View Topic

Violet's extremist feminism

You people would have a stroke if you read the conversations many trans women have about males if you think what I said is "extremist feminism".

You people would have a stroke if you read the conversations many trans women have about males if you think what I said is "extremist feminism".

I am a trans woman, Violet. I think it's extremist feminism. Just because there are those more extreme than you doesn't mean I don't think you're extremist.

You people would have a stroke if you read the conversations many trans women have about males if you think what I said is "extremist feminism".

I am a trans woman, Violet. I think it's extremist feminism. Just because there are those more extreme than you doesn't mean I don't think you're extremist.

What makes them "more extreme" than me? In fact, what makes you think their feelings toward men have anything to do with feminism, or any political ideology for that matter? Why are you so keen on shaming other trans women who vent the trauma and anger they have to the men who abused and hurt them as "extremist feminists", comparable to, say, creepy misogynists who call trans women bitches for hurting their egos?

What makes them "more extreme" than me? In fact, what makes you think their feelings toward men have anything to do with feminism, or any political ideology for that matter? Why are you so keen on shaming other trans women who vent the trauma and anger they have to the men who abused and hurt them as "extremist feminists", comparable to, say, creepy misogynists who call trans women bitches for hurting their egos?

I said "more extreme" because you said "you should see what many other trans women say" as if you were comparing yourself to them and saying that you were somehow milder than that.
It has to do with feminism because what else would it have to do with? I mean, to be technical you're right. Misandry doesn't fall under feminism as it's an inherently non-feminist ideal.
I do not think that being abused by a man means that they can slander all men on earth, just as if I was beaten and raped by a black man it would give me no excuse to become a racist.
I think calling someone a "creepy misogynist", btw, is a bit ironic considering you call yourself "misandrist" right there in your member title, and I consider misandrists to be creepy people.

What makes them "more extreme" than me? In fact, what makes you think their feelings toward men have anything to do with feminism, or any political ideology for that matter? Why are you so keen on shaming other trans women who vent the trauma and anger they have to the men who abused and hurt them as "extremist feminists", comparable to, say, creepy misogynists who call trans women bitches for hurting their egos?

I said "more extreme" because you said "you should see what many other trans women say" as if you were comparing yourself to them and saying that you were somehow milder than that.
It has to do with feminism because what else would it have to do with? I mean, to be technical you're right. Misandry doesn't fall under feminism as it's an inherently non-feminist ideal.
I do not think that being abused by a man means that they can slander all men on earth, just as if I was beaten and raped by a black man it would give me no excuse to become a racist.
I think calling someone a "creepy misogynist", btw, is a bit ironic considering you call yourself "misandrist" right there in your member title, and I consider misandrists to be creepy people.

So what you're saying is you would give transgender rape and abuse survivors a hard time for saying something "Misandrist", right?

Ladies, can we all agree to take things down a notch, please? There's no logic in bickering among ourselves when we've all made our positions on this matter clear.

So what you're saying is you would give transgender rape and abuse survivors a hard time for saying something "Misandrist", right?

Yes, 100%. Misandry is sexism. I do not tolerate sexism. I don't care what happened to you. If you came up to me and said "I was raped by someone who had dark brown hair, thus I think all people with dark brown hair are inclined to rape people and should be excluded from society," I would call you insane and walk away, because that's exactly what it is: insane.

So what you're saying is you would give transgender rape and abuse survivors a hard time for saying something "Misandrist", right?

Yes, 100%. Misandry is sexism. I do not tolerate sexism. I don't care what happened to you. If you came up to me and said "I was raped by someone who had dark brown hair, thus I think all people with dark brown hair are inclined to rape people and should be excluded from society," I would call you insane and walk away, because that's exactly what it is: insane.

Glad we got that out of the way.

Ah, I am a creepy misogynist now. Ok, good to know. I suppose I'm also a far-right racist sexist white supremacist Neo-Nazi to. Oh well, I, frankly, could care less what you think of me.

I mean in all honesty, I can't understand you having a misandrist mindset.

You as much as everyone else knows that you don't get to choose what sex you were born as.   You were born as a male, as were other trans-women and as was all of the cis-males both here and out there in the world.  Just as all females were born as such, even the trans-men before their transition.

