments.

      [–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      This is also something we will do when we can make additional subs.

      load more comments (4 replies)

        [–]teelo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

        If that's not what the users of /s/GenderCritical want, all you have to do is remove yourselves from /s/all, and you can be as exclusive as you like.

        BUT the question we need to address is: should be the moderators be permitted to go and exclude comments that were posted while the sub was still appearing on /all?

        [–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        Prior to our update to rule 4b in the sidebar the only comments I removed were ones with slurs in, which is a rule I added when I first became a mod on Monday.

        We are trying to keep the sub on topic and there are a lot of people upset at being displaced.

        We are not trying to censor anyone.

        load more comments (2 replies)

          [–]badMADam 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          I didn't know that means that anyone can now join any discussion and dumb the discussion down as they please. Let's go to any science sub and talk about flat- eart then. Or maybe subs should actually be allowed to make their own rules and set their own standards, and people who wish to discuss the topic from another point of view can make another sub? If scientists wish to debate flateartehrs they could male a sub XdebatesY, which GC and other feminists actually had on reddit.

          [–]Heczed 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          This would be ideal, I don't want GC on /s/all, it's not a debate sub, it's a community for GC women. I hope the GC mods fix this soon

          [–]radfemanon 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Yes, we removed it from s/all earlier and updated our sidebar.

          load more comments (1 reply)

            [–]Jesus-Christ 72 insightful - 14 fun72 insightful - 13 fun73 insightful - 14 fun -  (13 children)

            So you essentially don't want people questioning this ideaology of yours because you ""know"" you're right. That's a great way to go about things.

            [–]filbs111 50 insightful - 12 fun50 insightful - 11 fun51 insightful - 12 fun -  (2 children)

            Sometimes people just want to hang out with people like them. I don't go to churches and tell them that Jesus was too heavy to walk on water etc.

            [–]FlightRisk 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

            Then find a cushy feminist discord. A public forum like this is where debate and conversation happens weather you like it or not.

            [–]RuinedRook 32 insightful - 11 fun32 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

            So you essentially don't want people questioning this ideaology of yours because you ""know"" you're right. That's a great way to go about things.

            That's fourth wave feminism for you.

            [–]Canbot 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

            3rd wave

            [–]GConly 25 insightful - 9 fun25 insightful - 8 fun26 insightful - 9 fun -  (4 children)

            Don't get me started. Any deviation from radical feminist theory got you banned on Reddit GC.

            My prime example is the brain sex thing. Virtually every published paper demonstrates sex differences in brain structure, but GC repeatedly posts the same three authors (Joel etc) that deny it and ignore the thousands of papers and scientists that observe it as fact.

            Which is going to backfire in the end.

            [–]wardrobe 30 insightful - 2 fun30 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

            Respectfully, the studies say that people's brains are a mish mash of "typically male and female" structures and not two clear cut brains. If actual brain sex were real that would legitimise transgenderism because people's bodies actually could be misaligned with their brain. Humans are more complicated than that.

            [–]GConly 17 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

            If actual brain sex were real that would legitimise transgenderism because people's bodies actually could be misaligned with their brain

            No, because the brain scans have shown trans people have normal sexually developed brains for their sex and SO. What's up with them is a bit that handles body perception, and that's also linked to OCD and a bunch of other mental health problems. So.. mental health issue not, ' wrong brain sex'.

            In order to have body brain sex mismatch you'd need totally the wrong prenatal hormones, and that would leave you with intersex genital development. So the outside would still match the inside. You'll see this in severe cases of male androgen insensitivity, and in girls with severe CAH (excess prenatal testosterone). CAIS males have typically female brain development.

            About the only time you can get even close to this is in DHT insufficiency, where you'll get a normal male brain in what looks like a female body, like Caster Semenya. Which only lasts until puberty when the normal testosterone causes male muscle growth, voice breaking and size and you get an obvious male. With a vagina and internal balls.

            And the little boys with DHT insufficiency normally ID as boys long before puberty kicks in, wanting male playmates and avoiding 'girly' toys and clothes. Which does strongly suggest gendered behaviour has a hard ware component in humans. Because there's no real way to tell what they without a medical scan. This isn't down to socialisation. Cordelia Fine avoids discussing this group in her book for a very good reason, it shows a lot of behaviour is hard wired. And she also avoids the fetal testosterone experiments for the same reason.

