GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

[ummester]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, well, it is still a conscious decision of the author to make it a completely shitty misogynistic and racist society - like Westeros (the racism is really ugly in FaB with the way the court and Kingslanders view the Rogares!) - and to tone down that somewhat. I mean, Westeros would have worked just as well with equal primogeniture everywhere, I'd say, and it could have been a less elitist society had there been some wealthy commoners - like merchants, craftsmen, etc. - among the POVs. Not to mention the abysmal effect of the absurd concept of 'bastard names' - this thing even influences the concepts and discourse of the readers. If the characters ostracize certain people with those shitty names the reader actually mimics that behavior, also seeing distinctions between Snows and Starks, etc.

 Any author writing fantasy in our days cannot complain why he creates a world where racist and misogynistic clichés and stereotypes are reinforced.

I mean, there is no reason why all the Westerosi should be white, nor is there any why the foreign ruling dynasty has to be 'whiter' still. Those are all conscious decisions on George's part there wasn't really a need for.

Granted, one can say that this world was invented back in the early 1990s and not around 2020. Sexual plurality grew much more prominent in the more recent publications. Jon Connington is our first gay POV, and there are many gay historical Targaryens, and even cross-dressing Lannister kings and Golden Company officers. But the world as depicted still sucks.

The trouble with this kind of reasoning is what are considered racist or misogynistic cliches are being redefined rapidly and, in the last decade at least, finding some new offence to complain about or rage over seems to have become the status quo for a vocal section of society.

Authors should write what they want to write - be true to themselves first and worry about what an audience may think second. If the masses embrace it great, if they don't at least you have been honest. Pandering to what you think an audience wants ruins the integrity of your art.

Biology always matters in realistic characterization of humans. Go write an ancient world fantasy where all you male characters get pregnant and your female characters shoot semen and see just how many people take it seriously. If readers are reading fantasy to escape reality entirely, or writers using it to avoid reality, they are both missing the point. It is meant to mirror reality and make points about reality. As self centered as it is, the human condition is basically the only thing worth writing or reading about for most humans.

In all human society that has ever existed and likely ever will exist, the tribalism innate in humans plays a part. Hierarchy always forms. There are always those that abuse and those that are abused. 'Bastards', 'black skins', 'white skins', 'green skins', 'men', 'women', 'dwarfs', 'orks'  - whatever there will always be groups and those groups will always compete. Without that where is the variety, conflict  and struggle? What do you want to read/write about, an ancient world communist Utopia? It will end up being 1984 with swords  

Offence is a valid emotion, that writers can exploit for drama and readers can experience for growth. Shying away from being offended makes people far less mentally resilient. I do not want to read or watch things that do not offend me or challenge my conception of the world. Joffey was the best thing in the first part of GoTs. I loved being offended by him - I hated his pathetic cowardly evil little head and could not wait to see it deceased - that was a good thing because it hooked me big time.

 

The one thing I will agree on is that it is ridiculous that Valyrians are so fair skinned, considering the part of the world they originated in. I have no issue with most of the drama being set in white Westeros.

[Panos Targaryen]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, well, it is still a conscious decision of the author to make it a completely shitty misogynistic and racist society - like Westeros (the racism is really ugly in FaB with the way the court and Kingslanders view the Rogares!) - and to tone down that somewhat. I mean, Westeros would have worked just as well with equal primogeniture everywhere, I'd say, and it could have been a less elitist society had there been some wealthy commoners - like merchants, craftsmen, etc. - among the POVs. Not to mention the abysmal effect of the absurd concept of 'bastard names' - this thing even influences the concepts and discourse of the readers. If the characters ostracize certain people with those shitty names the reader actually mimics that behavior, also seeing distinctions between Snows and Starks, etc.

Any author writing fantasy in our days cannot complain why he creates a world where racist and misogynistic clichés and stereotypes are reinforced.

