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 72 insightful - 14 fun72 insightful - 13 fun73 insightful - 14 fun -  (19 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.

[–]Wrang1er 28 insightful - 11 fun28 insightful - 10 fun29 insightful - 11 fun -  (18 children)

What issues? Feminism is cancer

[–][deleted] 39 insightful - 5 fun39 insightful - 4 fun40 insightful - 5 fun -  (17 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).