Monogamy oppresses women (insightful article included)

A general chat area, here you can post anything that doesn't belong in another forum.
GoldenRishi
Vortininja
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:20

Post by GoldenRishi » Thu Aug 20, 2015 22:18

There's a lot to say here, but I'll keep it as short as I can:
The Article wrote:She didn’t present it as an issue of feminism to me, but after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control. We aren’t afraid of their intellect or their spirit or their ability to bear children. We are afraid that when it comes time for sex, they won’t choose us. [...] When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist.
What I find disturbing about this is not the notion that he and his wife have an open relationship --I'm perfectly fine with that. As long as there's an open communication between the partners on their expectations and desires, I think pretty much anything that doesn't harm other human beings is completely fine. Thus, I'm completely fine with open relationships, with swinging, with polyamorous relationships, and so on. I think they fall in the normal range of human sexual behavior, if we're being honest. Humans aren't either polyamorous nor are they monogamous; we're in an awkward inbetween compared to most of our primate cousins, although we do lean more towards sexual monogamy.

But what I find disturbing is that he clearly thinks that if he, as a person, weren't okay with his partner having sex with other people, then it would be his fault, his problem, and his insecurities. Moreover, he's literally arguing that if he were not okay (more generally, if any man) with his wife having sex with other people, then it's because deep-down, he wants to literally oppress her and is, essentially, being sexist.

Honestly, I think anyone with even a small modicum of self-reflection should be able to see that the consequences of this logic are pretty devastating in their own regard. Firstly, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. By extension, he is arguing that women who are not okay with their husbands or boyfriends having sex with other women, then all of this is because women themselves are deeply insecure or trying to oppress their male partners. Maybe he is okay with this, but I suspect that there are a lot of feminists that would not agree with this conclusion or at least believe it so wantonly. Secondly, I really fail to grasp what the real "feminist" issue here is. This is about sexual relationships, and the issue he's raising is hardly restricted to men wishing to control women in some patriarchal, oppressive, sexist regime. At best, he could argue that there is a Puritanical leftover from our culture wherein people --which he is arguing unhealthily and unethically-- expect that they have control over their partner's genitals. And that's a conversation that could be had, and it's probably even an interesting one with regards to sexual ethics. But it's not a feminist issue, and it's not convincingly a forgone conclusion that if someone doesn't want their partner to step out on them that it's because that someone has some deep-seated desire to oppress or control their partner.
(Used to be LordofGlobox)

User avatar
Levellass
S-Triazine
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40

Post by Levellass » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:47

This is a good point and one I think we need to apply more. It is trivial to say 'If you have a problem with my life the fault is yours, not mine.' I can see it is applicable. (Say to interracial marriage.) but it isn't itself a justification but the result of other justifications.

IF polygamy itself is ok THEN you can use the defense that if someone wants to stop it they are stopping a good ting and are thus oppressive. But standing alone that argument can be applied to, say, pedophilia or marrying rocks. (I oppose the marriage of inanimate objects and also pets because dammit, you cat does not need a wedding! Go waste your money elsewhere!)
What you really need, not what you think you ought to want.

namida
Vortininja
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:35

Post by namida » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:14

Polygamy doesn't appeal to me. But, if people want to do it... that's fine, as long as everyone involved is okay with it.

I could see some validity in arguing that someone is being oppressed (although let me be clear here - this can apply in both directions, it is not exclusively applicable to when one gender expects it, while the other expecting it is fine) in a case where one partner wants to, and the other one makes a point of physically preventing it. But if someone simply sets the expectation "if you're with me, it's monogamous", and will leave someone for not sticking to that... then that's not oppression, that's incompatibility. And thus comes back to the simple idea of feminism (and MRAs for that matter; don't think for one second that they're any less bad, the only difference is which gender they try to make everything about) being nothing more than using the scapegoats of "oppression" / "patriarchy" / "misogyny" to try and guilt trip people into letting you have your way with no consequences to yourself.

In regards to pet weddings... what's the problem? If someone has that kind of money to waste, then (as long as there isn't a starving child going without food in order to pay for the pet wedding) isn't it up to them what they choose to waste it on? Could one not argue that having the pet in the first place is a waste of money too? (Though if we're talking about a human marrying a pet... then that's a bit different...)

User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4155
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly » Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:26

GoldenRishi wrote: I suspect that there are a lot of feminists that would not agree with this conclusion or at least believe it so wantonly. Secondly, I really fail to grasp what the real "feminist" issue here is.
[snip]
the issue he's raising is hardly restricted to men wishing to control women in some patriarchal, oppressive, sexist regime.
namida wrote:And thus comes back to the simple idea of feminism (and MRAs for that matter; don't think for one second that they're any less bad, the only difference is which gender they try to make everything about) being nothing more than using the scapegoats of "oppression" / "patriarchy" / "misogyny" to try and guilt trip people into letting you have your way with no consequences to yourself.
Isn't Anita Sarkeesian great? Let's turn this into a thread about video games and pop culture oppressing women using examples from tvtropes. :dopekeen
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass

User avatar
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon
Vortininja
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 22:09

Post by GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon » Fri Aug 21, 2015 14:13

That name keeps showing up...

I'm surprised that apparently only a few people seem to know the truth about her.