I mean, there is no reason why all the Westerosi should be white, nor is there any why the foreign ruling dynasty has to be 'whiter' still. Those are all conscious decisions on George's part there wasn't really a need for.

Granted, one can say that this world was invented back in the early 1990s and not around 2020. Sexual plurality grew much more prominent in the more recent publications. Jon Connington is our first gay POV, and there are many gay historical Targaryens, and even cross-dressing Lannister kings and Golden Company officers. But the world as depicted still sucks.

You're trolling/parodying, right? 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

The trouble with this kind of reasoning is what are considered racist or misogynistic cliches are being redefined rapidly and, in the last decade at least, finding some new offence to complain about or rage over seems to have become the status quo for a vocal section of society.

Authors should write what they want to write - be true to themselves first and worry about what an audience may think second. If the masses embrace it great, if they don't at least you have been honest. Pandering to what you think an audience wants ruins the integrity of your art.

Biology always matters in realistic characterization of humans. Go write an ancient world fantasy where all you male characters get pregnant and your female characters shoot semen and see just how many people take it seriously. If readers are reading fantasy to escape reality entirely, or writers using it to avoid reality, they are both missing the point. It is meant to mirror reality and make points about reality. As self centered as it is, the human condition is basically the only thing worth writing or reading about for most humans.

In all human society that has ever existed and likely ever will exist, the tribalism innate in humans plays a part. Hierarchy always forms. There are always those that abuse and those that are abused. 'Bastards', 'black skins', 'white skins', 'green skins', 'men', 'women', 'dwarfs', 'orks'  - whatever there will always be groups and those groups will always compete. Without that where is the variety, conflict  and struggle? What do you want to read/write about, an ancient world communist Utopia? It will end up being 1984 with swords  

Offence is a valid emotion, that writers can exploit for drama and readers can experience for growth. Shying away from being offended makes people far less mentally resilient. I do not want to read or watch things that do not offend me or challenge my conception of the world. Joffey was the best thing in the first part of GoTs. I loved being offended by him - I hated his pathetic cowardly evil little head and could not wait to see it deceased - that was a good thing because it hooked me big time.

 

The one thing I will agree on is that it is ridiculous that Valyrians are so fair skinned, considering the part of the world they originated in. I have no issue with most of the drama being set in white Westeros.

I agree.

The author's only duty is to write something that people will find interesting and enjoyable.  An author is under no obligation to present whatever ideological viewpoint is currently in vogue.

[KingMudd]

On 5/13/2019 at 3:26 PM, Wildling Queen said:

King's Landing is a symbol. Tearing it down is symbolic and a reference to the destruction of traditional paradigms of power.

They have been using Feudalism for thousands of years. All destroying Kings Landing does is makes the lesser Lords more powerful. There's no way Westeros is using any other system than Feudalism for the foreseeable future. Most likely when Dany dies the old borders will come back and there will be Kings of the seperate regions again.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Perhaps I'm just not seeing what you're seeing? As a female, I'm seeing her through female eyes, and I don't see her resisting, fighting, or lying passive once he rips her clothes. I see her participating and encouraging, just like in the book, which is not something you do when you're being sexually assaulted.

She clearly does resist:

She tells Jaimie to stop, then when he ignores her tries to push him off before he penetrates her. The right to refuse sex isn’t something that’s rescinded. A couple, could deep tongue kiss someone, feel up each other’s  bodies  but If one person says “stop” when the other person tries to take things further and fully copulate, is ignored and tries to push off the other person but is ignored again, the act becomes rape. 

And this view of had happened to Cersi as being rape really does not seem imo contingent on being male. A plurality or majority  of the op-eds critiquing the scene as rape, appear to be women.

2 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

2. I disagree. Please do not misunderstand what I'm saying. As the victim of more than one sexual assault, I'm not condoning it, and believe me, you don't kiss, draw in, wrap your legs around the person assaulting you. #MeToo. Or do you honestly not see Cersei doing what she's doing? 

