Sexism in disguise

[Phrossack]

Not anymore. Lawyers have ensure that physical strength has no place in the modern world. Too much chance of getting sued. But it wasn't that long ago men took their differences outside.

Were people like J.D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, or James Monroe powerful because they personally intimidated or beat up people with their bare hands?

 

[Hygro]

Absolutely. It's never a 100% thing. But medieval Europe was very much a place ruled by males, with women in a (mostly) subaltern position.

TF was making a women-to-women power comparison in context of the nature of seduction to get to their positions. So the men part is a tad separate.

 

[civ_king]

Lately during disscussion about Polanski and Bieber (the first one is world famous director, the second is some singer) I've stated a couple of obvious facts of life like "as soon as women become pubertal it is normal for them to try use their seductive abilities to get what they want" or "sometimes women exploit legal system by seducing men and blaming them for rape afterwards striving for money, fame or revenge" and was surprised by the utter shock of some posters upon learning something trivial as this. Some (f.e. Goodfella) even used such strong expressions like "sexist pig".

But is this valid? Of course not.

When I say that women can use their seductive abilities to get what they want, I admit that women have their own volition and agency, and able to act out of their self-interest -- exactly like men. On the contrary, my pseudofeministic opponents try to portrait women like lifeless automatons unable to act or decide for themselves, who are object to oppression of men or mythical "The Patriarchy".

This is the real sexism.

Of course, I would not call my opponents "sexist pigs" but term "sexists in disguise" seems to be appropriate because they try to assure us they are pro-women.

So, what are you thoughts? Why people think that obvious statements like aforementioned are "sexist"? And what we should do about this fake feminism and its adherents?

Do a few women try to seduce men to get what they want? Certainly. Do most? No.

Do women exploit the legal system for that purpose? It has happened before, but it's a small percent of rape accusations.

Do some feminists basically deny women agency? Yes and it pisses some women off.

 

[Goodfella]

Repost from other thread:

...I guess I'll just say this:

First and foremost, regardless of why this 13 year old girl was was in Polanski's custody, regardless of whether her mother knew what she was doing or not, and regardless of whether Polanski even raped her or not, she was still a 13 year old girl and Polanski DID have sex with her. 13 year old girls are below the legal age of consent in most nations, including the United States, and it was thusly illegal for Polanski to have sex with her. They are below the age of consent because we as a society have deemed that they are too young to make responsible decisions for themselves. Polanski, as an adult, needed to make the responsible decision to not have sex with her. It simply doesn't matter whether she seduced him or not in the grand scheme of things. The fact that he had anal sex with a 13 year old girl is undeniably, unquestionably, and entirely wrong.

Secondly, if she was there to take topless photos, Polanski shouldn't have been taking them. If the girl's mother knew, she's also at fault. If the girl were trying to seduce him in order to advance her career, Polanski shouldn't be furthering her objective. Either way, Polanski, under no circumstances whatsoever, should not have had sex with her. To think otherwise is moral turpitude. Polanski, as an adult, should not be perpetuating a system of abuse and exploitation for aspiring actresses.

Next, you, as a sexist pig, make the assumption that she, as a thirteen year old girl, seduced him and then accused him of rape in order to make money. You have indicated that this is normal for women. You are sexist and your views on this issue are just shockingly wrong. This isn't a matter of Anglo saxon propaganda or whatever the hell you think, you're just wrong.

And lastly, with consideration of the evidence, it appears quite likely that not only did Polanski have sex with a minor, he raped a minor. He drugged and raped her, simple as that.

To sum it up, your morality (Borat morality) is just backwards. You think women are gold diggers and use their bodies to get what they want and you think it's okay for a middle aged man to have sex with a child if the child is trying to advanced her career and had her mother's consent (which probably isn't even what happened). If thinking otherwise makes me a rapid anglo bot, than that's a label I proudly accept.

 

[Borachio]

Not anymore. Lawyers have ensure that physical strength has no place in the modern world. Too much chance of getting sued. But it wasn't that long ago men took their differences outside.

I don't understand. Did Julius Caesar fight every single man in his army? Did Genghis Khan? Or Alexander the Great?

In fact, who did?

 

[Traitorfish]

Absolutely. It's never a 100% thing. But medieval Europe was very much a place ruled by males, with women in a (mostly) subaltern position.

As were the overwhelming majority of men. So are you proposing that peasant farmers sought more favourable conditions by trying to seduce landowners, or is it possible that this whole rationale is beginning to encounter certain obstacles?

 

[Borachio]

are you proposing that peasant farmers sought more favourable conditions by trying to seduce landowners

Given certain circumstances, why not?

A heterosexual male peasant might try and seduce his landlady. Or a homosexual one his landlord.

People will generally try anything that they think might work, won't they?

How do you explain the casting couch?

 

[luiz]

As were most men. So are you proposing that peasant farmers sought more favourable conditions by trying to seduce landowners, or is it possible that this whole rationale is beginning to break down just a wee bit?

I think you misunderstand (or maybe you're being too Marxist here and always thinking in terms of class!). You don't have to look at oppressor x oppressed mechanics to see what I described. Look inside the peasant's or noble's households. How would the male peasant get his woman to do what he wants? And how would the woman get him to do what she wants? Note that I'm not saying that all males used physical/financial means to get their desires, nor that all women used seduction. Only that this was indeed very common, and in the past women were more likely to use seduction because the playing field was more unequal.

