1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
argumate
argumate

I’m dubious about the idea of trying to shame neo-nazis by accusing them of being involuntarily celibate losers who can’t get a date, one reason being that the tactic fails to work on anyone who can get a date.

Now, you might say this tactic is still useful anyway on others, and for reinforcing the social perception of neo-nazis as losers that no one should date, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But it still seems to be focusing the attack on a fairly non-central part of the question at hand. The reason to oppose neo-nazi ideology is because it’s terrible, not because its proponents struggle on the dating market.

gender politics politics
silver-and-ivory
argumate

I mean Donald Trump has married a succession of models, just sayin’.

So either he’s not a true asshole or “assholes don’t get dates” has a ton of mitigating factors, as assholes are well aware.

silver-and-ivory

wasn’t it more like “assholes get all the dates”?

mitigatedchaos

The people who use shaming for people who don’t get dates don’t believe that. They frequently denounce anyone who does. This is the problem with applying moral weight to whether someone is dateable. Even Adolf managed to have dates, but the average dateless slob that is complained about is multiple orders of magnitude less evil. This is because attraction is nearly orthogonal to whether someone is a good person.

Source: argumate gender politics
wirehead-wannabe
haraii

christmas eve what about christmas adam

kowka

happy christmas adam to all men’s rights activists

forfuturereferenceonly

Please stop pestering us with things like this. This has nothing to do with men fighting for their rights. Eve is short for ‘evening’. Please don’t turn activism into a joke. Thanks.

reindeerplaydate

Someone isn’t having a good christmas adam

theguilteaparty

Christmas Adam: December 23rd. Comes before Christmas Eve and is generally unsatisfying.

mitigatedchaos

Christmas Adam is like so many other jokes and “jokes” - it’s only funny when someone you know isn’t saying it as an attack is saying it. Otherwise it’s no better than… honestly I can’t think of a good gender-flipped example right now. Same thing with 95% of X Tears memes. If it’s a demographic being targetted and not something like “Console Peasant Tears”, then it isn’t really “ironic”, it’s just a flat-out attack against which they are permitted to defend themselves.

Source: zobb gender politics
funereal-disease
the-real-seebs

Okay, I think this needs to be clarified, since apparently people have sort of overlooked it:

It does not matter whether someone’s reasons for not wanting to have sex with you are good enough. They get to say no. Period. No exceptions. You don’t get to attack them or shame them for it. They just get to say “no”. It doesn’t matter whether they’re being transphobic, or racist, or sexist, or whatever else you think is wrong with their reasons. It doesn’t matter whether they’re crass and shallow and materialistic, or holding the world to unreasonable standards, or anything else.

If someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, you do not get to harass them for being wrong.

iopele

if they don’t consent, that is the end of it!

funereal-disease

Caveat: you never get to harass someone for the act of saying no, but you can certainly call out any hurtful actions they take in the process of saying no. If someone says “of course I’d never fuck you, you [slur]”, it’s not wrong to say “I respect your ‘no’, but that was nasty and uncalled for.”

Source: the-real-seebs gender politics
skiesalight

Fragile gender

aellagirl

You know a gender role is strict if people are scared of violating their role.

If you went to a young woman in a very conservative religious culture (like me when I was 17) and suggested to her things like:

*cutting her hair really short
*not having children
*not learning to cook/clean/sew 
*becoming a pastor of her church

Originally posted by nitratediva

She would probably tell you you’re insane and there’s no way she would do that. 

This is because, if she acts like this, she will have a harder time finding a mate. She’s been told all her life that men want a certain kind of woman, and if she is not that woman, she will die alone.

Whenever you see someone in a culture with a strong aversion to breaking their gender role - “I can’t have sex with a lot of men or I’ll be a slut!” then that is a sign that they are undergoing external pressure to behave that way in order to attract a mate - a reaction to “men want to have sex with younger, relatively inexperienced women”

So I don’t understand all of the comments about “fragile masculinity.” 

If masculinity is fragile, then it’s because men have been told their whole lives that women want a certain kind of man, and if he is not that man, then he will die alone.

I don’t understand the mockery. It should be replaced with sympathy. If you wouldn’t mock a young conservative girl for having fragile femininity, then you shouldn’t mock a young man who’s scared of wearing a skirt. He’s not just afraid that wearing a skirt will make him look silly, he’s afraid that if he wears a skirt, women will ridicule him and never be attracted to him again. And sadly, a lot of the, time he’s not wrong.

Originally posted by gurl

If you still don’t feel sympathy for this, imagine being asked to do something that you believe will render you unattractive to your desired gender. “Come on, what’s so bad about a face full of rampant acne?” “Hey, why are you scared of 250 extra pounds? Is your body image really so fragile?” 

