Feminism Discussion

Okay. This thread will be about the subject of Feminism. Before I actually bring up the talking points, I will link and quote a few sites to have the properly defined terms. If you are unsure about the terms please refer to the links in this post. I will quote the wikipedia article on Feminism as follows; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism >Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men. Other links; http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Feminism Now for the talking points and examples for this thread, I want to discuss these three topics; >Ideas/misconceptions you had of Feminism in the past If you used to be against or against Feminism, what ideas did you hold? What were the events that made you change your mind in either direction? I'd love to know what made you go in one direction or another even if you weren't on a "side" before. >Feminist ideas or even types of Feminists that interest you Do you find Anarcha-feminism to be really cool? Or maybe you are just learning about the kyriarchy for the first time? Tell me about what you think about various Feminist ideas or even individual Feminists Feminists throughout history >What is anti-Feminism or even anti-women One interesting dialog in the last thread that wasn't really explored too much was who could be considered Feminist or anti-Feminist. I saw one side claiming that religious conservatives are just Feminists in disguise while another said that those types are very anti-Feminist. This talking point is different from the first in that it's less about personal opinion and more about groups. Where is the source of anti-Feminist talking points? Is it possible to be anti-Feminism without being anti-woman? My intent is for a discussion of Feminism without going into the usual talking points. As I said in the last thread, I've started looking into Feminism with a much more open mind. And I have to say, while I don't agree with everything various Feminist thinkers or advocates say I've found certain points to be agreeable. It's a far cry from the anti-Feminist type of person I used to be. As far as my own misconceptions of Feminism. I also used to think that Feminism hated men and that they wanted to destroy my video games. Another thing I believed in pretty heavily was that Feminists hated things like sex or even wanted me to be sexless. What got me to stop thinking like that was reading more about different Feminist group's ideas and realizing that different people think different things. So, I want as many different ideas as possible in this thread.

>>10877 I think previous attempts have made it clear that high-quality discussion of this topic is not likely to happen. It's too charged/loaded. You'd be better off (maybe) choosing a more specific topic without ever using the word "feminism," because that term in particular carries too much baggage. I'm also interested in gender issues to some degree, but I'm not sure that this site is the best place to discuss them, sadly. This is too bad, really, as I've been wondering about the psychology and opinions of female lainons.

>As far as my own misconceptions of Feminism. I also used to think that Feminism hated men and that they wanted to destroy my video games. it's this idea that created the whole anti feminism youtube movement and alt-right in the first place imho.

I don't really see why feminism is a thing anymore in the 'west'. Women already have equal if not more rights compared to men isn't this the point where the movement should focus on 3rd world soykafholes or disband.

>>10881 Well, if this thread goes south, I'll give up and go to some other site to have a better discussion. >>10882 Yea, I think that meme definitely contributed to those movements. Looking back, it's actually pretty funny to think about. Sure you're going to have those weird authoritarian Feminists who want to control everything but I don't think a lot of them want to completely ruin something that others enjoy, even if they do find it offensive. >>10886 How would we focus on the third world?

You ignored what I said in the last thread and I wasn't just spilling soykaf. I said that feminism a soykaf because it uses gendered language to moralize: feminism = good patriarchy = bad also because it's spawned a plethora of sexist language that is somehow okay to use manspreading, mansplaining, toxic masculinity it allows for people who call themselves feminists to silence people on the basis of their gender alone >we don't need *white males* to give their opinion on this topic, please only queens can speak now As such feminism a soykaf and will always be a soykaf.

>>10890 >I don't think a lot of them want to completely ruin something that others enjoy, even if they do find it offensive. Maybe, but what people do want is control. Control over what we can speak or think. Currently one of the ideologies that has the power to silence others (by threatening their jobs) is feminism. This makes it an enemy of a free and critical society. >How would we focus on the third world? I think he means like how in islamic countries women are not afforded half the rights that western feminism fought for (before it became malignant). And how a sizable portion of western political action is focused on 'microagressions' and crap like that, when in the aforementioned countries women are killed for being raped.

Poor people are oppressed regardless of their gender. Poor men go to war and die, poor men become homeless and kill themselves. Poor women get raped and no one does anything. Feminism is an ideology that serves to divide the people. Divided we fall, and we fall bickering about who takes more space in the metro.

>>10890 >Well, if this thread goes south, I'll give up and go to some other site to have a better discussion. I just read the other thread you made. You ignore just about all good arguments and respond to the retards. If you do this again then you can be sure that your thread will go south, and you can be sure that you won't be missed if you go to another site to have a 'better discussion'

I won't read replies to this post. I'm informatively sharing a few observations I have, which you have either found already, or would find if you kept looking. Feminism is outdated. Women have acquired equal rights in the law of all modern countries. They are treated as equals in court, they can vote, they can work, they can own stuff, they can make their own decisions and be independent in general. This is enforced by the state. Thus, there is no reason for any state-level action to be done. There is no reason to talk about rights, because rights are already equal and held up. Protesting for any more rights or a change of rights is 1) pointless, a waste of everyone's time and resources, and 2) against equal rights 3) bullsoykaf. Feminism is potentially radical and tends to create dichotomies. It's at its core: the dichotomy of men and women which it was at one point trying to erase. These days though, feminism creates stronger contrast by attempting to "balance" things - that is, push the female side of everything while degrading the male side. This process itself is as polar as what feminism once tried to erase, thus anyone who understands hypocrisy will resist it - creating even more contrast in the form of feminism vs anti-feminism. Note that it doesn't matter if some feminists aren't radical, and it also doesn't matter if some men treat women very well without having any feminist views. Feminism is a system of views that has potential to create radical contrast, this is a fault of the system. That some people don't fall for the radical bullsoykaf is the virtue of those individuals. The dichotomy of feminism and anti-feminism needs to be destroyed entirely, and people who can coexist well without radical views promoted. Feminism thinks in overly simplistic groups. It's basically a tribal "if you're not with us, you're against us" thing for all its radical (and thus loud) proponents. Both by gender, and by asserting the views or not. However, a movement that supposedly wants to fix something should require people to pick sides; it should be able to have a fixed amount of followers who get the work done and leave those uninterested alone. Instead, a lot of opposition is created by letting the militant members of the movement be - it should be the feminist movement's job to shut down militant idiots within its confines, and if it fails to, it really shouldn't be taken too seriously. All in all, I see feminism today as a symptom of slacktivism, a lazy society that wants everything by right, and the rapid spread of technology that allows them to be so loud. It should be disbanded along with its opposition, so people who actually care can make steps forward without the semi-religious zealotry. Bonus thought from a person: feminism and gender-stuff are popular today because it's the extent the average person with average IQ is able to think philosophically. Real philosophy is too abstract, too hard, to remote; instead they choose to ponder something that they get in their face potentially 16 hours a day: humans in their daily roles, boys, girls, nice or naughty.

Liberal feminism is soykaf and gets nothing done. They want people to use fancy "queer" labels and use outdated stereotypes about each sex to conclude a persons "gender", support the prostitution of women in the name of "sex positivity", disregard the struggle of women in third world countries and a bunch of other garbage I'm probably not thinking of. Radical feminism is the way to go. As harsh as the movement is, they bring up good points like sex stereotyping being harmful to both sexes, actually care about women in other countries ,face the biological reality that both sexes have different needs and realize the struggles a woman typically has in her day to day life. I'd go more into it but I don't want to cause a soykaffest.

I'm only going to make this one post in here so as not to get this thread locked too and because I've gotten tired of wrangling tards who refuse to listen to evidence and reason. I still strongly disagree with the decision to lock the last one. There was more than enough discussion of things other than the age of consent to justify keeping it open, and I had a lot to say about those things as well. To avoid quoting the posts from the locked thread, I'll condense whatever they had that I wanted to respond to here, because those posts have a few of the best examples of how the left and feminism have gone totally off the rails (other than their insane buttrage and jealousy at how much cuter teenage girls are than 18+ women). We can start with somebody calling me a far-right fascist because I don't like Islam. Islam is profoundly misogynistic if there ever was such a thing as genuine misogyny, and it's baffling that anyone who calls themselves a progressive could defend it. Yet that's what the modern left does. You can argue that most Muslims are not terrorists, and this is the basis many use for saying that not all feminists are bad (both propositions are sketchy at best), but both of these groups have leadership that believes in horrible policies. http://www.returnofkings.com/152758/more-men-are-raped-every-year-than-women Also, I was going to post this article in response to a claim that more women experience a sexual assault than men. I was also going to say that marriage rates have plummeted because men realize it's a trap, but you don't have to have special knowledge to understand that. >I also used to think that Feminism hated men and that they wanted to destroy my video games. There have been a slew of instances of women bitching about video games this year, so this is still very much a thing. Feminism has shown no signs of stopping this even in the face of massive backlash. But there are other factors to take into account to explain this. Women are more socially conscious than men and tend to follow the herd more, meaning it's a very rare case that you find a girl who inherently hates the concept of video games. They just hate what they're told to hate in general, and they were told to hate video games back in the 90s and early 2000s because they were for loser nerds who were going to shoot up their schools. They also hate what loser nerds like by default, because they want to look good for the chads. Humans tend to hate what they don't understand, and they never had a real understanding of video games because the video game industry was started by smart people for smart people, and its pioneers never intended vidya to be played by the kind of dipsoykafs who've taken over the industry today. Women only started to play video games at the same time NPC men did, which was when the suits in charge started to casualize everything. Games have been dumbed down for the idiot masses to get them to sell, and financially well-off feminists saw this as an opening to spread their propaganda. The fact that the modern West is a society of complete idiots is at least as bad as feminism, and the problems with feminism likely wouldn't exist otherwise. >Another thing I believed in pretty heavily was that Feminists hated things like sex or even wanted me to be sexless. They hate having other people have fun, not themselves. They hate forms of fun that threaten their sexual market value. They have no problem indulging in things that they condemn when other people do them.

>>10895 While I used "Feminism" as an umbrella term to refer to the wider range of ideas that are out there you are still lumping the more silly things like manspreading that seems to come from rags like Buzzfeed and more legit concepts like toxic masculinity, which, by the way isn't the sexist term you think it is. The modifier "toxic" is what changes normal masculinity into toxic masculinity, you have to have a modifier to make something "bad". Toxic masculinity deals with how boys and men are socialized, not demonizing men. There are legit male issues that are abound because men are expected to be a certain way. >>10898 Unless you're a different Lain, you sure made a 180 really quick. Post some of the good arguments and I won't ignore them then. >>10896 >threatening jobs But that's literally the power of any person regardless of their political movement has. People on the right are also capable of smear campaigns as well. >I think he means like how in islamic countries women are not afforded half the rights that western feminism fought for (before it became malignant). And how a sizable portion of western political action is focused on 'microagressions' and crap like that, when in the aforementioned countries women are killed for being raped. I know what he meant, "Third world soykafhole" is too often just another way of saying Africa or the Middle East. But realistically, what are we suppose to do for these women? A lot of these issues are on a government level. Sure maybe if America and Europe were to fuse their armies together and topple every single government that has anti-woman laws and maybe force the Islam out of them but that's just imperialism with a Feminist agenda. >>10897 >we fall bickering about who takes more space in the metro. Maybe on Twitter but outside of that, we would have to see actual debate over such a silly topic.

>>10903 You're lucky to have avoided people who take man-spreading seriously. Also, sure toxic masculinity needs a modifier, but patriarchy doesn't. The use of that word implies that our society is the result of male values, when both women and men have collaborated gloriously to fuarrrk everything up. As I understand it, the theory of patriarchy blames men for oppressing women. And while it's true that a lot of women get oppressed, a lot of women are oppressors and a lot of men oppressed. That issue is not so simple as man oppress woman. >>Unless you're a different Lain, you sure made a 180 really quick. Post some of the good arguments and I won't ignore them then. Not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. Also my arguments are mainly with words. I don't see how a movement named after a specific gender can say it advocates 'equality'. If feminism was manism instead, you can be sure that there'd be buttmad women about it, and I'd fuarrrking understand why.

>>10905 >And while it's true that a lot of women get oppressed, a lot of women are oppressors and a lot of men oppressed. That issue is not so simple as man oppress woman. I actually agree with this. If you are not "masculine" and you are clearly male, there are even women who will make rude comments. I completely agree with women being every bit as a problem as men can potentially be. I don't think I've personally said otherwise. I just understand patriarchy differently from you, I guess. >Not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. I meant how >>10881 and >>10898 were so different in tone and the later post was in reference to the part of the post that was quoting the former. It had little to do with agreeing or disagreeing, but that's small potatoes. I've gone over the hold word thing for a while and honestly I personally don't really care too much. The name, in my opinion, isn't as important as the ideas or how I choose to see them.

>>10906 >I've gone over the hold word thing for a while and honestly I personally don't really care too much. The name, in my opinion, isn't as important as the ideas or how I choose to see them. Names are important, especially for ideologies. From what you write I understand that you're not a prisioner to ideologies, which is something that I respect a lot, however, I still think that words extremely important because they are reflections of the ideas below the words.

>>10907 >I still think that words extremely important because they are reflections of the ideas below the words. You know, I'll give you that one. Not so much the for the name of the ideologies, I'll concede there too, but for terms in general. It's easy for me to discuss toxic masculinity because it's very concise and describes negative masculine behavior and expectations. Whereas I really struggle with patriarchy because, well, even a lot of Feminist resources can't really seem to give a solid, constant definition, just some examples and maybe a vague idea of it. Almost to the point where I wonder if instead of patriarchy or any other similar terms, maybe if just talking about gender relations we say that maybe androcentric as in we cater more to men than women in a lot of situations. I know there are flaws with this term as well, but it doesn't seem to have the baggage and bloat that patriarchy does.

>>10905 >If feminism was manism instead, you can be sure that there'd be buttmad women about it, and I'd fuarrrking understand why. That movement exists and people are mad about it. It's not called "manism" though.

