To lol at the feminism threads....

[Hannah4banana]

Seriously are people constantly looking out for a way to be offended first world problems!

So if George Soros slept with a McDonalds worker and there is consent on both sides that's rape?

And another question: is it actually possible for someone not to bring 'their money or power into the equation' - albeit unconsciously?

I'm not sure if anyone knows what this thread is about any more!

Lorelei76 - Conventionally, feminists take a dim view of rich and powerful men who have sex with their female employees. You might not, but lots do.

My question is it therefore alright for an older rich and powerful women to have sex with a junior male employee? From a feminist perspective that is.

Grandma Fallacy;
''A movement made progress in the past, so it is still needed now.''

user "Conventionally, feminists take a dim view of rich and powerful men who have sex with their female employees. "

do they? Source?

User that's seen as empowering and liberating. How dare any man enjoy sex

Baggy, thanks for explaining that!

in fairness I asked the OP if she was crediting feminists meaning those from the past - her posts seemed to say that feminism was all trivial shite but the vote and her job can't be seen by her that way - I hope!

I don't have a source to hand - it's just an impression I've picked up. And if we can all agree that there is no problem with such male behaviour then we can move on. You might well be right.

Does everyone agree with Lorelei that older, powerful men having consensual sex with their younger secretaries is perfectly ok?

Odd thing is. If a 40yo overweight balding man goes to Thailand to have consenstual sex, what is wrong with that? He doesn't stand a chance of getting sex in Western countries. We as humans have a sexual desire and we love it

"So do you accept that at least some gendered behaviour has a biological cause?"

Yes, although I probably don't think they're the same differences as you do.

I'd also say that it's almost impossible to sift out the biological from the social. Even where behaviours seem to be universal across cultures there is a socio-biological element to it.

But ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is real and genuine equality of opportunity.

Because that's fair.

It's insane to think that within

If that 40yo man is exploiting people for his own sexual gratification Missswatch then there is something very wrong with it. Being a civilised moral agent entails repressing desires.

(Sorry posted too soon)..... that within such a short time such deeply ingrained social norms have been stamped out and we live at a point of total equality.

If the sex is consensual both sides. No prostitution or anything. Is that then ok?

user nobody should use their power to make anyone else have sex with them. Whether that is physical, financial or because they are further up the work food chain.

Whether consent in those situations is true, consent is probably only really known by the people having sex. There isn't a one size fits all answer. I would be surprised if the power imbalance was not a part of the dynamic, and I don't think that's ok.

That's my opinion, and I'm a feminist.

I agree boundaries. Nobody in a position of power - whether male or female - should take sexual advantage of that power.

Of course it's ok Misswatch! And of course if an older woman used her financial power to coerce a younger man into sex through fear or intimidation that's definitely not ok.

But you're kind of missing the point. Feminists aren't watching over people's shoulder whilst they're having sex giving stamps of approval or not.

What they are doing is looking at the patterns of how things are done in society. If equal numbers of old, young, powerful, not powerful, men women etc were cross-shagging then that would be different but that is not the case.

Lessthan,

Agree with your post of 15:03.

But equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome.

However, in agreeing that there is a biological basis of gendered behaviour (albeit one inseparable from social conditioning), you are disagreeing with 95% of the posters in FWR.

I tire of the amount of times posters have said 'gender is a social construct' as if this is not even debatable.

Ok, so why does the poor 40yo overweight balding man get shamed for it?

Don't get me started on 'gender is a social construct'

Take this example. Rhonda Rousey vs GSP in an MMA match. It's extremely likely GSP would win but apparently Rhonda Rousey is socially conditioned by the patriarchy to not be as strong

Again, feminists denying science

Misss - are you talking about biological sex or gender? (I don't watch MMA so can't guess from your example).

misswatch I know nothing about MMA or the people you mentioned, but have googled. Could you link to the feminists saying the entire reason for Rhonda being unlikely to win is social conditioning rather than biological?

feminists denying science

No, feminists capable of distinguishing between biological sex and socially constructed gender. Different things.

That being GSP, a man, has more testosterone and makes him more aggressive and a better fighter. He also has more muscle mass. Biologically this is true but feminists don't like hearing this. The whole 'women can do at least anything a man can do and better' just isn't true

sorry can I clarify, you think that feminists don't acknowledge that a man is more likely to win in a fight against a women, purely because of socialisation? Wtf are you on?!