Women can't into feminism.

[Solus Canis Lupus]

Yoshpet

Solus Canis Lupus

I think this is a bit like blaming violence on video games. Consumers are voting with their wallets, right? That must mean men buy violent video games because the vast majority of them want to inflict harm upon others in reality!

Nope. It suggests that the people spending money on violent games enjoy seeing fictional depictions of violence. No avoiding the obvious truth: people enjoy seeing blood, guts and explosions, just not in their real lives.

That is my point. Should have put some kind of sarcasm indicator I guess. People can be against violence yet like to watch fictional violence and not necessarily be deemed hypocrites. Then again, in the case of feminism with rape culture and rape jokes, it would be hard not to deem a feminist a hypocrite if he or she likes 50 Shades of Gray.

[GSK Lives]

Henrika

.

Sooooo, how many things taught in dacing have won wars, conquered diseases, built masterpieces of engineering, ect?

[Weretindere]

I'm still not following the insinuations that:
A. Feminists were the type of people who payed for this thing.
B. Everyone who pays for something automatically means everyone who saw it actually liked it.
C. Men who like it match what stereotype:
-C1. Rape Culture?
-C2. Homosexual?
-C3. Closet-Case?
-A little C4 knockin' at yer door. MRA Standard?
-C5. Rich fetishist?
D. I'd have pirated it if I cared.

I don't get it. People don't "vote with their wallets" when the insinuation means that peeps that just want to see the most recent thing to play "keeping up with Joneses" in order to stay in the fray of social talking circles so they can say "I saw it", somehow means the movie was watched by who you think watched it. (I hope you didn't follow that properly; lel.)

So, what are we talking about; kittens? The thread better be about kittens; fluffy, meowing things of death.

[I AM R U]

Weretindere

I'm still not following the insinuations that:
A. Feminists were the type of people who payed for this thing.
B. Everyone who pays for something automatically means everyone who saw it actually liked it.
C. Men who like it match what stereotype:
-C1. Rape Culture?
-C2. Homosexual?
-C3. Closet-Case?
-A little C4 knockin' at yer door. MRA Standard?
-C5. Rich fetishist?
D. I'd have pirated it if I cared.

I don't get it. People don't "vote with their wallets" when the insinuation means that peeps that just want to see the most recent thing to play "keeping up with Joneses" in order to stay in the fray of social talking circles so they can say "I saw it", somehow means the movie was watched by who you think watched it. (I hope you didn't follow that properly; lel.)

So, what are we talking about; kittens? The thread better be about kittens; fluffy, meowing things of death.

I think there were a lot of people who read it because of curiosity - there was a lot of hype, and the few people I know who read it did so based purely on wanting to know what all the fuss was about. All of them then hated, I mean absolutely loathed, what they read.

[angelicgoodbyeee]

what the actual heck
like sure yeah masochists exist
and everyone has fantasies
but what does that have to do with getting equal rights? if a women gets pleasure from pain then good for her but does that mean she can't be treated as well as a man can? wtf

im a feminist, yes. i like fifty shades of grey, yes.

[Henrika]

GSK Lives

Henrika

.

Sooooo, how many things taught in dacing have won wars, conquered diseases, built masterpieces of engineering, ect?

So dedication to training one's body & mind, celebration of form and movement, and emotional connections to other human beings are worthless to you?



Emotional connection through body language already has its own meaning, it doesn't need to pretend its anything else in order to be great and masterful.


I really think you underestimate the way different forms of art feed from each other and inspire people in all forms of art, design & technology.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Project 429

Riviera de la Mancha

Project 429

Riviera de la Mancha

Project 429

How the ******** is feminism supposed to coexist with reality? This was the trailer for a terribly written book about the most popular sexual fantasy of a woman:

Being dominated by an absurdly wealthy man who treats her like garbage.

Way to go, girls. Fight the patriarchy.

I did not realize you got clairvoyance and can now read the minds of all women to determine their sexual fantasy.

Even presuming that this were true though, then that suggests the rather idiotic idea that even a person's fantasy must be in line with their socio-political opinions. The whole point of a fantasy is that it represents a flight of fancy: something we dream about and that is the exception to our normal self. It is outside of the personality, and does not exist as a part of the general character.