>>10909 And actually, I'll add a bit more to this post since I've had some more time to think about this. My main objection to "Well, Fem is in the name therefore it's not really for equality" is that context and history shows why it was mostly focused on women and it would be an okay argument to say maybe Feminism as a term is outdated now since with the introduction of intersectionality and other concepts as well as the many number of schools of thought within Feminism and the movement has sorta outgrown the label but in a more practical sense? Not really, the average layperson already understands that Feminism = Equality. And a lot of concepts in Feminism can pretty easily be applied to men as well as women. If this were Facebook and some woman was saying, "I rejected some dude with an anteater dick, ewwww, he should have been snipped as a baby like all baby boys should be. Circumcised dicks are so sexy!!" and then several Feminists chime in saying, "Your sexual preference does not dictate what a man does with his body" or "Babies can't consent to circumcision, his body, his choice" or anything similar, these are common talking points about male sexual preferences and desires forced onto women (like foot binding, FGM, abortion, etc) being used in defense of boys and men. I think a lot of talking points can be applied semi-equally between the genders, maybe the terms have problems and there is importance of names of things but if in practice they can be used for everyone, then I would say it's about equality. Again, a lot of terms can be flawed, and I'll admit that. >>10911 Men's Rights is pretty cool at times, but hostility between them and Feminism is pretty annoying though.

>>10877 I want to preface this by saying that everything in this post is 100% honest, it is not said to illicit response, good or bad, it is said because it is what I think. I hope to engage in respectable and honest discussion on this topic. >Ideas/misconceptions you had of Feminism in the past When I was in early high-school (I'm nearly 30 now), I used to say, if asked, that I was a feminist. My general attitude about it was that, while women don't have it as hard as they used to, sexism is still real and still mostly pointed at women. However, as I got a bit older, near the end of high-school, some of my more fringe-friends (friends of friends, acquaintances I guess. people whom were around but I didn't really know) started to push a subtle, but very much real, anti-male type of feminism. I shifted my stance to being a "humanist" (I was in high school, give me a break) and argued that real progressiveness should benefit all people, (for the most part anyways, obviously progressiveness shouldn't benefit violent bigots) even those who may be seen as "the enemy of the movement", in this case, males. Now, while that was my view at the time, in my current state I can obviously see how shallow and limited my scope on all of this was. >Feminist ideas or even types of Feminists that interest you The short version of this is that I am for female empowerment, but when I say empowerment, I mean real empowerment, as in women doing what they want, including being a house wife baby-machine if they want. To me, real 'feminism', (though the term means so many things to so many different people now) is not about taking anything from anyone, it's only about giving women the ability to make their own choices. Much of modern feminism seems to focus on pushing women to be a certain version of empowered, one that moves away from traditional roles. Get a job, make some money, be the dominate personality in your relationship/bedroom, etc. and in fact the movement even seems to shame women who do not want to do these things. Don't go into STEM? You're not a feminist. Look: everyone, and I do mean everyone, deserves the same shot in life. It doesn't matter if you're gay, transgender, a certain skin color, you should be treated fairly. That's the way it should be, and that's what we should strive for. Everyone should get the same chance. The problem I have with the modern view of this is that people seem to be conflating equal opportunity with equal outcome. I said above that everyone deserves the same shot, and deserves to be treated fairly, and that's true, but what people don't deserve, what you are not born with a right to, is a fair share of something you didn't help with. Let me expand on that a bit, because it sounds like I'm alluding to something in particular, but I am not, rather, I'm trying to use a big picture idea here to make my point. It doesn't matter if it's labor you put in at work, effort you put in building something, or a much more complicated social kind of valuable, being treated equal means that you should get the same return for the same effort, but it doesn't mean that you should get a free return without putting in the effort. If 2 candidates for a position are exactly the same, equally skilled and suited for the job, and one is a male and the other female, a modern feminist might tell you that the woman should be given the job, because doing so would be helping to correct a great injustice that is plaguing our society. But to hire a woman simply because she was born a certain way, that's just another injustice. Doing something wrong is still doing something wrong, even if you are doing it for a good reason. In this hypothetical one of the two individuals who applied was denied because they were the wrong gender. How can anyone think that is progress? >What got me to stop thinking like that was reading more about different Feminist group's ideas and realizing that different people think different things. So, I want as many different ideas as possible in this thread. This is actually not a good thing, Political Fragmentation happens when a political belief system is composed of multiple highly-incompatible idea or beliefs. Feminism is a paradox in that one group calling themselves feminists completely disagree with another, also calling themselves feminists. If you want to really make the change you seek with what you call feminism, you need to drop the feminist title, it's been tainted by the uptight crazies, and no, it's not right that they co-opted it, no, it's not fair, but that's what a struggle is. If you really want to fight for your right to party, you need to understand that it doesn't matter the title, and clinging to the term feminist is only holding you back. Free yourself from the chains you have cast upon your own being. Just know that just because we may disagree on what it should be called, that I like you stand up for the rights of everyone. A human is a human and we are all trapped here together, no one asked to be born, no one wanted to be alive. But we are. and we must work together, as humans, or we will most certainly fuarrrking perish.

I used to believe in Feminism, but over five years I've realized it's not aligned with reality. Feminism is just a grab at control. It is just another human attempt at vying for power. It is not a release from oppression. It is an attempt at domination from a group that cannot dominate.

>>12118 what made you reach that conclusion?

I have a problem with its name really, it's very female-centric, doesn't sound like a great way to preach gender equality. All of my other problems with it is related to feminism being focused only on females and putting them always in the role of the victim. Which is imo detrimental to both sexes. I am someone from a "third world" country btw and I am telling you feminism is useless in any place. You don't need an ideology backed by a western agenda to achieve equal rights and fairness. The only "ideology" you need is found in basic human rights, what is needed is implementation and cutting support to assholes like wealthy businessmen and dictators. I have a feeling feminism was used as a tool to promote right wing ideologies again. Some people might benefit from that.

yeah im fine with it I actually think girls are superior which many feminists would disagree with. its not really a point of disagreement though its a fact that I think girls are superior. Id like to not but I exclusively make friends with girls because men irritate me and I find they dont understand things usually that girls do. Im sure other people find the opposute and I think I used to, im not sure what changed. I make sure all my professors are female too. I have attendance and attitude issues i noticed if I dont. not anything severe but enough to make them give me that C instead of a B when im on the cusp. I dont respect men even a little except on a few rare occasions. Yet I intantly have respect for most women, the times I dont or thats lost is when I notice them doting over or sacrificing themselves for men. One of the men I dont dislike for example is my friends boyfriend and its because he doesnt get in her way and does what she tells him to. I could explain in detail why I dont like men or the clearer reasons why I think women are superior but they would just make many angry and its best to leave it as I just do. I think it can be boiled down to that anyways. Maybe because I dont have a dad, or because my first sexual experience was with a pretty violent forceful girl, or because i had an overbearing mother. Maybe the reasoning came after these things! I think either could be true but believe what makes you less angry because its not good to get worked up about strangers opinions.

God I hate women

>>12137 Why?

The moment feminism became just another head in the global hydra of liberalism is the moment it became soykaf. The push for real equality between and for men and women got warped into some horrible, brain dead "brand" that does nothing but induce alienation and generate discord that distracts from the tyranny of the global elite. I like my feminism to be more like Lady Dierdre Skye and less Gloria Steinman.

>>12138 they won't sleep with me for some reason. They must be evil.

In my own opinion sad how this simple movement that was mainly political now pushes for everything they can latch on that is progressive.Transexuals? We are for them. Racial equality? sure. Veganism? Yea, sure why not? I mean, when does word "feminism" lose its meaning of the term they associated themselves with is when I know these feminists jumped the shark. Not only that, but to push for total equality of something that isn't remotely equal is just abstractly impossible. Oh come on, you want total equality of sexes in politics/economy/social status? That's like saying that pears and apples need to be equal because perceived social bias towards people eating more apples than pears. The fact of matter is that men and women aren't equal and can't ever be equal. The best we can do is achieve some sort of political equality of same laws being applied on both sexes. But even then women and men wont be perceived the same under the law because of innate differences. Everything else is just impossible because innate differences between sexes. I mean, thats just my 2 cents.

>>10882 Nah I think it was the whole Gamergate thing that happened few years ago. Basically some feminist fuarrrked a lot of game developers and game journalists to get further into the gaming community and for them to push her game. When people found out about it when one of the guys she was fuarrrking said everything in the blog she claimed "muh female oppression" and went on how men men in gaming community are toxic. Few days after the initial blog all gaming news sites made an article or two about how "gamers are dead" and "men are toxic in the gaming community". Soon afterwards Anita sarkeesian and few others came out. Thats how the whole thing started. Before that I don't think anyone was even talking about feminists or cared about them.

>>10890 >I'll give up and go to some other site to have a better discussion. Yea, thats where the "ideological bubble" comes out. People that don't want to feel the bad feeling of their ideas being tested usually just congregate with others that think the same way until some of them get more extreme to get some attention or positive reinforcement from others in the said group.

When you take a group or idea such as "feminism" its similar to religions. I see a lot of people saying "what even is feminism now" or are upset that its become associated with more than "feminism". I say its like religion because while there is texts, ultimately its the people that bring it to life. I think your free of course to say that you dont like x aspect of feminism but its wrong I believe to say that something isn't TRUE feminism and point to say first wave or second wave as the TRUE feminism. This implies that feminism exists independent of people and that there is some objective thing or test. Again its similar to when people say something isn't TRUE christianity. The dilemna is that well if it can be all of these things isn't it just nothing? It's a good and fair question, however if we think about these things as things lived through the people labelling themselves as such we can see its more of an organism if anything. It's a weird abstract thing where it isn't just ANYTHING but it very clearly takes on many forms and has many parts and subdivisions. You also have to take note that somehow regardless of whether you think it should have feminism did come to be associated with various other movements. Because it is lived through the people they are a part of feminism broadly even though they may not be a part of your feminism. A common misconception is that things like feminist theory are taught in colleges under a liberal agenda, and while this is partly true, it is because they are very complex topic. Even if college campuses were apolitical you would still see majors dedicated to it as with theology and what not. As time goes on it will be much more clear what exactly feminism is but its still never going to be a concrete thing and will morph with the times. When you say "feminism shouldn't be related to liberalism" there is also those saying "you cant be conserative and a feminist". Neither are wrong or right IF we look at feminism in a more objective way. Again its similar to how when studying a religion you study both scriptural fundamentalists and mystics and while these two sides claim the other is not a real christian, muslim, jew etc. we still study both of them as a part of that religion. Of course these disagreements often can result long term in the changing of the thing itself and are what make it alive and breathing so it isnt pointless to say something isny really feminism or whatever. Im just personally inclined not to when I keep these things in mind.

The only really worthwhile kind of feminism is Marxist feminism, but even most feminists who say they're Marxists are full of soykaf and are deliberately misinterpreting Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. Reading list: Origin of Family and State - Engels Clara Zetkin's interview with Lenin Lenin's wife https://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/krupskaya/ Sylvia Federichi (grain of salt) just fuarrrking read the "five heads" and apply their general analysis to the woman question wherever appropriate

I am a masculinist; I am not part of any kind of political movement, I believe in virility; not in the traditional or feminist sense but in my own. I see misogynist attitudes as sissy and have attitudes like >>12134 I have only female friends because men (I know) are unsupportable as social beings, they are childish, irresponsible, lazy and haughty. I use virility for getting things done as in 'I will give my best effort to be a worthy male', I think is kinda wrong but works as my deus exmachina. The present gender problem is a male issue caused by males having no possitive virility. Starting fights with every male being was fun for some period of my life. Nowadays I don't care about and just keep my rad toughts to myself. Stay away from males we are just boring and no attractive, women are insanely interesting and beautiful, is like they really have a world in their head. This by no means a political statement, is just subjectively based on my experience.

>>12162 You're using anime definitions and turning it into a life philosophy. What you're describing is exactly the Kanji from persona 4 stereotype. Which is entirely valid, but don't ever use these definitions outside of imageboards. People will never, ever get where you're coming from, and without contexts, it sounds like some stupid soykaf. Ironically, feminist theory covers this aspect of positive masculinity and has done so for decades.

>>12163 Underneath my weeb stupid soykaf, I am trying to talk about gender as a subjective matter as anyone should, also you don't have to care about me and try to scold me, if I was to use that language in real world I would immediately understand I would be out of context. >>12159 You will gain nothing from caricaturizing feminist waves. >And at the end of it all, I'm probably a feminist of some stripe myself but damned if I can hold with any established school of thought on the matter. What is pushing you to choose a school of thought may I ask?

>>12152 Second this. Liberal feminism is soykaf. Marxist feminism is the way to go.

>>12169 based on the feminists in this thread, they're hilariously off-base feminists. I think it's you who hasn't met many. Or maybe just confirmation bias.

>>12186 *hilariously off-base caricatures mb

Y'all know a movement isn't defined by personal encounters with individuals right? If this were a thread about the open source movement, would all you bitches be arguing over torvald's behavior and using it to strawmen the entire movement's accomplishments and shortcomings?

>>12189 who you talkin to?

>>12194 Imagine the subject of this thread is the open source movement, substitute feminist for open source, now read these replies: >>12186 >>12165 >>12162 >>12146 >>12137 >>12185 >>12118 People either admitting that they have no knowledge whatsoever of feminist theory and then giving their worthless uninformed 2 cents (not knowing something is not a problem, giving your full analysis of something you have never studied in your entire life is), people complaining about specific feminists within their social circles (of which nobody but they can comment on), people making conspiracy theories on the fly eminem style or people giving some random meninist bullsoykaf that, if discussed, should have it's own thread.

>>12195 >random meninist bullsoykaf I assumed most feminists care about mens issues? Isn't it feminist to care about mens issues?

>>12197 like, most of these "meninists" would be feminists if that was to be true, no?

Gotta agree with the other lainon about the mens right stuff being a separate thread. It's pointless to have a thread about a womens rights movements and have people come in saying "buh teh mens and muh feels and i dont like it". >>12197 Feminism is originally intended for womens issues only. There's some things that they advocate for that could help men, but it's original intentions are for womens liberation. Unless it's like, liberal fourth wave feminism where it's all feel goods including everyone and getting nothing done. Then I guess it's pretty libfem to care about men's issues.