            Humans that are homosexual have brains that fall between the two norms. They also have other behaviour between the sex norms. For example lesbians have higher offending rates, which does cast doubt that male offending is down to socialisation and adult male testosterone. You see higher rates of aggression and male play behaviour in female mammal embryos that you dose with testosterone and make gay.

            There's a reason for the stereo type of gay males being effeminate and lesbians being butch. They've had intermediate hormone exposure as embryos. It affects speech, body language, play, facial development, offending, body language.. which is probably why AGP TIMs don't ever pass but why some HSTS do.

            Humans are just animals, we're not special.

            load more comments (1 reply)

              [–]FuriousPenguin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              I don't think they defied the brain sex thing in general? More like doesn't mean you have a female brain if you like pink sort of thing. I don't know for sure, I was more of an observer.

              [–]badMADam 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              This is why they had the ask GC or ask PPF subs, for questions from outsiders, but having to refute and discuss the same really stupid assumptions and questions IN the actual subs just took away from the discussions, mostly those "skeptics" aren't adding anything of value and could answer their question just by reading the recommendated resources first. It is not about "knowing" you are right but about already having had a deeper analysis about a topic and then some wannabes who "know it better" come in, bring exactly the already refuted arguments again and keep discussing stupid shit. Again, those subs actually had extra discussion for this, which most subs do not have.

              load more comments (1 reply)

                [–][deleted] 48 insightful - 6 fun48 insightful - 5 fun49 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

                It's not just men that have been excluded from GC. I'm a woman, and I've been excluded for reasons other than what you stated here. And it's not just that I'm excluded, it's that other women are prevented from seeing these other perspectives. All content that dissents on these topics is removed, but nobody is aware of what's being removed. It is made to appear like there is a consensus on the issues, when there isn't. And it's further problematic because the movement claims to be speaking for women, when it's preventing some women from even voicing their opinions, let alone expecting respectful consideration of their perspective.

                I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

                I can agree with this.

                GC (and /s/Lesbians) can exist on SaidIt if it wants to exclude people based on sex, or viewpoint, or both, but in order to do this it needs to follow mod rule 4b as mentioned in OP.

                I also find it troubling that a post specifically about discussing censorship on the sub was singled out as one that needed to be locked, especially right at the moment when the sub itself is fleeing censorship.

                [–]Cass 17 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                I also find it troubling that a post specifically about discussing censorship on the sub was singled out as one that needed to be locked, especially right at the moment when the sub itself is fleeing censorship.

                "When people I don't like are silenced, then that's a good thing! It's only bad when it happens to me!"

                I think the og GC was good because with today's climate being what it is, someone starting to peak re trans issues would feel like there's something wrong with them (I know from experience) and the sub was validating.

                But other than that I saw sooo many gatekeeping posts. Like if you like 1984 you're not GC, if you like anime you're not GC, if you are right leaning you're not bla bla bla and in the end lots of posts in support of BLM, a male dominated terrorist organization. Like what would happen to women if the police did their job even less than they already do? I can imagine the huge number of rapes and murders and liberals not making the connection between that and defunding police.

                [–]Mallard 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                I couldn't have said it better myself.

                All content that dissents on these topics is removed, but nobody is aware of what's being removed.

                The fact that SaidIt has public moderation logs is fantastic - it demonstrates exactly what you're talking about, and makes it much easier to challenge moderation teams. I am a woman, and have had my point of view censored on /r/GC because it did not conform to the party line, and I saw it happen to others - which was a huge disappointment, and discouraged me from participating more regularly on Reddit.

                I also find it troubling that a post specifically about discussing censorship on the sub was singled out as one that needed to be locked, especially right at the moment when the sub itself is fleeing censorship.

                It's very frustrating that the mods would be forced to jump ship to a platform which is anti-censorship, because they've been censored... and immediately begin attempting to silence dissent. I find the hypocrisy staggering. I suspect, regarding the locked post discussing censorship, that the answer to that will be that it's "off topic" or some other such dismissive nonsense. A proper response to this would be great.

                load more comments (1 reply)

                  [–]taibo14 29 insightful - 9 fun29 insightful - 8 fun30 insightful - 9 fun -  (76 children)

                  We will never be able to have productive discussions if we constantly keep having to "debate" men who come in and try to convince us that the very foundations of our beliefs are wrong.

