Radical Feminism

[ericlucha]

I feel that Wikipedia probably has more accurate definitions than RationalWiki when it comes to this kind of debate. I have no time to look for a definition now, but here is a link:

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

[The Great Hippo]

Thanks for the link (it probably should have occurred to me to look it up on wikipedia or elsewhere before just speculating based on my limited experiences). That definitely seems to confirm the definition natraj supplied, and gives several examples of obviously 'pro-woman' organizations, legislation, and ideas that were rooted (at least in part) in radical feminist ideology.

Nevertheless, the relevant question for me then becomes whether or not it's possible to be a radical feminist and still acknowledge that it's impossible to address women's issues without also addressing the billion-jillion other things that are so deeply interwoven that they're practically indistinguishable. I guess my primary concern about radical feminism, then, is that by concentrating on the macro-level issues of patriarchy, it creates a big, big blindspot within itself--if the only thing you're concerned with is dismantling the patriarchy, you're probably not going to notice all the other oppressive structures you're reinforcing or validating on your way there--be they based on class, race, gender identity, etc.

In essence, if you look at every interaction through only one lens--the patriarchal one--you've created a faulty lens. You'll be unable to address the concerns of women who have issues that go beyond dealing with patriarchy; not only that, but you'll be unable to use that lens to understand how your own actions color and shape the world outside of a patriarchal tone. It seems to me like a perfect recipe for a very unsophisticated, potentially anti-woman (depending on the individual woman) type of feminism.

I mean, if you want to be pro-woman, you need to acknowledge women and the issues they face--and if you want to acknowledge women and the issues they face, you're going to be doing more than acknowledging purely patriarchal issues.

So I guess my question can be summarized as: Is it possible to be a radical feminist (using the supplied definition) and still be completely pro-woman¹?

(If I am misrepresenting radical feminism in whole or in part, I beg pardon!)

¹ As in, interested in and willing to support women regardless of the issues they're facing. As in, no invalidating women, their experiences, their wants, their desires, their feelings. As in, no saying 'Your issues aren't important because they're not my issues'.

[Enuja]

I consider myself a radical feminist because I think that gender is socially constructed, and that this social construction is a very basic, integral, and anti-woman part of our social and mental fabric, and also because I personally get more excited about and interested in gender than in other forms of oppression. I want to destroy gender, which I've gone into in great detail about in the thread of that name. I happen to also be sex-positive, queer, pro-trans, and a bunch of other things. My radical feminism alone does not make me a good person, nor is it the entirety of my perspective, but I do not think that identifying as a radical feminist keeps be from being a good person. I do not care very much that I'm not exhaustively educated in the field of feminism, and that I disagree with many past and present radical feminists on a variety of issues. Like any category of people, the category of radical feminism contains more than one person, with more than one opinion (and, often, even one person will have more than one opinion). That's OK. Radical feminism is built around the core idea that gender is inherently oppressive, and I embrace that idea.

There are a lot of different ways you go can with this core idea. It's really easy to be an anti-trans radical feminist, and there are a lot of them out there saying terrible things, but I consider my dislike of gender to be functionally pro-trans, while having a core ideological conflict with the beliefs most trans people have. I think that all of my practical strategies to get rid of the ways that gender structures and organizes people's lives will make lives easier for trans folks.

It's also easy to be a sex negative radical feminist. Much of the joy most people, including me, get out of sex right now interfaces with their gender expectations. Our joys are structured by our beliefs and perspectives, which are structured by gender. In my idea post-gender universe, a lot of the things that get me hot wouldn't exist in my brain. I'm OK with that. I can use and abuse my current ideas of gender, get more joy out of PIV sex because it feels exploitative or because a big part of me still believes the misogynistic idea that PIV sex is really important. I embrace both my joy that uses the construction of gender and my long-term goal to get rid of gender. It's like embracing the revenue from sin taxes. In order to get rid of the sin, we have to be aware that if our sin tax works, we won't get money from it any more, but, in the meantime, our society is going to benefit greatly from the social goods the sin tax pays for. We need to keep looking for more ways to be sex positive and structure sex not about gender, but while we've still got gender and it's not going anywhere, I'm perfectly happy to use it for my sexual pleasure.

You can also be a consent nazi as a radical feminist, but you don't have to be. It's OK for one person to require a verbal "yes" for consent, and another person to think that body language is quite capable of enthusiastically consenting all on its own. It's even OK for both of these people to be radical feminists. You only become a consent nazi when you get between two happy people and tell them that they should be unhappy. I don't think you're being a consent nazi when you say "you're happy now, but your method for getting consent is pretty fragile, and I suggest you change it in order to stay happy," which is the lesson I read from enthusiastic consent. Personally, almost all of my consent-checking with new sexual partners is non-verbal. The fact that I don't require, or usually use, verbal consent has surprised and somewhat disturbed me, but it works for me and I think it's pretty robust, so I'm happy with it. I'm not worried about accidently having sex with someone without their consent, because someone who wants verbal consent will become uncomfortable without it, and I'll back up and ask them what's going on. And that will be the verbal check-in they need, and it will all be good.

I can disagree with most of what Andrea Dworkin says, and still find it fascinating and interesting to read. I like the vivid analogies and think that the comparisons are at least interesting. I happen not to be particularly triggered by discussions of consent that claim that most current consent is not good enough, sex negativity, or anti-trans discussion. I think my lack of triggers in this area is just a personal idiosyncrasy: I don't think it makes me a better person, and I totally understand how people can (even should?, depending on their subject position) be triggered by some of the really obnoxious things radical feminists have said. Even with the triggering, mean shit in radical feminism, I think that the intellectual work of radical feminism has lead to better things, including more better sex between more enthusiastically consenting partners who have a broader menu of sex acts to choose from, and more acceptability of gender transgression and therefore of trans and other non-conforming people.

[TheAmazingRando]

I think some of the confusion over enthusiastic consent also has to do with ambiguity between whether we're talking about a first-time sexual encounter, or one in a series of encounters. Not that past sex should be considered a form of present consent or anything like that, but people who have been together for a while build strong forms of non-verbal communication. Relying on it in a relationship is different than relying on it in a single encounter, because you've had time to establish its meaning.

[ddxxdd]

You can also be a consent nazi as a radical feminist, but you don't have to be. It's OK for one person to require a verbal "yes" for consent, and another person to think that body language is quite capable of enthusiastically consenting all on its own.

I always thought that enthusiastic consent was a third-wave thing, while radical feminism is a second-wave thing. Are there a large number of radfems that espouse the enthusiastic consent policy?

[Puppyclaws]

I happen not to be particularly triggered by discussions of consent that claim that most current consent is not good enough, sex negativity, or anti-trans discussion. I think my lack of triggers in this area is just a personal idiosyncrasy: I don't think it makes me a better person, and I totally understand how people can (even should?, depending on their subject position) be triggered by some of the really obnoxious things radical feminists have said. Even with the triggering, mean shit in radical feminism, I think that the intellectual work of radical feminism has lead to better things, including more better sex between more enthusiastically consenting partners who have a broader menu of sex acts to choose from, and more acceptability of gender transgression and therefore of trans and other non-conforming people.

It is not surprising that you are not triggered by anti-trans statement; I would doubt even most trans people would be, let alone non-trans folk. Triggering means "triggering my memories of traumatic experience" and is not a synonym for offensive or offended. The use of this word is actually one of my bugbears with a lot of radical feminist and SJ blogging; "triggering" is a powerful word because it is in reference to trauma. Things that offend and upset you are not "triggers." "Triggers" are things that cause you to have a break down. If you have never been traumatized and don't have some type of anxiety or panic disorder, you really can't be triggered. You have no triggers. You have things that upset you. (to avoid confusion: the "you" in the last two sentences is the general you of an individual who has not experienced trauma or anxiety disorders, not the specific poster above, whose history I do not assume to know.)