You didn't feel comfortable as a male, so like others you went (or are still currently going though) a change to rectify that so you can be more of yourself...which is great.  Nobody should ever have to feel uncomfortable with who they are, and it's wonderful that you're able to take the steps to get where you need.

But at the same time, that doesn't automatically put you in a place where you can be sexist towards males.  They had as much choice as you when they were born, and just because they're happy being males doesn't make them less than you, just like me being sexually attracted to males doesn't make me any better or worse than males that are attracted to women, or vice versa, or women attracted to women.  In the end, we're all the same no matter who we love, what we look like, or how we identify ourselves.

Men can be stupid, yes.  Women can be stupid too, absolutely.  Human beings in general can be downright dumbasses at times.  I mean, look at past history.  Sure, women's rights were a huge thing and still are, but it's not like men are the only ones who have been a hurdle.  Just like there are men who fight for women's rights including the right to her own body without male interference, there are women who fight completely against.  Just as men have sexually assaulted women, women have sexually assaulted men.  No one sex is at fault more than the other because both have had their share of mistakes.

The problem is that it's the men's faults that are heard the most because we're in a decade where women are being felt like they can be empowered.  Which in a sense is great since women have been victims quite a bit.  Problem is, men have also been victims.  But with women, especially in cases such as the #metoo movement, everything is broadcasted all the time on the different media outlets.  Whereas with men, reports are very few and far between.  But it's not because it doesn't happen, but more because of upbringing.  Women are taught early on to always show their feelings.  If they're hurt, they're taught that it's perfectly okay to cry and to tell someone when something happens to them.  Men on the other hand are taught not to show their feelings, because men aren't supposed to cry.  If something bad happens, we're supposed to suck it up, never talk about it, and keep going because our masculinity matters more than getting something off our chest.   But just because they're taught that doesn't automatically mean they're never a victim.  Men just like women get sexually assaulted by either other men or women.  The thing is, since we're taught to have a big masculine ego, most will never speak up about the encounter.  Thus, you'll rarely hear about it because most men are afraid to speak up about something that happened to them (because it somehow makes them "less of a man").

But the other problem with this is that in wake of the #metoo movement, it becomes even harder for men to speak up about their own encounter when it comes to being sexually assaulted by a woman.  Sure, it's absolutely empowering to women, but what about the reverse?  What if a man attempts to come out about a sexual assault, but the woman turns around and says that he assaulted her?  In the day and age of this movement, who are people going to believe? The woman who has been given a prop to stand on with the movement? Or the man who actually was the victim, but who has now been propped up as the assaulter? It's going to be the woman, because even if evidence gets put forward, the man will still be slandered, threatened, and demonized by people even though he himself was the victim.

This is absolutely the problem with sexism (be it misogyny or misandry) in general.  It sees one side and only wants to see one side, and nothing else.  If a male does something wrong, then all males are pigs that should be punished.  If a woman does something wrong, then all women are bad and they deserve to be punished.

It's an absolutely toxic mindset, and one I understand just as much as I understand having a homophobic, transphobic, racist, or other hateful mindset.  Which is to say it's one I could never quite fathom.  Why take the path of hating anyone for whatever difference they have rather than taking the one to accept and embrace those differences?

After all, despite any differences, we're all humans.  We were all born as humans, we all eat, drink, think, sleep, work and play as humans, and we'll all die as humans (unless some of you put your brains into another animal/robots).  And despite what some people believe, we'll also most likely go to the exact same place when we die as humans as well.

So this whole toxic nature of superiority and discriminatory behavior is just really quite baffling.

I feel that you are arguing in good faith and I appreciate that but for one thing I never made a decision to be a trans woman, and not male. My trans womanhood is a class coercively assigned to me by society, and I had no say in it. Your argument falls apart at the start, because you assume that trans people somehow undermine the belief that the two genders represent separate classes, one oppressing the other, when if anything, trans peoples experiences exemplify it. Due to my body and presentation, I was arbitrarily reassigned from a class that enjoys relative freedom from street harassment to one that does. From a class that enjoys the liberty to at the very least theoretically pursue whatever career I would want to a class that is straight up locked out of a ton, if not most career paths. I was planning my moving out this month, and it really has hit me that there are large swaths of the country I can't even think about living in because of my trans womanhood, and even places that are "Liberal" like Seattle and Los Angeles are still unsafe.