Well. Looks like I just got owned. Someone pointed out, rather brilliantly, I might add - that I don't know the thoughts and emotions of all women. It's this kind of keen insight that keeps me coming back to this board.

I don't know the desires of every woman! How did I not realize that? Thank you for this expansion of the mind Rivera!

You are most welcome. You seem to make the mistake rather frequently though, so I would think it would've lost its value to you. Again though, if that were the case, you would stop thinking you can read all or even most of the minds of (insert group here).

I can't figure out if you look dumber for being sarcastic or being serious with that response, but in either case I feel bad for your social worker. I like the very subtle touch of backpedaling with that last clause, though. You're well on your way to being a mediocre public defender.

Don't get mad at me because you make sloppy arguments. That's a personal problem there bro-seph.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Please. Women, as a demographic, have voted with their purses on this matter. They strongly prefer these fantasies to other ones. You know what Project 429 was driving at, here, so blow me.

>implying that your fantasies aren't what you really want

Ah, so now I see the argument - by virtue of the general action of spending money, all women who did spend money have agreed to a specific position in so doing. Ah, because THAT is the better argument. rofl

> Nothing was implied. Again, I expressly said my position. Fantasies need not, and seldom ever are, be in line with a person's general socio-political views. In fact, for many people they exist specifically to be a deviation. That someone fantasies, for example, about punching a co-worker does not mean that person cannot also generally be a kind person who would never actually punch the co-worker.

>demographic spending habits do not reveal anything about the psychology of the demographic in question

Whose posts are you reading? I have never said anything close to that.

What I have said and criticized is the idea that general spending habits can form the basis for making objective statements and specific intentions behind some demographic. To put it in lay man's terms, you can't go from the general to the specific. The general here is the general spending habits of some women, and the specific is a precise sexual fantasy. Spending habits are simply too general without much more information to support the specific.

The spending habits in this case discredit the stated goals of their political movements. It's kind of like how if most gay porn was consumed by anti-LGBT Republicans, it would discredit their anti-gay views. Women do not want feminism. They voted against it with their wallet.

Again, you assume that the act of spending money has only one specific meaning. You are making the mistake of going from the general to the specific.

The only way anti-LGBT persons purchasing most gay porn would discredit their anti-gay views is if they bought it because they liked and wished to participate in gay sexual activities. That's simply not exhibited by the sole act of spending money. Its entirely possible for the anti-LGBT people to be buying up the porn to then destroy it so that no one can have it.

[Roih Uvet]

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Please. Women, as a demographic, have voted with their purses on this matter. They strongly prefer these fantasies to other ones. You know what Project 429 was driving at, here, so blow me.

>implying that your fantasies aren't what you really want

Ah, so now I see the argument - by virtue of the general action of spending money, all women who did spend money have agreed to a specific position in so doing. Ah, because THAT is the better argument. rofl

> Nothing was implied. Again, I expressly said my position. Fantasies need not, and seldom ever are, be in line with a person's general socio-political views. In fact, for many people they exist specifically to be a deviation. That someone fantasies, for example, about punching a co-worker does not mean that person cannot also generally be a kind person who would never actually punch the co-worker.

>demographic spending habits do not reveal anything about the psychology of the demographic in question

Whose posts are you reading? I have never said anything close to that.

What I have said and criticized is the idea that general spending habits can form the basis for making objective statements and specific intentions behind some demographic. To put it in lay man's terms, you can't go from the general to the specific. The general here is the general spending habits of some women, and the specific is a precise sexual fantasy. Spending habits are simply too general without much more information to support the specific.

The spending habits in this case discredit the stated goals of their political movements. It's kind of like how if most gay porn was consumed by anti-LGBT Republicans, it would discredit their anti-gay views. Women do not want feminism. They voted against it with their wallet.

Again, you assume that the act of spending money has only one specific meaning. You are making the mistake of going from the general to the specific.

The only way anti-LGBT persons purchasing most gay porn would discredit their anti-gay views is if they bought it because they liked and wished to participate in gay sexual activities. That's simply not exhibited by the sole act of spending money. Its entirely possible for the anti-LGBT people to be buying up the porn to then destroy it so that no one can have it.