I suppose we all tend to favor our own movements. I associate radical feminism, including the work of Dworkin, with a sex-negative attitude in our culture that has made things more difficult and attempted to restrict access to interesting sex-- especially things of a BDSM nature. I would say that the early GLB movement more than anything else has assisted in opening the possibilities of "sex" as more than the traditional action that takes place. The feminist theory that I have seen deconstructing typical sex as "the only sex" has been of a fairly mainstream bent, and with the radical feminism that I have read (admittedly, probably not as broad as what Enuja has) comes the odd puritanical anti-sex connotations that can be felt in Dworkin and also the original article under discussion.

[The Great Hippo]

Enuja, I appreciate the clarification, and rereading the posts you link, I think we're pretty much on the same page anyway (I'm very much interested in the absolute deconstruction of gender and gender roles; I think feminism is at its absolute best when it's trying to challenge gender roles without harming the people who exist within them--just like atheism is at its best when it's trying to challenge religious authority without harming the people who obey it). I can see how a radfem can then reconcile the patriarchy with other forms of oppression--it's not so much a failure to acknowledge that there are other issues, but rather just a particular interest in this one issue.

I think there's a risk to radical feminism then--of creating blindspots where you're no longer acknowledging (or even actively invalidating) certain experiences women face--but that's a risk that comes with any perspective that carries limited dimensions.

But I'll admit--Andrea Dworkin bothers me. I find her writing very intriguing, but I have to wonder (at least in part) how much contributions like this--contributions that ultimately invalidate people and their experiences--are really necessary or helpful to feminism at a whole. As someone who loves history, and loves reading historical documents, and therefore encounters plenty of people who say plenty of things I disagree with (but are still very fascinating things, and fascinating people), I can absolutely understand why someone would appreciate someone like Andrea Dworkin--but part of me can't help but see her perspective as a product of hate, not understanding and love. Is that unfair?

EDIT: Thinking on it, I kind of suspect it is, because it collapses everything she wrote to a single dimension. I just get worried that by valuing her contributions to feminism, we emphasize a perspective where certain women aren't important. But so long as we're clever, we can value someone's contribution--derive useful information from it, use it to better understand the world around us--and simultaneously disagree with every single word of it.

"Triggers" are things that cause you to have a break down. If you have never been traumatized and don't have some type of anxiety or panic disorder, you really can't be triggered. You have no triggers. You have things that upset you. (to avoid confusion: the "you" in the last two sentences is the general you of an individual who has not experienced trauma or anxiety disorders, not the specific poster above, whose history I do not assume to know.)

I don't think I have a panic or anxiety disorder, but I am terrified of insects. To the point that being within proximity of certain types (flying ones in particular) will cause me to scream and flail. I have no control over this response (and people have abused my inability to control my response--flinging bugs at me, for example--to great success!). I don't know if I suffered some form of early trauma with insects; it wouldn't surprise me, but it would also not surprise me if I never did, and this is just some weird feature of my brain.

Is it wrong for me to consider insects a 'trigger'?

(My point here isn't to co-opt the language for my own purposes, but to challenge the notion that you can't be triggered if you don't have the right disorder, or the right type of traumatic experience. I think if something makes someone very, very upset, it's fair for them to call that a trigger. I don't think we get a lot out of making 'trigger' a 'special' case that only applies to 'certain' people. I actually think doing so risks invalidating people and their experiences!)

[EMTP]

And if you say that you can do this out of love for your partner, then I say why can't your partner refrain from sex, out of love and respect for you? I guess that missing out on sex is just TOO HORRIBLE A THING to consider

It's not either/or. Sometimes it goes down the one way, and sometimes the other. I don't often play this card, and no disrespect is intended, but you sound quite young. In my (limited, not vast, not insignificant) experience, relationships are mostly about putting yourself out for the other person or having them put themselves out for you. Only rarely do you both want exactly the same thing at the same time. This applies to sex as well as everything else. Also when you've been in an exclusive sexual relationship with someone for, say, ten years (yes, I'm that old . . . ) having sex with them does not involve the same degree of vulnerability as sleeping with someone you don't know well.

[engr]

Relevant.

[Puppyclaws]

"Triggers" are things that cause you to have a break down. If you have never been traumatized and don't have some type of anxiety or panic disorder, you really can't be triggered. You have no triggers. You have things that upset you. (to avoid confusion: the "you" in the last two sentences is the general you of an individual who has not experienced trauma or anxiety disorders, not the specific poster above, whose history I do not assume to know.)

I don't think I have a panic or anxiety disorder, but I am terrified of insects. To the point that being within proximity of certain types (flying ones in particular) will cause me to scream and flail. I have no control over this response (and people have abused my inability to control my response--flinging bugs at me, for example--to great success!). I don't know if I suffered some form of early trauma with insects; it wouldn't surprise me, but it would also not surprise me if I never did, and this is just some weird feature of my brain.

Is it wrong for me to consider insects a 'trigger'?

(My point here isn't to co-opt the language for my own purposes, but to challenge the notion that you can't be triggered if you don't have the right disorder, or the right type of traumatic experience. I think if something makes someone very, very upset, it's fair for them to call that a trigger. I don't think we get a lot out of making 'trigger' a 'special' case that only applies to 'certain' people. I actually think doing so risks invalidating people and their experiences!)

What you are describing is a phobia of insects. Phobias are anxiety disorders. With that said, if it is something that people can do to you and you freak out for a second then continue to function after the incident, I am not sure I would call it a trigger. You make it sound like you are scared of insects, your friends know and do this to you, and then after you freak out for a second and they have a laugh about it, you are still friends, no big deal. If that is what you mean, then you would be wrong to call it a trigger.

Another point about the phrase "trigger" is that it is frequently used to shut down or limit discussion. This is a lot of why I think it is important to understand, it isn't just something that upsets you. We already have words for things that are really upsetting or offensive. I think it is far more invalidating to use it in a casual way, as if what victims of serious trauma experience when reliving said trauma is the same as what everybody experiences when somebody says something that pisses them off.

[The Great Hippo]

What you are describing is a phobia of insects. Phobias are anxiety disorders. With that said, if it is something that people can do to you and you freak out for a second then continue to function after the incident, I am not sure I would call it a trigger. You make it sound like you are scared of insects, your friends know and do this to you, and then after you freak out for a second and they have a laugh about it, you are still friends, no big deal. If that is what you mean, then you would be wrong to call it a trigger.

Oh, no--this is something people who were not my friends would do to make me scream and run out of a room. No one who is my friend would ever do this to me (probably because one of my requirements for qualifying as my friend involves not doing this). It's a deeply unpleasant experience, and requires significant time on my part to recover (more than a second at least, depending on the incident!). I've gotten a lot better with it recently, but I still can't control my response to bugs (there was a point where I could not even touch a picture of a bug--I could not even touch the opposite page in a book, because the picture of the bug on the other page had spent time being pushed up against the paper!).

Another point about the phrase "trigger" is that it is frequently used to shut down or limit discussion. This is a lot of why I think it is important to understand, it isn't just something that upsets you. We already have words for things that are really upsetting or offensive. I think it is far more invalidating to use it in a casual way, as if what victims of serious trauma experience when reliving said trauma is the same as what everybody experiences when somebody says something that pisses them off.