And you know what? Because me and so many other trans women are structurally disadvantaged from pursuing careers in male dominated fields, you enjoy less competition. You gain whether you realize it or not from my oppression. That doesn't make you a bad person as an individual, but it does make you a member of an oppressive class.

That's really something that is missing from most mainstream feminist conceptions of gender. Men are inherently an oppressive class within patriarchal gender, as much as white people are an oppressive class under racism, and the bourgeois are an oppressive class under capitalism. They are a class that enjoys social benefits at the expense of the oppression of the other female class. Regardless of the merits of individual men, men as a whole still gain from women being structurally disadvantaged in society.

And that leads into the whole "Misandry" thing: When I speak of me being Misandrist, I dont mean that I have a very committed hatred towards men as inferior individuals. It means two things to me: 1, it's a joke at entitled and egotistical men who genuinely convince themselves that men can be oppressed by women (let alone trans women) in a patriarchal society that benefits them and 2, it's an implicit acknowledgement that many people (even women, as Katie showed in a not so subtle way) will ridicule and shame women for being "too harsh" for men, because they have very deeply ingrained fears toward them, brought on by years of abuse and humiliation at the hands of them.

I have seen everything from women making jokes at the expense of men to (as shown here) women desiring women-only events as criticized as"Misandrist". As somehow bigoted against men. Because centrist social media-born understandings of gender and social relations dictate that it's a form of "reverse-sexism". Even though patriarchal gender is structured at the core to advantage men, thus making "reverse-sexism" impossible in society, alongside "reverse-classism" towards wealthy people.

Also, unlike misogyny, which is born from male socialization, "misandry" is born from female experiences under a patriarchal society and rape culture. "Misandry" is not taught to little girls, but developed from years of living under this society. Misogyny more often than not merely comes from teaching. Misandry comes from experience. Misogyny results in male violence. Misandry results in female only gaming events.

That is my opinion and what I mean when I joke about misandry or declare my distrust towards men.

mi·sog·y·ny
məˈsäjənē/
noun
noun: misogyny

    dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
    "she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mis·an·dry
miˈsandrē/
noun
noun: misandry

    dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex).
    "her brand of feminism is just poorly disguised misandry"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how it came about or how you personally use it, both words mean exactly the same thing toward their respective sex.

And forgive me, but I'm a little baffled on how you had no say in becoming a trans woman, and if I ask that you elaborate a bit more on that.  Because unless you were held down on a table and forcefully operated on, then regardless of how badly you were "coercively assigned" it's still a path that you completely chose.  Because in the end, you could have also chosen to remain a male, be it you'd most likely be severely unhappy as a male given your feelings towards them, but you could have still been one.

But instead you  took the path that would make you feel more like yourself in the long run, and again that's fantastic, but the point remains the same.  Yes, I imagine being a trans-woman in a hyper-hetero-male world is a complete pain at every turn.  Hell, being gay can be an outright annoyance at many turns with all of the narrow minded straight guys out there, and I can only imagine that being trans around those same narrow minded guys can only be a downright nightmare (considering even drag culture can bring out the scary ones).  It's hard enough asking hetero guys to accept the fact that some guys want to just love other guys.  But it's like climbing Mt. Rushmore asking them to also accept that some males feel most comfortable actually being females, and vice versa.

And again, you're blaming one side.  Men can be inherently oppressive, sure.  But so can women.  Saying "All men are oppressive pigs" or "All white people are oppressive racists" is blaming one side because of your own experiences.  Women can be just as oppressive as men if given the right tools, and white people definitely aren't the only ones guilty of oppression...they're just the most notoriously known in history.  But that doesn't mean other races haven't been guilty of oppression in the slightest.  Hell, look at some of the Middle Eastern countries out there.  If you're trans, sure can get the operation... but still have the exact same reactions in those countries that you would here.  But god forbid you come out as homosexual if you're a male, because in most of those countries it's punishable by either imprisonment or death depending on which country you were unlucky enough to go into.  Whereas at least in the US, it's more just ridicule and fighting for the right to get married (and only worse if you come across the wrong person).