With respect for with your awful experiences, I think you’ve misjudged what happened to Cersi. And I legitimately don’t get the use of #Metoo here. Are you mocking it? Genuinely curious here.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Risto said:

The issue I have with the show is that they so epically failed in presenting Dany's mindset. I do believe that Dany will be pushed to the dark side, first by people choosing Aegon, then by people choosing Jon.

I legitimately don’t get the impression Jon’s and Aegon stories will be concluded as legitimate by most. We get multiple examples of these type of “long-lost prince/ favored bastard” stories, and quite frankly all of them are eventually believed to be false. The only way Jon or Aegon could reasonably be seen as legitimate is if Daenerys elects to acknowledge them as such. To which she may because she needs a successor, and either would do. I do believe Daenerys will become more ruthless in conquering her homeland.The words “Villain” and “mad” get tossed around but I think either label would be too simplistic. I think it’d resemble more Aegon the conqueror(who did in fact deliberately burn thousands of non-combatants) then it would be Mad Aerys, or Maegor the cruel. More amoral, then immoral. 

[Sadras]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She clearly does resist:

She tells Jaimie to stop, then when he ignores her tries to push him off before he penetrates her. The right to refuse sex isn’t something that’s rescinded. A couple, could deep tongue kiss someone, feel up each other’s  bodies  but If one person says “stop” when the other person tries to take things further and fully copulate, is ignored and tries to push off the other person but is ignored again, the act becomes rape. 

And this view of had happened to Cersi as being rape really does not seem imo contingent on being male. A plurality or majority  of the op-eds critiquing the scene as rape, appear to be women.

With respect for with your awful experiences, I think you’ve misjudged what happened to Cersi. And I legitimately don’t get the use of #Metoo here. Are you mocking it? Genuinely curious here.

I do not for one moment, believe this is a rape as I feel the relationship between Cersei and Jaimie is quite a lot more complicated than a clinical look at this isolated sex scene. Furthermore I believe the character of Cersei to be quite strong so if she really wanted Jaimie to stop she would be forceful enough to push through his sexual advances. She does not. She puts up an initial struggle for impropriety sake but gave up fairly quickly to her base desires.

They have a tumultuous history and what you are doing here is very reductive. Instead of acknowledging their history along with the entire scene where she eventually gives in to lust, you stop your analysis at the point where she resists and he continues. That is short-sighted, reflects bias which allows only for disingenuous conversation.

Rape is a pretty horrible act. Get your facts straight.    

[Wildling Queen]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But it isn't what happened to the character in the material these people were adapting. Although Dany certainly is such a case.

 

 

This is the show, not the books. And there absolutely was a rape in Ramsey's story, but the show doesn't have 10,000 characters.

You also seem awfully hung up on "proper rape" and "brutal rape." You do understand that rape is rape and that it's horrible in all circumstances and that it isn't worse when it happens to someone you like versus someone you don't know very well, right?

[Wildling Queen]

3 hours ago, KingMudd said:

They have been using Feudalism for thousands of years. All destroying Kings Landing does is makes the lesser Lords more powerful. There's no way Westeros is using any other system than Feudalism for the foreseeable future. Most likely when Dany dies the old borders will come back and there will be Kings of the seperate regions again.

If lesser lords are in power in their individual regions, it's still a different structure. There's a whole argument that can be made, and is being made in the North, about feminist standpoint theory here. Authority should come from lived experience. Just as the wealthy can't truly understand the needs of the poor, a king in the South can't truly understand the needs of the North. There's also a pretty good argument being made that birthright isn't the best determinant of leadership skills. The people in Westeros don't seem to care that Daenerys believes the throne is hers. They don't want her.