 

[Goodfella]

Guys, the debate's not about whether women use their seductive abilities to get what they want (which they usually don't), it's about whether a drugged and raped 13 year old girl used her seductive abilities to get she wanted. You can't just chalk it down to a women's volition and agency, that's entirely misrepresentative of what Snorrius actually posted. If it's about volition and agency at all, it's about that of a child to apparently solicit sex from a middle aged man and his right to "consent."

 

[Borachio]

It can certainly happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita

But a 44 year old clearly bears the responsibility for simply walking away from the inappropriate situation. I don't see anything to argue about here.

(What the drugged state of the girl was all about, I don't know.)

 

[Snorrius]

Guys, the debate's not about whether women use their seductive abilities to get what they want (which they usually don't), it's about whether a drugged and raped 13 year old girl used her seductive abilities to get she wanted. You can't just chalk it down to a women's volition and agency, that's entirely misrepresentative of what Snorrius actually posted. If it's about volition and agency at all, it's about that of a child to apparently solicit sex from a middle aged man and his right to "consent."

You are obsessed with sex and 13 yo promiscuous adolescents. This thread about fake sexism. Do not bring Polanski and Geimer here, for heavens sake. God, can you Anglo-Saxons think something other than nymphets?

I was asking why some "feminists" deny women ability to act out of their self-interest and having volition and agency, that's all. If you want to discuss lolitas why don't you make a separate topic?

 

[Goodfella]

(What the drugged state of the girl was all about, I don't know.)

He allegedly drugged her. Maybe he didn't, I don't actually know, only Polanski and the girl do. The claims of sexism come into play because Snorrius assumes that Polanski neither drugged nor raped her. His evidence: "as soon as women become pubertal it is normal for them to try use their seductive abilities to get what they want."

 

[Traitorfish]

I think you misunderstand (or maybe you're being too Marxist here and always thinking in terms of class!). You don't have to look at oppressor x oppressed mechanics to see what I described. Look inside the peasant's or noble's households. How would the male peasant get his woman to do what he wants? And how would the woman get him to do what she wants? Note that I'm not saying that all males used physical/financial means to get their desires, nor that all women used seduction. Only that this was indeed very common, and in the past women were more likely to use seduction because the playing field was more unequal.

But the claim was that seduction was "women's main tactic", which we've already shown to be an untenable generalisation. Women did not always find seduction to be an effective tactic, because that was not always appropriate, necessary or possible. All we can say with confidence is that "seduction was some women's tactic to get certain things they wanted from some men". So even without asking what the relevant conditions were, the sweeping generalisation about the behaviour of "women, historically" is found to be simply untenable.

 

[Dralix]

I blame Anglo-Saxons.

 

[Borachio]

Yup. For absolutely everything*. Especially Anglo-Saxon women.


*global warming, the financial crisis of 2008, leaded petrol, and the Pyramids.

 

[Goodfella]

You are obsessed with sex and 13 yo promiscuous adolescents. This thread about fake sexism. Do not bring Polanski and Geimer here, for heavens sake. God, can you Anglo-Saxons think something other than nymphets?

I was asking why some "feminists" deny women ability to act out of their self-interest and having volition and agency, that's all. If you want to discuss lolitas why don't you make a separate topic?

This thread first and foremost is about your comments in the other thread, which were so derisive to human sentiment that after several pages of debate, you had to make a new thread about them. I'm just putting your remarks into context here before people forget that you were defending the right of a 40 year old man to have sex with a child. Sexism plays into the discussion because the child was female and because of that, it's apparently quite likely that she used her sexual prowess (with the permission of her mother) to tempt Polanski so she can sue him later or advance her career.

 

[Hygro]

But the claim was that seduction was "women's main tactic", which we've already shown to be an untenable generalisation. Women did not always find seduction to be an effective tactic, because that was not always appropriate, necessary or possible. All we can say with confidence is that "seduction was some women's tactic to get certain things they wanted from some men". So even without asking what the relevant conditions were, the sweeping generalisation about the behaviour of "women, historically" is found to be simply untenable.

Which is exactly what undermines the OP, despite his attempts to word it such that maybe technically he was writing the same thing.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't understand. Did Julius Caesar fight every single man in his army? Did Genghis Khan? Or Alexander the Great?

In fact, who did?

They didn't need to. They were the alpha males, and no one dared challenge them.

 

[Traitorfish]

Julius Caesar as a catty bisexual dandy. He happened to be a hugely capable general and politician, too, but Conan the Barbarian he was not.

 

[luiz]

But the claim was that seduction was "women's main tactic", which we've already shown to be an untenable generalisation. Women did not always find seduction to be an effective tactic, because that was not always appropriate, necessary or possible. All we can say with confidence is that "seduction was some women's tactic to get certain things they wanted from some men". So even without asking what the relevant conditions were, the sweeping generalisation about the behaviour of "women, historically" is found to be simply untenable.

I don't know about being a main tactic or not, I know it was and is a very common tactic, historically more employed by women (but also by men at every period, and now both use it a lot).