Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

More women looking at porn.

141 replies

MarquisDeCarabas · 19/01/2018 18:13

Victory for female empowerment or treasonous complicity in the sex industry? What think you?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/15/porn-women-web-searches-female-sexuality-50-shaphy-women-desire-exploitation-powerful-role-sexuality

OP posts:
GuardianLions · 21/01/2018 19:14

Liberation to do what?

To peacefully prosper... something like that..

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 21/01/2018 19:13

OP attributes aren't going to go away just because we stop gendering them.

Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 19:10

It sounds like you want to keep some bits of patriarchy, but do away with others.

OP posts:
Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 19:10

But surely if you were liberated then you would be liberated from masculine and feminine attributes? Aren't these conceits of patriarchal ideology?

OP posts:
Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 19:08

What does that mean? Liberation to do what?

OP posts:
TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 21/01/2018 19:07

The liberation of women from patriarchal oppression. In theory at least this means that (among other things) we could develop our own ideas about what good leadership might look like, rather than having to take on masculine attributes to succeed in a toxically masculine society.

UpABitLate · 21/01/2018 19:05

Liberation.

HTH.

Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 18:57

Well if the goal of feminism is not equality.....then what is it?

OP posts:
UpABitLate · 21/01/2018 17:50

It's a bit 90s all that.

Many feminists have generally discarded the "equality" thing as MRAs found it ripe for exploitation. This is the root of whataboutery and the ever popular gotcha "equality means we can punch you in the face now".

Women's liberation / or similar is clearer and has the benefit of not offering misogynists so many gotcha situations.

UpABitLate · 21/01/2018 17:49

It's the "race to the bottom" thing where equality means women adopting the least desirable traits of masculine controlled society.

UpABitLate · 21/01/2018 17:48

You are making the mistake of taking toxic masculinity as a natural and desirable default.

There is a middle ground.

EamonnWright · 21/01/2018 17:48

Feminism is about equality

I thought that was Egalitarianism?

Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 17:42

I always thought feminism meant it's wrong for women to be dis-empowered and socialised to think of themselves as fundamentally different from men. I'd agree.

OP posts:
Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 17:40

I'd agree - but that's a separate issue. Feminism is about equality. How people behave once they're equal has got as little to do with their gender as their race. True equality demands gender becomes an irrelevance to power, with people gaining power on the basis of their skills, knowledge and values - not what's between their legs.

OP posts:
QuentinSummers · 21/01/2018 17:39

OP I am not sure why you started this convo. You seem to have some very odd ideas about feminism.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 21/01/2018 17:35

What if we had an ungendered concept that kind nurturing good listeners made good leaders?

Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 17:30

Rubbish. Women are perfectly capable of leadership and are often outstanding leaders because they tend to have better 'people skills', greater willingness to listen to a range of perspectives, reduced risk-taking blah blah. These are the result of female socialisation.

Of course they can be wonderful leaders, but in order for them to be leaders to the same degree as men that female socialisation must end. For patriarchy to end, the patriarchal concept of women as kind, caring, nurturing listeners must also end.

OP posts:
UpABitLate · 21/01/2018 17:17

To quote a poster from a while ago

"Fucking Ghandi"

He had some dodgy ideas about women and girls and acted on them.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 21/01/2018 17:15

Sorry that was to the op!

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 21/01/2018 17:14

Rubbish. Women are perfectly capable of leadership and are often outstanding leaders because they tend to have better 'people skills', greater willingness to listen to a range of perspectives, reduced risk-taking blah blah. These are the result of female socialisation.

EamonnWright · 21/01/2018 17:10

Pornhub said It? It must be true.

There's no doubt in my mind that porn contributes to sexual assault/abuse etc. If a teenage boy has instant access to videos where it's perfectly fine and reasonable for a guy to drag a woman about by the throat for example then he's going to think it's ok. I'm certainly not excusing the boy here but if it's perfectly legal then it's as good as an endorsement by the Govt.

None of this is good for women obviously, but it's not good for boys or men either.

Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 17:07

What if female, rather than male, socialisation was seen as the better training for leadership and power? Minus all the shit about looking pretty I mean.

I don't see how that could work, because female socialisation is contrary to leadership and power.

If you want women political leaders, corporate execs and generals, then that means badass women as well as great ones. It means female Stalins and Hitlers as well as Gandhis and Mandelas.

OP posts:
TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 21/01/2018 17:02

I suggest that there are 2 factors which reduce the likelihood that women will be abusive 1) less access to power as you say op, and 2) their socialisation. What if female, rather than male, socialisation was seen as the better training for leadership and power? Minus all the shit about looking pretty I mean.

Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 16:54

I'm not trying to undo feminism.

And you don't need a penis to sexually abuse. Women molest children and animals in other ways.

OP posts:
Original poster
MarquisDeCarabas · 21/01/2018 16:52

The positing of oh in a matriarchy maybe women would go around raping children to death.... What's the point? It's unknown whether in a reversal women would commit crime at the same levels, or the same type of crimes.

You're all misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's in any way OK for women to go around behaving as awfully as men (I don't think it's alright for anyone to mistreat others) or, that it should, in itself, be the goal of feminism to enable women to behave badly.

What I am saying is that women should have the same access to power as men, and that will mean them taking on the same temptation to abuse that power.

Someone said 'men orchestrate all the wars' (we could mention Thatcher and Clinton, but yes it mostly is men); and the reason for that is perfectly simple: men have the power to do so, whereas women do not.

Part of a child being empowered into a fully agentified adult is their being given moral responsibility. If they are not given the choice the power to do wrong, then thy are not fully agentified. If women have equal power to men, then they will have the equal capacity to abuse that power - as well as do all the wonderful things with it that they are just as capable of doing as men.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread