Toxic Feminism

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think there is an enormous range of sexuality in humans and so the question of 'need' is not consistent among different individuals. Varying degrees of asexuality are completely real and legitimate. The need to not have sex is real.

For people with libido who do not have a means of expressing it, consider the feeling of being hungry when you weigh enough you could skip a meal. Imagine feeling that way all the time, but not losing any weight. It is a feeling of lack of resolution very much like being hungry without food and with the capacity to live in that state until death occurs from others causes.

You could also imagine having a chronic headache that never goes away, but is not life threatening. Is it an entitlement to take an aspirin? What if you lived with someone who was in control of the aspirin but didn't think it was important, so they withheld it continually. You never died of the headache, but they never experienced it, and felt that it's simply not necessary. Rejected persistent arousal is not a pleasant feeling - I would choose headaches over that feeling. And of course it has a social element that adds an emotional component of rejection and loss of self-worth.

Edit: If you study or observe mammals in general when the females go into heat and males respond, it isn't pleasure like having a light-hearted pizza party. It is stressful. Sexual arousal is a complex feeling and when destabilized due to environment and lack of fulfillment, it is an extreme form of anxiety. Sexual needs are not about wanting to have fun and getting mad when you can't. It goes to the core of psychology and is deeply rooted in a sense of hunger and want and deep anxieties when the process feels destabilized with rejections. This is why it triggers aggression in a lot of people.

People are absolutely entitled to reject sexuality, to not have sex. People are not entitled to be in monogamous relationships with people who have sexual needs and withhold continually. One should not force asexuality on others. If a person doesn't get headaches, they aren't in a position to say what a person who gets headaches actually needs.

So, let's suppose a man has a high libido and also happens to be extremely ugly so nobody will date him. He really wants sex but he can't have it. Is it ok for someone to be upset that? Why not?

Usually if anyone would express being upset about that, the word "entitled" would be thrown around. This word makes sense if sex can't be a need, and makes no sense otherwise.

Sex can't both be a need and something nobody has a right to.

(People have thought I was "entitled" even though that didn't make sense.)

I haven't been with anyone since 2018. I don't feel like I'm bothered by waiting that long.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

So, let's suppose a man has a high libido and also happens to be extremely ugly so nobody will date him. He really wants sex but he can't have it. Is it ok for someone to be upset that? Why not?

Usually if anyone would express being upset about that, the word "entitled" would be thrown around. This word makes sense if sex can't be a need, and makes no sense otherwise.

Sex can't both be a need and something nobody has a right to.

(People have thought I was "entitled" even though that didn't make sense.)

I haven't been with anyone since 2018. I don't feel like I'm bothered by waiting that long.

People could feel entitled to being born healthy and beautiful and resent the society for creating them sickly and ugly.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

People could feel entitled to being born healthy and beautiful and resent the society for creating them sickly and ugly.

Sure but entitled here means "entitled to sex from women"

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

So, let's suppose a man has a high libido and also happens to be extremely ugly so nobody will date him. He really wants sex but he can't have it. Is it ok for someone to be upset that? Why not?

I would say that it is completely natural for a person in that situation to feel upset. The primary issues that a counselor could help with is what to do with that feeling. I'll comment more below.

Usually if anyone would express being upset about that, the word "entitled" would be thrown around. This word makes sense if sex can't be a need, and makes no sense otherwise.

Sex can't both be a need and something nobody has a right to.

(People have thought I was "entitled" even though that didn't make sense.)

I haven't been with anyone since 2018. I don't feel like I'm bothered by waiting that long.

This is a difficult topic because whether a person is in a monogamous relationship or trying to date around without success, frustration and upset builds with more rejection. Those feelings are legitimate and natural. The problem is that the more frustration builds up, the harder it is to be socially successful in either context. How does one process that negative emotion without making it more difficult to connect sexually? That is so hard to answer.

The entitlement part comes in if a person tries to force their need onto one specific person. In the case of the monogamous relationship, I think the rejected person has a right to leave the withholding partner over this issue - that it is serious enough to end a relationship. It would become entitlement if the rejected partner raped or unduly coerced the withholding partner. For someone dating around, it is entitled to pick one potential mate and believe they must reciprocate sexually or pay for the years of rejection by several other people.

It might surprise people, but I'm not entirely against prostitution as a solution to some of these issues in society. I would also encourage people to not get fixated on the most attractive and socially powerful people as potential mates. In the opening example of an unattractive man with high libido - is he willing to be with a woman of similar physical appearance level to himself? Being open to a broader range of the population and not having everyone chasing down the same individuals could lessen the problem.

On some level there also needs to be a way to validate the feeling of frustration and acknowledge a person's sexuality as a legitimate social/physical need, but still respect the boundaries of other people who reject and to not impose on a specific person, but work on effective strategies to get the needs met with naturally willing partners.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I watched an interesting movie a few weeks ago called, "Come As You Are" about three young men with disabilities who concoct a plan to take a road trip to Canada where there is a brothel designed to serve the needs of the disabled. It was based on a true story from the Netherlands. It was a challenging and emotionally striking movie because there are a lot of people who are left out socially and sexually and for people with significant disabilities, they can experience even more frustration. I'm not someone who could relate mentally to the process of selling sexuality, but I do take note of these difficult situations and have some respect for people trying to address the problem. It is a thought provoking movie that is very human.

 

[Luminous]

Sex can't both be a need and something nobody has a right to.

What about friendship? Love? Belonging? Those are needs, but they are not things anyone is entitled to force from anyone else.

I haven't been with anyone since 2018. I don't feel like I'm bothered by waiting that long.

This really isn't relevant. Like Siúil a Rúin said, people have different levels of needs. Just because you can't understand my need or the needs of the next person personally yourself, doesn't mean my needs are not real. They very much are.

And I would never dream of saying I was entitled to love, friendship, belonging, or sex. Those are not things I have a right to take from others if they aren't willingly given. It's completely immoral to take those things by force, in some ways impossible, in some ways rendering them meaningless and not at all what was sought in the first place.

On some level there also needs to be a way to validate the feeling of frustration and acknowledge a person's sexuality as a legitimate social/physical need, but still respect the boundaries of other people who reject and to not impose on a specific person, but work on effective strategies to get the needs met with naturally willing partners.

Exactly.

I think there is an enormous range of sexuality in humans and so the question of 'need' is not consistent among different individuals. Varying degrees of asexuality are completely real and legitimate. The need to not have sex is real.

For people with libido who do not have a means of expressing it, consider the feeling of being hungry when you weigh enough you could skip a meal. Imagine feeling that way all the time, but not losing any weight. It is a feeling of lack of resolution very much like being hungry without food and with the capacity to live in that state until death occurs from others causes.

You could also imagine having a chronic headache that never goes away, but is not life threatening. Is it an entitlement to take an aspirin? What if you lived with someone who was in control of the aspirin but didn't think it was important, so they withheld it continually. You never died of the headache, but they never experienced it, and felt that it's simply not necessary. Rejected persistent arousal is not a pleasant feeling - I would choose headaches over that feeling. And of course it has a social element that adds an emotional component of rejection and loss of self-worth.

Edit: If you study or observe mammals in general when the females go into heat and males respond, it isn't pleasure like having a light-hearted pizza party. It is stressful. Sexual arousal is a complex feeling and when destabilized due to environment and lack of fulfillment, it is an extreme form of anxiety. Sexual needs are not about wanting to have fun and getting mad when you can't. It goes to the core of psychology and is deeply rooted in a sense of hunger and want and deep anxieties when the process feels destabilized with rejections. This is why it triggers aggression in a lot of people.

People are absolutely entitled to reject sexuality, to not have sex. People are not entitled to be in monogamous relationships with people who have sexual needs and withhold continually. One should not force asexuality on others. If a person doesn't get headaches, they aren't in a position to say what a person who gets headaches actually needs.

Exactly.

Perhaps another way to look at it is the difference between an introvert and an extrovert. An introvert might be entirely satisfied in only socializing once a month, be content with not leaving their house most days, and hate small talk, while an extrovert may need to see new faces on a daily basis, need to talk to their friends daily, and need to socialize weekly to be satisfied. The introvert might need more quiet than the extrovert. Maybe the extrovert wouldn't understand why, but it's still needed.

And there are many different needs that can be met with sex - the pure physical relief, mental connection, emotional connection, physical affection, verbal affection, increase in intimacy, sharing, bonding chemically, giving and receiving, love, belonging, safety, excitement, fun, novelty, security, familiarity, merging, riding the edge, etc etc.

 

[Coriolis]

An sx would never lack of empathy for anyone with high libido in such a situation. And I think that there's likely many situations where it isn't necessarily anyone's fault, it's just reality. People not knowing who they are or what they want getting involved with other people - it's messy and sometimes people get hurt without anyone really being at fault.

As an sx dom woman who's been in such situations previously, the message I internalized was that there was something wrong with me, and the pain from that message was extremely painful for a very long time.

Perhaps she's been cheated out of the fulfillment of a highly important need for sexual connection, not just some stupid societal role that her husband is supposed to play. Implying it is her fault may be extremely cruel, if she's essentially been lied to about what to expect from her relationships.

This may very well be the case sometimes, as your own experience attests. As I understood it, though, @Doctor Cringelord was commenting on the biases manifested in the comments of respondents in online spaces who know nothing about the situation other than the one side presented by a possibly hurt and upset partner. @Arcturus was providing some context for these biases, not commenting on the reality of the situation for either partner. The idea that a woman keen on sex has something wrong with her is just another one of the societal assumptions that ignore the reality of situations, causing needless pain and misunderstanding in the process. What women in your situation endure is not negated by the fact that there are men in parallel situations, suffering in their own way and equally mischaracterized. Whoever said that people need to learn to talk about sex and related topics more candidly and respectfully is on the right track.

This is a really interesting discussion. I'm not certain of the answer, but it put me in mind of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Physiological needs are two rungs below love/belonging with safety being the second rung from the bottom. There could be something to the idea that when people's basic food, shelter, and safety needs are not met, that they don't process social issues and as effectively.

There is absolutely something to that notion. The sorts of biases and assumptions we have been discussing, though, are exhibited just as often by people who have these needs met as by those who do not. I suppose one could argue that they feel a lack of safety in some way, but that suggests a safety that must come at the expense of others.

This is a good discussion and meaningful post. It is a complex topic and there is a strong inclination to view it through a defensive, gender bias lens when experiencing it. I agree there is some truth to society judging based on assumed gender roles. There has been a difference in expectation about gender libido, but I think it comes from the historical dynamic of women always being pregnant. Throughout most of human history women's bodies have been pregnant or recovering from pregnancy which complicates libido.

The overlay of assumed gender differences makes the process of sexual rejection from a monogamous partner more painful for both regardless of which gender is withholding. There was a time in my life when I was in a marriage with a low-libido man when i was younger, and I found the gender assumption particularly painful because people constantly talked about how sexual men are and always wanting sex, so I felt like a much bigger freak. There are ways I internally blamed him, but I wondered if I smelled weird or was ugly because I had body dysmorphia and borderline anorexia problems throughout my youth. I typically used humor for seduction, so when rejected there was still a joke left. I ended up in a number of conversations with other women whose men were disinterested in sex. I ended up with a picture that felt like the whole framework was a huge lie. The men in my life and in my friends lives were not stressed about shooting down their partners in the slightest. It wasn't impotence, but a hedonistic preference for playing video games. The generally compartmentalized quality of intellectual, abstract men created large sexless compartments that were theory based, and getting them to shift into the concrete sexual realm was impossible. Similar to Mr. Spock being sexual once every seven years, but otherwise impenetrable. The quiet absolute entitlement from otherwise really cool, nice men was demoralizing in a way that damaged me extremely - they couldn’t or wouldn’t hear me. I am permanently the equivalent of emasculated, although women don't have a word for it, but most have felt it in their lives (efeminated?). At this point in life I think the model of "men wanting sex more than women" is based on ages 18-25 at best and is residual from a time when women's bodies were constantly processing pregnancy, births, and recovery.