[KingMudd]

Just now, Wildling Queen said:

If lesser lords are in power in their individual regions, it's still a different structure. There's a whole argument that can be made, and is being made in the North, about feminist standpoint theory here. Authority should come from lived experience. Just as the wealthy can't truly understand the needs of the poor, a king in the South can't truly understand the needs of the North. There's also a pretty good argument being made that birthright isn't the best determinant of leadership skills. The people in Westeros don't seem to care that Daenerys believes the throne is hers. They don't want her.

It would be back to the same power structure that existed for like 10000 years before the Targaryens came over. They would still be using feudalism with the now Lord Paramounts becoming kings. It is no different than what they were using to rule Westeros.

[Wildling Queen]

Just now, KingMudd said:

It would be back to the same power structure that existed for like 10000 years before the Targaryens came over. They would still be using feudalism with the now Lord Paramounts becoming kings. It is no different than what they were using to rule Westeros.

Okay, but the rulers in each individual kingdom have been chosen by a king for centuries, too. The North doesn't seem to be going for that anymore. Who's to say that idea won't spread?

[KingMudd]

1 minute ago, Wildling Queen said:

Okay, but the rulers in each individual kingdom have been chosen by a king for centuries, too. The North doesn't seem to be going for that anymore. Who's to say that idea won't spread?

No one was chosen, they use agnatic primogeniture to determine who the heir is. The great houses have ruled their kingdoms for thousands of years through inheritance. They only way to change the family that is in power is to defeat them and take what is theirs or wait until they have no heirs left.

If your talking about the Warden titles, these are just honorary titles. Jaime was going to be appointed Warden of the East but House Arryn would still have ruled over the Vale.

[Wildling Queen]

1 minute ago, KingMudd said:

No one was chosen, they use agnatic primogeniture to determine who the heir is. The great houses have ruled their kingdoms for thousands of years through inheritance. They only way to change the family that is in power is to defeat them and take what is theirs or wait until they have no heirs left.

If your talking about the Warden titles, these are just honorary titles. Jaime was going to be appointed Warden of the East but House Arryn would still have ruled over the Vale.

Yes, and the king of his time chose House Arryn, House Tully for the Riverlands. etc. And kings have changed their selections over time, as well. All of that is in the histories.

Given a choice, what did the Northmen say? "I know no king but the King in the North, whose name is Stark." They CHOSE their king. I found it to be a pretty interesting development.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Sadras said:

I do not for one moment, believe this is a rape as I feel the relationship between Cersei and Jaimie is quite a lot more complicated than a clinical look at this isolated sex scene. 

Their general relationship being complicated doesn’t make this not rape. 

9 hours ago, Sadras said:

Furthermore I believe the character of Cersie to be quite strong so if she really wanted Jaimie to stop she would be forceful enough to push through his sexual advances. She does not. She puts up an initial struggle for impropriety sake but gave up fairly quickly to her base desires.

Ah the old “He or she would’ve fought harder if they didn’t want to be sexually assaulted” 

To be clear she’s not Briene of Tarth. Physically she has strength of the typical  middle aged woman. And Jamie is still a really strong man. 

Acting like she could’ve likely  pushed him off if she truly didn’t want sex is absurd. 

9 hours ago, Sadras said:

They have a tumultuous history and what you are doing here is very reductive. Instead of acknowledging their history along with the entire scene where she eventually gives in to lust, you stop your analysis at the point where she resists and he continues.

Yeah when she says no and starts to resist and he still proceeds to penetrate her it becomes rape. What is so hard to understand about this?  I don’t think rape is something that doesn’t count if the victim knew, and  had a pre-existing relationship with his or her rapist(most rape survivors do). Or say if they didn’t fight “enough” what had happened to them wasn’t rape. I look at actual consent given. Because that’s the only thing that matters.

9 hours ago, Sadras said:

Rape is a pretty horrible act. Get your facts straight. 

Your rationale for why it’s not rape is a) they have a complicated relationship and b) she a woman of average physical strength would’ve pushed off the the fairly strong man if she truly didn’t want the sex.

