(TW: Found on Reddit) Always Found The Similarities Between Some Feminists and Puritanians Interesting
(TW: Found on Reddit) Always Found The Similarities Between Some Feminists and Puritanians Interesting
Here's the basic line of thought:
Men occupy a more powerful position in society due to the generally patriarchal structures. Women occupy a less powerful position than men, even when a particular women holds more overt power (e.g., a woman that's a CEO). As a result, sexual relationships between men and women always have a power imbalance; that imbalance of power means that women can never really be consenting, since there's always some form of 'threat' involved. A woman that believes she wants sex believes that way because society has conditioned her to be that way, rather than that being something she chose in a vacuum.
And theoretically, this is all true, kind of. But it also isn't, because that would mean that women can never have any agency over their own body or their own sexual choices. ...Unless they "choose" to be lesbian, which isn't actually a choice at all.
No, it's not all true, not even theoretically. The idea that women can't consent to sex is complete and utter horseshit, not to mention insanely sexist.
I mean it is true to an extent, it is just treating consent as an absolute and not a spectrum. Power imbalances absolutely impact where that needle is.
I've had lots of sex like "yes please". I've had sex where I was like "ill probably enjoy enjoy this" or "I genuinely don't really care one way or another and it will please my partner" (who I'm not vulnerable to in a societally enforced way) and all of them would fit the binary of consensual but are at various points on the spectrum.
The last example is an illustrative example where it would clearly fall at different points on the spectrum if I was more or less dependent on/vulnerable to my partner.
Sex negative feminism had some points that were correct to some extent, sex negative and sex positive feminism both synthesized into a more sex neutral position for a reason.
Okay, let's put it this way.
Let's say you're a woman, and you've been pulled over by a male cop. He's got you dead to rights on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after spotting the bales of cocaine in your back seat. He's willing to just give you a ticket for a burned out tail light, but only if he can fuck you, right then and there. Can you, in that moment, morally and ethically consent to sex with him, when he has the legal authority to arrest you and ensure that your life is fucked forever if you do not consent? Most people would say no, that entire environment is coercive, so there's no way that, within that framework I've presented, that the woman could morally or ethically consent to sex in order to make her 'little problem' go away.
2nd wave feminism presented all male-female relationships in that way, although usually with a less blatant abuse of power going on. If you assume that patriarchy stacks the power deck in favor of men, then there's very little basis for women to ever consent to sex with a man, because she is never able to have an equal position of power within society from which to consent. But that's also a problem, because it abstracts people to the point where it's almost meaningless on an individual level.
Wouldn't that line of thinking imply that women don't have any agency about anything? Whatever they decide can be framed as a reaction to internalized fear.
Not to mention that gender roles also affect men.
Yeah it does and you couldn't really change it. As women would act based on internalized sexism and even if a man wants to respect the wish of a woman and give her 100% control, she would act in the sexist norms, which would signal to the men that women want those sexist norms. So men would continue to "enforce" those norms as women would fear to stop the men.
So sexism can't be solved; and then we can ask why bother trying to change it then?
Stupid line of thinking that is insulting to both, women and men. No means no, my friends. No means no. Respect your fellow humans.
Sounds suspiciously like insanity to me.
A lot of 2nd wave feminism does sound weird now, yeah. But at the time--this would have been the 50s-70s or so--it was a novel way of viewing power dynamics and what consent meant.
But also they shame lesbians when we actually fuck because weâre âimitating male behaviorâ. Like, girl, I assure you that while some men offer to take turns performing oral this is far from us imitating them. Weâre just horny
Wait wait wait, does that mean that being gay is the ultimate straight behaviour? Like, it's gay to like women, because only a man knows what a man wants? ;)
I've heard the argument based not on structural power but average physical capabilities and biological structures. [I'm going to use the terms meaning sex and not gender]. The man is most likely the person that can gain control during the act, and he doesn't risk being in pain as much as the woman. Therefore, the man holds more power and is more of a threat on average.
This is also technically true, and I don't think it is about consent but freedom. [I'll keep using the words for sex and not gender]. Sexuality becomes another form in which women can become subjugated, so it's a matter of precaution, I guess (especially since men are being socialized to be entitled or even violent, which is the other part of the picture).
I've also heard the extreme version of this argument saying that penetration is what I just described, always, without exception.
In both cases and in yours and in others, I don't think the meme is correct because the reasons are very different from puritanism.
Permanently Deleted
I'm generalizing here, but men's lib looks VERY different to women's lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.
Men's lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men's lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most "online" feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men's lib. There are great examples, but they aren't as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.