To be fair, I wouldn't push the issue of my response to bugs being a 'trigger' if it genuinely bothered someone; the word we use isn't very important to me. I'm terrified of bugs. Being in contact with them deeply upsets me. Forcing them on me without my permission (and in full awareness of my response to them) constitutes a form of emotional abuse, and is reason enough for me to terminate a relationship with someone. I don't need access to the word 'trigger' to validate this. It's real. I know it's real. Whatever word I choose to describe it with doesn't change its 'realness'.

But my problem is that, in your interest in restraining the definition of trigger to certain specific things--'only if you have the right anxiety disorder', or 'only if you have a prior traumatic experience'--you'll accidentally invalidate or undervalue experiences that really are a big deal to other people. Let's pretend that for me, contact with bugs is even worse--it can send me into a catatonic state. Am I not allowed to call it a trigger because my condition resists classification via anxiety disorders? Should we rely on our classification of anxiety disorders to determine what is 'allowed' to be a trigger? Will what qualifies as a 'trigger' expand only as our understanding of what constitutes an anxiety disorder or a traumatic experience expands? Or should we accept that 'trigger' is a word we use for things that cause a powerful, overwhelmingly negative emotional response, and leave it at that? I think the latter is more empowering, and carries less risk of invalidating those negative emotional responses (because some might not qualify as anxiety disorders or traumatic experiences--not by the strictest psychological definitions).

I understand your concerns, but I'm way more worried we might tell someone their experience isn't real than I am worried about implying that two experiences are just as awful when they actually aren't.

Relevant.

Is this an MRA thing? It looks like an MRA thing. I hope it's not an MRA thing.

I hate MRA things.

[TheAmazingRando]

Relevant.

How?
Not saying none of it is, but it's 15 minutes long and seems to be about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Was there something specific you wanted to discuss?

[engr]

Not saying none of it is, but it's 15 minutes long and seems to be about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Was there something specific you wanted to discuss?

You can start watching at about 4:00.
The author quotes radfems. The quotes are quite entertaining, they remind me of Stormfront. Hell, the neonazis on Stormfront seem less radical, at least they don't openly call for genocide.

[doogly]

I can kinda dig the thing with insects not being a trigger. It sounds like insects are the bullets!
Like, I dated someone for whom loud noises were a trigger, and it helped to describe it this way, because loud noises had nothing to do with her trauma per se, they just triggered the ptsd response.

But, while I get this point, I do think being more big-tent with language of this sort is probably for the best.

Also on topic: straw feminists!
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=341

[The Great Hippo]

The actual relevant article (in case you don't want to listen to some smug youtuber spit out selective bits of it, and would rather exercise your brain and analyze, criticize, and evaluate it yourself): link!

Not to pour any derision on you, engr, and I think it's good to draw attention to articles like these in discussing radical feminism--I just really hate that sort of presentation (because it starts with an antagonistic view, rather than going straight to the source document and letting us figure out the problems for ourselves).

[Puppyclaws]

What you are describing is a phobia of insects. Phobias are anxiety disorders. With that said, if it is something that people can do to you and you freak out for a second then continue to function after the incident, I am not sure I would call it a trigger. You make it sound like you are scared of insects, your friends know and do this to you, and then after you freak out for a second and they have a laugh about it, you are still friends, no big deal. If that is what you mean, then you would be wrong to call it a trigger.

Oh, no--this is something people who were not my friends would do to make me scream and run out of a room. No one who is my friend would ever do this to me (probably because one of my requirements for qualifying as my friend involves not doing this). It's a deeply unpleasant experience, and requires significant time on my part to recover (more than a second at least, depending on the incident!). I've gotten a lot better with it recently, but I still can't control my response to bugs (there was a point where I could not even touch a picture of a bug--I could not even touch the opposite page in a book, because the picture of the bug on the other page had spent time being pushed up against the paper!).

Another point about the phrase "trigger" is that it is frequently used to shut down or limit discussion. This is a lot of why I think it is important to understand, it isn't just something that upsets you. We already have words for things that are really upsetting or offensive. I think it is far more invalidating to use it in a casual way, as if what victims of serious trauma experience when reliving said trauma is the same as what everybody experiences when somebody says something that pisses them off.

To be fair, I wouldn't push the issue of my response to bugs being a 'trigger' if it genuinely bothered someone; the word we use isn't very important to me. I'm terrified of bugs. Being in contact with them deeply upsets me. Forcing them on me without my permission (and in full awareness of my response to them) constitutes a form of emotional abuse, and is reason enough for me to terminate a relationship with someone. I don't need access to the word 'trigger' to validate this. It's real. I know it's real. Whatever word I choose to describe it with doesn't change its 'realness'.

OK, well then, that would be a trigger in my mind, now that you have described it more. And as I said above, it already sounded like a phobia in the previous post, which -is- a type of anxiety disorder.

But my problem is that, in your interest in restraining the definition of trigger to certain specific things--'only if you have the right anxiety disorder', or 'only if you have a prior traumatic experience'--you'll accidentally invalidate or undervalue experiences that really are a big deal to other people. Let's pretend that for me, contact with bugs is even worse--it can send me into a catatonic state. Am I not allowed to call it a trigger because my condition resists classification via anxiety disorders? Should we rely on our classification of anxiety disorders to determine what is 'allowed' to be a trigger? Will what qualifies as a 'trigger' expand only as our understanding of what constitutes an anxiety disorder or a traumatic experience expands? Or should we accept that 'trigger' is a word we use for things that cause a powerful, overwhelmingly negative emotional response, and leave it at that? I think the latter is more empowering, and carries less risk of invalidating those negative emotional responses (because some might not qualify as anxiety disorders or traumatic experiences--not by the strictest psychological definitions).

I understand your concerns, but I'm way more worried we might tell someone their experience isn't real than I am worried about implying that two experiences are just as awful when they actually aren't.

Something that sends you into a catatonic state in response to its presence would also classify it as a form of anxiety disorder. I actually feel our definitions for these things are very accurate and on point, and I have difficulty imagining a situation that doesn't fit in our current categorization yet somehow could be fairly called a trigger. I am sorry, but I still see a gulf of difference between "a strong negative emotional response" and "a traumatizing response." They look different, and they feel different. I am not saying "no, you aren't offended when you read that," so I can't see how it could be invalidating. It makes the term "trigger" meaningless to use it to mean basically anything that upsets you sufficiently. I frequently find the way that people talk about religion on this board upsetting. It provokes a strong emotional response that can make it difficult for me to focus on other things. That feeling, which I think is what is meant when people use "trigger" as it was used above and how it is often used in radfem and SJ blogs, is completely different and in no way comparable to the feeling I get when I experience something that reminds me of specific past trauma.

[The Great Hippo]

Something that sends you into a catatonic state in response to its presence would also classify it as a form of anxiety disorder. I actually feel our definitions for these things are very accurate and on point, and I have difficulty imagining a situation that doesn't fit in our current categorization yet somehow could be fairly called a trigger. I am sorry, but I still see a gulf of difference between "a strong negative emotional response" and "a traumatizing response." They look different, and they feel different. I am not saying "no, you aren't offended when you read that," so I can't see how it could be invalidating. It makes the term "trigger" meaningless to use it to mean basically anything that upsets you sufficiently. I frequently find the way that people talk about religion on this board upsetting. It provokes a strong emotional response that can make it difficult for me to focus on other things. That feeling, which I think is what is meant when people use "trigger" as it was used above and how it is often used in radfem and SJ blogs, is completely different and in no way comparable to the feeling I get when I experience something that reminds me of specific past trauma.

Fair enough; I suspect this distinction (between 'upsetting' and 'triggering') isn't 'hard', but that might just be because a lack of experience on my part. Either way, I think I'm pulling us off topic. We can all definitely agree that something can be upsetting, and we can all sympathize with someone who finds Andrea Dworkin's work upsetting to read.