                  If your movement is based around speaking truth on trans issues but the other foundations of your beliefs are not true, then how are you to advance your cause? Consider the possibility that you are mistaken. If the men "debating" you are mistaken, then certainly they can be argued against even if it's more work.

                  [–]nonpenishaver 72 insightful - 14 fun72 insightful - 13 fun73 insightful - 14 fun -  (74 children)

                  The vast majority of men will never be convinced on any feminist issues. It's like trying to convince a cat that it's wrong to hunt mice.

                  [–]taibo14 31 insightful - 10 fun31 insightful - 9 fun32 insightful - 10 fun -  (43 children)

                  Giving up before even trying? Yikes.

                  [–]nonpenishaver 61 insightful - 10 fun61 insightful - 9 fun62 insightful - 10 fun -  (39 children)

                  Dude I've been at this shit for fucking 10 years lmao. You aren't worth it.

                  [–]america_first_1776 33 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 9 fun34 insightful - 10 fun -  (37 children)

                  Maybe you're just wrong.

                  [–][deleted] 48 insightful - 5 fun48 insightful - 4 fun49 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

                  No, she has a point. A lot of men come into feminist subs in bad faith all the time. (And other spaces, for that matter).

                  I do think feminist ideology is wrong on some points though.

                  [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

                  She is right. She also wouldn't be able to convince me that 1+1=3, that doesn't mean she would be right about 1+1 being 3. Like she has tried for so many years to convince men about feminist issues. Maybe we're just capable of seeing that her being a woman makes her biased and she's just serving herself by claiming how oppressed she is because she's a woman in a western, secular country. And even if there really were a bit of truth to it... it's just very unappealing self pitying self-victimizing. Her mindset is obviously a much bigger issue than the stuff she's trying to complain about.

                  Is she really looking for the guys who will accept everything she says and worship the ground she walks on? Or is it all a shit test? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shit%20test And maybe she's actually looking for a strong man to put her in her place and to tell her to shut up. Either way it's likely some form of playing games with men while simultaneously makes her feel good to convince herself she's oppressed.

                  [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

                  Where did you learn about the term "shit test"?

                  [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

                  1 of my best friends when i was around 18 was pretty into pickup artistry and he taught me it. But i probably would've discovered by myself just from browsing so many different forums and subreddits online.

                  load more comments (1 reply)

                    [–]america_first_1776 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

                    What do you think about Jewish Supremacy?

                    [–][deleted] 22 insightful - 9 fun22 insightful - 8 fun23 insightful - 9 fun -  (1 child)

                    It sounds like you want to tell me what you think...

                    [–]america_first_1776 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                    Uh. No.

                    [–]ech 42 insightful - 3 fun42 insightful - 2 fun43 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

                    IME you do find men who can be convinced, and some of them have become my best friends. But I'm sympathetic to harsh moderation of feminist e-spaces, because it's a numbers game -- you get flooded by tons of men, most asserting the same tedious deflections. Maybe you convince 1 out of 20 -- you're still deluged by 19 shitposts that detract from the theme of your discussion. I'm brand new to this site and one of the biggest free speech zealots you'll meet, but it seems sensible to allow mods of niche subreddits to moderate in favor of their niche themes.

                    Also, the men I've been able to convince over the years, or with whom I've been able to find common ground, generally distinguish themselves as uncommonly bright and thoughtful from the start, even if they strongly disagree with me. They're not posting 110-IQ manosphere copypasta (which is most of what feminists need to moderate).

                    [–]america_first_1776 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

                    See, you wrote two paragraphs and yet none of it shows that your side is correct. You didn't even give an example of a strawman "copypasta" from the "manosphere" (whatever the hell that means) that you think you can so easily disprove.

                    [–]ech 24 insightful - 4 fun24 insightful - 3 fun25 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

                    If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re too obtuse (willfully or by no fault of your own) for me to want to engage.

                    [–]teelo 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (11 children)

                    If you refuse to provide evidence to back up your claims when requested then don't participate on a debate website.

                    [–]noice 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                    Don't agree =/= 'too obtuse'

                    load more comments (1 reply)

                      [–][deleted] 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                      Hey, I am second wave. I’ve been dealing with it since the mid-1970’s.

                      I’m over it.

                      I don’t want to debate the fact that there are two biological sexes any more. Gender can be anything you want it to be but putting a dress on a an xy male will never make him a woman.