The path to men's lib is complex and has very different challenges than women's lib. I think we're getting there, but it's certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.
Permanently Deleted
Men are welcome to do the same whenever they're ready, but for now a lot of men are just coping by crab bucketing this shit and bringing women back down.
Stop pretending like you know jack shit about men's issues.
It's only to/about men do you mfs say this type of shit.
"Oh, men are depressed and have insanely high suicide rate? Have they tried smiling more?"Men are welcome to do the same whenever they're ready
We've been ready for a very long fucking time.
When will society be ready to actually fucking listen for once?
It's fuckin sad that the only people able to talk about men's issues are either fucking grifters (Andrew you know who) or aren't even men.
Just STFU with your copout bullshit.Hey, what's up with the tone my guy? Message me if you need to talk fr
Regarding the subject at hand,
Evidently women still have many issues coming from male dominant culture formed before the industrial revolution, there has been good progress but there's still a long path ahead.
Men have issues coming from cultural norms too. imo the biggest hindrance for men at the moment is not nearly enough people talk about men's mental health.
MOST IMPORTANT NOTE IS:
Promoting solutions for women doesn't mean ignoring men's issues.
Promoting awareness to men's issues is not against women's interests.
When someone is promoting progress, let's not jump to "there are bigger problems elsewhere"
If you want to promote change via debate, being aggressive is the worst strategy. Why not say "hey, I hear your argument for women, and on this note I'd also like to raise this other related subject about men's issues."
That's a win win conversation
But you don't understand, as a man you have absolutely no issues in today's society that disproportionately affect your gender! Check your privilege! If a societal shortcoming affect men, it's their own fault, since they made it this way! Negative gender stereotypes only hurt other groups, if it's about men, they are actually helpful and move society forward!
/s if it wasn't obvious.
The suicide rates have become one of the most popular arguments, which is a shame because it is incomplete. More men complete the suicidal act, but more women attempt it (apparently, they just own less guns, less substances in the garage, etc.). In other wordsâbecause I explain like sh*t in English: women are more suicidal, but less lethal in their attempts.
Both sexes, and intersex people, suffer a lot. The various genders suffer a lot.
I know influencers that talk about this problem without being Andrew Tate, but when I recommend them, I get downvoted as if they were worth nothing. I disagree. Of course, it is not a solution because life is always hard and confusing, but to listen to leftist men who understand feminism and other current social movements, and speak of the role of masculinity today considering those is very refreshing and it definitely helps and it is a step forward.
In a nutshell, they talk about caring about mental health. Many of them already are through their own journeys via psychotherapy or other means of introspection and emotional awareness. They talk about feelings and beliefs within the people that were told that they need to be a cartoon, an action figure, because vulnerability is for the lesser sex and a real manâą despises those things. They talk about healing, understanding, cooperation, etc. I don't know if you're a leftist, but that's behind other concepts such as anarchy or social welfare. It is nice to see the line of thought from healing the personal to healing the communal, and viceversa.
So... yeah, ostracism is not the solution. It's funny because I've suffered from agoraphobia and things like that in other moments of my life, and I understand the dysphoric feeling brought by just thinking about society. I have rejected society time and time again, but we are social creatures and we need each other.
I need you because writing this comment is something that I feel I have to do. You're giving me some minutes of purpose and even hope that I can make you feel less alone in this world. We both need the person that is making Lemmy possible, and our instances, and many other people on that chain. We like having friends and romantic relationships and random interactions on social media. We like going to events and activities in our towns or cities.As I see it, If society is not 'rejectable' without hurting ourselves and others, the next thing to do would be to interact healthily with our fellow human beings. It is an available journey, there are people willing to help in each step, but you need to trust and trust is hard as f*ck.
To be fair I've been called puritanical for pointing out that people shouldn't sexualize minors. It's the ultimate thought-terminating cliché.
That's... Genuinely complicated.
Kids aren't asexual, and then BOOM they're sexual the second they hit 18. I was very interested in sex from an age that would make most people deeply uncomfortable to think about. Romeo and Juliet laws exist because we recognize that first, kids are going to be sexual, and second, it's not always going to be with peers that are exactly their own age, and that prosecuting minors for statutory rape--since neither party could legally consent--is a little crazy.
So there needs to be some kind of line between recognizing that kids are sexual, and adults not treating them in a sexual way.
One could argue that sexualizing minors goes against cultural norms instilled as policy. Which, I dunno, even thinking about this puts me into a position where I am implied to defend truly horrible people.
Sometimes you get something more blended. Dworkin was great at that because you can absolutely see where sheâs coming from and get her line of thinking, but also she totally missed the part where most women want to have sex.
