Toxic Feminism

[Doctor Cringelord]

I know you weren't. But Cringelord's initial post implied it would be better if women were to be blamed more, that that would somehow make it more fair.

That was not the intended implication

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The word "need" is defined based on the assumption of what happens if you don't get it and whether its absence results in death or lack of health. Air is a need because without it we die, but exercise is a need because without it we can't be entirely healthy - is that the underlying question about sexuality?

More and more research seems to pop up suggesting sex and/or intimate physical touch is key to mental health.

I think it's similar to how social interaction is necessary to our health--it will vary from person to person, for instance introverts need less social interaction/connection than extroverts, but it's still key to good mental health.

In the case of sex and intimacy, some people will need less than other people, but the need or craving is going to be present in most people.

I think skin hunger is a good term for this need, as it's more about a certain type of touch than it is about a type of sexual act. Looking solely at the sexual component limits the understanding and discussion when it's really about that basic skin hunger most humans have. Of course the sexual component is still important and key for many people

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Red Herring]

View attachment 28348

This looks like a strawman argument to me. It's the incel-movement that came up with the name, as far as I know, and feminists calling a man an incel in all likelihood aren't making fun of the fact he isn't getting any but of his misguided worldview. Not every involutary celibate is an incel. An incel is a man who would like to have sex but can't and hates women and other men for it. An incel is an embittered person who thinks of human relations as a commodity and of other people's affection and attention as something he has a right to (which he has been cheated out of) - someone with a very cynical worldview. Incel is a sociopolitical ideology, not a life situation you accidentally end up in. THAT is what is getting criticized, not men's sex life or love life or lack of dating know-how. Being socially clumsy doesn't make you an incel, thinking of women as sexually stingy bitches who owe you and more successful men as detestable jocks does.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

This looks like a strawman argument to me. It's the incel-movement that came up with the name, as far as I know, and feminists calling a man an incel in all likelihood aren't making fun of the fact he isn't getting any but of his misguided worldview. Not every involutary celibate is an incel. An incel is a man who would like to have sex but can't and hates women and other men for it. An incel is an embittered person who thinks of human relations as a commodity and of other people's affection and attention as something he has a right to (which he has been cheated out of) - someone with a very cynical worldview. Incel is a sociopolitical ideology, not a life situation you accidentally end up in. THAT is what is getting criticized, not men's sex life or love life or lack of dating know-how. Being socially clumsy doesn't make you an incel, thinking of women as sexually stingy bitches who owe you and more successful men as detestable jocks does.

well for one, it's a reference to people who ask for help and are given bootstrap style advice. not a reference to people who feel entitled to sex. not a strawman. Sorry, I realize the section I screencapped and posted lacks some of the context of the larger discussion and therefore may have given you a false impression of what type of person was being described, but it's not describing what you think it's describing.

 

[Red Herring]

well for one, it's a reference to people who ask for help and are given bootstrap style advice. not a reference to people who feel entitled to sex. not a strawman. Sorry, I realize the section I screencapped and posted lacks some of the context of the larger discussion and therefore may have given you a false impression of what type of person was being described, but it's not describing what you think it's describing.

I obviously don't know the context from which you got these. What I described is the common definition of the term "incel" as far as I am aware of it. The posts use the term for people to whom it does not really apply and build their argument from there, at least that was my impression.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

From what I understand another collection of groupies have gathered to sue rock stars for for a bunch of money over stuff that happened 20 years ago. At least they are dressed to look artificially enlarge their boobs to HHH proportions because that's important for such an occasion.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

From what I understand another collection of groupies have gathered to sue rock stars for for a bunch of money over stuff that happened 20 years ago. At least they are dressed to look artificially enlarge their boobs to HHH proportions because that's important for such an occasion.
View attachment 28351

Background? Link? Is this in reference to Marilyn Manson and Nick Carter?