                      [–][deleted] 23 insightful - 3 fun23 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

                      We have tried. You weren't around for that bit. The really irritating part is that you all keep offering the same arguments over and over again and oh, that's not enough, you have to act like it was clever. Any woman hanging out in feminist fora for long enough starts feeling like she's listening to a broken record. And it's not like arguing with you makes anything better in the f2f world/ meatspace when we keep seeing our rights doing a one step forward two steps back thing everywhere. Hell, there are researchers who think the recent turn to populism across several Western countries is an indirect response to women gaining more freedom. They're probably not wrong. I'm 46. I don't think I will live to see the day when men stop seeing everything as a zero-sum game and stop envying others who have less than they do.

                      [–]voi_che_sapete 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                      I've sunk many hours into arguing with men. I think it's very worthwhile sometimes and have helped many change their minds over time (as well as had my own perspective sharpened), but goddamnit, I need a break sometimes.

                      I realize a lot of men are very well-meaning and respectful but goddamned if the ones that brigade in with incredibly tired and often-refuted arguments ad infinitum - acting totally entitled to my time, energy, and hours of research and thinking - don't make me regret every well-meaning stab at discourse I've ever made.

                      Hanging out with likeminded people can open your eyes as much as hanging out with people who you disagree with because you can go deeper into the nuances.

                      load more comments (1 reply)

                        [–]Wrang1er 28 insightful - 11 fun28 insightful - 10 fun29 insightful - 11 fun -  (22 children)

                        What issues? Feminism is cancer

                        [–][deleted] 39 insightful - 5 fun39 insightful - 4 fun40 insightful - 5 fun -  (20 children)

                        Feminism has a lot of valid points.

                        [–]gotfingered 15 insightful - 5 fun15 insightful - 4 fun16 insightful - 5 fun -  (16 children)

                        What valid points does it offer beyond egalitarianism?

                        [–]goodbyeplanet 43 insightful - 2 fun43 insightful - 1 fun44 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

                        Radical feminism is centered in the marxist concept of gender dynamics, which places women as a producer class and men as an exploiter of that production. This is called the patriarchy, due to which women-centric feminism needs to exist, to point out and protect women's rights as people seperate from our use as reproductive vessels for men (and the gendered culture we are thrown into from birth due to this).

                        Egaltarianism still centers men. I respect that this dynamic causes men to have problems as well, but that is a fight that men should be fighting without detriment to women, as women fight for their own rights.

                        I'd argue it's fair for a sub to require any incomers to read dworkin or other radical feminist lit, simply because being flooded by a whole lot of clueless people will dilute the content when they inevidably reply to each other. We could probably have a FAQ, but ideological filtering while the sub is still small is important to make sure the message isn't overpowered. There are, right now, far less of the old guard radfems who are well-versed in answering your questions than there are questions.

                        [–]Futon_Everlasting 28 insightful - 3 fun28 insightful - 2 fun29 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                        If you're looking to have advanced conversations about a topic, it's totally fair to require that people do the homework before jumping in. Otherwise the conversation space becomes dominated by the newbies wanting to have all their concerns addressed before engaging with the available published arguments. In earlier days of r/GC (5 years ago) it was common for men to come in to a conversation obviously looking for an argument about some very basic feminist concepts, and only improved as moderation tightened up. When r/XXChromosomes went to r/all the reverse happened: good, targeted discussion became dulled by endless interrogation. It was exhausting and kept us from really digging in to topics. I'd expect (or at least hope for) similar stringent moderation for any other sort of specialty sub.

                        [–]Article10ECHR 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

                        Marxism? Do people still fall for that scam?

                        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

                        If they're still falling for it publish a good explanation of how the scam works so newcomers can avoid it.

                        [–]goodbyeplanet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                        You have to admit that Marx provided a good amount of vocabulary used to describe political ideologies today, regardless of the value of the overarching theory.

                        We use the former.

                        [–]noice 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

                        Women as producer class, men as consumer class? Can't men and women be thought of as both producers and consumers?

                        [–][deleted] 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

                        I learned about the ways males target women and warning signs of common patterns of male exploitation of women that I did not learn elsewhere.

                        I learned that women can be smart and competent and it's ok to center women's experiences. That we're not just "trying to catch up to men".