To pull myself back on topic: I finished reading the article I just linked above. I found it genuinely upsetting on several levels, largely because, to my untrained eye, it expressed an enormous amount of ugliness and hate. And while I'm no stranger to hate--I certainly begrudge no one a well-earned 'hate-fest'--I don't think any movement ultimately benefits from associating itself with hate. A few choice bits:

We have given up the polite, diplomatic, politic, earnest, logical, legalistic approach in favor of Realpolitik.

The horror of Realpolitik has always been its blatant disregard for the lives, bodies, and minds of the people it turns into stepping stones on the way to its destination. This was the first statement that started to bother me--associating yourself with a political doctrine that dismisses all things as merely means to its final end is, to me, tantamount to a declaration of war on the identities of everyone who doesn't identify as you.

We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.

In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal mechanisms is a new kind of "essentialism" that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions. It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women which must be resisted.

This statement made me upset too; I'm male, and I certainly don't consider that a condition that requires 'treatment' of any sort. Is there another way I can take this that doesn't imply that my maleness is something that requires treatment? Is there a way I can take this statement that isn't a direct assault on my identity as a man?

Some academic feminists, still under the sulfurous spell of Freud, Lacan, Kristeva, and other continental psychologists, find themselves in alliance with the Transgender Movement, which converts their theories into supporting what is actually primarily a male issue having little to do with women.

This upset me because it... well, fuck, I don't even know where to begin. Issues of gender identity are predominantly male issues? I can't even begin to wrap my brain around that. It's a terrible thing to say, and I can't think of any way not to take it terribly. And of course, there was this:

My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification.

That being said, while I find articles like this hard to read without assuming the author is not a very good person, I should clarify that I don't think radical feminism has to 'defend' articles like these, or that articles like these are necessarily a strike against radical feminism--anymore than I think atheists who state that Christians are a disease we need to cure are a black-mark on hardline atheism (to clarify, I'm a pretty hardline atheist myself!). Rather, there seems to be 'positive' radical feminist positions, and 'negative' radical feminist positions, and I think this article expresses a negative one.

But one of the responses I see come up a lot in radical feminist circles to defend articles like these--and Dworkin--is that you can't read them without a lot of intellectual context behind them. In other words, it's unfair to take an article like this at face value, because without being familiar with radical feminist doctrine, and starting with a lot of initial assumptions based on that doctrine, it sounds terrible.

Which is absolute fucking bullshit. These are terrible things to say regardless of your starting assumptions. There is no set of assumptions that make it okay to tell people that their identity constitutes a disease, or an ailment in need of 'curing'. There is no amount of academic background which is going to convince me that this article isn't expressing something terrible, and hateful, and vitriolic, and that because of this article, the world is now just a little bit uglier.

[androsiak]

There is no amount of academic background which is going to convince me that this article isn't expressing something terrible, and hateful, and vitriolic, and that because of this article, the world is now just a little bit uglier.

These women, in all of their rhetoric, are only reinforcing their own stereotype: that of the hyper-emotional and unscientific woman arguing based on emotion instead of reason, frequently confusing anecdotes for empirical evidence, and misunderstanding or outright misusing what precious little science they can grasp.

[Please note that I do know that this stereotype is false (there is no measurable difference between the sexes regarding the capacity for logical and scientific thought). However, this sub-sub-sub-set of the human population will often conform to said stereotype with reckless abandon, then claim that they aren't conforming to any such stereotype created by the male-centric male-ocracy. When a human that is capable of reason drags them off their high horse and points out their horseshit, they invariably retort with "you just don't understand" as an end-of-discussion move. I have seen this time and again, and have given up trying to discuss anything with them; even the weather becomes a gender-conflict-centred discussion.]

[The Great Hippo]

These women, in all of their rhetoric, are only reinforcing their own stereotype: that of the hyper-emotional and unscientific woman arguing based on emotion instead of reason, frequently confusing anecdotes for empirical evidence, and misunderstanding or outright misusing what precious little science they can grasp.

[Please note that I do know that this stereotype is false (there is no measurable difference between the sexes regarding the capacity for logical and scientific thought). However, this sub-sub-sub-set of the human population will often conform to said stereotype with reckless abandon, then claim that they aren't conforming to any such stereotype created by the male-centric male-ocracy. When a human that is capable of reason drags them off their high horse and points out their horseshit, they invariably retort with "you just don't understand" as an end-of-discussion move. I have seen this time and again, and have given up trying to discuss anything with them; even the weather becomes a gender-conflict-centred discussion.]

I think it's dangerous to put ourselves on the side of science and reason and this author on the 'other' side--in fact, I suspect that's falling (partly) into the same trap the author has (notice how, in the article itself, the author pre-empts science and reason as their tools!).

I also think it's fine to talk about how the weather is a gender conflict. I mean, that's weird! But there could be an interesting discussion there. I don't know. It's possible. It isn't the 'seeing gender conflict everywhere' aspect of this that bothers me.

It's the simple, straightforward, bald-faced, unexamined ugliness. It's the willingness to dismiss or demean or strike down other people's identities for the sake of your own. It's describing the 'Transgender Movement' (I'm not sure if that's the proper term?) as a 'male issue'. Or describing maleness as a condition in need of a 'cure'. This is hateful and crude. It's rhetoric that, in its desperate search to define an identity--to define 'What is a radical feminist?'--expresses the exact same sort of ugliness you see when documents try to define 'What is a True American?'¹. It defines its identity in opposition to everyone else's, rather than trying to find one for itself. And in the process, it attempts to invalidate those identities and those experiences.

When I read things like this, my first thought isn't 'you're being unreasonable'; it's 'you're acting like a terrible person'. Because while I acknowledge reason's superior ability to allow me to navigate through reality, reason does not care about people, their thoughts, their feelings, their lives, their issues. You can still be very reasonable and also very terrible. Giving a shit about other people--that's up to us, not reason. And when I read this article, the impression I get is this author doesn't give a shit about anyone except themselves and the people who identity as radical feminists.

¹Actually, there are some interesting parallels with this document and old KKK stuff about what constitutes a 'True American'. I was hesitant about talking about the connection before because I didn't want to imply a 'evil by osmosis' sort of fallacy, but there might be some merit at looking at the similarities.

[Puppyclaws]

Fair enough; I suspect this distinction (between 'upsetting' and 'triggering') isn't 'hard', but that might just be because a lack of experience on my part. Either way, I think I'm pulling us off topic. We can all definitely agree that something can be upsetting, and we can all sympathize with someone who finds Andrea Dworkin's work upsetting to read.

I would describe it as a hard distinction between two completely different things. I brought it up because I do feel that some elements of radical feminism have a tendency at times to co-opt terms and ideas from other movements without a full appreciation for their meaning, but you're right, it is drifting far off topic.

These women, in all of their rhetoric, are only reinforcing their own stereotype: that of the hyper-emotional and unscientific woman arguing based on emotion instead of reason, frequently confusing anecdotes for empirical evidence, and misunderstanding or outright misusing what precious little science they can grasp.

[Please note that I do know that this stereotype is false (there is no measurable difference between the sexes regarding the capacity for logical and scientific thought). However, this sub-sub-sub-set of the human population will often conform to said stereotype with reckless abandon, then claim that they aren't conforming to any such stereotype created by the male-centric male-ocracy. When a human that is capable of reason drags them off their high horse and points out their horseshit, they invariably retort with "you just don't understand" as an end-of-discussion move. I have seen this time and again, and have given up trying to discuss anything with them; even the weather becomes a gender-conflict-centred discussion.]