To be fair, when your own title calls you a "fabulous misandrist" of course everything you say even in its tame form is going to be considered as such.  Does it make it actually true? No.  But, well, when you go in guns blazing, your opinions are going to be treated a little more hotly.  There's nothing wrong with going in that way, but you just have to accept that your opinions are going to be treated a bit more fiercely than they were possibly intended.

Personally, I don't see women-only events as much as "misandrist" as I do just unnecessary for the most part.  When it comes to certain events such as women's health or even survivor support groups...I support women's only events just as I support the flip-side.  And sure, occasional events for gaming, and the like that hold specific groups is also fine since it allows bonding for people that identify in that specific group.  But even with that latter piece, I don't see it as much as a necessity since people shouldn't have to group together to bond together...people should be able to bond with everyone just for liking the same thing together.  And likewise even with the support groups, I only support them because we live in a time that they're an unfortunate necessity that has to exist.

At the same time though, the women-only event in question that even sparked this whole topic was an actual employment opportunity.  It wasn't just a fun little event for a specific type of person, and it wasn't something that was done multiple times for different groups.  It was a singular event that allowed people to actually apply for a job at that company, and it was closed off to all but two types of people: those who identified as women, and those who identified as non-binary.

Again, multiple occurrence event and/or something less impactful, then sure, make some of them this-group-only since you're having multiple events.  But when it's one event, and you're actually denying certain people the right to attend an employment opportunity, it becomes a problem.  The reasoning doesn't matter, because as mentioned in suggestion, there were ways to work around it...even so much as just opening it up to everyone and encouraging and advertising to those who you were trying to reach to attend.  What matters is that by feeling like they had to right a wrong in how one side is denied the opportunity for employment, they fixed this by denying the other side.  Thus just flipping the table around and pissing off what was arguably their more major demographic rather than actually solving the problem effectively.

And not only did they not actually solve the problem effectively, but some even took to social media to actually bash against the people who were speaking against what they did, which ended up getting them fired. 

Going back to the posts much earlier on, I don't entirely agree with a company policing a person's opinions and firing them if they don't approve.  That being said, I also don't agree with those personal opinions attempting to speak for the company's decision, and getting as vile as some of those opinions were getting while still attempting to speak on behalf of that same company.

In other words, if they weren't trying to speak for the company's decision or did it with much more class, then they would have most likely still had their jobs.  But since they chose to actually talk as if officially being the mouthpieces of the company, and did it as negatively towards certain fans as they did, that's the only reason I agree with them getting fired for it.  If I was running a company, and one of my employees chose to speak on behalf of the company in such a way, then I would have fired them too.  Because once you put on that mouthpiece and act like you speak for the company, then your personal opinion turns into what people feel are the company's opinions.  And if those opinions are negative, then you have no right speaking for the company.

I kinda do agree that being born male and white predisposes you to success in a society that is already unequal, but I really don't see why the far left as capable of a solution if they're just going to form the same types of echo chambers as the far-right is famous for and declare people an enemy purely based on their skin or gender. Granted, the attempts to segregate people in society (such as by having "safe spaces") if they don't get along does have short-term benefits, but it eliminates any possibility of understanding a viewpoint not your own and learning compassion for the other side.

It's things like these that were responsible for the institution of Apartheid: the English and Boer settlers were not the only violent people in this country, the Zulus and Xhosas made every attempt to drive us out and kill us, after they had first conquered this country from the San to begin with. There was plenty of bad blood on both sides, but ultimately, the Europeans were simply the better conquerors, and their will became law. Those who first voted for the institution of Apartheid did not all do it through malice. Some of them genuinely believed this was the better alternative to prevent massacre after massacre and war after war, as our entire history indicated to them that co-existence was not truly possible. We all see how that turned out. I don't see the principle as being different here.

Granted, I'm not sure any solution does exist, either way. Humans are vicious fucks and will always find something to oppress one another for.