                        Idk. It feels unfair to men to have explored some of these male exclusionary things. Egalitarianism is what's fair, I agree. Perhaps it is the better philosophy.

                        [–]gotfingered 19 insightful - 7 fun19 insightful - 6 fun20 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)

                        I don't think you need to be a feminist to know that women can be smart :) Those who oppose feminism, in my view, tend to have the impression that modern western feminism is all about shouting hate at men for being men

                        [–]ech 19 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 5 fun20 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

                        Or they oppose feminism because they favor #WhiteSharia (or normal sharia) or pathologically hate women. These men aren't the majority of men, but they can be the majority in certain e-forums.

                        I don't begrudge these men the ability to have their own spaces. I would defend /r/incels or /r/islam against censorship, but I wouldn't expect fair, equal moderation if I posted there. From the dawn of reddit (and the broader internet before it), mods could curate their own private discussions. The issue is when you try to interfere with other peoples' discussions, or when you unfairly moderate a forum that purports to be neutral and open.

                        [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

                        I would defend /r/incels or /r/islam against censorship

                        Solidarity

                        [–][deleted] 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

                        I don't think you need to be a feminist to know that women can be smart :)

                        I agree, but it really helped me to be able to see it. I'd been told "women are dumb" in various iterations all over my social space, and well, I guess I'd kinda maybe come to believe it to some degree. But then I went to this place with a bunch of smart competent women and it was clear that people were just saying "women are dumber" to make themselves feel good or as some kind of echo chamber talking piont, because those women weren't acting like "dumb women" and they were making better points and behaving more effectively than the people laughing at how dumb women are.

                        load more comments (1 reply)

                          [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                          Critical theory does produce some valid points, then it takes them way too far, into insanity land.

                          load more comments (2 replies)

                            [–]pink_lioness 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                            <--- The kinds of men some people here want us to 'debate'.

                            [–]Trajan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                            You’d be surprised how people can agree on points where there is evidence. The problems arise where it’s an article of faith or where isolated incidents, or stuff that happened 60 years ago or in a shit hole country, become scaffolding to a grand conspiracy of oppression.

                            [–]goodbyeplanet 21 insightful - 4 fun21 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

                            You mean like the biologically and globally consistent rate of men committing disproportionate amounts of violent crime?

                            [–]Trajan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                            Yeah, there’s evidence for that. So what should this mean to us? What do we do with this fact?

                            load more comments (1 reply)

                              [–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                              How is that different than someone saying you are wrong but can't understand why because you are a woman?

                              load more comments (2 replies)

                                load more comments (1 reply)

                                  [–]teelo 22 insightful - 10 fun22 insightful - 9 fun23 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

                                  You mean the patriarchy where a tiny <1% of men have power of all women who have power over the remaining 99% of men?

                                  [–]Tom_Bombadil 20 insightful - 6 fun20 insightful - 5 fun21 insightful - 6 fun -  (9 children)

                                  Personally I feel you should be able to comment but I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

                                  Good point, and before i continue; Welcome to the free-speech fray!!! ;-)

                                  Every participant of a sub which has been banned from Reddit is a direct victim of censorship, and has a very real stake in opposing censorship of any kind.

                                  Support for free speech is even more important in this current era of internet censorship.

                                  If you support free speech, then you must be in support of all free speech. Particularly support for the free speech of those groups who are saying things that you despise, and violently oppose.
                                  It is not possible to support some free speech, and not others.

                                  Supporting censorship eventually leads to eliminating exposure to potentially relevant ideas. Eliminating exposure to ideas is the goal of censorship.

                                  Opposing ideas with better ideas is the optimal solution.

                                  Conversely, no one is suggesting that anyone should be forced to listen to the hostile words of repeated individual harassment.
                                  Everyone is free to block individual commentators, or unsubscribe to entire subs on your own personal account.

                                  Edit: whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"? Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs. This is something men on reddit do and it's fucking annoying.

                                  I don't frequent the female subs so I can't confirm, but this is probably a true statement. It's important to consider the timing of this banning event. Reddit very likely banned the various subs with the intention of creating conflict elsewhere.

                                  Let's avoid taking the bait, and endure in spite of Reddit's scheming bullshit.

                                  Please take some time to let the dust settle, and things will quickly improve. No doubt, there are more than a few women here who have put up with plenty of bullshit, and are tough enough to push back against a small group of nasty harassers. They'll get bored and go away over time.