One of the points of some of the clearer feminism that I have read is that there is value in emotional response and other things that have traditionally been seen as negative/feminine, and that there are failings of the systems of reason and science and their application (and other supposedly positive/masculine ideals) that are rarely acknowledged. So there is a degree to which the intent is to not comply with your demands for a particular form of discourse. Which I guess then causes you to think of them as adhering to a stereotype that they are rather trying to say is based on a flawed view of the qualities under discussion.

[TheAmazingRando]

These women, in all of their rhetoric, are only reinforcing their own stereotype: that of the hyper-emotional and unscientific woman arguing based on emotion instead of reason, frequently confusing anecdotes for empirical evidence, and misunderstanding or outright misusing what precious little science they can grasp

I don't agree with what they're saying, but I'm not sure how they're relying on emotion rather than reason. Most of the time people complain about another person being irrational, what they really mean is "you aren't coming to the same conclusions as I am, and I'm rational, therefore you're not."

None of us are perfectly rational. We all use emotion to make decisions, and I think we'd all be lying if we said that how uncomfortable we were with what these women are saying isn't a large part of our disagreement. I know it is for me. Which isn't to say that I couldn't come up with more objective, rational ways to justify it after the fact, but it would be just that - justification. I would already be coming from a biased, emotional position. And there's nothing wrong with that, because subjective experience is important, especially when you're talking about how to deal with people (who are, largely, subjective creatures).

Also, when you have to add a disclaimer that's twice as long as your original statement, just to qualify how it wasn't as shitty as it sounded...maybe you should examine your intentions behind saying it to begin with.

[fifiste]

I don't know if some of the most ridiculous quotes up there are generated from emotions (actually iy is really hard for me to imagine where teh ***** these are generated from) but calling the thought process "My sex organ (weird word filter for volcano here) is inward, therefore sex = occupation/Holocaust/terrible violation of my person the like of history has never ever seen" rational (or hmm differently rational) seems really far fetched for me.
In fact it really does seem to confirm splendidly with that aforementioned stereotype.
Disclaimer about disclaimers : maybe s/he felt obliged to disclaim the hell out of himself/herself. Because people tend to jump like a pack of angry hyenas on any comments containing a mention to stereotypes like this, even when those comments are about how these stereotypes exist or something to the effect. And start howling how horrible horrible the poster is for even mentioning something like this. (As we can see no disclaiming helps you either, so we are better off saying that nobody has ever such a stereotyped anyone like, or at least that there has never ever been anyone who could by any means resemble any stereotype ever, because you know talking how fighting prejudice might be hampered by confirming negative stereotypes is never pertinent)

[The Great Hippo]

Everything about humans is generated from emotion. Emotions are the core component of our existence! Everything we do is in response to an emotion. They give us incentive to act.

That being said, if someone wants to see it that way, power to them. If they want to convince others to see it that way too, well, okay. But if they want to make other people feel bad for not seeing it that way--if they want to tell people they're wrong for seeing it any other way--that's where, to me, the ugliness starts.

[doogly]

Everything about humans is generated from emotion. Emotions are the core component of our existence! Everything we do is in response to an emotion. They give us incentive to act.

For real dogg. Talkin bout reason like it's a different thing is just a delusion or smoke screen.

[Zcorp]

Everything about humans is generated from emotion. Emotions are the core component of our existence! Everything we do is in response to an emotion. They give us incentive to act.

No, instincts are the core component of our existence. Outside of emotion, both reason and instinct are frequently motives for action.

That being said, if someone wants to see it that way, power to them. If they want to convince others to see it that way too, well, okay. But if they want to make other people feel bad for not seeing it that way--if they want to tell people they're wrong for seeing it any other way--that's where, to me, the ugliness starts.

I'm surprised to read this from you. Do you really believe that it is healthy to allow people to see things whatever way they want? To try and convince others to see it that way and that no way is wrong? That it is only ugly, or that its even ugly, once someone else tells them that they are wrong, even if they are in fact wrong?

[gmalivuk]

Outside of emotion, both reason and instinct are frequently motives for action.

Please explain how reason can motivate action in the absence of any emotion.

[sam_i_am]

I'm surprised to read this from you. Do you really believe that it is healthy to allow people to see things whatever way they want? To try and convince others to see it that way and that no way is wrong? That it is only ugly, or that its even ugly, once someone else tells them that they are wrong, even if they are in fact wrong?

It's called freedom of speech.

And even though facts themselves are objective, You can never be certain whether or not that which is commonly considered to be a fact, is indeed true.

500 years ago it was considered a fact that the earth was flat.

Keep in mind that only 20 years ago There were thousands of people, many of which had PhDs, who were completely wrong about the Monty Hall problem

[The Great Hippo]

No, instincts are the core component of our existence. Outside of emotion, both reason and instinct are frequently motives for action.

I suspect that this is a semantic disagreement rather than a fundamental one, so to put it another way: On the most fundamental level, motivations are not born from rational wants, but rather arational ones. Rationality is a tool through which we navigate, understand, and pursue our wants--it's a sort of language that allows us to untangle our own instinctive, emotive desires and think more clearly about what decisions would best benefit us. But we aren't born with it, and it isn't a source of want--merely a way of translating that want into action (or, in some cases, inaction; I want to punch people I hate, but rationality convinces me that this is not a good want to act on, because it interferes with other, higher priority wants). This is why I'd describe emotion as being a core component of human existence--because when I say 'emotion', I'm thinking of the things we instinctively want, need, and fear. To me, that's the seat of where human desire--human motivation--begins. Everything that comes after (reason, for example) is just a refinement of those base components.

That being said, if someone wants to see it that way, power to them. If they want to convince others to see it that way too, well, okay. But if they want to make other people feel bad for not seeing it that way--if they want to tell people they're wrong for seeing it any other way--that's where, to me, the ugliness starts.

I'm surprised to read this from you. Do you really believe that it is healthy to allow people to see things whatever way they want? To try and convince others to see it that way and that no way is wrong? That it is only ugly, or that its even ugly, once someone else tells them that they are wrong, even if they are in fact wrong?

But they're not wrong. There is no 'wrong' here. We're not talking about the age of the earth, or the process of evolution, or whether or not saucers are flying down from Andromeda to mutilate cows. We're talking about people's bodies, and how they feel about the things done to their bodies--and when you're talking about that, there are no wrong answers.

If a radical feminist believes that it's impossible for them to consent to sex with a male--that on some level, all sex with men is rape--then that is 100% true. For them. If they believe it's true for all women, now they're wrong, because they can't speak for the bodies of all women--only their own.

The ugliness, for me, comes from the statement that everyone else is wrong to not see it as rape. And I'd see it as being just as ugly in the reverse: If someone argued that the radical feminist's view is wrong--that the radical feminist can never truly give consent to a man--I would call that just as ugly. Because when someone tells me how they feel about what it means for them to give consent, I cannot for the life of me find a justifiable reason to tell them that they're wrong.

If someone wants to convince women that it's impossible to consent to sex with a man, I have no problem with that--so long as they aren't guilting people into it. So long as you aren't telling people that it's wrong to feel one way about it, it's fine to try and argue the merits of feeling a different way about it. I realize that puts people who want to argue this position in a very tough place--but I don't care. The same goes for all other organizations that have spent an inordinate amount of time telling us how we should feel about our bodies: You don't get to tell us. But you can try to persuade us. That means approaching these topics not with guilt, fear, and manipulation--but rather, honesty, respect, and transparency. You can say "I think it would be better for you if you viewed consent as it pertains your body like this". You can't say "You should view it like this, because this is just plain better, and you're wrong to do it any other way". The latter is just repeating the same ugly mistakes that got us into this mess.