I’m wary of people’s reactions to these stories, because there’s so few details yet people rush to take a side. I don’t like to rush to conclusions without more facts available, and I know I have biases that will influence my feelings

If you have more info on the allegations themselves, I’d be curious to read.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Background? Link? Is this in reference to Marilyn Manson and Nick Carter?

I’m wary of people’s reactions to these stories, because there’s so few details yet people rush to take a side. I don’t like to rush to conclusions without more facts available, and I know I have biases that will influence my feelings

If you have more info on the allegations themselves, I’d be curious to read.

It is in reference to the two you mention and I believe a member of Aerosmith. I don't have all the details on this one, although have followed other cases extensively. Maybe I have said something wrong and would feel badly and guilty if I knew the whole true story.

I reveal a prejudice against the allegations when there are two elements in place: firstly the allegations are coming out after a very long time when evidence is deteriorated and there isn't a way to demonstrate the truth of a matter and they previously said very positive things about the encounters. Secondly and more importantly, when people are suing for tons of money based on an allegation that does not have concrete evidence. When you add to that photoshoots and glamorous attire, it does look like a devious way to kick start or reinvigorate a career. I am cynical enough to think that when people draw even sexual attention to themselves in photoshoots over these kinds of allegations. That picture looked like an archetype of lining up to cash in.

I'll have to say that I also do not understand suing for tons of cash over trauma. I can understand suing to cover costs of therapy sessions and medical procedures and lost income from work from being traumatized, but to hit the big time like winning a lottery over an allegation of assault seems like selling out. I've felt sexually violated in my own life and if I went after someone for tons of cash, I would feel like a prostitute who charges a lot for those kinds of acts. Also, if I felt harmed enough to be owed millions in damages, I doubt I'd be flaunting my bombshell sex-symbol self inviting everyone to stare. I'm really upset about what has been done to the metoo movement.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It is in reference to the two you mention and I believe a member of Aerosmith. I don't have all the details on this one, although have followed other cases extensively. Maybe I have said something wrong and would feel badly and guilty if I knew the whole true story.

I reveal a prejudice against the allegations when there are two elements in place: firstly the allegations are coming out after a very long time when evidence is deteriorated and there isn't a way to demonstrate the truth of a matter and they previously said very positive things about the encounters. Secondly and more importantly, when people are suing for tons of money based on an allegation that does not have concrete evidence. When you add to that photoshoots and glamorous attire, it does look like a devious way to kick start or reinvigorate a career. I am cynical enough to think that when people draw even sexual attention to themselves in photoshoots over these kinds of allegations. That picture looked like an archetype of lining up to cash in.

I'll have to say that I also do not understand suing for tons of cash over trauma. I can understand suing to cover costs of therapy sessions and medical procedures and lost income from work from being traumatized, but to hit the big time like winning a lottery over an allegation of assault seems like selling out. I've felt sexually violated in my own life and if I went after someone for tons of cash, I would feel like a prostitute who charges a lot for those kinds of acts. Also, if I felt harmed enough to be owed millions in damages, I doubt I'd be flaunting my bombshell sex-symbol self inviting everyone to stare. I'm really upset about what has been done to the metoo movement. It's gross.

I apologize if I came across confrontationally. I am just super careful about these sorts of stories. I understand your cynicism and share it, that's why I am biased and chose to stop talking about metoo, for the most part. I'm not saying you should stop though. More women should speak up if they feel the same as you do--I think people are more likely to listen when women share concerns about metoo and false allegations. I realize there's a certain irony in me claiming to support egalitarianism (in previous posts) and then saying that only one sex should talk about metoo.