                                  Now is the time to champion free speech more than ever.

                                  Welcome, to the free-speech fray.

                                  [–]goodbyeplanet 42 insightful - 2 fun42 insightful - 1 fun43 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

                                  they'll get bored and go away over time

                                  You assume they view us as people. They do not. The internet pro-male ideologue as we experience them is usually a male suffering from psychosis and delusions of grandeur. He is convinced that women are objects, and women who center women are simply in need of breaking in. They will do anything to "teach us a lesson"; look at the incel crime sprees, the rape of lesbians, and the number of men who want to renounce women's rights.

                                  We do not have the privilege of assuming harmlessness when our beliefs are the sworn enemy of every cumbrain who uses gendered jingoism to escape his own flaws. We are trying to wake women up from being willingly abused by men and abusive men don't like that at all.

                                  [–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

                                  You assume they view us as people. They do not.

                                  Can you be certain? Almost everyone went to school with members of the opposite sex. It's difficult to imagine they forgot you're human.

                                  I agree that there are some who will ceaselessly and mercilessly agitate anyone who responds to their foolishness.

                                  He is convinced that women are objects, and women who center women are simply in need of breaking in. They will do anything to "teach us a lesson"; look at the incel crime sprees, and the number of men who want to renounce women's rights.

                                  These guys exist, but I suspect they're disproportionally overrepresented; similar to transwomen (men).

                                  There's plenty of evidence of divide and conquer activity in these crazy times. Forces are aggressively polarising group differences to create internal conflict.

                                  Nothing will be solved if we don't have the freedom of thought and communication to fully articulate and address each groups concerns.

                                  We are trying to wake women up from being willingly abused by men and abusive men don't like that at all.

                                  I'm not your enemy.

                                  The world is full of problems. We need all the help we can get.

                                  [–]goodbyeplanet 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                                  can you be certain

                                  The Men's Rights subreddit had a poll about "at what age did you realize women don't deserve rights" yesterday, and dehumanizing women has historically been and still is a keystone ideology for patriarchial belief structures, so yes.

                                  anyone who responds

                                  You must understand that they do not get off on responses. They get off on validation for their posts on external male communities, and the general spirit of demotivating ebil feminazis. It's not about us at all, and as such our behaviour does not change theirs.

                                  disproportionate

                                  Yes, but these men are drawn to us like flies to honey. That's the point. We don't hate men, since men like r/gendercriticalguys exist and are cool. But normal men don't seek out women to harass, these guys do. It's just part of the Rad Fem Experience.

                                  D&C

                                  Yeah I know. But women's freedom to discuss women's issues is essential. We fought long and hard to be viewed as people, and are not going to give that up. We will be content when women have, at the very least, equal say and equal power worldwide.

                                  Have you seen the misogyny on the internet? The list of subs they didn't ban? They are influental, and outnumber us by the thousands.

                                  Gender dynamics is, I would say, a far more critical issue in the long term for the survival of our species than the politics of the US, although the collapse of the latter would negatively impact the former. Personally I'd say it's too late, but my other political takes are usually reserved for non-feminist accounts due to risk of doxxing.

                                  Freedom of communication

                                  As I said elsewhere, I am all for opening the sub for general questions once our numbers are back to normal. But right now, there's maybe 1 radical feminist capable of answering questions for every 1000 questions.

                                  I am not your enemy

                                  I'd go to say that any man who does not call out the influence of those men is complicit, as he still benefits from the system.

                                  [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                                  Gender dynamics is, I would say, a far more critical issue in the long term for the survival of our species than the politics of the US, although the collapse of the latter would negatively impact the former.

                                  IMO this US destabilization is ultimately about depopulation and eugenics, so these are interrelated.

                                  I'd go to say that any man who does not call out the influence of those men is complicit, as he still benefits from the system.

                                  The accusations feel a bit premature.

                                  • Which individuals (presumably men) should be called out?
                                  • Why are they specifically called out?
                                  • What is the proposed outcome?
                                  • How will the proposed outcome improve the situation?

                                  These specifics should be outlined (at a minimum) as a baseline for discussion.

                                  load more comments (2 replies)

                                    [–]not-a-neckbeard 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                    Errr... see, this is egocentric here. You're essentially denying a phenomena x doesn't exist because you can't imagine everyone doing x. In your mind, unless everyone does something, then that act must not exist. ?? Logic?? No, you're not the enemy. But no one accused you as such. It's possible to talk about abstract ideas without involving oneself personally.