This is another example of where people need to get their heads out the sands of antiquity and face facts. What once may have been true or made sense no longer is and does. It is like trying to operate a modern gaming computer using the manual for this:

Until people recognize and engage with reality as it is now, they, and their partners, friends, associates, etc. will continue to be hurt and misunderstood. As the highlighted implies, we are all more alike than different. Compassion requires we stop othering, especially those we claim to care most about, and respond to each other as individuals in the context of our common humanity.

 

[Arcturus]

I mean things like food, shelter, healthcare. I don't think any kind of progress is actually possibly unless everyone has things like that.

I don't consider sexuality a basic need and see it as overrated if anything, although that is probably a matter of not having had the right partner. I haven't been with anyone since 2018 when I realized that I'd rather be alone than with the wrong person.

So, let's suppose a man has a high libido and also happens to be extremely ugly so nobody will date him. He really wants sex but he can't have it. Is it ok for someone to be upset that? Why not?

Usually if anyone would express being upset about that, the word "entitled" would be thrown around. This word makes sense if sex can't be a need, and makes no sense otherwise.

Sex can't both be a need and something nobody has a right to. [...]

My opinion about sexuality as a basic need is that it's not quite right.

I do think that it could be an absolute need one could have, a strict requirement to a committed relationship.

I think we're not seeing the full picture here. I think it is both a need, and not a need in its own ways- but they are not being defined properly.

It is not a need in the same sense air, food, water, some place to live / a way to stay alive is. But it could be a personal need- a prerequisite to relationships. I see it as no different as some who might say they wouldn't date someone who wasn't also say, very outdoorsy. It's a strong, even absolute requirement for them, but it is also not a need in the same way the basic needs of food, water, etc are. But it is a need in that if someone does not fulfil that criteria for you, a committed relationship simply cannot occur.

Yes, in that sense, it can be both a need and one that nobody is entitled to.
And one can be upset about it just fine- man or woman. Just like how if you're going through rough times you may be jealous of your friends but that doesn't mean you should bomb and tear them up. Feelings are feelings, actions are a different thing, and all that.

 

[Arcturus]

An sx would never lack of empathy for anyone with high libido in such a situation. And I think that there's likely many situations where it isn't necessarily anyone's
As an sx dom woman who's been in such situations previously, the message I internalized was that there was something wrong with me, and the pain from that message was extremely painful for a very long time.

Perhaps she's been cheated out of the fulfillment of a highly important need for sexual connection, not just some stupid societal role that her husband is supposed to play. Implying it is her fault may be extremely cruel, if she's essentially been lied to about what to expect from her relationships.

@Coriolis explained it- I was responding to the specific scenario Doctor Anaximander had recounted. There's nothing Coriolis posted that is something I wouldn't have said myself, so I won't repeat, but to be absolutely clear; I was not implying it was the woman's fault whatsoever.

Bolded is precisely my point- the societal lie. It is a problem that sets people up for shame, difficulty communicating (due to thinking they are broken and everyone else isn't), misplaced expectations- all because of the gender-based societal lie. The phenomenon Anaximander had mentioned is a symptom of that as well- people getting essentially slapped in the face with no outlet, attempting to 'fix' (or ignore) the situation in unproductive ways, or as you say- internalising the blame.

 

[Arcturus]

If a lot more people can be taught in sex ed that the subject of sex is a hell of a lot broader than the physical act of genital bed tango, we wouldn't have a lot of these problems.

You tell people that celibacy is the only option til marriage, or that your needs don't matter in the face of your partner's/that your needs are paramount and worth treating your partner as an expendable resource, that the various modes of sexualities (asexuality included!) don't exist aside from "horny man and dutiful sexless woman" or whatever the hell it is, watch it blow up in your face when your daughters and sons are hurt 20 years into the future feeling trapped and ashamed in their own marriages. Discovering far too late who or what they are and wondering if potentially breaking up a marriage, especially with kids in it, is worth their personal happiness. It is a ticking time bomb, it is torture.