>>12195 well, you can't paint a picture of whole movement on basis of few individuals, but to say that it doesn't reflect on feminism when the whole of internet says that these individuals you speak of are the whole of feminist movement. I mean, you can remove everyone from the feminist movement and all you have is just abstract idea that nobody follows because "individuals". The sentiment of the rest of internet is pretty concise. And the part of people admitting that they have no knowledge on the topic, so what? I mean they just gave their uninformed opinion, no need to get angry at that. That is like an average joe saying soykaf about physics to physics professor at MIT. The physics professor won't get angry at it because he knows that the average person knows jack soykaf about quantum world. So should you. You shouldn't get angry for people giving their opinion. You should feel thankful for getting idea of general consensus of the unwashed masses that KNOW JACK soykaf about such hardsoykaf as feminist theory m'lord. Ya know?

>>12197 If you want to argue towards men's issues in a feminist lens, sure, after all this is a thread about feminism, and feminist theory covers men's social and sexual issues as well. However, this is not a thread about meninists (which is the social issues equivalent of flat earth society). And if you have no research whatsoever, no real issue to discuss, nothing but some definitions you just invented to post in this thread because you were bored, then you're just making a tumblr post aren't you? Spewing personal life anecdotes that nobody can comment, so it's completely useless for this thread and subject.

>>12200 >well, you can't paint a picture of whole movement on basis of few individuals, but to say that it doesn't reflect on feminism when the whole of internet says that these individuals you speak of are the whole of feminist movement. Can't you see the difference between "this group of activists" versus "UHH THIS GIRL IN SCHOOL WAS MEAN TO ME SHE SAID I HAVE A TINY DICK"? What i mean by individuals is "people within your social circle that nobody on this planet can comment on, nor do they reflect any movement whatsoever". A lot of people in this thread are posting personal life soykaf, not discussing the subject. Going back to the open source metaphor, this thread is about the open source movement, a lot of you are trying to discuss your implementation of a 2d sidescroller. Create a fuarrrking 2d sidescroller thread god damn it. >The physics professor won't get angry at it because he knows that the average person knows jack soykaf about quantum world. So should you. Computer science, man. Always correlate to computer science, y'all seem blind when the discussion is social and not mathematical. Imagine this is /sec/. Should we be thankful that a mr.robot fan is commenting on sql injection and asking where the hacking GUI is or should we try to elevate the discussion to a point where *something useful* comes out of it? Because this thread has been a lot of "how do i hack" and very little op analysis. See the problem?

>>12201 >which is the social issues equivalent of flat earth society Isn't the circumcision kind of main thing they talk about? Like that is pretty fuarrrked up thing to do. Just the usual feminist argument for abortion is "my body my choice" and yet the body of young babies is dissected without any anesthetics or painkiller just because of mainstream culture? Not only that but also men are more likely to end up in jail or on the streets. That isn't really flat earth stuff, it's kind of bigger deal than the glass ceiling that feminists cry about I would seem to think.

>>12203 >Because this thread has been a lot of "how do i hack" and very little op analysis. See the problem? Whenever I see those threads I try to turn them around where the OP would learn something whilst going towards the goal they want to achieve. I don't outright help them with spoonfeeding but give them few pointers and try to help them. I don't get angry at them for not knowing like you did.

>>12205 You have a valid point and i wish a had the patience, however, as >>12204 fabulously exemplified, this soykaf is just too tiresome.

>>12206 >tiresome go out and sip some tea, read a book, remove yourself from the constant battle with the world I understand that you can't educate people 24/7, but just saying that others are idiots for not knowing as much as you and getting angry and tired at them isn't the way to change the world... if you want it changed that is...

>>12207 As i said before, not being educated isn't a problem. There is a huge gap between a lack of education and disinformation/misinformation. Once again, if this was a thread about open source, asking "what is open source?" is not a problem, someone answers and all other Lain can learn from that post. However, saying "i made an open source game at EA games, everyone who worked on the project can see the code and that makes it open source, none of you know what you're talking about" is a huge problem, it can take an entire thread just to get things back on track, you have to debug someone else's lack of knowledge and hope that they have the decency to admit and willingness to learn. There's a difference between someone uneducated and someone thinking that their passively absorbed caricatures of knowledge reflects reality. Trying to argue mathematics can only be constructive if nobody is trying to argue that 2+2=5, when that happens the entire original point is thrown out the window and the particular insanity of the individual becomes the subject of discussion.

one thing We have to clear out in this discussion is that sympathizers with the movement are'nt necessarily feminists. We cannot judge their actions and fundaments based on the "feminists" you know, most of them are misinformed too. Is like if you criticized a religion based on the actions of their followers.

Feminism is a movement that at this point has turned to utter trash. It's all over the establishment and the "fringe crazies" are, if not the majority, then the most important and influenctial participants in it. It's essentially build on a foundation of rubbish like the wage gap

>>12209 >Criticizing a religion based on the actions of their followers. Isn't that a legit thing to do?

>>10877 I curious about the idea of Feminism + Anarchy. From my understanding, feminism is deeply rooted on post-modern philosophical ideas like Marx works. I would guess that Anarchofeminism would be more related to left-wing anarchism where everyone is equal and nobody has private property, instead of right-wing anarchism where modernist ideas are more prevalent and people are not "equal", at least in post-modern terms.

Here's a loose starting point for this thread, since everyone is ignoring op's post: Feminism is, in essence, is the belief that men view women as subservient and weak, as people who deserve less agency unless dominated in a controlled environment. This belief that women are subservient to men can be seen in many aspects of our lives including post-divorce homicide rates, rape rates (compare male rape to female rape), the view that femininity is inherently weak or less serious than male-centric displays of culture and many, many, many other aspects of society. Not 20 years ago it was normal to expect your daughter to marry someone instead of building her own career. Raping a girl in college is *normal* and incentivized, not in the spooky rape sense of someone screaming against a big bad guy, but in the more subtle sense, forcing someone into a situation where violence is implied but mostly not enforced. Also, we're all imageboard users here, do i really have to point out how men view women as subservient fuarrrk holes who owe them companionship and love? This block that a lot of imageboard users feel towards women, this barrier against feminine characteristics, is basically the object of study in feminist theory. This is what makes a lot of men in imageboards feel as if women are out to get them (all women are sluts/exploitative/they just want your money), which ultimately leads to the most extreme displays of patriarchy (murder, kidnapping, violence, black mailing, etc..). Which is not to say that women are victims incapable of comitting violence. Feminist theory also talks about how women can sometimes put themselves in a subservient role; being born in this dynamic and embracing it. How women can often times be disappointed in men who do not display the characteristics of a classic strong man who is never vulnerable and always provides for his family. How women can be extremely manipulative and toxic. Hopefully this is enough to start a meaningful conversation on the subject.

>>12212 "right wing anarchism" is a topic in itself that probably deserves it's own thread, otherwise this one will be severely derailed. Also, feminism has nothing to do with post modernism and predates it.

>>12214 >Also, feminism has nothing to do with post modernism and predates it. How? First wave feminism was born in the beginning of the XX century, and post-modernism started a few years back at the end of the XIX century.

>>12215 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism#History

>>12212 Why are you capitalising anarchy and capitalism? Wouldn't anarchy + feminism not function properly at all? How can everyone be "equal"? What's stopping me from making a crew of 1,000 people who are fuarrrking jacked from enslaving females? Has the definition for anarchy changed in the last couple of years? I'm not trying to be toxic, and I'm sorry because I know I am coming off that way and I'm really not meaning to be, but this seems like you're just brewing soykaf.

>>12218 >has the definition for anarchy changed in the last couple of years? It didn't change, there's a difference between anarchism (pop culture) and anarchism (political, social and economic movement). What you're describing is mad max, for more information on political anarchism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism The methods by which you would be unable to recruit 1000 slavers is a discussion for another thread and i'd be happy to be a part of it, but this isn't the place, man.

>>12219 Of course, I'm sorry about getting off topic. I see what you mean by the difference. Thank you for the link, friend.

>>12213 It's really tiring to see every thread about feminism on almost every internet forum attracting the same old opinions like "equality is accomplished in the West, we should cancel feminism", "feminists want control over men", "sexual market value", "equality of opportunity", "feminists censor pro-male opinions", etc. The more pernicious consequence of this is that there is a chilling effect on genuine, constructive discussion of feminist theory. Because, if in every thread we must start by debunking the same old tired clichés, most people will be exhausted by the time we can have a productive discussion. One thing that is most infuriating to me is how anti-feminists lament that they can't speak their minds anymore, that everywhere pro-male thought is systematically censored, when in reality, almost every user-run internet space is filled with these "feminist is useless today"/"i prefer to call myself an egalitarist" types. I get where these arguments are coming from, but it frustrates me because these are opinions you hold when you only have a surface understanding of feminist thought. Feminism is an old and complex movement, and sometimes there are strands of feminism that contradict each other. It is simply because feminism is not a single, monolothic idea, but an amalgam of ideologies. Some feminists are pro-pornography, some are aganist it. Some think that sex work is empowering, some think that it is inhenrently repressive. It is similar to how different socialist ideologies can be almost contradictory at times, but still can themselves socialist. It is frustrating to see that most common criticism of feminism doesn't seem to grasp this basic nuance. As for the discussion itself, I am very interested in anarcha-feminism thought. What are some good books on this topic ? I have heard the theory that patriarchal gender roles, at least in the form that prevails today, has roots in the 1950's american conception of the "nuclear family", with a man being the breadwinner, and the wife taking care of the kids and of the household. The irony is that this idea of the "nuclear family" is a relatively new concept, some even say that it was pushed by capitalist interests in order to sell the white suburban lifestyle to the public psyche. Because, historically, most people in the West, that is, the poor and working class people, tended to live in inter-generational households, and most of these families could not afford to not have the women working. That isn't to say that discrimination and inequalities didn't exist, but to me, it seems that it was not enforced as violently as it is today. This post is kind of all over the place, but these are the ideas that I would like to discuss, and not the legitimacy of feminism as a concept.

>>12212 >feminism is deeply rooted on post-modern philosophical ideas like Marx works Postmodernism is the rejection of the idea that history has a single overarching narrative. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"? Textbook modernism.

>>10890 >How would we focus on the third world? leave our countries alone. whenever the west seeks adventure in rest of the world, things turn into soykaf far worse than before. women rights would have much more sympathy if the west wasnt run over by crazy radicals.

>>12241 >Feminism is an old and complex movement, and sometimes there are strands of feminism that contradict each other. It is simply because feminism is not a single, monolothic idea, but an amalgam of ideologies. literally like everything social sciences involved. it's not complex or anything too speacial as you are trying to brand it.

>>12388 That makes no sense. Human interactions are inherently complex due to the sheer amount of goals and interests in any community and the historical, contextual and biological motivations behind those interests. I have no clue what ever made you believe that social sciences are simple in any conceivable way.

>>12390 I'm talking about feminism not human behaviour in general.

>>12392 ...what do you think social sciences (and by consequence, feminism) are and what do they study?

>>12395 >what do they study? overall anything human behavior related things. and they are incompetent as all of them are pseudo science, they can't use falsification method, so there are academic speculations and expressions of certain people who are mainly in academy.

>>12396 >overall anything human behavior related things. Didn't you just agree that human behavior is complex since it requires understanding of multiple sources of motivations and interests, besides the contextual and biological information behind those interests? 5 minutes ago that happened. >and they are incompetent as all of them are pseudo science And what exactly makes you think that? If you just claim stuff there isn't a lot of room for conversation, now is there? I can't just enter a rust thread and say "C is better", that has no value.

>>12399 >Didn't you just agree that human behavior is complex yes I agreed that and no I never said or implied social sciences can handle it. >And what exactly makes you think that? If you just claim stuff there isn't a lot of room for conversation, now is there? do you know what scientific methods are?

>>12400 >yes I agreed that and no I never said or implied social sciences can handle it. Well, who can handle it? Who's doing it better and what are social sciences doing wrong that could be improved, and how could they be improved? >do you know what scientific methods are? Yes, do you? Unless you have an example of how social sciences are doing things wrong and how that can be improved, there's no room for discussion and you're just screaming in a vacuum.

>>12402 >Well, who can handle it? Imagine you live in AD 400. Who can handle it? Nobody. Will there be in future? Almost certainly. So we are not able to handle it doesnt mean we should fall into pseudo sciences. Again read what scientific methods are and you'll eventually understand none of social sciences use scientific methods. Social sciences had to develop their own >>>>scientific methods as they can't use scientific methods. >Yes doubt. if you are being honest, read it again.

>>12405 You're going in an infosec thread and claiming that "you're all dumb for using GUI when you could just use the terminal". I can't argue with you if you don't provide factual, realistic points based on actual research instead of the way you view social sciences work from the outside.

>>12402 Using self-reporting as data and often even limiting it to students should already discredit the dumpster fire that social sciences are. Reportedly 50% of their studies can't be reproduced. It's basically as good as tossing coins. They are snakeoil salesmen who managed to infiltrate academia to look credible selling bullsoykaf. The only real use they have is as a political tool backing whatever stance is desired by seemingly valid research.

>>12406 >"you're all dumb for using GUI when you could just use the terminal". that's a subjective expression. " Models, in both science and mathematics, need to be internally consistent and also ought to be falsifiable (capable of disproof" in science even the chances of mistakes are calculable and these are usually when you cant control the enviroment. social sciences by their methods can not prove that. they dont use falsification method, they use confirmation method which is literally statistics which is not a science, rather glorified generalizing.

>>12409 >can not prove that can not provide that*

>>12409 >that's a subjective expression. It exemplifies how an uninformed outsider might take their preconceived notions into an specialized environment, and criticize what they don't yet understand. >in science even the chances of mistakes are calculable and these are usually when you cant control the enviroment. First of all, scientific method is used whenever possible, but not all problems can be measured, nor do solutions come from measurement. You seem to be fetishizing an implementation of a solution while not understanding the problem, and thus, expecting people to apply that implementation where it doesn't work. Let's reduce this to an island, 10 people live on that island. 5 of those people hate the other 5. How do you use the scientific method to figure it out why? And how do you find the best solution using empirical knowledge? Is it better if they stop hating each other, or maybe they need an island of their own? Is this problem solvable, is intervention within those 5 individuals the correct path? Or would you rather just ask no questions? I'm really missing here what your point is, what you expect people to do.