[KingMudd]

22 hours ago, Wildling Queen said:

Yes, and the king of his time chose House Arryn, House Tully for the Riverlands. etc. And kings have changed their selections over time, as well. All of that is in the histories.

Given a choice, what did the Northmen say? "I know no king but the King in the North, whose name is Stark." They CHOSE their king. I found it to be a pretty interesting development.

Yes and those houses have always ruled their lands, way before they were "CHOSEN". The kings in the North have only ever been Starks and the northmen were saying that they should go back to the days when they were ruled by the Starks as kings. The North will never vote in a king. Robb and Jon were "CHOSEN" because they were Starks.

The system that you think the north has adopted doesn't exist. They are not voting people in. Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell and all northern vassals will answer to her. That is feudalism.

[Wildling Queen]

5 hours ago, ummester said:

The trouble with this kind of reasoning is what are considered racist or misogynistic cliches are being redefined rapidly and, in the last decade at least, finding some new offence to complain about or rage over seems to have become the status quo for a vocal section of society.

Authors should write what they want to write - be true to themselves first and worry about what an audience may think second. If the masses embrace it great, if they don't at least you have been honest. Pandering to what you think an audience wants ruins the integrity of your art.

Biology always matters in realistic characterization of humans. Go write an ancient world fantasy where all you male characters get pregnant and your female characters shoot semen and see just how many people take it seriously. If readers are reading fantasy to escape reality entirely, or writers using it to avoid reality, they are both missing the point. It is meant to mirror reality and make points about reality. As self centered as it is, the human condition is basically the only thing worth writing or reading about for most humans.

In all human society that has ever existed and likely ever will exist, the tribalism innate in humans plays a part. Hierarchy always forms. There are always those that abuse and those that are abused. 'Bastards', 'black skins', 'white skins', 'green skins', 'men', 'women', 'dwarfs', 'orks'  - whatever there will always be groups and those groups will always compete. Without that where is the variety, conflict  and struggle? What do you want to read/write about, an ancient world communist Utopia? It will end up being 1984 with swords  

Offence is a valid emotion, that writers can exploit for drama and readers can experience for growth. Shying away from being offended makes people far less mentally resilient. I do not want to read or watch things that do not offend me or challenge my conception of the world. Joffey was the best thing in the first part of GoTs. I loved being offended by him - I hated his pathetic cowardly evil little head and could not wait to see it deceased - that was a good thing because it hooked me big time.

 

The one thing I will agree on is that it is ridiculous that Valyrians are so fair skinned, considering the part of the world they originated in. I have no issue with most of the drama being set in white Westeros.

12

You know, I hear what you're saying, and I actually appreciate that you're willing to write out your thoughts rather than yell "SJW BULLSHIT!" and leave (ah, the trolls. So much fun). I think you're using some pretty common misconceptions about feminism; however, so are a lot of the people here arguing in support of their feminist views.

Feminism is still related to the female sex and places them at the center, but feminist theory really isn't about men vs. women anymore. We don't really think in those kinds of restrictive binary terms. It's about femininity and masculinity and what is ascribed societal value.

No one expects that racism or sexism or any other form of discrimination will never be depicted in art. Of course it will, it's too inherent in our society. What I do expect, and have gotten from GoT in many situations, is variance instead of stereotypical characters. The many differences between Dany, Brienne, Sansa, Arya, Cersei, Missandei, and Olenna Tyrell is a perfect example. All are women identifying as women, but each is a nuanced and individual person with their own identities and motivations. The same can be said for Jaime, Bran, Jon, Robert, Ned, Varys, and the many male characters. That's probably one of my favorite things about both the show and the books.

I also think you're wrong about the rules being rewritten all the time. Perhaps it's more that we now have social media and are exposed to a vastly diverse group of people on the internet and we're finally just now hearing these things because we were never confronted with them before. Theories do shift over time, but in a lot of cases, the things pointed out in our real society were always problematic. They just weren't problematic for some of us, personally, so we didn't think about it.