That's all I'll say on that subject though...

User avatar
SnipSnap_McGee
Grunt
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:17
Location: Springfield, Missouri

Post by SnipSnap_McGee » Fri Aug 21, 2015 14:24

What is the truth? :crazy
SNIP... SNAP!


User avatar
VikingBoyBilly
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 4155
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation

Post by VikingBoyBilly » Fri Aug 21, 2015 15:57

SnipSnap_McGee wrote:What is the truth? :crazy
The "truth" is that Super Mario Bros. endorses playing the game of patriarchy in which women are not the opposing team; they are the ball.

That, and if a pornstar gets repeatedly raped by escaped convicts, you should ignore other feminists asking you to help them and continue focusing on rants about the way women are presented in fictional media.
Image
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass

GoldenRishi
Vortininja
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:20

Post by GoldenRishi » Fri Aug 21, 2015 18:57

VikingBoyBilly wrote:
GoldenRishi wrote: I suspect that there are a lot of feminists that would not agree with this conclusion or at least believe it so wantonly. Secondly, I really fail to grasp what the real "feminist" issue here is.
[snip]
the issue he's raising is hardly restricted to men wishing to control women in some patriarchal, oppressive, sexist regime.
namida wrote:And thus comes back to the simple idea of feminism (and MRAs for that matter; don't think for one second that they're any less bad, the only difference is which gender they try to make everything about) being nothing more than using the scapegoats of "oppression" / "patriarchy" / "misogyny" to try and guilt trip people into letting you have your way with no consequences to yourself.
Isn't Anita Sarkeesian great? Let's turn this into a thread about video games and pop culture oppressing women using examples from tvtropes. :dopekeen
I didn't mention Anita Sarkeesian or video games. This was an article about feminism and open relationships, which is what I addressed. You seem to be the one who turned this into a thread about Anita Sarkeesian.
(Used to be LordofGlobox)

User avatar
Levellass
S-Triazine
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40

Post by Levellass » Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:32

This thread is now officially about GamerGate. Abandon all critical thinking ye who pass this point.
What you really need, not what you think you ought to want.

GoldenRishi
Vortininja
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:20

Post by GoldenRishi » Mon Aug 24, 2015 20:11

Levellass wrote:This thread is now officially about GamerGate. Abandon all critical thinking ye who pass this point.
Or we could just go back to the topic in the OP.
(Used to be LordofGlobox)

User avatar
Levellass
S-Triazine
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40

Post by Levellass » Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:39

That never happens.

You see, if you argue against it, you lose. If you argue *for* it then the thread dissolves into a circle jerk. If you ignore it or try to get back on topic then you are, by omission, arguing against it and can be accused of pretty much anything.
What you really need, not what you think you ought to want.

User avatar
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon
Vortininja
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 22:09

Post by GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon » Tue Aug 25, 2015 15:05

I kinda wanna forget it exists. :|
I mean I've already said my piece on it.

User avatar
Paramultart
VBB's Partner in Crime
Posts: 3004
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:36

Post by Paramultart » Tue Aug 25, 2015 16:37

Anita is a swindling merchant, but that doesn't change the fact that the way women are portrayed in videogames is truly disgusting.

This is something that has always offended me.

I grew up loving Duke Nukem, and HATED Duke Nukem 3D for its depiction of women, and how you could blast them to chunks so easily, but didn't even have the ability to rescue them as they moaned "KILL ME" with their breasts hanging out on a bloody spike. Sickening!

I still hold on to the theory that Lameduke (The Duke3D beta) was more true to Duke2 than Duke3D, which reinvented him as a womanizing scumbag.

The Duke who had a cameo in Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure would never behave in such a way.

Get porn the heck out of my DOS games.

And no, this is not me "trolling" or being ironic. I have always held this stance and always will.
"Father Mabeuf was surveying his plants"

User avatar
GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon
Vortininja
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 22:09

Post by GalaxyEyesPhotonDragon » Tue Aug 25, 2015 17:20

Paramultart wrote:Anita is a swindling merchant, but that doesn't change the fact that the way women are portrayed in videogames is truly disgusting.

This is something that has always offended me.

I grew up loving Duke Nukem, and HATED Duke Nukem 3D for its depiction of women, and how you could blast them to chunks so easily, but didn't even have the ability to rescue them as they moaned "KILL ME" with their breasts hanging out on a bloody spike. Sickening!

I still hold on to the theory that Lameduke (The Duke3D beta) was more true to Duke2 than Duke3D, which reinvented him as a womanizing scumbag.

The Duke who had a cameo in Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure would never behave in such a way.

Get porn the heck out of my DOS games.

And no, this is not me "trolling" or being ironic. I have always held this stance and always will.
:) You sir, are awesome.

Yes, Duke took a wrong turn after 2 and Forever took it way to far (the main reason I won't play it.) It's more than just sickening.

Even more sickening is the gaming community's neglectful attitude towards it. I heard there was a bit of outrage over the rape joke and all the other horrid stuff in there, but not as much as it should have been, people were more offended by the game's general cruddiness than the nasty crap.

But yeah. I don't disagree that the portrayal of women in most video games is unacceptable, but Anita Sarkeesian is a joke.

Post Reply