>>12411 >Let's reduce this to an island, 10 people live on that island. 5 of those people hate the other 5. How do you use the scientific method to figure it out why? these people dont infiltrate academies and claim to be some kind of scientists. >It exemplifies how an uninformed outsider might take their preconceived notions into an specialized environment, and criticize what they don't yet understand. it's nice of you to know how exactly you behave > scientific method is used whenever possible not true. >You seem to be fetishizing an implementation that's your personal opinion which has no relevance in our arguments. >but not all problems can be measured science is not about problem solving. you can solve your health problems with placebo effect. It's very obvious you are completely misinformed what science is. earlier I suggested that, you should learn what scientific method is, I take it back, learn what science is.

>>12412 >science is not about problem solving since this is easily misinterpreted, I'm just saying it's one of it's functions but it's not core of science. sage for doubleposting.

>>12412 you're making flat statements detached from reality about an entire field of knowledge, which is the equivalent of screaming "i am right" indefinitely. Suit yourself bright boy.

>>12414 you're making it personal. science and scientific methods do not change person to person. you're making baseless claims and use analogies as arguments.

>>12415 Analogies are necessary to make sure you understand the basic premises of a discussion. If you're unwilling to prove that and are only capable of repeating yourself, the conversation loses value, am i wasting my time with a person who doesn't even understand the basic premise of what they're criticizing? How would i know? Well i know, let's reduce the problem via analogy, that way both parties can make sure they understand the issue and are on the same page, and then can raise the level of discussion from that. If you're unwilling to hear anything but "yeah i completely agree with you, sheldon", then this isn't much of a conversation, it's just an ego battle, and i have no intention of defending my anonymous ego.

>>12416 >Analogies are necessary to make sure you understand the basic premises of a discussion because? >. If you're unwilling to prove that I already did, you just wanted to refuse an objective truth. >If you're unwilling to hear anything but "yeah i completely agree with you, sheldon considering you're trying to misinterpret and objective well defined term I should be the one telling this to you. >ego battle read our arguments again and see who makes it personal. I know that I'm repeating myself as you can't bring something different to discussion, you said I know what scientific method is where you clearly didn't. You made analogies about science and problem solving and I said science is not entirely based about problem solving and there are completely pseudo scientific methods to solves problems whereas you didn't bring any kind of counterarguments. Since you have no arguments and whatsoever I wont be bothered to reply.

Feminism is anti-male activism.

>>12198 Well, no, because meninists care about men's issues *exclusively*. Feminists care about men's issues because they care about gender issues broadly, not just men's and not just women's issues.

>>12434 >IMAGINE thinking this in 2019

I would call myself a feminist(of the anarchist variety) but there is a very trendy and very loud segment of feminists that is extremely obnoxious, surrounds their empty arguments with academic jargon, and generally seem to not care about anything but ideological purity and their own power. They make a bigger deal out of language than actual violence(both physical and systemic) against women. Basically, bitches. Also fuarrrk TERFs.

>>12906 >Also fuarrrk TERFs Just say you hate females and female liberation lainon, it's ok

>>12906 >but there is a very trendy and very loud segment of feminists that is extremely... if you've done your anarchist reading you'd know that you can safely ignore those centrist pop feminists who just parrot social justice language they see much smarter people using without understanding what they're saying because either 1. they are just normal people stuck in pop media consumption who are probably just not up to date with current feminist thought and might just need some better guidance/culture to consume or 2. they are actually never going to be interested in actual womens liberation because of class interests they have which conflict with feminism >>12907 >Just say you hate females and female liberation lainon, it's ok terfs are conservative gender essentialists who stopped keeping up with their feminist reading when it started to turn inward and criticize centrist liberals for their complicity in maintaining the soykaf world women live in

>feminism >[fem-uh-niz-uh m] >noun >>>the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Things that are not equal shouldn't be treated equally. Man =/= woman, therefore rights are different and should be different.

>>12914 How so, and by what comparison? We can't know what the future or society holds, your looking back to say womens historical/instinctual/genetic background means different rights. Yet things are only where they are because people that say, wouldnt normally survive in the wild, were allowed to grow. Likewise why do the differences from a person to person of same sez not matter to rights, yet those across sexes warrant the entire sexes different rights. I can only think its because its easier to generalize those groups. And then what you say is true might be fine, but what differences do you have in mind? Most currently place women at a disadvantage, denying them access to certain things. If the women says "I want this", why does your observations of differences triumph that want? If you are not a women, why do you presume to know what is best for them against their own wishes? Are you higher or better, or of greater intellect? Whatever it may be that you have that they lack to give them insight into whats best, how do you know you that you only place it higher simply because you have it? Theres a lot of bias involved there. How can you know that women dont have something you lack, that you discourage with your idea of what should and shouldnt be allowed to them. I feel like that cant come from a place other then a massive overestimate of your own self, or a dehumanization/inferiority instilled on the other. Which is at its core exactly what feminism is fighting against. The attacks often labeled insane, cringe, etc. often work off the idea that the man is not as high as he says he is and attacking that ego (leading to the statement "if you want equality than why do you say x about men") and the other often considered more rational approach of "I am human" or "I can do what you do". I doubt any argument youd make couldnt be boiled down to a belief in your own superiority or anothers inferiority, as much as you might say "No I just think they should have different rights".

>>12915 >your looking back to say womens historical/instinctual/genetic background means different rights you're* putting words in my mouth >yet those across sexes warrant the entire sexes different rights Well I can ask feminists who shout "my body my choice" the same thing when we in USA have legalized forced circumcisions on male bodies See? Pee pee and chee chee DIFFERENTE!!! DIFFERENTE RULES FOR DIFFERENTE BODIES ooga booga Actually a whole new set of rules for different body. >Most currently place women at a disadvantage, denying them access to certain things Such as? Give me comparison to a man. >If the women says "I want this", why does your observations of differences triumph that want? Give literal example. >If you are not a women, why do you presume to know what is best for them against their own wishes? So I have to be a woman to presume to know what is best for a woman? I think you're the one being hostile and excluding people when in essence society is a collaborative project. Most women would have much harder lives if men didn't help them and vice versa. To suggest that a man can't know what is better for a woman, and to suggest it to help her/them is absurd. >Are you higher or better, or of greater intellect? I am a man hear me rawr. No, but seriously, you wrote 3 paragraphs on me saying that A isn't B and therefore rules and laws for A shouldn't be the same as for B. Simple deductive logic. I think you're the only one here who thinks I am better and of greater intellect. Thank you for that. >how do you know you that you only place it higher simply because you have it? That is why we have this discussion, from both sides. To get to the bottom of this debate and to know what is right and what is wrong. You and me might as well be the most uppity cunts on the planet that think they're the right ones, but if we don't test our ideas out in the open then it's all in our heads as you said. If I think I am intelligent, as you said I might think I am, or some other quality that might help women with their plights, shouldn't I state my ideas/share my plans and try to help them or I simply don't have any say because I was born with wrong sex? >Which is at its core exactly what feminism is fighting against I thought it was the destruction of unjust hierarchy put on by the racist sexist patriarchal regimes of the past. I mean egoism is at center of that, I agree with your premise, but you can't remove egoism from every brain on this planet or disable it from occurring organically (without this cultural influence that is). And even then, hierarchy will exist, just not the current one. >I doubt any argument youd make couldnt be boiled down to a belief in your own superiority or anothers inferiority, as much as you might say "No I just think they should have different rights". Now take a deep breather and see my patronizing reply just to make you riled up more. I was making a friking deductive reasoning argument that didn't dwell into intricate details of the matter. I could dwell into them if you want to (I see you're eager for a hefty debate) but on a surface level I think you agree with my argument and that is why you didn't address it directly, just kinda sidestepped my argument into well versed ad hominem about my own ego. I do have an ego, but it might not be as bloated as you might think, but to boil every argument down to ego or insults, and to see world in that light is really depressing outlook. I think people can come to a reasonable middle ground or at least in the lowest idea of compromise "understand each other" even if they didn't convert. I guess I am more on the "your thoughts control your actions" side of psychology that argue that if you have a negative outlook on others and life that it will become negative just because of your perception that controls emotions that control action....

>>12912 >if you've done your anarchist reading you'd know that you can safely ignore those centrist pop feminists who just parrot social justice language they see much smarter people using without understanding what they're saying oh I know, but they're obnoxious. And they do come in and co-opt legitimate activism. They are the embodiment of sectarianism and politics, which has plagued anarchists since day 1.

>>12914 non sequitur.

>>12914 "Free men are not Equal, and Equal men are not Free." t. Tom Anderson, 1962 Women were better off before even the First Wave of feminism. People say "Oh no! It's fourth wave!" "No, it was the Third-Wave with the ERA!" It was the first wave. Here's another quote for you to ponder on "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution" t. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1990) The woman is a frail being. The woman is overly emotional, and the only sex that can get hysterical. The term Hysterics actually comes from the Greek ὑστέρα meaning Uterus. It is the Uterus that causes Hysteria. Women deserve to be protected. This has been true throughout time. Modern idiots see things from as far ago as 1980 and are unable to comprehend truths held by these people. For example, recently a ring discovered dating back to Midevil France has gone viral because the enscription implies either a) the ring was meant for a man or b) the ring was inscribed by a man who did not speak french. The reaction on twitter was "Some people are just gay, lol". They can not understand the confusion by the archeologists, since homosexuality was not common-place in this era, and in-fact would be punishable by being hog-tied and thrown into a bog to die.

>>12922 How is it a non sequitor? Care to elaborate? Rights, in sense of the law don't know what dictionary means as "social equal rights", is a way how we (the legal system) treats people, no? >>12936 Cool it mr MGTOW Just debate the logic behind your points and you should be alright, kay?

>>12912 >terfs are conservative gender essentialists How can you be this perfectly wrong? Terfs' central belief is that gender is cultural and should be dismantled. Trans supporters are the ones who believe gender is innate.

>>12940 That's TRA logic for you. They'll project their own views onto those who disagree ("hurr durr terfs commit acts of violence" when most male identifying trans are the ones assaulting women) and act like they're 100% correct.

transgender exclusive feminists believe that a person's gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth, that it is immutable. even if you're genuinely mistaken about the terms and not just brewing soykaf it's an unstable argument.

>>12942 >transgender exclusive feminists believe that a person's gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth, that it is immutable. What. Lain, you have it backwards. Completely and utterly reversed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jeffreys#Views_on_transsexualism Transgender exclusive feminists oppose modern trans ideologies precisely because they require the belief that gender is an immutable psychological trait imparted at birth. They would prefer to classify gender entirely as a societal construct that ought to be tossed in the nearest trashcan. If you adopt such a view, there is no need for trans-identity at all, it is merely an artifact of patriarchal systems of sex/gender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond#Writings_on_transsexualism As an alternative, some trans-exclusionary feminists view true female identity as a product of lifelong oppression in the particular anti-woman flavor of our society. A trans-woman, they would argue, can never live those experiences or cut away their privileged past. As such, trans-woman are at best women in part, and at worst a novel intrusion of domineering male influence into the very flesh of womanhood. Not saying I agree with any/all of this, but at least know what the hell someone thinks before you try and tear it down.

>>12944 It is actually either view. Exclusionary feminism means exclusionary feminism. Not all feminism believes gender is a social construct.

>>12944 >>12945 Fair point. As an aside, do any lains know how/if any trans-positive ideologies attempt to resolve the issue of gender as construct vs gender as immutable internal identity? It seems hard to me to reconcile the two, especially since the second seems to be the foundation of most modern trans-positive dialogue ala "was always a (wo)man inside".

>>12944 Theres’s a reason people reduce terf to gender essentialism. Terf arrives at socially constructed gender only by selectively applying identity to those with female-at-birth bodies. Disabusing gender is only useful to it where it ties off the loose end of their bigotry.

>>12946 Gender Accelerationism.

>>12937 I am not a part of the MGTOW movement, I am only stating my opinion. >Just debate the logic behind your points and you should be alright, kay? What the fuarrrk is this supposed to mean

>>12950 Please get back on topic, for those stating their opinion, you may want to say this is my opinion of <particular> aspect of feminism and I think that because <reasons> . For those bickering and squabbling instead of discussing and debating, please switch to discussing and debating. A reminder of the Rules. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. Don't respond with aggression to perceived flames or trolls (or at all.) And of the following from /hum/ sticky Criticism is fine and welcomed, but elaborate on the reasoning behind the criticism and make suggestions for improvement.

>>12948 Would you mind explaining this in lowbrow-friendly language or sharing a nice source material? I skimmed this (https://vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/) but found it difficult to parse.

>>12947 >Theres’s a reason people reduce terf to gender essentialism. Terf arrives at socially constructed gender only by selectively applying identity to those with female-at-birth bodies Wrong. I'll try to explain the terf worldview as accurately as I can: >humans are male or female >males have a Y chromosome, a penis, and above average height and muscle >females have two X chromosomes, a uterus, and below average height/muscle >due to these biological asymmetries, society evolved such that men ended up in positions of power >the roles given to people based on their sex, aka "gender", are the socially constructed roles that cause women to be oppressed >oppression is morally wrong and these social roles should therefore be dismantled Their whole schtick is that gender is NOT innate, it's a harmful social construct. It's not something you're born with, it's not something you or anyone else gets to consciously choose, it's the way your personality and life is moulded by society's collective biases.

>>12956 there are many academic rationalizations to almost all kinds of bigotry. this is another one of them.

>>12947 rephrase please. slightly unsure

>>12958 sorry, that really was an obfuscated way to phrase it. rephrasing that: terf having a first principle of binary gender mapping to sex, chromosomes, and other biological characteristics rationalizes gender essentialism, a concept which is starting to be discredited with due rigor in more recent feminist writing (see kaylee jakubowski for an accessible example). people won't debate first principles, so arriving at a theory of socially constructed gender from a binary point of view is shaky to those who are trying to discredit gender essentialism.