                                    [–]BettysBitterButter 34 insightful - 2 fun34 insightful - 1 fun35 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                                    You can have free-speech without coddling everyone who wants to come in and shout "I like turtles!" in a space where a productive and nuanced discussion about something else is going on. That's why there are subs. You wouldn't go into an "I like turtles" sub and insist on taking up space talking about 1964 Mustang brake pads so why would you go into a "radical feminist" sub and insist on obliviating about how men can be feminists, too, or whatever else that space isn't for.

                                    And assuming people are acting in good faith, look at it like this: you have to take the 101 courses before you insist on spouting your opinions in the graduate-level courses. Far too often people (and very often men) sashay into women's discussions and suck all of the air out of the room, distracting from the actual purpose of the discussion.

                                    I'm totally fine if the sub is heavily moderated.

                                    Anyone who wants to have similar discussions without heavy moderation is totally free to start their own sub and run it however they want to, aren't they? Especially right at this moment where the GC sub doesn't have 46,000 members and isn't any kind of monopoly. If super permissive, light moderation is what people want then that sub will attract more participants.

                                    That said: I doubt this is going to be the ultimate home of GC community building or discussion. I think GC needs its own platform. There are already far too many red herrings and people trying to tell women how to talk right.

                                    [–]igneciph 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                    That said: I doubt this is going to be the ultimate home of GC community building or discussion. I think GC needs its own platform. There are already far too many red herrings and people trying to tell women how to talk right.

                                    Agreed. Some of these commenters think they're being real slick about it though, even though it's as obvious as neon lights. They forget we've seen it all before. It's just another form of censorship, really. Flooding a sub with a thousand determined trolls who 'just wanna ask questions' and repeat the same set of asinine one-liners ad nauseum without having the most basic understanding of what the sub is even about is still censorship if you have no capacity to moderate their tedious bullshit out or stop it from dominating every thread, and that's exactly why they want the ability to do it in the first place. It's almost never in good faith. That's why there were separate debate subs to filter them into in the first place.

                                    [–]america_first_1776 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

                                    There is no patriarchy. Only Jewish dominance.

                                    [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                    Semitic culture is often more suppressive of women. And cares a lot less about non-Semitic women.

                                    [–]RenLuna 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

                                    Lol there is no Jewish Dominance.

                                    [–]copenseethe 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

                                    Debates can be educational for people that are just learning about feminism and gender theory. They can persuade people that were formerly opposed to your viewpoint. Also, it's a bad look to impose silencing and censorship days (or hours) after being banned from reddit yourself. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

                                    [–]nonpenishaver 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                                    No, I don't think. I'm fine with anti-feminists existing and being able to talk amongst themselves, I just don't think they should be able to brigade subs they disagree with and demand people on those subs listen to them. That is anti-free speech.

                                    There's a difference between preventing people from speaking at all, like what reddit did to GC and simply asking them to stay on topic of the sub they're in.

                                    [–]goodbyeplanet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                    Eh, it's reasonable to censor when the ratio is roughly 1:100 for radical feminists:interesting questions. It's easy to get slid when the community is small. I think it would be fair to censor while we recoup and then open for debate. Meanwhile I recommend reading some Dworkin!

                                    load more comments (1 reply)

                                      [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                      Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs.

                                      I support your sub being left the fuck alone but you're absolutely wrong on this point.

                                      [–]Wrang1er 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

                                      Whats the patriarchy?

                                      [–]america_first_1776 12 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

                                      What (((feminists))) use as an excuse to ignore Jewish supremacy.

                                      load more comments (6 replies)

                                        [–]Cass 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                        Even though I am a woman and I agree with the trans issues, abortion rights, free healthcare and UBI on the GC sub on reddit I was called a scrotum over people checking my post history and seeing I was active on rightwinglgbt and jordanpeterson. Then my posts were downvoted and the person insulting me was upvoted.

                                        So saying censorship is just about "men trying to debate you" is disingenuous.

                                        [–]FlightRisk 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                                        They don't try to "infiltrate" because their "arguments" will always get shut down. The side with the losing argument always clamors for safe spaces and removing people with the opposite opinion.

                                        load more comments (8 replies)