There are a lot of people here also who are writing themselves into corners trying to fight for a feminist viewpoint. The clearest example I've seen is the outrage over Brienne crying when Jaime left. I've seen commenters here saying the writers destroyed her character in that moment. That's arguing that showing emotion, which is clearly a feminine characteristic (men aren't supposed to show emotions other than anger), someone reduces Brienne. Before she cried, she was masculine and therefore powerful. Now, she's too feminine, and femininity is weak. That's not a feminist standpoint. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

So everyone is going to have to give us time to work these things out. Feminists, believe it or not, argue much harder amongst each other than they do with anyone else. I thrive and learn from debate instead of being offended or dismissive of it. And feminism is not exactly a new thing that's just developed recently, either. It existed long before some middle-class white women organized around the right to vote 100 years ago. We don't have it all down yet. First wave was supplanted by second wave, which was supplanted by third, and on and on. Regardless, it's an important topic of conversation. There are many different theoretical lenses from which a text can be analyzed. This is just one of them, but it's just as valid an analysis as any other.

Some of those analyses don't appeal to me. I don't respond to them. I wish the trolls had enough self-restraint to do the same. 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

6 hours ago, Kajjo said:

EXACTLY

Why?! All this feminism babble is mostly nonsense.

Rather than nonsense, it's pointless because the word "feminism" has lost all meaning. You have pretty much every single thing a woman/female character does (even if is ridiculous) being praised as "feminism" (cheapening the term), while also demanding a very specific set of rules and beliefs for feminism actually being feminism ("intersectional feminism", "afro-feminism", "eco-feminism", etc. And yes, I've seen them all fight against each other in twitter, it's funny.). So, it's as pointless as saying "this movie should be "more Christian" because you can expect "Christian values" such as "do not steal", "do not kill", "respect your parents", without being actually specifically Christian and also, there are different Christian denominations (Catholicism, Mormonism, Evangelism, Anglicism, etc).

With that being said, at least in America, while most people has said they do believe in the equality between genders, they've also said they don't identify themselves as feminists, meaning, people do have a notion of how these things aren't the same. In a poll from about two yers ago, only 18% of people called themselves feminists in America (while only 7% did so in UK). In similar polls, it's always the majority that identifies as NO feminists.

You can believe in gender equality without accepting the very specific ideology of feminism (like I said above, you can believe in the 10 points of the Commandments without being Christian). To expect that any fictional work is "feminist" is relative to whatever the person having the expectations understands as feminism and could disagree with the views of what the author/artist also understand as feminism. For D&d what they have done is very feminist and many people here disagree while, some feminists I know, believe it's very accurate to what they understand as feminism. And of course, whenever a work has the intention of promoting rather than portraying, it's not art but propaganda.

 

[Wildling Queen]

1 hour ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

Rather than nonsense, it's pointless because the word "feminism" has lost all meaning. You have pretty much every single thing a woman/female character does (even if is ridiculous) being praised as "feminism" (cheapening the term), while also demanding a very specific set of rules and beliefs for feminism actually being feminism ("intersectional feminism", "afro-feminism", "eco-feminism", etc. And yes, I've seen them all fight against each other in twitter, it's funny.). So, it's as pointless as saying "this movie should be "more Christian" because you can expect "Christian values" such as "do not steal", "do not kill", "respect your parents", without being actually specifically Christian and also, there are different Christian denominations (Catholicism, Mormonism, Evangelism, Anglicism, etc).

With that being said, at least in America, while most people has said they do believe in the equality between genders, they've also said they don't identify themselves as feminists, meaning, people do have a notion of how these things aren't the same. In a poll from about two yers ago, only 18% of people called themselves feminists in America (while only 7% did so in UK). In similar polls, it's always the majority that identifies as NO feminists.