Condoms aren't the only sexual protection we need, y'all. It's not trying to be "cool", or "edgy", or "woke", or even contrarian and difficult just for the sake of it.

PROTECT YOUR HECKING CHILDREN.

We live in an era with such an ease of access of information there is absolutely no reason for people to stay ignorant aside from selfish propaganda and malignant stubbornness. Just hecking let it die.

 

[Red Herring]

One of my take-aways from Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice by Jack Holland (recommended reading, the only downside is that he is focussing almost exclusively on Western culture) is that what is and isn't considered "natural" and "normal" has changed repeatedly over the course of history. Even within antiquity whether women are lustfull animalistic beings distracting men from higher things or pure and innocent creatures that have to be protected from horny men has changed several times. And there have been several flips in what is "normal, natural and unchangeable" over the last few centuries.

As for needs, I'd say the term is a difficult one because it is so ambiguous. I'd rather call it a drive which is more or less strongly present in most people. There are functioning couples with little or no sex at all and functioning couples with lots of sex as well as dysfunctional couples with little, no, some or lots of sex. The key, I'd say, is compatibility.

Sex drive and sex in the species is as neccessary as food intake in the sense that without it our species would die out but it is not a prerequisite for every specimen. Many animals have sex for non-reproductive purposes and copulate for pleasure or other social purposes - and after all there are some 1500 different species with known samesex coupling.

Sexuality is a part of life and everybody has a right to sexuality. What they don't have is a right to sex, especially not with a specific person. That's an important distinction. If two partners aren't compatible in their subjective sexual needs and they can't find a solution that works for both of them they'll probably either have to live with longterm frustration or split up.

That being said there are, naturally, also phases that people go through where their libido will vary based on life circumstances, etc.

 

[Luminous]

@Coriolis explained it- I was responding to the specific scenario Doctor Anaximander had recounted. There's nothing Coriolis posted that is something I wouldn't have said myself, so I won't repeat, but to be absolutely clear; I was not implying it was the woman's fault whatsoever.

Bolded is precisely my point- the societal lie. It is a problem that sets people up for shame, difficulty communicating (due to thinking they are broken and everyone else isn't), misplaced expectations- all because of the gender-based societal lie. The phenomenon Anaximander had mentioned is a symptom of that as well- people getting essentially slapped in the face with no outlet, attempting to 'fix' (or ignore) the situation in unproductive ways, or as you say- internalising the blame.

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.

 

[Luminous]

We live in an era with such an ease of access of information there is absolutely no reason for people to stay ignorant aside from selfish propaganda and malignant stubbornness. Just hecking let it die.

Even if we had all that, it can still take time for people to figure out who they are and want they want. In addition, those things can change. The world isn't perfect.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

One thing I realised recently is that the main problem with sexists and racists - including the woke ones is that they are insane.

Like they do this thing where they blob people together basing on some arbitrary characteristics and then create some delusional worldview from it.

And often for example expecting this blob to make some kind of decision.

For example the Charlestone church shooter (diagnosed with schizophrenia) considering all people with dark skin colour responsible for violence committed by violent criminals with dark skin colour and expecting people with dark skin colour to somehow stop these crimes from happening - including somehow stopping being victims of these crimes I guess?

That's not just prejudice or anything like that, it's absolute insanity.

Or femi-nazis saying stuff like "men doing conscription to themselves". Yeah one person enslaving another person is somehow that person doing it to themselves. Completely insane.

The worst thing about this kind of views being propagated is that they are basically spreading insanity.

 

[Arcturus]

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.

Ahh. I hadn't caught those undertones from Anaximander, so I thought you were referring to my response.
EDIT: I keep forgetting and referring to him as Anaximander (his old username). Oops.

