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 →

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Ok, so it's a term from the "pickup artistry" community? What is that community about?

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK, I had to chortle over my coffee for that one.

[–]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.

[–]ech 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

Is this a "debate website"? I thought it was an uncensored reddit alternative. "Debate website" sounds tedious, midwitted, and gay.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

AF1's rejoinder to ech doesn't even make sense. If you want a debate you have to actually organize your thoughts AND respond to what the other person actually said.

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

Don't agree =/= 'too obtuse'

[–]ech 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’re right that these are distinct in many cases. Not sure they’re distinct here.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just maybe you've come to the wrong place, then.

You could learn to ignore the annoying voices, like us right wingers learn to ignore the screeching of harpies.

[–][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.

[–]taibo14 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

meatspace when we keep seeing our rights doing a one step forward two steps back thing everywhere.

You're actually delusional. What universe do you live in?

[–]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.

[–]Article10ECHR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of false vocabulary too. Bourgeouis = anyone more affluent than me.

[–]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?

[–]goodbyeplanet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Women are the sex that has to put more effort into reproduction, so no

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

Focusing on women's role in reproduction and child-rearing and ascribing it to some malfeasant cultural force is decidedly a narrow-minded approach. Most women in all of human history have taken on majority roles in those things. Females all throughout the animal kingdom, especially mammals, will almost always have a more direct role in early child-rearing than males. Is this because of "the patriarchy"? I don't think so. For their children, family, and community, men and women produce some of the same things, and some different things.

[–][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.

[–]gotfingered 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'd been told "women are dumb" in various iterations all over my social space Thats crazy! I've never heard anyone suggest something like that

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

The concrete reasons why women, as a class of people, consistently tend to become disenfranchised in certain circumstances. Radfem in particular offers a very cogent analysis of the material conditions of this, with very cogent solutions (reproductive control to correct for female reproductive vulnerability, the importance of women being able to independently gain resources, the importance of women's education, the importance of women's spaces, the patriarchal nature of "choice feminism," etc).

[–][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.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Just not ones that can stand up to scrutiny apparently.

[–]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?

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

Clearly due to oppression and the patriarchy...

[–]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?

[–]flugegeheimen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I won't make inane generalizations about "the vast majority of men", with men being a biological (rather than ideological) group that would require to actually meet that "majority" in some way.

However I have never ever observed a shortage of obsessed male white knights using every available opportunity to suck up to women ("any feminist issues" included). In fact I'm sure this is the entire reason why the feminist hate movement still exists and continues to be as destructive as it is. Without the supporting white knight horde it would be relegated to the fringes of society long ago.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Way to pigeonhole half the population.

There lots of mothers like me on this site. We take a dim view of the bullshit misandry that you are expressing here

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

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.

If the focus of a sub is for women to come together to discuss why they object to penises in the women's showers at the community pool, then why do some men believe that is carte blanche for them to express all their resentment when women won't date them or pick up their dirty socks?