You can believe in gender equality without accepting the very specific ideology of feminism (like I said above, you can believe in the 10 points of the Commandments without being Christian). To expect that any fictional work is "feminist" is relative to whatever the person having the expectations understands as feminism and could disagree with the views of what the author/artist also understand as feminism. For D&d what they have done is very feminist and many people here disagree while, some feminists I know, believe it's very accurate to what they understand as feminism. And of course, whenever a work has the intention of promoting rather than portraying, it's not art but propaganda.

 

I disagree. Feminism hasn't lost meaning, the word has just become vilified because all movements for social justice are at some point. It's actually comical/depressing to me that "social justice warrior" is used as an insult. We should all fight for social justice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, for all of us.

The problem lies in what you said: people say they believe in gender equality but they aren't "feminists." That's really not a possible option. Feminism is, quite simply, the belief in gender equality. Just because a person doesn't want to define themselves as "feminist" doesn't mean feminism has no meaning. Scroll through the posts above. As soon as the word feminism is mentioned, there's all this backlash. But that isn't the fault of feminism or its meaning. It just means that the word has negative connotations because people don't understand it.

People also commonly believe that feminism is about men vs. women and women wanting to somehow be above men when that isn't it at all.

As I said in an earlier post, feminist theory doesn't even argue about men vs. women anymore. We don't subscribe to that binary notion. Feminism is about equality, period. It's about the ways in which we structure masculinity and femininity and place value and meaning in one over the other. That value system is harmful for men, as well.

Anyone who believes feminists holds that women should always be depicted positively in art is simply misunderstanding the term feminism. I'm perfectly aware that there are good women and bad women, good men and bad men. What I want is some nuance. Don't pigeonhole us. Racism exists. But don't depict every person of color as the same type of stereotypical character. 

P.S. I also believe that the show D&D wrote has very strong feminist connections. There are problems, sure, but a feminist reading of GoT is absolutely possible.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

1 minute ago, Wildling Queen said:

I disagree. Feminism hasn't lost meaning, the word has just become vilified because all movements for social justice are at some point. It's actually comical/depressing to me that "social justice warrior" is used as an insult. We should all fight for social justice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, for all of us.

 

Well, that is my point. This is the view you have about Feminism and SJ and my view are very different. And there is no one or nothing that can say one of us is right or wrong because it's, after all, only perspectives. Many ideologies, including Social Justice, are, at the end, perspectives. It's only one way to solve certain societal problems. I know people who beileves the problems of my country should be solved with SJ, while others offer different solutions. Some others believe a combination of both would serve and some others want something new. There is no way to know who is right. Even people who are more savvy on the matter don't agree. I know Sociologists who support SJ and others who say it has flaws.

[Wildling Queen]

Just now, JonCon's Red Beard said:

Well, that is my point. This is the view you have about Feminism and SJ and my view are very different. And there is no one or nothing that can say one of us is right or wrong because it's, after all, only perspectives. Many ideologies, including Social Justice, are, at the end, perspectives. It's only one way to solve certain societal problems. I know people who beileves the problems of my country should be solved with SJ, while others offer different solutions. Some others believe a combination of both would serve and some others want something new. There is no way to know who is right. Even people who are more savvy on the matter don't agree. I know Sociologists who support SJ and others who say it has flaws.

Well, no. We can argue the merits of feminist theory, but there is only one set of feminist theories. You either understand them or you don't. You mentioned ecofeminism and afro-feminism. Can you explain at all what your understanding of those theories are?

I also disagree that there is a "solution" that includes inequality (and I'm pretty savvy on this matter. In fact, I kind of get to call myself an expert in this area. I earned that). Inequality has always existed and will always exist, but we fight to correct as many wrongs as we can. Suppose many years ago, it was decided that slavery was just always going to be and we'd work on having a good society that included slavery. That doesn't really work, does it?