>>12111 im glad not everybody is retarded

>>12916 I won't give you any examples just because im sure you have read them and disagree with them, and I doubt any argument from me could convince otherwise. Ive never seen someone present a statistic without someone else just presenting a different statistic or drawing a different conclusion from it. I will say no feminist I know supports forced circumsision. I disagree that a hierarchy will always exist as there is many things people have said will always exist that we move away from. Same with the idea that egoism will always be central. Your right about feminism being what you said, but I assumed you were coming from a place of feminism being about "equality between genders" which is something I think many feminists would agree upon but isnt inherent to feminism. No I dont think you can presume to know whats best above someones own interests, society is a collaborative project but that doesnt imply stepping over someones interests against their will. Rather an interaction and finding common ground among the interests. Your saying im putting words in your mouth but im pretty sure I said "if" every time, but your pretty factually stating im saying people shouldnt help people. Rather im saying often times under the premise of helping, someone isn't, especially when they aren't on the same page. I dont think this is a new concept, and in addition its often used to justify a lack of intellect/capability on the others part. "I helped you and your still failing, clearly you cant even help yourself". When the help itself came from a place that lacked an understanding of the persons situation, or was a situation where the help created reliance on the helper but gave the person no tools of their own. Your probably going to ask for examples of this and that but I just dont want to provide them. If you want to think im making them up thats fine, but my experience is that if the person wants to know the other persons side especially because of the internet you already know which things im referring to. If you dont agree with the things im referring to or see them as a problem, or alternatively are not willing to think about how they might be a problem, we probably wont agree no matter what. Personally id feel patronized if you gave me some of the popular statistics about how the wage gap doesnt exist or whatever because ive already seen them, and im pretty sure so have you of any statistics I would present. And I really dont like arguments that turn into a mess of links with one person feeling like theyve "won" because they maintained their interpretation of statistics (which they often confuse with the statistic itself) the longest. So im just presenting viewpoints you can think about and may have already thought about as you demonstrated and find support for (which would demonstrate a willingness to objectively consider the other side, and I think thats the only possible way to convince someone). maybe this sounds condescending, but its not like I always was a "feminist". so you can imagine how tired id get of seeing stuff ive already seen and presenting stuff for the 20th time I know wont convince. im also projecting and not trying to patronize you in the same way by giving you information you've already seen. Theres tons of information online and not information you dont know where to find. Im sure if you thought you might be wrong you already would have looked at it there, not asked it to be repeated on a chan.

>>12964 another funny thing is that instead if you want evidence I could provide numerous anecdotes. Yet that isnt acceptable on a chan, when for me its the only reason id visit a fairly casual imageboard full of people. As I was saying if you want "hard facts" you know where you can get them, it only makes sense (to me) to get peoples experiences from a chan. If we just discussed our personal experiences, yours included, I think wed have a much more productive and unique argument.

>>12937 it does not follow that differences between people mean they deserve different rights. Saying it doesn't make it true, it's not an argument.

>>12964 >and I doubt any argument from me could convince otherwise you could try me >without someone else just presenting a different statistic or drawing a different conclusion from it yea, that's a rampant thing mostly because social sciences have really bad reproducibility stats in their studies amplified by their bias, whether left or right, which in turn amplifies the debate bias >I will say no feminist I know supports forced circumsision I could also say that I heard no feminist support for making it illegal in western society against male babies, but again, my personal life against yours. >I disagree that a hierarchy will always exist as there is many things people have said will always exist that we move away from maybe in a distant DISTANT futuristic star trek society? yea, you're right. Tommorow or in near future? Nah >Same with the idea that egoism will always be central In Postmodernistic goal-less world a lot of people gravitate towards egocentrism, which is pretty evident in mainstream pop culture songs and art. All people just kinda think like that today, which tells you what the mainstream mentality is, why is it being shaped in context of capitalistic structure and why it will continue on that way. It is a filler for God I would say. >society is a collaborative project but that doesnt imply stepping over someones interests against their will And yet people are willing to step over someones elses neck to get where they want to be. Weird how that "collaborative" project has a lot of infighting. And on top of all that fuarrrkfest we, as a society, GRATIFY that kind of mentality with money. >When the help itself came from a place that lacked an understanding of the persons situation, or was a situation where the help created reliance on the helper but gave the person no tools of their own. I agree from some angle. I am a helpful person, lend a lot of money to people I know that wont have any to give it back and neither do I expect them to. This isn't to brag, we're all pseudo anonymous here so I don't have any kind of identity to uphold and boost, but to make a clear point. I never help someone who isn't ready to help themselves. It just makes everything a more exponentially spreading effect in that way. Less parasites and less empty failures. These kinds of people that help themselves will in turn, with your help, in future help others. >but I just dont want to provide them Look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you assumed that and why you are "so tired" of not wanting to change my mind. Be honest. >how the wage gap doesnt exist I would say it does exist, but not to a clear high gap of 30%. That is just single variable analysis of paychecks of all men in workforce compared to all women, not accounting overtime, skillset, different occupations, worktime or type of work (partime or full). In fact, when all those things accounted and we look at two same employees with everything the same except the gender THERE IS STILL A WAGE GAP but that is due to mentality of men and women in workforce which I am against. That is purely garbage and I don't condone that. I think paycheck should be based purely on merit and not how pushy you're for that raise. >because they maintained their interpretation of statistics Well there are a bunch of ways to interpret a statistic, that's why I think social sciences shouldn't just soykaf out raw numbers in the wild without substantiating them with hard proof of causes and effects that created those numbers. Same soykaf with what I told you about wage gap. Do I know that wage gap of 9% (after accounting for all variables) is due to "assertivness" on a job? NO, that is a good hypothesis, but not that great. I could have easily said that there's a bias against females and for men, which in turn I think there's a part reason for that gap I don't doubt that. Men and women are stereotypically pushed into categories and that is purely due to our simplistic way of thinking that makes it easier to think in these sweeping generalizations than a case on case basis. >so you can imagine how tired id get of seeing stuff ive already seen and presenting stuff for the 20th time I know wont convince. im also projecting and not trying to patronize you in the same way by giving you information you've already seen In past, not so long ago I was on rather hard right position on a lot of things. I would cite things and studies and whatnot and people regardless didn't listen to me. So from that position I can easily understand you, it can be maddening. At one point I started just rambling about racist stuff without caring about what would people around me think. Horrible thing but eh, I thought I was right and whoever I was talking to would dismiss me as a 2d caricature of what they seen before on TV or internet so I in turn became that caricature out of spite. >Im sure if you thought you might be wrong you already would have looked at it there I am just like you, tired and bored. >>12965 >I could provide numerous anecdotes And I bet you that your anecdotes would support your worldview because your slanted perception of your past supports your current worldview. Just like everyone. That's why people in general don't like anecdotes, not only because that but also because there are millions of different walks of life and every of those have different anecdotes that speak a different story. And every single story could be used for different idea pushing. I did that, everyone does that. It is worthless emotional insider trade, connected to that egoism I talked about before, it doesn't matter. Your life experiences, and mine, don't matter. >If we just discussed our personal experiences, yours included, I think wed have a much more productive and unique argument. I could say to you how I was sexually assaulted multiple times by men and women. I could say to you how multiple people emotionally and physically hurt me to the point I kept everyone at arms length. And even though they praise me I can feel their cold smiles. See? Emotional drivel that doesn't get me anywhere and neither solves my problems. I am ranting to an anonymous person half way to Siberia about my emotions that they don't care about. I CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. That's the only thing I care about. I want to know the truth. There is only 1 truth in this universe and everything else is lies.

>>12970 Not deserve. DEMAND. As I mentioned before, simple biological differences in reproduction demand for different laws. You wouldn't treat an avocado tree the same as you would cabbage, right? Also, on the point of "deserving". Nobody DESERVES anything.

>>12972 >As I mentioned before, simple biological differences in reproduction demand for different laws. but you have not actually explained why this is the case. You have simply asserted it. >Nobody DESERVES anything. fuarrrk that

>Ideas/misconceptions you had of Feminism in the past I used to think that feminism was basically a positive movement that created mostly positive results when it was first applied in the west. Of course even then I deplored "excesses" of feminism but I figured that was mostly an aberration not the norm. Feminism is not about equality, feminism is a political movement and it's ends are political - mainly the elevation of ugly women (think Andrea Dworkin) and other undesirables, and eventually the triumph of the joos. Feminism is a hideous game of soft power. Speaking to the men and "women" of lainchan, ask yourself if you're being manipulated? Why does equality between the sexes matter? Why are these ends fundamentally good? Why do these ends always lead to your diminishment? Ask yourself what kind of world do modern feminists want to create? Do you want to live there? Feminism is ghey and ultimately I think it's led to that inescapable feeling of malaise that seems to pervade the modern west. Trumps presidency more or less set me straight, I remember that when I was a 'feminist man' dating a feminist she confessed to me that she had had a sex dream about Trump. It struck me then that women don't want equality, they want Donald Trump. >Feminist ideas or even types of Feminists that interest you I think some of those TERF's are pretty radical. I appreciate their extremism and willingness to buck a damaging cultural trend more than I appreciate any of their actual beliefs. Still I wouldn't mind getting drunk with some of them. >What is anti-Feminism or even anti-women I think more or less everyone is a feminist presenting anti-feminist unless you've almost completely burned away your will. That kind of jostling for power, language policing and stern attitude you see in HR ladies, the smug elitism and consumerism of half-men, that's sorta the feminist in everyone. The repression your biology, the dimming of your will to power, hatred of youth, strength, beauty, intelligence, and vitality. It's being told that you should want to have sex with Lena Dunham or some other ham. Alternatively anti-feminism manifests to me when I'm out dancing, or when I catch a womans eye on the bus and realize that she wants me to take her home so she can produce my offspring, or after a few drinks with a female coworker when we start talking about how good we had it before agriculture, when someone admits that they aren't a huge fan of democracy. When I notice a woman mirin', when I'm with my mannerbund cavorting through the streets of my very very liberal city. When I follow that pulse in my brainstem. When you put your hand on the small of a womans back and pull her in for that first kiss. When you see red before a fight, You can see it all throughout society unless you're dealing with a member or friend of the "merchant diaspora" (the zionists are self serving but based). Mostly 'anti-feminism' is about realizing how debased, stupid, and soft our contemporary society has become.

>>12971 You seem like a pretty sensible person. Im a bit drunk right now and not in a position to argue but I was also raped by a women, no men yet but I could see it happening. I will say my main actual focus has to do with race, my feminism is sort of a consequence as many of the underlying principles against feminism (which you dont seem to have) have racial implications. In fact I think any feminist "evidence" I could provide would be from black women who are also arguing from a race standpoint. This is all I have to say for now I might revist your post as weekend is approaching and I have a lot of free time.

>>12977 *sexually abused I actually wouldnt necessarily call it rape but I know for some one implies the other.

>>12241 I understand feminist thought, I went to a very prestigious east coast liberal arts college, I've read feminist books. Feminism is gay, and anti-nature. The alleged central tenant of feminist thought - that men and women are equal and should be treated equally is dumb. Equality isn't real and if it were real it is not a desirable outcome. >This block that a lot of imageboard users feel towards women, this barrier against feminine characteristics, is basically the object of study in feminist theory. The idea of 'toxic masculinity' is silly to most men because they were socialized primarily by women. More fathers work, or are absent throughout most mens early lives, most school teachers and early authority figures are female, if toxic masculinity exists it's because a generation of toxic, neurotic f*males made it so.

>>12974 >why this is the case. You have simply asserted it Why? Why do the A and B require different laws for each other? We could go into details of particulars ALL YOU WANT, but as long as you don't acknowledge that A =/= B and therefore A and B need different treatment we could talk about particulars all we want. That is why I mentioned cabbage and avocados. fuarrrk man, not only that but you can ask "why?" until the end of times and not get to any sensible understanding of the world. >fuarrrk that Yea, nice 15 year old rebel words that in of themselves are empty. You just exemplified your entitlement with those to be honest. Let me help you make the transition by saying this to you. YOU DO NOT DESERVE ANYTHING. Not bad, not good. "Deserve" implies some kind of debt. You came into this planet without any debts and you will get off it without them. Be THANKFUL, not prissy.

>>12981 >We could go into details of particulars ALL YOU WANT, but as long as you don't acknowledge that A =/= B and therefore A and B need different treatment we could talk about particulars all we want. Sure, but what in particular about reproductive differences necessitate that difference? Why not treat everybody differently under the law, because we're all different people? Why essentialize reproductive differences? The burden of proof is all on you. If you provide no evidence or argument, I reserve the right to disbelieve you. >fuarrrk man, not only that but you can ask "why?" until the end of times and not get to any sensible understanding of the world. Of course, but I'm merely asking for the answer to this one, simple question, the answer to which would form the underpinnings of your entire stance on this subject. If you don't want to actually make any strong foundations, that's fine by me, but I'm just asking for clarification that you are in fact just *asserting* something and not backing it up, which means I can assert something else with equal validity. >YOU DO NOT DESERVE ANYTHING. again, asserting it doesn't make it true. I assert the opposite. EVERYONE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOOD LIFE. Look how easy it is!

>>12989 >Why not treat everybody differently under the law, because we're all different people? They are, to a point. Not everyone gets the same time in prison for same criminal act. I mean, the judges get a time frame or minimum sentence and fine and then they think to themselves if this situation necessitates harsher sentence.... AND GUESS WHAT? WOMEN GET LIGHTER SENTENCES FOR SAME CRIMES. >Why essentialize reproductive differences? That is the most concrete biological difference that we can talk about in sense of law. Do you want to talk about how women have lower angle of knee flexion which makes them more susceptible to broken knee in basketball? Differences exist, THESE DIFFERENCES mean that we have to treat sexes differently? Should women rapidly change their directions in basketball? Yea, if they want to. Should they all know of this sex difference to help them make this decision? OF COURSE. >The burden of proof is all on you ooga booga let me repeat a couple of sentences I learned in my highschool debate team, what proof? wtf you talking about? >I reserve the right to disbelieve you k >the answer to which would form the underpinnings of your entire stance on this subject I already answered all the questions you asked. The only question I HAVE YOU TO ANSWER is will anything change your mind. >just *asserting* something and not backing it up What statistics will show you simple deductive logic of A=/=B? What laws of whatever countries you live in do I need to google to show you how women and men have different treatments in judicial system? What agricultural proof do I need to present to teach you difference between cultivating cabbage and avocado? This is simple logic, and everything I asserted can be googled, AND IF YOU TRULY WANTED TO PROVE ME WRONG, you would do it. The reason you are not googling "differences in angle of flexion of knees in sex" or "differences in sentencing in sex" or "how to cultivate avocado/cabbage" is because YOU ARE SCARED. >which means I can assert something else with equal validity. Do it then. Do it. I dare you. I double dare you motherfucker. >I assert the opposite >>"EVERYONE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOOD LIFE" Are you braindead? Do you have problem with reading? Wtf you talking about? That isn't opposite of what I am saying. Go re-read what I said you bozo and come back.