Ah, so you're saying feminists and women are buying copies of Fifty Shades of Grey to destroy them?

Very noble of them.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Yoshpet

Riviera de la Mancha

Yoshpet

Riviera de la Mancha

Ah, so now I see the argument - by virtue of the general action of spending money, all women who did spend money have agreed to a specific position in so doing. Ah, because THAT is the better argument. rofl

That's how marketing works. Then again, marketing sucks, so maybe that's saying something.

Marketing is not relevant to the conversation at all.

The issue is what women are actually supporting by virtue of spending money on the "50 Shades of Grey" book series. The problem with such a question is that the book, like any book, means different things to different people. A book seldom has one single over-arching meaning that shoves out all others. So it becomes very difficult to say what someone is intending their purchase to represent in reality.

A much better way to proceed is to ask what did the author intend the book to convey and represent, or more simply what are the topics and views in the book itself. Asking such a question is more precise and gets at the heart of what the OP is trying to discuss, which is what the success of such a title means for modern feminism. While we cannot be sure why women were drawn to read the book, we do know the subjects the book focuses on and the author's views, as well as the feminist critique for those views.

Marketing is definitely relevant to understanding what women support through their use of money on products.

Why ask what the author intends or what the major themes of the book are if we admittedly already know all of that? We can also be sure that women who purchased and praised the book were drawn to it because of its contents. It's not some mystery.

This thread isn't asking "What is 50 Shades of Grey about?" It's attempting to point out that 50 Shades of Grey runs counter to a lot of feminist goals and yet is a huge commercial success among women, albeit in an immature and antagonistic manner.

Again, that only matters if you assume erroneously that people buy products only for the reasons marketed to them. Under this theory, if McDonald's focuses its marketing on the value of their food, it is impossible a customer could buy their product because they perhaps enjoy the taste or its proximity to their home. It must be because their products offer great value, since that is what was marketed to the purchaser.

That's exactly my point; we can know the themes of the book or the author's objectives here, so its better to rely on what can be verified instead of the OP's clairvoyance. That is what makes the theme or message the better jumping off point to discuss what the wild success of the book means for feminism or how it impacts it. We can verify the theme or author message; we just can't tell, from the act of purchase alone what women as a group support or condemn.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

>demographic spending habits do not reveal anything about the psychology of the demographic in question

Whose posts are you reading? I have never said anything close to that.

What I have said and criticized is the idea that general spending habits can form the basis for making objective statements and specific intentions behind some demographic. To put it in lay man's terms, you can't go from the general to the specific. The general here is the general spending habits of some women, and the specific is a precise sexual fantasy. Spending habits are simply too general without much more information to support the specific.

The spending habits in this case discredit the stated goals of their political movements. It's kind of like how if most gay porn was consumed by anti-LGBT Republicans, it would discredit their anti-gay views. Women do not want feminism. They voted against it with their wallet.

Again, you assume that the act of spending money has only one specific meaning. You are making the mistake of going from the general to the specific.

The only way anti-LGBT persons purchasing most gay porn would discredit their anti-gay views is if they bought it because they liked and wished to participate in gay sexual activities. That's simply not exhibited by the sole act of spending money. Its entirely possible for the anti-LGBT people to be buying up the porn to then destroy it so that no one can have it.

Ah, so you're saying feminists and women are buying copies of Fifty Shades of Grey to destroy them?

Very noble of them.

No - read with attention.

I am saying that the act of spending is simply too general to be distilled into a single opinion on a specific ideology.

Is reading not your strong suit? I ask genuinely, because I have said this now for like four times. If it helps, I can maybe think of a way to display it with pictures or something. Sorry if this offends you.

[Roih Uvet]

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

>demographic spending habits do not reveal anything about the psychology of the demographic in question

Whose posts are you reading? I have never said anything close to that.

What I have said and criticized is the idea that general spending habits can form the basis for making objective statements and specific intentions behind some demographic. To put it in lay man's terms, you can't go from the general to the specific. The general here is the general spending habits of some women, and the specific is a precise sexual fantasy. Spending habits are simply too general without much more information to support the specific.