But yeah, it all does feel a little fishy. If they are truly being honest about what happened, then at this point, with the difficulty involved in finding solid evidence so many years after the fact, a better use of their voices and influence might be to encourage victims to speak up and go to the authorities immediately after the alleged events, and not decades later. Instead, their chosen approach just hurts the credibility of legitimate victims. Sometimes I see people react to this with "well the authorities don't care or often don't take allegations seriously." Yeah, so what? Then lobby with elected representatives to force police departments to take allegations more seriously. Handling it the way these women are doesn't result in any long term change for the better, and I don't see it really aiding victims with less influence, victims without the means to call high profile press concferences strategically timed around the same time as high profile industry award ceremonies. Women like Rose McGowan and her friends all have the influence and voices to speak to elected officials and reach wide audiences, so it is disheartening to see them handle this so poorly, and it does make it more difficult to believe their sincerity.

I was done with metoo after the blatant hypocrisy displayed in reactions to allegations made against Asia Argento and Cristina Garcia (some of this was displayed by members of this very forum, and myself being a male victim of sexual assault, I found it sickening). People who had called for the immediate cancellation and criminal punishment of alleged male aggressors suddenly called for a measured response, due process, and in some cases even went as far as to suggest that the men accusing these women were lying and being paid to do so. I think that's toxic feminism in a nutshell. These opportunists have set back women's rights movements years, if not decades, and it turns a lot of otherwise progressive minded folks off from wanting to be involved in any way with their causes.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Maybe really aggressive Hollywood agents pressure clients into these civil suits since they get a big cut. There could be background sharks like that involved who are actually using and exploiting these women.

 

[Coriolis]

I reveal a prejudice against the allegations when there are two elements in place: firstly the allegations are coming out after a very long time when evidence is deteriorated and there isn't a way to demonstrate the truth of a matter and they previously said very positive things about the encounters. Secondly and more importantly, when people are suing for tons of money based on an allegation that does not have concrete evidence. When you add to that photoshoots and glamorous attire, it does look like a devious way to kick start or reinvigorate a career. I am cynical enough to think that when people draw even sexual attention to themselves in photoshoots over these kinds of allegations. That picture looked like an archetype of lining up to cash in.

I'll have to say that I also do not understand suing for tons of cash over trauma. I can understand suing to cover costs of therapy sessions and medical procedures and lost income from work from being traumatized, but to hit the big time like winning a lottery over an allegation of assault seems like selling out. I've felt sexually violated in my own life and if I went after someone for tons of cash, I would feel like a prostitute who charges a lot for those kinds of acts. Also, if I felt harmed enough to be owed millions in damages, I doubt I'd be flaunting my bombshell sex-symbol self inviting everyone to stare. I'm really upset about what has been done to the metoo movement.

The deterioration of evidence, even sometimes the death of witnesses, over time is certainly a problem. For a very long time, though, victims who came forward with any sort of allegation suffered serious consequences. Only after the climate shifted did many feel safe reporting sexual abuse/assault. Same with many cases of child abuse, e.g. by Catholic priests. Expecting these victims to continue to remain silent adds more than insult to the original injury.

Now whether it makes sense to sue for lots of money is another question. I wonder if some do this because the statute of limitations has expired for criminal conviction. Ideally these crimes should be prosecuted and result in criminal penalties if there is a conviction. One way or another, though, the guilty should face serious consequences.

It doesn't help that our society has become increasingly litigious, with everything coming down to money. Big companies sued for faulty products, environmental harm, unsafe or discriminatory working conditions, etc. will often pay off the plaintiffs while refusing to admit wrong. This should not be allowed. They should be made to accept responsibility in a very public way, whatever the monetary verdict turns out to be.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The deterioration of evidence, even sometimes the death of witnesses, over time is certainly a problem. For a very long time, though, victims who came forward with any sort of allegation suffered serious consequences. Only after the climate shifted did many feel safe reporting sexual abuse/assault. Same with many cases of child abuse, e.g. by Catholic priests. Expecting these victims to continue to remain silent adds more than insult to the original injury.

Now whether it makes sense to sue for lots of money is another question. I wonder if some do this because the statute of limitations has expired for criminal conviction. Ideally these crimes should be prosecuted and result in criminal penalties if there is a conviction. One way or another, though, the guilty should face serious consequences.