>>12990 >>12989 JUST, highlight what I said, right click and click on "google"

>>12990 >Not everyone gets the same time in prison for same criminal act. but should they? That's what we're talking about after all. Should the laws be different for me and you? Should my rights and priveleges *necessarily* be different from yours? >That is the most concrete biological difference that we can talk about in sense of law. it's not though. There are people alive with pretty wild bodily mutations. Having slightly weaker knees is nothing, especially when you start to consider how those differences actually have an impact on rights and priveleges. What about the body of a woman, as compared to a man, necessitates different rights and priveleges? >what proof? wtf you talking about? exactly, what proof? >What statistics will show you simple deductive logic of A=/=B? That is not what I'm disagreeing about and you know that, unless your skull is thick. >What laws of whatever countries you live in do I need to google to show you how women and men have different treatments in judicial system? I know that, my question is why SHOULD they have different treatment? What about biological differences between sexes means that they should be treated differently? >The reason you are not googling "differences in angle of flexion of knees in sex" or "differences in sentencing in sex" or "how to cultivate avocado/cabbage" is because YOU ARE SCARED. it's because I already know those differences. I'm taking them for granted. You're just deflecting conversation towards that, for no reason I can fathom... unless you don't actually have an answer? No, it couldn't be that.

>>12992 >but should they? Since you don't follow simple deductive logic of A=/=B that gives a reason to different treatment of people, then I can't logically show you what should happen. >rights and priveleges Maybe you should stop using talking points you overheard going by social studies classes and learn how to spell. >There are people alive with pretty wild bodily mutations And there are laws to accommodate them especially disabled people which you can see by seeing ramps all around the public buildings, yet we are talking about feminism here (look up OP to see what thread is about) so in sense of sex differences, yes. Reproductive differences are the best example of law treating sexes differently and how it should be. >Having slightly weaker knees is nothing WOAH BUDDY, there are some clear differences in sex that DEMAND different treatment towards different sexes. This isn't "nothing", a lot of people are affected just because man thinks he can do the same as a woman or vice versa. Think of that poor basketball woman that broke her KNEE, a broken knee is a large thing, that only if she knew about this sex difference she would probably take care of herself. >necessitates different rights and priveleges? Again, learn how to spell before you try to push some kind of ideas. Simplest example is reproductive rights and who has the right to say "no I don't want this baby" and actually their voice to matter in the decision. A man can say "I don't want this baby" but can't make the woman take the abortion if she doesn't want to. If a woman wants to take the abortion a man doesn't have any "rights and priveleges" to take that away from her. >exactly, what proof? again, you're acting really braindead >That is not what I'm disagreeing about and you know that few lines before you said >but should they? That's what we're talking about after all If you agree that man is not the same as a woman then you agree that these two things shouldn't be treated the same way. Cabbage plant and avocado plant, common man. Simple deduction, A=/=B therefore they should be treated differently. >>your skull is thick It isn't me talking about "proof of burden" when I am talking about simple deductive logic HERE. It isn't me who is spelling privilege wrong. It isn't me who is trying to frame me as opposed to "EVERYONE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOOD LIFE". It isn't me that ignores these sex based differences and implies they are meaningless or ignore their severity when they have impact on the world if not treated according to them. DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE WARNED OF THEIR KNEES IN BASKETBALL? >for no reason I can fathom You said I give you no proof, I said you can google it easily for everything I am saying. The fuarrrk man. >unless you don't actually have an answer? AN ANSWER TO WHAT YOU BRAINDEAD MONKEY? I ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ALREADY

>>12994 >there are some clear differences in sex that DEMAND different treatment towards different sexes. such as? So a woman could break her knee a little easier than a man, what does that have do to with law? >Simplest example is reproductive rights and who has the right to say "no I don't want this baby" and actually their voice to matter in the decision. A man can say "I don't want this baby" but can't make the woman take the abortion if she doesn't want to. If a woman wants to take the abortion a man doesn't have any "rights and priveleges" to take that away from her. but that is basic bodily autonomy. The argument there does not stem from the difference between sexes, it stems from a general ethical principle that would apply without sex differentiation. >If you agree that man is not the same as a woman then you agree that these two things shouldn't be treated the same way. this is exactly what I do not agree with immediately, and why I said your argument does not follow. It is not an immediate conclusion, it has to be backed up with something. >DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE WARNED OF THEIR KNEES IN BASKETBALL? of course I do? I fail to see any relevance though. >You said I give you no proof, I said you can google it easily for everything I am saying. The fuarrrk man. I don't need to google it because I am already aware of all the *factual* evidence you have brought to the table. I don't know your reasoning though, and a google search won't tell me what you're thinking. >fuh fuh fuh your spelling is wrong idgaf

>>12995 >such as? Muscle mass and with it the requirements for army, firefighters and police, reproductive rights as mentioned before, I would even say mentality to a point but I think that is the hardest point that might rile you up so let's focus on those two before. >So a woman could break her knee a little easier than a man, what does that have do to with law? We are talking about laws as generally the best representation a society treats different people differently, you remember that, right? The A=/=B thing I keep repeating. Now, if you want EVERYONE to excel and to take their best potential, whatever that means, then you will need to cater to their flaws and push them on their virtues to make them better. WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICALLY MORE PRONE TO BROKEN KNEES. You agree with that point, but do you think women should excel at basketball if they want to play it? Do you think they should be informed about this basic biological fact beforehand? Do you think that we should treat them different because of this simple biological fact? My answer is YES. You say "meh, doesn't matter" which only means that you hate women. >but that is basic bodily autonomy Bodily autonomy that is predicated on differences in bodies. If we were star trek society that produces babies in some scifi aquarium then both parents would have to have a say because "it takes 2 to tango", right? Body differences in sex have exemplified this different treatment. You say "simple body autonomy" but I say that this "body autonomy" is predicated on women having different bodies than men. THERE IS THE DIFFERENT TREATMENT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Do you get it? >it has to be backed up with something By simple logic. Different things require different treatment, same things require same treatment. >I fail to see any relevance though. Differences in treatment of people. Men don't need it. This simple biological difference demands women and men to be treated differently. >idgaf You obviously don't care if you don't understand simple deductive logic and ask me for proof of my assertion that A=/=B. What I am flabbergasted is that you and I keep saying the same things in different fashion and you still don't see how women are treated differently by society AND THAT THEY NEED TO TO ACTUALLY BE THE BEST THEY CAN BE.

>>12996 finally, you start making points! >muscle mass interesting point to bring up! Probably the biggest measurable difference between human sexes. But, I don't think that difference is big enough to see the vast sex disparities we see in physical roles. A study I read claimed that women were approximately 55% as strong as men on average; thus if we were distributing roles according to actual physical characteristics we'd expect to see approximately 27.5% of roles requiring intense physical exertion such as firefighting or construction to be filled by women. This is not so, thus there must be some other reason -- such as a society which evaluates people by gender, rather than by actual physical characteristics -- why there is this disparity. >Bodily autonomy that is predicated on differences in bodies. I don't think it is much, it is just a recognition of the facts of the world as they relate to our moral framework. You would come to the same conclusion without this "A =/= B THEREFORE A AND B GET DIFFERENT TREATMENT" thing. >Now, if you want EVERYONE to excel and to take their best potential, whatever that means, then you will need to cater to their flaws and push them on their virtues to make them better. But what are the practical applications of this? You have pointed out some differentiation, but as we can see, most societies treat genders very differently in ways and degrees that don't match up to the actual differences. For instance women tend to be pushed away from leadership and scientific roles, for no biological reason. They're also pushed from physical roles disproportionately to the actual difference in e.g. muscle mass and bone density. And also women tend to get shorter prison sentences for the same crimes, for no particular reason that can be explained by sexual dimorphism. What you seem to be arguing for is that these differences in treatment are justified and necessitated by observable biological differences, but I think that they are largely unrelated to the actual differences, and that given a society which does not enforce these gender roles you would probably see a more even spread which corresponds better to the (very minor) biological differences.

>>12999 >why there is this disparity Well for looking at disparities we only need to look at most feminist country on the world. Sweden. Do you think Sweden has their nurses 50/50? Are engineers in Sweden 50/50? Nah, women and men have different desires in job market. Muscle mass is one of those components, but there is also "mentality" thing I mentioned. If it was purely cultural don't you think Sweden would have better numbers in nursing and engineering? Of course they would. >You would come to the same conclusion without this What I am doing is boiling it down to simple logical facts that don't require our morality but simple logical truths that are self evident in the world. You might argue that if male was able to give birth that he would have the same rights as a woman has today in regards of bodily autonomy, and I don't doubt that, what I am saying is that this imbalance of rights is DUE to differences in bodies. It came to a being because of a DEMAND that was predicated on differences of bodies. >what are the practical applications of this? To treat people on a case by case basis. Take into account their virtues and flaws, AND THEIR SEX, to make them aware of their situation and what your position is to help them. >most societies treat genders very differently in ways and degrees that don't match up to the actual differences I see it as a work in progress. >For instance women tend to be pushed away from leadership and scientific roles, for no biological reason Who is pushing them away from it? >They're also pushed from physical roles disproportionately to the actual difference in e.g. muscle mass and bone density Who is pushing them away? I want real names. >And also women tend to get shorter prison sentences for the same crimes, for no particular reason that can be explained by sexual dimorphism. I would blame gynocentric culture we live in for that one. But I guess that seeing women as weaker and therefore in need of help is not helpful, even to women or society that tries to punish those women with jail time. I mean, ask any man and he would say that he would easily bitch slap another man that he knows but won't do that to a woman for acting like they act. I don't condone violence, but you understand my point. >What you seem to be arguing for is that these differences in treatment are justified and necessitated by observable biological differences Yes, we might not agree to which point those differences should exist, but I believe they should exist. >and that given a society which does not enforce these gender roles you would probably see a more even spread like Sweden? snickers profusely >(very minor) biological differences Whether you perceive them as minor or not you need to acknowledge their existence, and with that you need to acknowledge that there are differences. Now, however you think they are small and however I think they are large we need to agree that differences exist and that we need to cater to these differences, as a society. Whether that be helping their flaws or exemplifying their virtues and making them better, IN BOTH SEXES. What I am willing to agree with you, however is the point that we have been running with top heavy weight on our back, running from all sort of problems that aren't manmade for most of our history. Today we need women to get more in limelight due to this reason because they are more empathetic and social, which would help us tremendously.

>>13000 >Well for looking at disparities we only need to look at most feminist country on the world. Sweden. not a very rigorous way to study this. >What I am doing is boiling it down to simple logical facts that don't require our morality but simple logical truths that are self evident in the world. you're making an ethical leap from is to ought. That can't be purely logical by nature, there has to be some component where you make an ethical assertion. Please don't delude yourself into thinking you're immune to feelings, you're just dressing them up in logic. >You might argue that if male was able to give birth that he would have the same rights as a woman has today in regards of bodily autonomy, and I don't doubt that, what I am saying is that this imbalance of rights is DUE to differences in bodies. I don't think it's an imbalance of rights. >To treat people on a case by case basis. Take into account their virtues and flaws, AND THEIR SEX, to make them aware of their situation and what your position is to help them. this is good, but at odds with your belief that men and women should be treated differently a priori under the law and by culture. >Who is pushing them away from it? their parents, friends, and men. >I would blame gynocentric culture we live in for that one. hahaha, gynocentric! More like toxic masculinity.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You are breaking Rule 3 and Rule 4. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. If you two continue bickering as opposed to discussing, then this thread will be locked and deleted or if possible your reply chain will be deleted.)

>>13002 >not a very rigorous way to study this. There are studies already. Just how many male/female nurses there are in Sweden and how many engies. "Rigorous"? You are trying to argue that we can't count people or that Sweden isn't the most feminist country in the world? I don't get it. Are you trying to muddy the waters here? What? >That can't be purely logical by nature, there has to be some component where you make an ethical assertion I believe that logic will get us to truth and that there is truth in this universe. Those are only assertions I like to have no clear thing behind them. Essentially makes me live my life a bit easier if I think this way. Everything else I like to derive out of logic. >Please don't delude yourself into thinking you're immune to feelings, you're just dressing them up in logic. NO NO NO, you don't get my point. I would like to think that even emotions are logical in a sense. You know, evolutionary psychology and all that jazz. So, in a sense, if I feel an emotion or bias then I kinda know why I am thinking that way in first place. And I won't lie to you, there is clear genetic component to my line of thinking. From stories of my grandpa and father and my mothers side, I see why I would think in a certain way and I don't take that lightly. But to make an implication that I am being emotional here, just out of pure ad hominem ruse or whatever, when you didn't even make an attempt to, DURING THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, argue against what I said. This whole fuarrrking conversation we are having, you keep drilling me like I am a hole in the fuarrrking wall and you want to put on a picture to it. Listen sunny boy, I assume you're a girl, but this sounds cooler MAKE ONE fuarrrkING logical reason why you are against what I am saying. Now answer me, I am honestly curious, why do you think that if A=/=B that A and B should get same treatment. We talked why I think that is, why I think that in detail pertaining to women and men, why I EVEN CONCEDED TO SOME OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS THAT I DIDN'T EVEN CALL BURDEN OF PROOF OF AS YOU DID like cultural influences and "HIS MOMMY AND PAPPY MADE THEM DO IT" cop out that you fuarrrking know you don't have numbers and proof of. Now please, answer my darn question. Should A and B be treated the same? Pure simple logic, no ethics or moral here. We aren't talking about VietCongs and Muricans, not talking about eskimos and the blacks, not women and men, simple A and B. Yes or no pretty boy? >I don't think it's an imbalance of rights. So you think that men have a right to say something about pregnancy? Or is it that they have "body autonomy" in the whole shebang? WHAT DOES THIS MALE "BODY AUTONOMY" HAVE TO DO WITH PREGNANCY? There is obviously a disconnect here because we are talking about the same fuarrrking thing. WOMEN AND MEN HAVE DIFFERENT BODIES. Women have a say in termination of babys life because of body autonomy, men don't. Different rights due to different bodies. You can call it body autonomy all you want, and I agree, women have autonomy over whether they want to kill a baby or not and make the father pay the alimony for the rest of his life. But there is the imbalance of powers and rights due to biological differences. WE AREN'T EQUAL. >but at odds with your belief that men and women should be treated differently a priori under the law and by culture How is this at odds of what I said? I said that sex is component in treating people and that women and men should be treated differently, but no one is a archetypal stereotype of their sex and therefore needs to be treated as a human individual, whilst at the same time taking account on their sex and race and other things that are cultural. Oh I get it, you're just asking questions this whole conversation until you can poke holes in others persons opinions and not actually contributing to conversation. You just like taking people for a ride is it? Well tell me mr nice guy, how do you treat women? Do you hit them? Would you hit a woman in self defense? What about a man? Is there equality in a way you treat men and women? Would you hit a woman and DID you ever hit a woman before? Come on now, don't be shy. Equal rights, equal lefts, you know the drill. >their parents, friends, and men. Of fuarrrking course they are. fuarrrking patriarchical parents and men and friends thinking they know what is best for that small little girl. Listen, we all like our little fantasies in our heads and that's nice and all but you need to come into reality from time to time and see how it's not that dark/nice as you make it to be in your head. >hahaha, gynocentric! More like toxic masculinity. Wow, what bigots and toxic people those men and female judges that treat women better than men. They disgust me honestly.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You are breaking Rule 3 and Rule 4. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. If you two continue bickering as opposed to discussing, then this thread will be locked and deleted or if possible your reply chain will be deleted.)