It’s also interesting to note that women seem less afraid, in general, of violating their gender role than men are - which is why the concept of “fragile masculinity” is way more popular than “fragile femininity.” I also suspect that 100 years ago, this would not have been the case - that women’s gender roles would have been equally as strict as men’s (as evidenced by all those etiquette books on how to be a ‘proper woman’).

This seems to imply that more progress has been made into loosening women’s strict gender roles than has been made for men. 

Why do you think this is? 

skiesalight

It’s easier to loosen gender roles for women than for men because masculinity also circumscribes within it the span of all heroically admirable traits. Inner strength, ambition, risk-taking, decisiveness, independence, and command are all strongly coded masculine, and are also the traits that you see most often in the protagonists of any narrative. 


The heroic feminine is far more limited- I can only right now think of empathy and emotional resilience (which differs from inner strength in that it is displayed primarily to loved ones rather than to outgroup). These heroic traits tend to be assigned to beloved, but auxiliary characters, which necessarily draw less admiration. Some might argue wisdom to be an example of heroic feminine, but I think wisdom isn’t strongly gendered either way- while the wise woman is an acceptable expression of femininity, there are still more wise men represented. 

Moving from the conceptual to the practical, skills that are coded masculine are universally more respected than skills coded feminine. The oldest example of this is physical combat versus childcare. While you could argue that motherhood and childcare is well-venerated, it’s tiers below the glory found in violence. Even in the modern day, the humanities have become less valued as more women have moved into them, and STEM and entrepreneurship (which retain majority male population) are most respected. While being a doctor is respectable in the US, nations with majority female doctors respect and pay their doctors far less.

This extends even into personal interests- masculine-coded interests like sports and cars are treated as universal, or at least understandable and immune to critique in the mainstream. Meanwhile, feminine-coded interests such as fashion and makeup are seen as frivolous and vain. 

I feel the relationship between disrespect towards women themselves and disrespect towards feminine-coded skills, traits, and interests is, like most such things, a feedback loop with no clearly identifiable start or end. But I do hold that misogyny is at the root of women being able to buck their gender roles more easily than men.

mitigatedchaos

The trouble for a man staying in a female-dominated, or even gender-equal-population field, is that he cannot use it to demonstrate his masculinity.  If something is done 90% by women, then it cannot be used to prove manliness to women - after all, how can it separate him from them when they could do the exact same thing themselves!  (It might be the case that various LGBTQ women, don’t count for this psychologically/socially.)

My fear, not full-on belief, but fear, is that the reason things are this way is that a sufficiently large chunk of cis heterosexual women don’t actually want the situation to change, because their selection criteria are different from mens’.

My hope is that it’s going to collapse by women realizing that they can be attracted to men that break the traditional pattern, and eventually this will reach sufficient critical mass to collapse the culture’s self-reinforcing effect.  A lot of the conditions that created the current culture’s norms aren’t holding anymore.

But since the level of nature vs nurture is unknown, I don’t see that as guaranteed.  Transhumanism may ultimately render it irrelevant by the time it would normally take effect.

Source: aellagirl gender politics

Sex Shaming & Status War

The road to ending “slut shaming” of women probably goes through the town of “destroy the norm of giving men status for being sexually successful, and of treating male virgins as disgusting losers”.

I say this because I think some of the desire to enforce sex norms on women relates to the nature of sexual access as a status good for men.  

If a low-partner man gets into a relationship with a high-partner woman, he is considered lower status for it, under multiple frameworks.  Under a “promiscuous women are low-value” framework, it lowers his value by suggesting he had to ‘settle’ for a woman other men could extract sex from but didn’t consider worthy of commitment.  Under a “anyone having a high partner count means they are high-value” framework, it suggests that the woman is higher value than he is (which is risky if men are judged more on status than women are), and that the way for him to raise his value is to have lots of meaningless sex with lots of people.

If a low-partner man and a high-partner man are in the same community, the low-partner man is lower status than the high-partner man is, since masculinity is contingent on success, and success with women is counted as one category of success.  (In fact, one of the socially damaging aspects of virginity / lower partner count is that it is considered “unmasculine”.)

This creates a strong motivation for status war.  If low-partner men can attack promiscuity in women, they can create a situation where women have partner counts closer to their own.  Failing that, they can lower the status of such women so that they’re at least not higher status than themselves.

Unless their sexual success is decoupled from their social status, men will always have a motivation to wage status war through “slut shaming”.

The way to alter the status of high-partner men is not through straight men themselves, since their value in this respect is conferred by women.  (Low-partner men are already low status, so they have less social power to alter these very norms.)  It’s through the actions of women.