It doesn't help that our society has become increasingly litigious, with everything coming down to money. Big companies sued for faulty products, environmental harm, unsafe or discriminatory working conditions, etc. will often pay off the plaintiffs while refusing to admit wrong. This should not be allowed. They should be made to accept responsibility in a very public way, whatever the monetary verdict turns out to be.

This is a very good post, and I recognize this topic is complex and charged.

My position is that the current process of starting with highly sensationalized and dramatic accusations presented in a media blitz seeking punishment of suing for millions is a completely messed up ethical process. It is bypassing the judicial system and allowing the media to take over the presentation of evidence and the punishment by canceling people immediately.

There is a history of victims being shamed for revealing assault, but it is more complex than that. This current model is what was used for nearly all the lynchings. We have a recent history of sensationalized accusations resulting in mob mentality and punishment. Whether or not a victim is taken seriously has a lot to do with the object of their accusation. It has a long history of bypassing the legal system.

In the past the sensational false assault accusation was directed at demographics with less social power, so that the masses could agree and gather quickly to over power them. Right now media personalities are both above and below the law because of being high profile. We assume they are all in position of more power, but they also have less power than an average citizen in some ways because the massive population response defines the power of the individual celebrity.

My position is that the accusations need to be accompanied by evidence to enter the court system and the punishment needs to be definitive and not wide swaths of money for undefined "pain and suffering". If it is in the millions for the purpose of exacting a more severe punishment through the civil system, then that money should go to social programs to stop the problem on a bigger scale and not function as a lottery win. Victims should have definitive costs covered, but they need clear definitions.

It is this distorted process of media hype and civil suits that feel like the lottery that is enticing these extremely suspect accusations. Some cases I've read every court filing and they do read false. The system is being exploited and it is resulting in regression towards less justice for people who have actually suffered.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Current feminism is actually much more right wing than it is left wing. Look at the characteristics of right wing populist movements, and most apply to current feminism, or are at least eerily similar. Same beast, different dress.

Right-wing populism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Current feminism is actually much more right wing than it is left wing. Look at the characteristics of right wing populist movements, and most apply to current feminism, or are at least eerily similar. Same beast, different dress.

Right-wing populism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know if this is true. Are you spreading misinformation?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I don't know if this is true. Are you spreading misinformation?

I'm considering the surface similarities. Obviously feminism is coming from a better intention. But the means and methods are often alarmingly similar. Always a danger when you have organized dissent, regardless of the core message. Apologies for the somewhat shitposty nature of my post (although it wasn't meant as a shitpost). I think I am just naturally wary of any organized movement, because there are always going to be some larpers, grifters, and bad faith actors latching on for their own ends, no matter how pure and morally good the original message and goals of the movement

 

[Coriolis]

I'm considering the surface similarities. Obviously feminism is coming from a better intention. But the means and methods are often alarmingly similar. Always a danger when you have organized dissent, regardless of the core message. Apologies for the somewhat shitposty nature of my post (although it wasn't meant as a shitpost). I think I am just naturally wary of any organized movement, because there are always going to be some larpers, grifters, and bad faith actors latching on for their own ends, no matter how pure and morally good the original message and goals of the movement

I don't consider your post "shitposty", more just vague. I would like to understand your point better. Could you spell out what you consider the main similarities? Feminism is a loaded word these days, with many interpretations straying significantly from what I consider the fundamental definition of women having the same opportunities, rights, and responsibilities as men.

There is a strain of what sometimes passes as feminism, that in my mind is just a kinder, gentler sexism/gender bias. It is the idea of giving special allowances to women so they can participate in traditionally male settings like the workplace. This involved "protective regulation" e.g. limiting the number of hours women could work, the sorts of jobs they could do, even requiring maternity leave. These may look kind, but are just patronizing. As we are seeing, better to extend family leave to all parents and keep working hours and conditions safe and reasonable for everyone.

 

[The Cat]

Remember folks, if someone offers you pills on the internet. Don't take them.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]