Feminism is a waste of time. Women are just as superficial as they seem, and the relations between the sexes are arbitrary at best. Women are better off as homebound mothers.

>>13034 Aside from being obvious bait have you considered that such beliefs are social justifications for roles or needs which do not befit current society? >Women are just as superficial as they seem and the relations between sexes are arbitrary at best. you're spilling the soykaf if you think all women are the same, even feminists argue more over than just how men treat them.

>>13034 agree with this, except I'm not sure if I even really trust women as mothers. I don't mean to be inflammatory, but multiple parents aren't really needed in the modern age, and women, particularly modern women, are an absolute mess. I think what's ideal is a single father who can afford a nanny who has no real control over the child, but can provide care when necessary.

>Ideas/misconceptions you had of Feminism in the past The same semantic crap everyone fell into I guess. But there's clearly value behind most of the stuff they fight for so it never went beyond that. >Feminist ideas or even types of Feminists that interest you I find interesting how the term has evolved and branched out so much, it certainly isn't lacking on proposals and alternatives. I don't know enough about the subject to distinguish between different types and their ideologies yet. The insane levels of resistance those proposals have found is a certainly interesting topic, although way more depressing to delve into. >What is anti-Feminism or even anti-women Never saw it as more than fear, raised to such absurd levels it validates the things feminists complain about. Similar patterns to the anti-black behavior actually, but turns out you need even higher doses if you want it to apply for half the population in the planet.

>>10890 >Sure you're going to have those weird authoritarian Feminists who want to control everything but I don't think a lot of them want to completely ruin something that others enjoy The problem with this sort of thinking is that all it takes to ruin a good thing, is one malefactor capable of twisting it to their benefit, even if it is no longer the good thing. The reason we see bad on the shoulders of good is that the good didn't disallow bad from standing on their shoulders. The term "feminism" would suggest, contrary to the stated definitions, that it's focus is on the feminine gender, and the actions of many, who call themselves, who have been called, "feminist" would not contradict, and often be in direct support of, femenine supremacy. That's the main problem with the term, because many people, following the principle of compositionality, whether they are for or against the movement, or the movement as they understand it based on their interpretation of the term, come to different conclusions than those who merely skim the morphological properties of the term and skip to the definitions, where they find a different definition than the one found by those who take their time with the morphological properties, who are then confused by the given definition. In the experience of this author, doublespeak occurs not from disinformation, but from haste, where those who speak too fast tend to use whatever terms and syntagmata they have under their tongues, rather than those that would fit best to the confluxive topics. On the obverse, the terms "she" and "woman" are inherently sexist, whereas "he" and "man" are not, except where in comparison with "she" and "woman", respectively. A long time ago, in this galaxy, on this planet, in our own english language, "he" was used generically, and "man" meant "human", until some sexist linguists decided to dehumanize those of the feminine variety by no longer allowing them to be men, and as men are the superior race, they were now to be called by another term to emphasize their inferiority, whence "women", and, seeing as "he" was 3rd person personal pronoun, it wouldn't do to refer to these inferior men using the personal pronoun, whence "she". This is why some authors insist on only using "he" in their work, to refer to all men, whether of the masculine or the feminine variety. I'm for universal equality of opportunity, because the economy where each man controls his own fate is efficient. Perhaps instead of "feminism", we could call it "sexual egalitarianism". It's enunciation is not much more laborious that that of "feminism", and there is no room for the aforementioned popular misconceptions.

Modern Feminism is an outgrowth of Marxist Feminism, created by Engels, Marx's financier and friend, by applying lens of "oppressor / oppressed" to relations between men and women. Marx codified a method whereby a nation can be overthrown internally by pitting one class against another. Engels does the same thing. Society has been bad for both men and women in the past. It has benefited men and women as well. For example, in the past if a wife stole something her husband would face legal charges and jail. This was because a marriage was a union, to support a family. It was beneficial to maintain the family by not placing in jail the mother, who may be pregnant, or have children dependent on her milk. Men who abused women were put in the stockade or ridden around on a donkey backwards while people threw rotten things & stones at them, while ridiculing them. Conversely, husbands were allowed to spank their wife and children to discipline (but not abuse them) because husbands would be held accountable for their actions. Men shielded their family against the violence of government. The family union was also given one vote. Only land owners held the vote, because it was reasoned they had a stake in the future of the land. Women won universal suffrage shortly after men did. In the US women were the primary opposer of women's rights as they feared conscription. The Supreme Court had reasoned that men should be drafted if their political decisions resulted in war. As soon as more women than not wanted the right to vote, the all male government granted them this right without requiring conscription. Long before feminism, and still today Laws were made to protect women from men: Women can bring "sole and separate property" into a marriage, and take that property with her when the marriage is annulled / divorced. Half of all a man owns is given to a woman, with judges routinely disregarding prenuptial agreements in order to achieve this end. Homemaking was getting easier at the turn of the 1900's, primarily due to technological innovations: Dishwashers and clothes washing machines, vacuum cleaners, disposable diapers, TV dinners, etc. Men were still the primary bread winners, but there were many women business owners too. Women had a choice of whether to stay home with the kids or go into the competitive workforce. Feminism preaches that women "need their own money", despite the fact that women were already making over 80% of spending decisions already. Feminists pushed women into the workplace, and Capitalists loved it! Rockefeller funded Miss Magazine, for example. This caused more workers to enter the workplace. Temporarily the family would earn more, but in short time the economy adjusted to two income homes. This resulted in the same or less pay for more work per family unit. While government would have more mandatory school to indoctrinate the children. This reduced choice for women, because of inflation and devaluation of labor very few women can choose to stay home or enter the workforce. Few women are free now to practice the creative arts and crafts, become singers or musicians, etc. This is why feminism treats women as men, to give both sexes the same raw deal. Up to the early 1900's women would be routinely acquitted or pardoned even having overwhelming evidence of heinous crimes, such as murder. The first Women's Movement was by mothers who correctly reasoned that only a jury of women would convict other women of the crimes they do. It was about holding women accountable. Feminism is primarily concerned with NOT holding women or minorities accountable (as a form of "substantive equality" or "equanimity" -- these are "equality" via revenge). The Women's Movement was hijacked by communists and rebranded Feminism. This is why feminists rarely solve any problem, and even exacerbate problems for women (such as promoting immigration from places with high rape and low women's rights). If the plight of women was lessened, if Women's Rights were allowed to better society for women, then the problems would be gone, no outrage to farm. Nothing would be left to point at an claim, "I need feminism because of this" (note they never say, "I need Women's Rights because X" since that would include a specific right / solution, and couldn't be used for divisive subversion agenda). The Feminist is a political tool, a "useful idiot". Marxists have conflated "Feminism" with "Women's Rights" in order to harness society's natural and right concern for women and utilize women for political motives. Here we have ex-KGB Yuri Bezmenov explaining the bent of today's political feminist, as achieving the goals of communist subversion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g This is by design, since the Communist USSR sought to destroy USA from within using feminism and etc. Cultural Marxism (application of oppressed vs oppressor colored lens). Radical Feminism came to the west as Marxist Feminism + Patryachy Theory -- No longer was it capitalist men who were the problem, but all men... but it's still Marxist Feminism to the core. How can you prove this? The Patriarchy Theory is wearing thin, "it hurts men too", etc. So, Feminist's new theory is "Kyriarchy Theory": Rulers are the Oppressors... so... RISE UP Proletariat, Fight the Bourgeois Oppressors... It's just plain old Marxism again. TL;DR: Women's rights needs a divorce from Feminism. Women's Rights existed before feminism, it can exist afterwards. Feminism is a political movement that does nothing for women but enslave them to corporatism, and cause divisive politics in order to erode a nation. Communists believe that societal collapse is necessary before the Communist Revolution can swoop in to save the nation. Therefore they push for destructive policies with ulterior motives. This is Feminism in a nutshell.

>>14219 > Here we have ex-KGB Yuri Bezmenov explaining the bent of today's political feminist. The video is interesting because it shows decades before modern times what we see now coming out of the mouths of "Feminists" and "Leftists". Yuri predicted the destructive agenda of subversion in the 80's, what he described is happening today.

>>14180 this sounds a bit worrying... also good with ressurecting dead >>14209 >I find interesting how the term has evolved and branched out so much, it certainly isn't lacking on proposals and alternatives. I don't know enough about the subject [...] as with any other movement, you find people who want to try a different approach >>14217 >Perhaps instead of "feminism", we could call it "sexual egalitarianism". It's enunciation is not much more laborious that that of "feminism", and there is no room for the aforementioned popular misconceptions. that's mostly because people don't know their history... but that's not something people can't change. i don't see any problem with "feminism", and those confused (as you mentioned) can always look it up

>TL;DR: Women's rights needs a divorce from Feminism. Women's Rights existed before feminism, it can exist afterwards. Feminism is a political movement that does nothing for women but enslave them to corporatism, and cause divisive politics in order to erode a nation. Communists believe that societal collapse is necessary before the Communist Revolution can swoop in to save the nation. Therefore they push for destructive policies with ulterior motives. This is Feminism in a nutshell. riiiight

>>14220 Worked wonders for Russia that prediction Don't be impressed by the mechanics of sparking up dissatisfaction in this age of inequality. It's so easy kids can do it with pictures of frogs.

>>14232 >let me just condescendingly dismiss your post instead of argumentatively debunk it.... THE THREAD And you wonder why people have started to hate feminists all of the sudden. It is your darn know it all attitude. If you were to explain your point of view then maybe people would ignore it, but god darn, can you just act like a human for 5 minutes and talk to others on the same level.

>>14239 Feminists aren't a hive mind. If you want to blame them for your problems, sure.. But stop making them mythical creatures. Can't we all agree on letting this thread die? It's not going anywhere. Both sides are more emotional than anything.

>>14240 >Both sides are more emotional than anything. why is that a bad thing?

>>14245 The more highly emotional a debate gets the more shitflinging ensues. It becomes less of a debate and more of a hysterical argument from both sides.

>>10877 >Feminist ideas or even types of Feminists that interest you There are two questions related to Feminism that interest me : 1) What is the nature of patriarchy? Sometimes I hear feminists talk about it like it has agency, much in the same way communists/socialists talk about "capital". Is it a culture? A set of institutions? 2) What is the nature of gender identity? Is it just some expectation a person has about their body? Another way to ask the question is to say : what does someone mean when they say "I am a woman/man/other"?

>>14240 >Argument filled post with couple of paragraphs gets a one Liber emotional response >Emotional response bavi points put how people shouldn't get emotional and one Liber response >"Omg both sides" Yes, some anon before said that this might be common tactic in ordee to soykaf down communication on these kinds of thread. Justin shitting up already highly logical discussion with emotional one liners and then when you get soykaf back you guys call for mods on replies to act as some kind of person above it all, even though the tactic od transparent and it is against the rules. But yea, as long these kinds of comments get tracktion and nobody responds to those logical 5 paragraphs long comments then yea I guess you are right that the whole discussion is emotional as you said. But as long as you guys think that even arguments won't change minds then these types od comments won't go anywhere on the first place. "Everyone has their own opinion and thats iz" right? Nobody else can change their minds because you are already dead set on yours? Did I describe that mentalitet right? Dont get me wrong, I am bit talking about you per se, I am just making a stereotype od what I think of right. I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG, but no, lets yell "mooods" because People dont agree with us

>>14253 >1) What is the nature of patriarchy? All hate groups need a nebulous all powerful easily identifiable enemy to rally around. For Nazis it's (((The Jews))), for BLM it's The Law Enforcement, for some modern Feminists it's The Patriarchy. Same game different goal posts. >2) What is the nature of gender identity? Gender identity is fundamentally incompatible with feminism (or reality to be honest). Feminism is supposed to be about decoupling gender from opportunity and destiny. Just because you are born a women doesn't mean you can't be a CEO. That kind of thing. At least in so far as artificial social limitations are concerned, the smart ones have realized that railing against biological limitations is a lost cause. But gender identity is predicated on pretending biological differences are not immutable so it can only survive by clinging to social differences between genders. That's why the label TERF is so divisive, the implication that trans inclusionary feminism makes any kind of sense is ridiculous. The only way they can get away with it is with intimidation and victim status.

>>14256 Feminism isn't a hate group, I don't know if you are implying that men are to feminists what Jews are to Nazis but that's incorrect. In fact feminists have theorized how patriarchy is hurting men too, the textbook example being how men are pressured to hide emotions and never talk about their problems.