I do think that when figuring out what is going on in such a delicate situation such as... dead bedrooms (or sexuality at all) it would be helpful to first and foremost not approach it from a POV of "Okay, whose fault is this one? Who is to blame?" - a lot of the knee-jerk 'downvoted to oblivion' responses Anaximander mentions seems to stem from that- from assumptions and the need to blame. Assigning blame purely off ... societal stereotypes instead of the facts of the matter is simply not factual/objective, though I had somehow missed that it would also be a morally and emotionally cruel thing to do. Ah, me.

(If I thought about it, I would come to that conclusion, but it's not what comes to mind first.)

I don't think that going for the jugular (especially when not based off the facts of the actual situation) would be fair. Tying this to a quote which I unfortunately could not find- it is one that explains the essence/spirit of Feminism, which is not to invert the power structure, but level the playing field. It's not about "Women should be allowed to punch men too, and if women can punch men, men can punch women too, thus making it fair," - when you do so, you just burn both parties. I don't think the view that someone should be torn down (especially violently or in an antagonising manner) to level the playing field is fair.

That, and can you blame someone for ignorance? How far can you? That is another can of worms in entirely. Buddhism says ignorance (of any and all kinds) is a sin- especially wilful ignorance. I think a more judicious stance would be something somewhere in the middle; you can understand and forgive where they came from and understand that you two were failed by your school, your parents, your society, and ended up hurting each other. It remains that this is an extremely unfortunate aspect of life where mistakes can hit really, really personally and really, really hard, leaing people to aggressive and at times, even intolerant states. Such as blindly downvoting people who disagree in Reddit threads as well, I suppose.

Even if we had all that, it can still take time for people to figure out who they are and want they want. In addition, those things can change. The world isn't perfect.

It can only help. It won't prevent pain, but it would lessen it, as well as hasten the progress at which one discovers who they are, even if it does change later.

There really is no reason for people to stay ignorant anymore- no reason to not teach them and no reason they shouldn't know that these things exist. I'm not counting people who are ignorant not by choice but by circumstance- I remember I was a teen before I found out about gay people and even then it took me longer than it should for it to register that "Oh wow. This isn't some clown joke/edgy shock meme. These people actually exist." There was no hatred, but my puzzlement was something like if I heard someone chose to eat giant African snails and only snails and raw and only at 2AM when the tide is high. "What?? But why?????" - it was so novel and alien.

(Warning to not google giant African snails)

Thank hecking god I didn't end up a bigot. More like "This is so weird. This is so strange. How would that even work?" and even then it would've still been an insensitive way to react to someone who is gay. I shiver at the thought. I wish it was something I had been introduced to sooner.

 

[Coriolis]

One of my take-aways from Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice by Jack Holland (recommended reading, the only downside is that he is focussing almost exclusively on Western culture) is that what is and isn't considered "natural" and "normal" has changed repeatedly over the course of history. Even within antiquity whether women are lustfull animalistic beings distracting men from higher things or pure and innocent creatures that have to be protected from horny men has changed several times. And there have been several flips in what is "normal, natural and unchangeable" over the last few centuries.

As for needs, I'd say the term is a difficult one because it is so ambiguous. I'd rather call it a drive which is more or less strongly present in most people. There are functioning couples with little or no sex at all and functioning couples with lots of sex as well as dysfunctional couples with little, no, some or lots of sex. The key, I'd say, is compatibility.

Sex drive and sex in the species is as neccessary as food intake in the sense that without it our species would die out but it is not a prerequisite for every specimen. Many animals have sex for non-reproductive purposes and copulate for pleasure or other social purposes - and after all there are some 1500 different species with known samesex coupling.

Sexuality is a part of life and everybody has a right to sexuality. What they don't have is a right to sex, especially not with a specific person. That's an important distinction. If two partners aren't compatible in their subjective sexual needs and they can't find a solution that works for both of them they'll probably either have to live with longterm frustration or split up.

That being said there are, naturally, also phases that people go through where their libido will vary based on life circumstances, etc.