If you want people to act like adults--to make good, adult-level decisions--you need to start by treating them like adults. And that means respecting how they view their bodies--and how they choose to parse their experiences.

[TheAmazingRando]

I don't know if some of the most ridiculous quotes up there are generated from emotions (actually iy is really hard for me to imagine where teh ***** these are generated from) but calling the thought process "My sex organ (weird word filter for volcano here) is inward, therefore sex = occupation/Holocaust/terrible violation of my person the like of history has never ever seen" rational (or hmm differently rational) seems really far fetched for me.
In fact it really does seem to confirm splendidly with that aforementioned stereotype.

If your point is "penetration has oppressive connotations that spread through culture, therefore penetration is degrading to women" then I'm not sure why the source of that connotation has to be rational. Connotations aren't rational, they're things people carry around in their heads for all sorts of reasons. Radfems aren't saying that penetration intrinsically has those elements, they're saying it's given them by society. The subjective effect this has on them is important. If something causes pain to a lot of people (emotional or otherwise) then it's something worth looking into. Saying "logically, this shouldn't hurt you, so suck up and deal with it" is just another way of saying "I don't understand your pain so it doesn't matter to me."

Not that I agree with what they're saying, and I do find a lot of their rhetoric problematic, but I do think it's interesting that we focus on sex as penetrating, when it could equally be seen as engulfing. Linguistically, we're assigning agency to the male (nobody talks about food penetrating their body, they talk about swallowing it) and turning sex into an act that men perform, and women receive. It's all connotation, there's nothing logical about it, but when you're talking about the problem of social attitudes then connotation becomes a really big deal. It doesn't have to be based on logic in order to affect society. Subjective things are real, because people make them real.

[Tyndmyr]

After reading the entire thread, all I can really do is shrug and say that most radical 'ism's are a bit crazy. That doesn't mean much for the more moderate adherents of the ideology, but get any group of people together that's big enough, and you're bound to find a few that push the common theme to a ludicrous degree.

So yeah, you've got a sprinkling of feminists that say ludicrous things. Fortunately, they're pretty far out of mainstream society, and fortunately, they are unlikely to convince everyone to bend to their train of thought. The only real danger is if more moderate types are painted with the same brush.

[Роберт]

Not that I agree with what they're saying, and I do find a lot of their rhetoric problematic, but I do think it's interesting that we focus on sex as penetrating, when it could equally be seen as engulfing. Linguistically, we're assigning agency to the male (nobody talks about food penetrating their body, they talk about swallowing it) and turning sex into an act that men perform, and women receive. It's all connotation, there's nothing logical about it, but when you're talking about the problem of social attitudes then connotation becomes a really big deal.

Perfect!

From now on it's the woman engulfing the man.

[fifiste]

UUUh when I look at it this way then it is clear how oppressed I as a man am. If allowing a PIV sex act I allow a sensitive part of me engulfed/encircled/smothered/controlled/occupied clearly it is one of the worst intrusions into someone's private affairs -an atrocity compared alongside with slavery and holocaust. /joke

Edit: I actually have some kind of repulsive reaction whenever I hear a word ending in -ism etc. There just seems to be awfully lot of nutters in all those -isms. Quite probably just the nutters are awfully loud I guess.

[doogly]

500 years ago it was considered a fact that the earth was flat.

Straight up wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

[Zcorp]

Outside of emotion, both reason and instinct are frequently motives for action.

Please explain how reason can motivate action in the absence of any emotion.

Valuing the result of a behavior can be entirely independent of how you feel about enacting that behavior or the emotional result of completing that behavior. People often act in ways that will make them feel bad despite that they know i will make them feel bad, regardless of how it will make them feel or if it will not make them feel anything. Values or goals cause significant motivation for individuals and not all values or goals are based in or require emotion. Although emotions often are be a side effect of of working toward a value of goal, but the reason people are working toward them doesn't have to be because of those feelings (but of course sometimes it is).

------

It's called freedom of speech.

I'm not suggesting we make a law that prevents them from saying things. In fact I said nothing anywhere close to this. I'm suggesting that people seeing things however they want is unhealthy and depending on how they are seeing things even dangerous.

And even though facts themselves are objective, You can never be certain whether or not that which is commonly considered to be a fact, is indeed true.

500 years ago it was considered a fact that the earth was flat.

Sigh, this is not the place for me to teach you the distinction between a belief and knowledge. I'll just quickly state that their belief that the earth was flat is not a fact and that reason is the tool that when used properly allows us to separate knowledge from belief.

-------

I suspect that this is a semantic disagreement rather than a fundamental one, so to put it another way: On the most fundamental level, motivations are not born from rational wants, but rather arational ones. Rationality is a tool through which we navigate, understand, and pursue our wants--it's a sort of language that allows us to untangle our own instinctive, emotive desires and think more clearly about what decisions would best benefit us.

Now we are going to have a semantic problem with your use of rational, but lets try and skip by the semantics for now.

At the most base level we have instincts and pretty much their entire purpose is economically rational evolutionary self-interest. Much of human emotion is based on these instincts. However, life that we don't describe as having emotions (plant life) still has this fundamental motive.

This is why I'd describe emotion as being a core component of human existence--because when I say 'emotion', I'm thinking of the things we instinctively want, need, and fear. To me, that's the seat of where human desire--human motivation--begins. Everything that comes after (reason, for example) is just a refinement of those base components.

Am I being ugly by telling you that this is wrong? If so, how would I make it less ugly? By providing the necessary evidence and logic to display that the way you are viewing human behavior in this schema of yours is wrong? If this then changes your behavior, because you accept the evidence and logic is the motive of that change reason or your emotion?

But they're not wrong. There is no 'wrong' here. We're not talking about the age of the earth, or the process of evolution, or whether or not saucers are flying down from Andromeda to mutilate cows. We're talking about people's bodies, and how they feel about the things done to their bodies--and when you're talking about that, there are no wrong answers.

There are very very wrong answers here. There are also very unhealthy ones, which are harder to call wrong, how about not as good as they could be? Or there are less wrong answers?

If a radical feminist believes that it's impossible for them to consent to sex with a male--that on some level, all sex with men is rape--then that is 100% true. For them. If they believe it's true for all women, now they're wrong, because they can't speak for the bodies of all women--only their own.

Which they do, which makes them wrong. Very very wrong.

If someone wants to convince women that it's impossible to consent to sex with a man, I have no problem with that--so long as they aren't guilting people into it.

I do, just like I have a problem with religion teaching unhealthy and wrong beliefs. I'm genuinely surprised that you don't have a problem with it. There are lots of ways without guilt that get people to change or form beliefs. A good salesmen will use a variety of techniques to do so that don't require guilt but are not less manipulative.

But you can try to persuade us. That means approaching these topics not with guilt, fear, and manipulation--but rather, honesty, respect, and transparency.

Which the writers of this articles are not doing. In fact, after having read some of them, it would surprise me of the authors were capable of doing it with honesty, respect and transparency. As if they were to be honest, which requires sufficient knowledge and honesty would dictate that they be honest about not being knowledgeable, they wouldn't hold the beliefs that they do. As their beliefs are wrong.

If you want people to act like adults--to make good, adult-level decisions--you need to start by treating them like adults. And that means respecting how they view their bodies--and how they choose to parse their experiences.

Agreed, it also means - at least to me - utilizing reason and working to understand the world around us (including the people in it).

[The Great Hippo]

At the most base level we have instincts and pretty much their entire purpose is economically rational evolutionary self-interest. Humans often feel based on this however life that we don't describe has having emotions (plant life) still has this fundamental motive.