The spending habits in this case discredit the stated goals of their political movements. It's kind of like how if most gay porn was consumed by anti-LGBT Republicans, it would discredit their anti-gay views. Women do not want feminism. They voted against it with their wallet.

Again, you assume that the act of spending money has only one specific meaning. You are making the mistake of going from the general to the specific.

The only way anti-LGBT persons purchasing most gay porn would discredit their anti-gay views is if they bought it because they liked and wished to participate in gay sexual activities. That's simply not exhibited by the sole act of spending money. Its entirely possible for the anti-LGBT people to be buying up the porn to then destroy it so that no one can have it.

Ah, so you're saying feminists and women are buying copies of Fifty Shades of Grey to destroy them?

Very noble of them.

No - read with attention.

I am saying that the act of spending is simply too general to be distilled into a single opinion on a specific ideology.

Is reading not your strong suit? I ask genuinely, because I have said this now for like four times. If it helps, I can maybe think of a way to display it with pictures or something. Sorry if this offends you.

There's really one main use for pornography and smut fiction and the like, and that is to fuel your erotic masturbation fantasies. It's not really that much of a reach to think that the vast majority of smut consumers do so because they want something to wank to. That you're trying to press us by pointing out that we haven't verified the obvious is just you being a pedant.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

Riviera de la Mancha

Roih Uvet

The spending habits in this case discredit the stated goals of their political movements. It's kind of like how if most gay porn was consumed by anti-LGBT Republicans, it would discredit their anti-gay views. Women do not want feminism. They voted against it with their wallet.

Again, you assume that the act of spending money has only one specific meaning. You are making the mistake of going from the general to the specific.

The only way anti-LGBT persons purchasing most gay porn would discredit their anti-gay views is if they bought it because they liked and wished to participate in gay sexual activities. That's simply not exhibited by the sole act of spending money. Its entirely possible for the anti-LGBT people to be buying up the porn to then destroy it so that no one can have it.

Ah, so you're saying feminists and women are buying copies of Fifty Shades of Grey to destroy them?

Very noble of them.

No - read with attention.

I am saying that the act of spending is simply too general to be distilled into a single opinion on a specific ideology.

Is reading not your strong suit? I ask genuinely, because I have said this now for like four times. If it helps, I can maybe think of a way to display it with pictures or something. Sorry if this offends you.

There's really one main use for pornography and smut fiction and the like, and that is to fuel your erotic masturbation fantasies. It's not really that much of a reach to think that the vast majority of smut consumers do so because they want something to wank to. That you're trying to press us by pointing out that we haven't verified the obvious is just you being a pedant.

And the main use of a steak knife is to cut steak. Does that mean I cannot also want or use a steak knife to cut a chicken? To cut an apple? To cut open a package or a letter?

Again, you can't go from the general to the specific without additional reasoning. Trying to use the purpose of some general thing is not an appropriate gap filler - its just a recasting of the same generality.

Its a big stretch to go from wanting to purchase some romance literature to renouncing feminism. Indeed, the big problem seems to be that I have asked you to prove the obvious and now you are struggling to do so, which begs the question of how "obvious" your leaps were. This is because its not obvious - its a leap, and a big one.

[Times Of War]

Entirely relevant.

[SparkyKid3000]

Weretindere

I'm still not following the insinuations that:
A. Feminists were the type of people who payed for this thing.
B. Everyone who pays for something automatically means everyone who saw it actually liked it.
C. Men who like it match what stereotype:
-C1. Rape Culture?
-C2. Homosexual?
-C3. Closet-Case?
-A little C4 knockin' at yer door. MRA Standard?
-C5. Rich fetishist?
D. I'd have pirated it if I cared.

I don't get it. People don't "vote with their wallets" when the insinuation means that peeps that just want to see the most recent thing to play "keeping up with Joneses" in order to stay in the fray of social talking circles so they can say "I saw it", somehow means the movie was watched by who you think watched it. (I hope you didn't follow that properly; lel.)

So, what are we talking about; kittens? The thread better be about kittens; fluffy, meowing things of death.