Stand with girls

[Undercover]

I usually roast feminism for its part in shaping our current ageist world order, but today I'll argue the case for why feminism should support the sexual liberation of youth, because in essence this is about the autonomy of young girls to decide about their own bodies without persecution from a patriarchal government that wants to preserve their "virginity/sexual purity." They view sex as something dirty and want them to wait for marriage to sign away their freedom. Good job, feminists, in stripping away the rights of girls and imprisoning their boyfriends. Don't you all see that this is a bogeyman made by the patriarchy to distract you? You think you're "protecting," but in reality you're just serving the religious dogma of the patriarchy. Time for a wake-up call; my body, my choice — what happened to that?

[Not Forever]

I agree, but I believe that feminism has invested too heavily in the narrative of the predatory man to be able to change direction and support the sexual liberation of young women. It would be perceived as a step backward; it would be seen as the male desire to regain access to young female bodies—to manipulate them, exploit them, and so on.

Even so, I wouldn’t consider it a lost battle outright if it were approached from a lesbian perspective. Perhaps a certain kind of feminism could even support something like this, if men were removed from the conversation.

[John_Doe]

I agree, but I believe that feminism has invested too heavily in the narrative of the predatory man to be able to change direction and support the sexual liberation of young women. It would be perceived as a step backward; it would be seen as the male desire to regain access to young female bodies—to manipulate them, exploit them, and so on.

Even so, I wouldn’t consider it a lost battle outright if it were approached from a lesbian perspective. Perhaps a certain kind of feminism could even support something like this, if men were removed from the conversation.

I agree and I don't think that most people are going to believe that heterosexual men arguing for a girl's right to form relationships with whoever she wants to will be rooted in a desire to protect their autonomy rather than personal sexual interest (which isn't to say that I think they're mutually exclusive or assume that personal sexual desire is the only agenda behind such an argument). I don't think the implicit belief that women are inherently degraded by heterosexual intimacy (by default at least, without some kind of justifying context), something that they seem to share in common with social conservatives, ultimately stems from basic patriarchy theory. I could be wrong, and it might differ from person to person; I can easily imagine how the deeper anti-male prejudice the more radical feminists feel might block the attraction they would otherwise feel to men (if they're straight to begin with) and their not wanting other women to form relationships with men because they're projecting themselves or what they want on to them (in the same way that ethno-nationalists might not want co-ethnics to marry outside of their group or a man might want his son to be a doctor because he values being a doctor; I don't mean for altruistic reasons but as the pinnacle of personal 'success' in life, regardless of what his son wants or what would make him happy) but I don't think they generally oppose heterosexual unions or intimacy under the right conditions so prejudice against men aside, even if we're only considering women's interests alone, why don't they think that relationships that were a source of happiness for girls or young women would benefit them? Why demand the choice to transition (hormonal therapy or surgery for transgendered minors) or to terminate one's pregnancy (I assume that most would prefer teenage or pre-teen girls to be the ones to decide whether or not they carry a pregnancy to term, not their parents) but not the choice to be intimate with whoever one is interested in?

[aeterna91]

I haven't lost hope that the next wave of feminism will steer clear of the current course. The parallels between children and women in terms of “let's strip them of all their rights and freedoms for their own good” are very strong; it's impossible for everyone to ignore them. There have been many feminists in the past who have understood this (Newgon collects very interesting examples, https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Feminism), and I don't see why there couldn't be more in the future.

I agree, but I believe that feminism has invested too heavily in the narrative of the predatory man to be able to change direction and support the sexual liberation of young women. It would be perceived as a step backward; it would be seen as the male desire to regain access to young female bodies—to manipulate them, exploit them, and so on.

Yes, I think most fourth-wave feminists would perceive it that way. Although I think the response here should be: “Why are you talking about access to women's bodies as if they were totally passive subjects, as if they were objects placed on a shelf?”

[Not Forever]

I haven't lost hope that the next wave of feminism will steer clear of the current course. The parallels between children and women in terms of “let's strip them of all their rights and freedoms for their own good” are very strong; it's impossible for everyone to ignore them. There have been many feminists in the past who have understood this (Newgon collects very interesting examples, https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Feminism), and I don't see why there couldn't be more in the future.

I agree, but I believe that feminism has invested too heavily in the narrative of the predatory man to be able to change direction and support the sexual liberation of young women. It would be perceived as a step backward; it would be seen as the male desire to regain access to young female bodies—to manipulate them, exploit them, and so on.

Yes, I think most fourth-wave feminists would perceive it that way. Although I think the response here should be: “Why are you talking about access to women's bodies as if they were totally passive subjects, as if they were objects placed on a shelf?”

My concern is that it might not even be enough for feminism to change course. I mean… first of all, I think that, given how things stand now, they are more inclined to regulate behavior between adults than to engage in discussions about sexual liberalization for minors.

But even if they were to change their narrative, wouldn’t it be too late? I mean, it’s not just feminism understood as a movement anymore; these ideas have become institutionalized within international organizations ready to exert political pressure, currently supported by both the right and the left. We are almost at the point of considering this liberticidal idea of the absence of a minor sexuality a human right. I don’t think this stuff would be dismantled even if those who promoted it were, at some point, to change their minds. Rather, I think it will remain a permanent weapon—at least rhetorically—that will keep the movement on the “straight and narrow.”

But maybe I’m just extremely pessimistic.

[DANAT4T]

I agree, but I believe that feminism has invested too heavily in the narrative of the predatory man to be able to change direction and support the sexual liberation of young women. It would be perceived as a step backward; it would be seen as the male desire to regain access to young female bodies—to manipulate them, exploit them, and so on.

Even so, I wouldn’t consider it a lost battle outright if it were approached from a lesbian perspective. Perhaps a certain kind of feminism could even support something like this, if men were removed from the conversation.

Lesbians destroyed NAMBLA. You seriously think that appeasing the man-haters will help. Get real. Don't be so weak.

[Not Forever]

Lesbians destroyed NAMBLA. You seriously think that appeasing the man-haters will help. Get real. Don't be so weak.

…fair enough, I hadn’t considered that that part might be the most misandric.

[DANAT4T]

Lesbians destroyed NAMBLA. You seriously think that appeasing the man-haters will help. Get real. Don't be so weak.

…fair enough, I hadn’t considered that that part might be the most misandric.

The lesbian establishment threw S/M lesbians under the bus. If they can turn on their own people, imagine what they would do to men.

[OnionPetal]

A lot of you are too trusting if you take feminists at their word, that they are 'just about equality.' In practice, feminism has often proven to be about female supremacy. And whilst that might be good if you're looking for a little dominatrix, it's not so good if you're a man who ever wants to work in human resources

And should we talk about what feminism's 'equality' has done for male representation among primary school teachers?

[ReArm!]

I honestly think the MAP cause shouldn't be neither pro nor anti feminist. Feminism has already achieved what it was supposed to in western countries, and anti-feminism, on the other hand, is and should be seen as the reactionary force it is.

My concern is that it might not even be enough for feminism to change course. I mean… first of all, I think that, given how things stand now, they are more inclined to regulate behavior between adults than to engage in discussions about sexual liberalization for minors.

I completely agree with what Not Forever says here. I don't think feminism will make any major change from now on because it has institutionalized itself in the status quo (universities, state programs, etc.). That's not to say that feminism has been or is an evil, which it is not, it's just another movement in history that has accomplished a great change in our world, but nevertheless has become stagnant and must be advanced by other revolutionary movements in their own right.

In short, we should not attack nor defend feminism, but transcend it with a struggle that fights for everyone's freedom, regardless of age, gender or anything else that isn't the mere fact of being a person.