Right; emotion can be described as cheap reasoning. It's a shortcut. Biologically, it's in our best interest to propogate, so we have lust, which is an emotion that attempts to 'convince' us to do what's in our genes' best interest. I'm saying that it's this sort of thing that serves as the fundamental root of human desire, human want, human motivation. Evolution gave us brains because brains allow for advanced problem solving; it gave us emotions to encourage those brains to solve the problems best suited to propogating ourselves as a species. Everything we do is in response to this drive--either embracing it, rejecting it, or something inbetween. Everything we do starts with an emotion--an unsatisfied desire. What follows is a complex multi-level process that involves various applications of reason--but it does not start with cognitive reason. It starts with impulse.

We don't describe plants having emotions because plants don't have this process. They don't need it, because they don't have brains.

Am I being ugly by telling you that this is wrong? If so, how would I make it less ugly? By providing the necessary evidence and logic to display that the way you are viewing human behavior in this schema of yours is wrong? If this then changes your behavior, because you accept the evidence and logic is the motive of that change reason or your emotion?

No, it's not ugly. We both share the context of the universe; we both agree we're having a discussion about the nature of the universe. It's not wrong to say that someone's description of the universe is wrong, any more than it's wrong to say that no, men in flying saucers do not regularly abduct and mutilate cows.

But when we're talking about our brains--our individual minds and bodies--that context is different. When I say 'for me, it is impossible to give consent; therefore, all sex with me constitutes rape', I cannot be wrong. Because we aren't describing the universe anymore--we're--I'm--describing the contents of my head. It requires no exterior validation or proof. It is what it is, and saying that it isn't is an expression that carries a fundamental ugliness.

Which the writers of this articles are not doing. In fact, after having read some of them, it would surprise me of the authors were capable of doing it with honesty, respect and transparency. As if they were to be honest, which requires sufficient knowledge and honesty would dictate that they be honest about not being knowledgeable, they wouldn't hold the beliefs that they do. As their beliefs are wrong.

I agree that the authors aren't doing this, and I agree that the authors are wrong in so much as they apply their beliefs outside themselves. But there is no wrong answer to the question of 'For me, what constitutes consent?'.

There might be answers that are less healthy (but we need to be very careful about what we mean by 'healthy')--but the point of questions like these are to provide a context to answer even bigger questions, like 'What do I need to be satisfied with my life?'. And that's the sort of question we can't answer for you. Assuming we can robs you of the autonomy you need to answer it for yourself. It's treating people like children rather than adults. And there are only a few contexts where I'm fine with treating people like children (like when they actually are children).

EDIT: To put this another way. A statement such as 'I cannot give consent' is just that--it's a statement. It's not a 'fact' in the manner which we understand facts in science or empiricism (I mean, it's a fact that I said it, and it might be a fact that I'm knowingly lying--but let's put that aside). I am expressing something. I am communicating something about my identity to you. Outside of some sort of miscommunication, there is no way for this statement to be wrong. It's like trying to argue that I'm wrong to say 'I love you', or 'I'm a man'. I am describing a feature of myself. I might be describing it poorly--I might be using the wrong words--I might even be wrong when it comes to the reason I believe these things--but the expressions themselves are expressions of identity, and expressions of identity cannot possibly be wrong. Which is what bothers me so much about the linked article--it's a radical feminist telling people their very identities are a disease in need of a cure.

[Zcorp]

At the most base level we have instincts and pretty much their entire purpose is economically rational evolutionary self-interest. Humans often feel based on this however life that we don't describe has having emotions (plant life) still has this fundamental motive.

Right; emotion can be described as cheap reasoning. It's a shortcut. Biologically, it's in our best interest to propogate, so we have lust, which is an emotion that attempts to 'convince' us to do what's in our genes' best interest. I'm saying that it's this sort of thing that serves as the fundamental root of human desire, human want, human motivation.

Except that you just described it as not fundamental and then called it fundamental. There are things that have a biological motive to propagate but we have no reason to believe they experience lust and lots of reason to believe they don't. So lust is not a fundamental imperative. Instinct is, of which lust is a effect of.

Evolution gave us brains because brains allow for advanced problem solving; it gave us emotions to encourage those brains to solve the problems best suited to propogating ourselves as a species. Everything we do is in response to this drive--either embracing it, rejecting it, or something inbetween. Everything we do starts with an emotion--an unsatisfied desire. What follows is a complex multi-level process that involves various applications of reason--but it does not start with cognitive reason. It starts with impulse.

This is again backwards. Animals has brains and emotions before the ability to solve advanced problems.

It is also wrong to state 'Everything we do starts with an...unsatisfied desire', because we are born with 'unsatisfied desires' doesn't mean that dictates all of our behavior. People act in ways that do not fill that desire all the time, and they also act in ways that are entirely unrelated to that desire all the time.

We don't describe plants having emotions because plants don't have this process. They don't need it, because they don't have brains.

This is again getting into semantics, they certainly do need it if their goal is to survive, which it is. As things with brains, such as us, are entirely capable of destroying them. Many species of plant have died off because they are less advanced than we are, so yes they 'need' brains.

But when we're talking about our brains--our individual minds and bodies--that context is different. When I say 'for me, it is impossible to give consent; therefore, all sex with me constitutes rape', I cannot be wrong.

You could quite possibly be wrong, as people are generally bad at knowing what they will feel like in the future. And this statement really means "for me all sex always feels like rape right now."

But this isn't the problem with your post that motivated me to post. I agree with this generally. I posted to point out that this: "Everything about humans is generated from emotion. Emotions are the core component of our existence! Everything we do is in response to an emotion. They give us incentive to act." Is wrong. Well..emotions do give us incentive to act but everything we do is not in response to an emotion. Nor is it in response to instinct. Our more advanced abilities allow us to often transcend both of these more primal aspects of behavior that dictate motiviates of some lesser species.

and that this: "That being said, if someone wants to see it that way, power to them. If they want to convince others to see it that way too, well, okay. But if they want to make other people feel bad for not seeing it that way--if they want to tell people they're wrong for seeing it any other way--that's where, to me, the ugliness starts." Suggests that manipulating people to feel certain ways is some how ok, that all perceptions are equally valid and that convincing others of some perceptions is ok and that telling someone they are seeing it wrong is often extremely healthy and good for them. That not pointing out where people are seeing it wrong or unhealthy is often where the ugliness starts. Really this is what cognitive therapy is all about. Getting people to change their perceptions which ideally results in a change of actions, feelings and physiology is how one of our more successful branches of psychotherapy works.

I agree that the authors aren't doing this, and I agree that the authors are wrong in so much as they apply their beliefs outside themselves. But there is no wrong answer to the question of 'For me, what constitutes consent?'.

I don't disagree with that. I'll just point out that this is an indicator (and just that, a single indicator, that might not actually relate to a problem) of unhealthy behavior.

But this isn't what the author is saying, which we both agree with. I seem to agree with everything you've said in this thread with the exception of the two statements I first replied to above.

[The Great Hippo]

Our more advanced abilities allow us to often transcend both of these more primal aspects of behavior that dictate motiviates of some lesser species.

Transcending these primal aspects is a response to these primal aspects. If these primal aspects are not the root of human behavior, then why do we need to transcend them? Why not just replace them?

Suggests that manipulating people to feel certain ways is some how ok, that all perceptions are equally valid and that convincing others of some perceptions is ok and that telling someone they are seeing it wrong is often extremely healthy and good for them. That not pointing out where people are seeing it wrong or unhealthy is often where the ugliness starts. Really this is what cognitive therapy is all about. Getting people to change their perceptions which ideally results in a change of actions, feelings and physiology is how one of our more successful branches of psychotherapy works.