One way to do this is for women to start treating promiscuous men the way promiscuous women were treated in the past.  If women started treating high-partner men like hot potatoes that are disgusting, low-status (like male virgins are now), and aren’t worthy of sex (not just commitment, as getting a woman to commit isn’t considered special), it would radically alter the status dynamic in male communities.

Another possibility is if commitment from women somehow became more difficult to get, and thus was considered special and more valuable than sex, but it’s unclear under what conditions this would emerge as a stable equilibrium.  Current conditions don’t favor it or any obvious paths to it.  The traditional norm is the opposite - women trade sex to get commitment.  If this could be changed, it would increase the status of a man the woman finally ‘settled’ for.  (It appears to be true in the opposite direction currently.)

Another way to do it is to treat low-partner and high-partner men the same in a very noticeable way so that men will start internalizing that being high-partner isn’t the same as getting the “approval from women” they need to prove their masculinity and raise their status.  This doesn’t mean in fields unrelated to sex.  The status comes from sex, so they have to be treated as equally sexually desirable, perhaps even the virgins.

All of these courses of action have their own problems.  Depending on the balance of nature vs nurture, some or all of them may not even be feasible.  They may do secondary damage.  They may just not be enjoyable to a lot of people.

gender politics flagpost
ranma-official

Anonymous asked:

No one advocates corrective rape for asexual people. Corrective rape is used against gay men and lesbian women.

ranma-official answered:

No one except for the people who advocate it!

mitigatedchaos

Considering that refusing sex is still considered “abusive” in some institutional texts on relationships, it’s about as believable that the same sort of people who advocated “corrective” rape for gays and lesbians would advocate it for asexuals.  If they don’t it’s probably because they’re unaware of asexuals, not that they actually respect them or their wishes.

gender politics rape cw
ranma-official

Anonymous asked:

Wait... do you think ace people aren't LGBT? :/

afloweroutofstone answered:

A lot of ace people are LGBTQ. I typically go with the standard definition of “if you experience any significant same-sex attraction, you’re LGBTQ,” and just being asexual or aromantic doesn’t disqualify you from that. I would also consider people who experience no attraction at all (asexual and aromantic) as LGBTQ too, but that’s just me personally. But people who are asexual and heteroromantic or aromantic and heterosexual are not LGBTQ.

What I really objected to in that post was the idea of categorizing an HIV activism blog as “aphobic”

ranma-official

i think asexuality is obviously automatically included in category of People Who Do This Gender Thing Weird

afloweroutofstone

That’s fine. Others would object to defining LGBTQ like that, but my opinion on this topic isn’t too strong, honestly.

ranma-official

basically, there are basically “LGBT as identity” and “LGBT as community” and maybe the third “LGBT as labels”.

Allies are in the second but not the first and might be in the third. asexuals are definitely in the third. The problem is when people try to draw huge equal signs between the three.

The third also has a whole bunch of different categories of people that many people from the second are mortified to even acknowledge.

mitigatedchaos

When it comes down to it, people tend to use “LGBTQ” to mean “gender and sexual minorities”.  Asexuality qualifies as a sexual minority, especially if it’s permanent or more-or-less someone’s default state.

Source: afloweroutofstone gender politics
ranma-official
silver-and-ivory

I had an idea. What if we just stop gendering toys?

I had LEGOs and they came in boy colors, but I didn’t know, I was five years old and I thought they were fun to play with! What if we gave kids functional toys and imaginative toys and anything in between, and just ignored gender?

ranma-official

Less profitable.

Lego started selling girl Legos and got such a massive surge in profits you would think three new Star wars movies came out. Not that Legos were boy only in the first place.

mitigatedchaos

This is actually the reason they started the whole “Girl LEGOs” thing in the first place.  The LEGO sets for girls are the result of a lot of focus group testing in addition to market research, if I remember correctly.  It isn’t actually arbitrary.  The things make bank, and the previous ones just didn’t sell as many kits to girls.

Source: silver-and-ivory gender politics
aellagirl
aellagirl:
“I don’t know exactly what to make of this. Any thoughts?
”
If it were representative (it probably isn’t - but it might be worth it to try and do one that is), it suggests that the theory that (typical) women are highly interested in the...
aellagirl

I don’t know exactly what to make of this. Any thoughts?

mitigatedchaos

If it were representative (it probably isn’t - but it might be worth it to try and do one that is), it suggests that the theory that (typical) women are highly interested in the *status* of their partners, and want a partner of equal or higher status to themselves.

This could cause weird side effects if it’s true at the large scale.  For instance, if women don’t want to marry a man that earns much less than they do, but are perfectly fine marrying a man that earns a lot more, then the logical thing for straight men to do is to work more hours in paid employment.  (This happens to be what straight men actually do.)

gender politics gender