Well-said. The distinction between our having a basic right to something, and an entitlement to receive it from any particular source, is important. Even food and water, universally recognized as basic needs, are rarely guaranteed as an entitlement. When it comes to sex, and really to any sort of interpersonal relationship, compatibility is key. Determining that requires honesty, with oneself and with one's partner. People who follow some external expectation without understanding their own preferences are setting themselves and often their partners up for disappointment, unless of course they are making the conscious choice to trade that for some other benefit. The only real moral wrong is compulsion or coercion.

As for what is "natural" for women, two main female archetypes have been the mother and the whore. Almost mutually exclusive and equally confining, both focus on women's bodily functions in reproduction, or at least the act that results in such. It has been women who fit neither role that often run into the most opposition.

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.

In a sense it is more fair for women to be blamed more, if we must speak in terms of blame at all. Better to view it as responsibility, something rightly and in reality shared by both partners. Women cannot be given a blanket dispensation from their share. What Cringelord seemed to be criticising was a bias that places all of that responsibility on men and none on women, regardless of the situation. Note that this says nothing about any particular individual, merely recognizes that men and women must both take responsibility, to include attentiveness to their partner's needs as well as honesty about their own.

Even if we had all that, it can still take time for people to figure out who they are and want they want. In addition, those things can change. The world isn't perfect.

Of course. Alleviating ignorance is no sliver bullet, nor is dispelling stereotypes and lifting biased expectations. It is a start, however. All stand as formidable impediments to the quest for self-knowledge and its application.

Or femi-nazis saying stuff like "men doing conscription to themselves". Yeah one person enslaving another person is somehow that person doing it to themselves. Completely insane.

The worst thing about this kind of views being propagated is that they are basically spreading insanity.

Well, conscription laws have been enacted by men, or at least predominantly male governing bodies, with any voices suggesting the inclusion of women in conscription quickly dismissed, usually by more men who think women have nothing to offer the armed forces. The balance of rights with responsibilities comes to mind.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

Well, conscription laws have been enacted by men, or at least predominantly male governing bodies, with any voices suggesting the inclusion of women in conscription quickly dismissed, usually by more men who think women have nothing to offer the armed forces. The balance of rights with responsibilities comes to mind.

Conscription laws have been enacted by individual politicians on other individuals that are then kidnapped and trafficked. Sex of these individual politicians is irrelevant since they aren't every single individual that gets kidnapped and trafficked basing on their dictates.
Saying that victims are somehow guilty because they are same sex as perpetrators is pure schizoposting.

 

[Coriolis]

Conscription laws have been enacted by individual politicians on other individuals that are then kidnapped and trafficked. Sex of these individual politicians is irrelevant since they aren't every single individual that gets kidnapped and trafficked basing on their dictates.
Saying that victims are somehow guilty because they are same sex as perpetrators is pure schizoposting.

An individual cannot enact a law unless he or she is an autocrat. Conscription is actually more fair than our current "all-volunteer" system, but that is a separate topic. Noting the gender bias present in legislation as an expression of societal norms, and the composition of legislatures themselves is relevant at least to the broader topic of feminism, toxic or otherwise.

 

[Luminous]

In a sense it is more fair for women to be blamed more, if we must speak in terms of blame at all. Better to view it as responsibility, something rightly and in reality shared by both partners. Women cannot be given a blanket dispensation from their share. What Cringelord seemed to be criticising was a bias that places all of that responsibility on men and none on women, regardless of the situation. Note that this says nothing about any particular individual, merely recognizes that men and women must both take responsibility, to include attentiveness to their partner's needs as well as honesty about their own.

What would actually be fair would be for no one to be blamed for the actions of others which they have no control over. Blaming women or men or transgender peoples when it's nothing to do with them personally as an individual isn't fair, period.

 

[Coriolis]

What would actually be fair would be for no one to be blamed for the actions of others which they have no control over. Blaming women or men or transgender peoples when it's nothing to do with them personally as an individual isn't fair, period.

This was the original point. We each are responsible for our own actions, regardless of gender, stereotype, or the expectation of others.