Being in a psychologist office--undergoing therapy--talking with a counselor--these are specific contexts designed to challenge how we think about ourselves and how we respond to the world. In these contexts, people may describe a certain response as 'wrong', but that's really just a different word for 'unhealthy'. And in these contexts, that nuance is usually understood.

But we aren't in a therapy office, and you aren't talking about what we'd say to a radical feminist if they were sitting on the couch opposite someone with training in cognitive therapy. Even if we were, I've never heard of a therapist calling someone's perspective on a situation 'wrong'--just unhealthy. Do therapists give you answers to these questions, or work with you to find your own answers?

No, all perceptions are not equally valid. But I'm not a professional therapist, and even if I were, we're not talking about a situation where we're sitting down in the doctor's office and trying to work out the best response. I am not in a position to tell people what the fundamentally best response is. If someone tried to convince someone close to me that consent is impossible, I might say I don't think that's a healthy approach, but I wouldn't say I know it's not a healthy approach, because I damn well don't know the context they're coming from, and I damn well don't know enough about cognitive therapy to make that call.

[setzer777]

But when we're talking about our brains--our individual minds and bodies--that context is different. When I say 'for me, it is impossible to give consent; therefore, all sex with me constitutes rape', I cannot be wrong. Because we aren't describing the universe anymore--we're--I'm--describing the contents of my head. It requires no exterior validation or proof. It is what it is, and saying that it isn't is an expression that carries a fundamental ugliness.

I can see where you're coming from, though ethically this creates a troubling situation where you can say: "All PIV that you've had was rape (solely by virtue of being PIV), but at least some of the rapists did nothing wrong and have nothing to feel remotely guilty about." It seems very disturbing to define rape in such a way that it can be morally acceptable for an individual to be a rapist.

Edit: Also, would you say that a person can't possibly be wrong if they say "I was not raped"? I feel like PIV-critical feminists could argue that PIV is rape for everyone in the same way that we could tell someone that their husband forcing himself on them when they absolutely did not consent to sex was rape, even though they might believe (because of cultural teachings) that it's impossible for someone to rape their spouse*.

*I think this argument has several flaws, but I do think it is resistant to the counter-argument: "You can't define anyone's experience for them."

[Zcorp]

Transcending these primal aspects is a response to these primal aspects. If these primal aspects are not the root of human behavior, then why do we need to transcend them? Why not just replace them?

I think people often do replace them, but to do so I believe we have to transcend them. They are kind of pre-programmed with different levels of strength in different aspects based on temperament or other aspects of personality. But this is getting way off topic.

Being in a psychologist office--undergoing therapy--talking with a counselor--these are specific contexts designed to challenge how we think about ourselves and how we respond to the world. In these contexts, people may describe a certain response as 'wrong', but that's really just a different word for 'unhealthy'. And in these contexts, that nuance is usually understood.

But we aren't in a therapy office, and you aren't talking about what we'd say to a radical feminist if they were sitting on the couch opposite someone with training in cognitive therapy. Even if we were, I've never heard of a therapist calling someone's perspective on a situation 'wrong'--just unhealthy. Do therapists give you answers to these questions, or work with you to find your own answers?

I'm not sure why the context matters in this case nor am I sure what point you are trying to make by bringing it up.

And this is off topic so:

Spoiler:

The rhetoric good trained clinical psychologists use depends on the state of the patient and what words they will react more favorably to. 'Wrong' could be that word.

Some answers can be given, or guided to or some the patients need to find themselves.

If someone tried to convince someone close to me that consent is impossible, I might say I don't think that's a healthy approach, but I wouldn't say I know it's not a healthy approach, because I damn well don't know the context they're coming from, and I damn well don't know enough about cognitive therapy to make that call.

Which is fine, and but then we shouldn't give wishes of power to people no matter their view points, nor should our reaction to them influencing others toward that view be 'well, okay.'

Reason is based in skepticism, beliefs are hard to change once we have formed them. We should be careful about which ones we choose to adopt. This is what critical thinking is all about.

But again I posted to state that everything about humans is not generated by emotions and that all perspectives are not equal. Some perspectives are not just wrong but also unhealthy. Tolerance of unhealthy and wrong perspectives doesn't help anyone, even in the long run of those who have emotional investment in their wrong and possibly unhealthy beliefs.

[The Great Hippo]

I think people often do replace them, but to do so I believe we have to transcend them. They are kind of pre-programmed with different levels of strength in different aspects based on temperament or other aspects of personality. But this is getting way off topic.

So once transcended, does the given instinctive drive disappear? Or have we simply built a mental structure that allows us to successfully control and channel this instinct?

Do people enjoy sex because sex is reasonable, or because there's an instinct that guides them toward sex? Do people build things because building things is reasonable, or because there's some part of us that finds pleasure in building? In the absence of instinctive and emotion-based drives, what would humans do with themselves?

Tolerance of unhealthy and wrong perspectives doesn't help anyone, even in the long run of those who have emotional investment in their wrong and possibly unhealthy beliefs.

I agree, but I also file "I know enough about cognitive therapy and about your situation to determine that this is an unhealthy belief for you to have" as an unhealthy (for others) and wrong perspective. Unless you happen to be a cognitive therapist who knows a lot about the situation of the person you're currently talking to. Ie, your patient.

I can see where you're coming from, though ethically this creates a troubling situation where you can say: "All PIV that you've had was rape (solely by virtue of being PIV), but at least some of the rapists did nothing wrong and have nothing to feel remotely guilty about." It seems very disturbing to define rape in such a way that it can be morally acceptable for an individual to be a rapist.

But for me, this isn't about guilt or blame. I'm completely unconcerned with who's 'guilty' of these things except insomuch as that information helps generate a better, healthier response to deal with them. It's not about punishing people or making people feel bad; it's about validating the way people feel about things, and, in the right context, trying to help them find the best emotional response to their particular situation.

Edit: Also, would you say that a person can't possibly be wrong if they say "I was not raped"? I feel like PIV-critical feminists could argue that PIV is rape for everyone in the same way that we could tell someone that their husband forcing himself on them when they absolutely did not consent to sex was rape, even though they might believe (because of cultural teachings) that it's impossible for someone to rape their spouse*.

*I think this argument has several flaws, but I do think it is resistant to the counter-argument: "You can't define anyone's experience for them."

I think exploring the intersection between rape and radical feminism carries with it some dangerous baggage, so I'm trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to skip around the issue and talk more in abstractions. But to answer this specifically: I don't think it's fair to call someone a victim when they make it clear that they don't consider themselves a victim. If someone is assaulted--in the very legal sense of the word--and then states that they do not consider what happened as assault (in the more colloquial, personal sense of the word)--and they are an adult, and meet the criteria we set for making adult-level decisions--I think that's their right, and we need to respect that right.

I also think there is utility to trying to persuade people to look at situations in different ways--for example, to re-examine their situation and decide that yes, they were assaulted. I don't think it's good to tell people they're wrong. In the right context, it's probably a good idea to get people to challenge how they view a circumstance, particularly if their view is potentially detrimental to their health (be it emotional or physical). Therapy is such a context--so would an intervention. Successful interventions often involve professionals who know what they're doing. At the very least, they involve people who know the person, and are genuinely interested in the person's welfare--they aren't carried out by strangers.

Challenging people's identities--challenging how they parse their experiences emotionally--that's not a task that should be taken lightly, particularly when you don't know the person, and don't have the training or knowledge required to do such in a healthy, safe, non-exploitative way.