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 →

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

What issues? Feminism is cancer

[–][deleted] 39 insightful - 5 fun39 insightful - 4 fun40 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

Feminism has a lot of valid points.

[–]gotfingered 15 insightful - 5 fun15 insightful - 4 fun16 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 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.