>>14253 First one is a culture indeed, if it looks like anything more it's because is so widespread and dominant, coming from the times when men could impose themselves with brute strength and the civilizations back then that didn't consider women as anything more than another asset men could benefit from. Second one not sure how to describe it, but expectation about your own body sounds a bit too simple, mayme more like aligning with most of the notion we have of being a "boy/girl" even if its incompatible with your own sex, something like that.

>>14271 >you are implying that men are to feminists what Jews are to Nazis I'm saying The Patriarchy is to Feminists what The Jews is to Nazis yes. >Feminism isn't a hate group Some feminists operate as a hate group. When you blame all the evils of the world on a single group of people then a hate group is what you become. >>14273 >men could impose themselves with brute strength and the civilizations back then that didn't consider women as anything more than another asset men could benefit from. That stopped the moment a people worked out that monogamy is the only way to keep a civilization stable enough to grow past a certain point. Once monogamy and female consent became factors then women held all the reproductive power. It's women who decide which men are good enough to spread their legs for. That is the reason men have always dominated in politics/science/music/sport etc. Because status and wealth are the only way to attract a female in a civilized society. Women don't need to acquire status and wealth themselves, all they need to do is spread their legs for men who do. >>14268 It's just one guy who keeps begging people to stop posting in threads he doesn't like >>>/r/11428 With all the types of posts Lainchan mods casually delete with no warning, this kind is perfectly acceptable for some reason.

>>14273 >maybe more like aligning with most of the notion we have of being a "boy/girl" Well, I think that what those notions are is precisely what I'm asking. It's a complicated topic because I don't want to be guilty of circularity by assuming a woman is a person who identify as a woman. On the other hand a strict biological definition leads to other problems, since sex isn't strictly binary and we assume the gender of a person without looking in their pants or asking for a DNA sample. Maybe gender is just some kind of worldwide roleplay and we call people "men" and "women" like we would call them "warrior" or "wizard" in a RPG.

>>14256 I`d much rather date a trap than a TERF , i dont give a soykaf about their political implications and their sociology school shitty justifications.

>>14307 No one wants to date TERFs, not even other TERFs.

>>14301 >sex isn't strictly binary We're not fuarrrking fishes or bugs, there's XX and XY. That seems binary enough to me. Sure, there's intersex, but that's not the norm and a disorder. Just because humans can be born with intersex disorders doesn't mean sex isn't binary. Use your braincells.

>>14313 >there's XX and XY. That seems binary enough to me. There is also XXX and XXY, seems at least quaternary to me. >Just because humans can be born with intersex disorders doesn't mean sex isn't binary. When you observe data that doesn't fit nicely into two boxes, that puts your binary model in trouble yes. You could say that intersex people are just two percent of the population but that's about the same for redheads, yet we don't say that hair color is either blond or brown.

>>14314 They still have XX and XY though, just with extra soykaf tacked on. They can still be fit into male or female categories depending on the disorder. It's not like being intersex means theres a third box so therefore its a spectrum/not binary/whatever.

>>14314 >There is also XXX and XXY that is called a genetic disorder for a reason, not an "argument for transexuality" And, if your strongest argument is genetic disease then you need to have a hard look at yourself >>14190 It is funny because we are comparing women who work in social oriented lower paying jobs to men in STEM fields haha xD And the funniest thing is that when we have women work same exact jobs as men, same hours and same qualifications then they actually earn more than men haha xD Damn such muh-soggy-knee

>>14314 There are no human hermaphrodites. No one has both functional male and female reproductive organs.

>>14340 It's easy to dismiss anyone asking for proof by fitting your own comment in dismissing and sarcastic tone, right off the bat. That is the deal with you guys. I can only play even more smug but if I don't play you don't win, right?

>>14219 > Yuri Bezmenov explaining the bent of today's political feminist, as achieving the goals of communist subversion: From the vid it boils down to: Pit rich vs poor, man vs woman, black vs white, public vs police, gay vs straight, etc. Trans propaganda = more divisive subversion. Trans vs Cis. Need more groups to divide people against each other with? Introducing: infinite "gender". The first thing we have to do is dispel the "Feminists aren't a hivemind" bullshit. By this logic there is no such thing as a cat. There is a word that represents the concept of a cat, but this is a generalization. All of human language is based on compression. No word is reality, (except perhaps the words of gods, if you're into old-word mentalism of gods=physical forces). Part of the feminist ideology at the higher levels of Critical Theory is to deploy divisionism at the Platonic Solids vs Forms level. Plato recognized there were conceptual forms that were symbolic and thus perfect in their symbolism to meaning a thing, but that the concrete examples of reality (solids, which are identified as resembling these forms) are imperfect. Thus the feminist leverages the Marxist Critical Theory attack of "You can't categorize me!" Which is literally ignorant, as this canard only works against the philosophically illiterate (hence, most feminists being useful idiots). Here's the solution: Your identity is unique, not part of some group experience. You have Characteristics, Qualities and Abiities, not "Identities" to "Identify as", the very language, "Identify as" is flawed on the face of it. How can two unique individuals share a unique identity? That's Preposterous. You can "Join a Group Label", which is what identity politics encourages, but Joining a Group doesn't invoke your desire for individual uniqueness or freedom of expressing it... so the language "Identify as" is a con job meant to dupe the ignorant. Gender's root word is Genes. You can't decide to be a different gender than you are. Your gender is exactly the same as your sex. Sexual preference is different than sex. Your sexual preference is not your sex. Men who are sexually attracted to women don't want to be women. Furthermore, in nature and human culture, there is no such thing as "gay" or "straight". Most who call themselves "gay men" have had sex with women, or even been married with children in the past. Intercourse is an act. You can like to have intercourse more often with the opposite or same sex, and this is a CHARACTERISTIC of your unique identity, it does not place you into a group, simply because you appear somewhere along the bathtub curve of sexual preference (with far more opposite-sex-attracted people on opposite ends of said spectra). The problem is that identity politics wants you to "identify as" some set of groups to leverage divisive us vs them Cultural Marxism (oppressor vs oppressed applied to sexual preference, etc). They don't promote programs for rich to help poor, or majorities to help minorities, except to "shut up" and "listen to others complaints" (and never have your own say -- simple division, voiced vs silenced). The opposite of reality is often used, when a minority group finally has an equal or disproportionately louder voice, the identity politic will still claim the minorities are silenced. Have a look at this twitter feed: https://twitter.com/WokeCapital It shows how damn near every corporation in the word is focused on diversity and giving voice to the minoritiy today. That's Great! But there can be no victories for the Cultural Marxist Identity Politician - For if the outrage is lessened, a clash of cultures and collapse can not occur. The division would end. One of the methods of Critical Theory divisive language warfare is to politicize a word, make it "off limits". Such as Transvestite, or Negro (hint: Nigera is not a racist name, it's Latin for black-land). "Black" was racist once upon a time, then "coloreds" or "colored people" was used instead, then that was racist, so "African American" was used, but now that's racist, and we're back to "people of color" (which is just as 'racist' as "Colored People"). I talked to a native African Bantu man once who was educated in the West. He said, "Call me Nigger or Negro, as it is the scientific name for Black Man" He complained that identity politics has stolen all the legitimate words for his identity. Indeed, if in the past "Negro" was a respectful term (and it was), but today identity politics teach "the term was used by racists" then any look back at history will see racism everywhere even when people were trying to be respectful. In colleges disingenuous courses such as "Native Studies" or "[Minority] Studies" or "Women's Studies", "Trans Studies", etc. employ and formalize the "feminist ideology". Feminists do exist, they believe in various tenants of Feminism. And all of these feminists are in a "HiveMind" as they simply fell for the Critical Theory style of one-sided filtering of past wrongs to create and exacerbate divisive "identity" group politics. The word "cat" is useful. There are creatures which closely approximate the form symbolized in the word. Likewise, the argument "Not all Feminists X" is flawed. The individuals differ, but have much in common ideologically. 1 of 2

>>14344 2 of 2 One can not "identify as" arbitrary political groups and be taken seriously in a genuine discussion, sorry. That's bordering on argument from authority due to what you claim to be; It's a fallacy, don't do it if you want to be taken seriously in a logical discussion (Ah, but Feminism deplores logic, and thinks "feeling based reason" is a thing -- because those feelings can be manipulated to create divisive instinctual tribalism). The word "Identity" means a uniqueness. In mathematics the Identity Matrix returns the same values you put into it -- it represents a transformation that yields the unique set of inputs as outputs. Matrix Identity is defined such because the word identity means the unique set of characteristics (variables) that make up your unique identity. Identity Politics is a misnomer, it's actually Divisive Group Politics via polarizing false categorizations. The way divisive Identity Politics works is to get you to dissolve your uniqueness and claim your identity belongs to a group label. Such as "straight", "homosexual", "minority", "Lesbian", "Cis", "Trans", etc. Your unique life experiences are ignored and a narrative of the group's oppressive or oppressed status is applied. This is how you can have Denzel Washington saying he wants reparations... doesn't matter that he was far more "privileged" than most, his skin is dark, he's in the "oppressed" group according to identity politics. Incentive for Group division is given by offering the "minority" a free pass to say hateful things about their "oppressors" while silencing any opposition to the application of this divisive stratagem. The "oppressor" groups never get to have their say. Never compromise or find middle ground? Indeed, that's divisive isn't it? Cult techniques such as the "Love Bomb" are employed so that those who identify as a protected group are heaped with affection from the other groups of feminists, etc. despite your unique cultural experiences. The plight of those who are non-minorities are ignored while any trouble a protected group has is pointed out as the result of oppressive society. Take the example of a poor black girl and poor white boy growing up in the ghetto. They are equally disadvantaged by society, but she has scholarships, grants, and social welfare programs that will benefit her purely based on her gender and color of her skin. These same benefits are denied the poor white boy. "Whataboutism" is a relatively new deflective term used to dismiss concern for any but the protected groups. The division is intentional. Identity politics leverages tribalistic hatred for other groups and gives a slanted view of history (a Marxist oppressor / oppressed lens), through which ignorance leads the individual to believe everyone who said "Negro" or "Nigger" was racist in the past. The "oppressor-colored" boy is disadvantaged rather than giving benefit any individual in need, regardless of sex, race, color, creed, sexual preference, clothing style, etc. Like I said, "equality" via revenge. I'm not saying that there are not people who face hardships. I'm not saying that hateful tribalism doesn't exist. I'm not erasing anyoen's identity, I'm pointing out that people who do have such hardships are being farmed for outrage and divisive politics by Feminists, Communists and various Critical Theorists. These political ideologies do not have your best interests in mind. While they pay lip service to the plight of the disadvantaged, At the higher levels where policy is created, they are disincentivized from fixing your problems, and putting themselves out of a job. If you actually care about these issues, as I do, and actually want to fix the problems facing women and minorities, then you've got to unplug yourself from Feminism. It's a documented fact now that the Civil Rights Movement was compromised in the 60's. Communist Party USA and Black Panthers Chapters were discovered to be subservient to agents of Soviet Russia. A hostile foreign ideology isn't going to suddenly become beneficial simply because it's head was cut off. It will just regrow a new head and continue the "global communist revolution". The saddest thing, IMO, is that many little "c" communists themselves don't understand that big C Communism is their worst nightmare: Government Hierarchies and Monopolistic Corporations screwing people over? Why not merge the two into One Giant Monopoly of Government Hierarchy? It's asinine... but their ideologies now rule corporate culture in the west, and the outrage will not end until either the ideology does or the culture is destroyed. Of course, no Feminist is going to seriously consider anything I've written. They all subscribe to tribalism, "other" anyone who disagrees, and dismiss their voices. They are what is called "demoralized", unable to reason themselves out of the mess they've gotten overly emotionally invested, even if you spell out the escape route in intricate precise detail. Questioning their own dogma is verboten.

>>14344 >The first thing we have to do is dispel the "Feminists aren't a hivemind" bullshit. By this logic there is no such thing as a cat. This is a bad analogy. Political traditions and species are not the same. Feminism has a whole history so of course there are going to be internal struggles and disagreement. Same for any other "-isms".

>>14345 > If you actually care about these issues, as I do, and actually want to fix the problems facing women and minorities, then you've got to unplug yourself from Feminism. Besides gems such as >You can't decide to be a different gender than you are What is your proposal then? Cute references aside all you are saying is an useless every man for himself, as unplugged from the hardships of reality that creates those manipulative divisions you mention as you are from feminism

>>14348 >all you are saying is an useless every man for himself, Every man for themselves would be better than: > "Let's continue to support something ran by people who lose their jobs if they fix the issues, and actively make things worse for more crisis bux, because it still says 'We want to help you" on the label." Fixing things ourselves would be better than being farmed for outrage. The Internet has given the everyman a very powerful tool. A few individuals could create global awareness... once the gatekeepers are removed. For example of methods of bypassing gatekeeping, simply look at a list of monthly OS updates... There are types of activism we haven't seen yet, which are on the horizon. > What is your proposal The first step to fixing a problem is admitting there is a problem. Unless a we can get Feminists to recognize the identity politics system they're taught is inherently designed to fail, compromised by communists and capitalists alike, and is worse than no help at all, then there's no hope for that group. It'll have to run its course, like other past movements. The reason why it hasn't been destroyed is because governments promote feminism to neuter rebel sentiment, by directing "activism" towards pointless directions. The Occupy Protests were a perfect example of this. The Progressive Stack was implemented so that minorities and women would speak. The MSM ran with the story, "They have no message". The people who had something to say were muted by plants leveraging feminist identity politics rather than addressing the Occupy Wall-street protest talking points. Feminism is used by governments to silence rebellion, get it? It's worse than "every man for themselves." Better to just organize a different movement, and include in it teaching of past failures, and thus inoculation against the history of divisive (and conquered) missteps. Best would be a Women's Movement divorced from Feminist leashes. Try getting a feminist to admit Women need a divorce from feminism though... Not gonna happen internally. The change will come from the outside. What I think will happen is that the Age of Information will eventually end feminism and other -isms that claim to help while only being controlled opposition. Either that or anti-feminism, pro-women's rights group will be organized by women who are tired of feminism failing on promises, and they'll run circles around feminism. > Besides gems such as > >You can't decide to be a different gender Perhaps missed the point. I'm saying that the term "gender" need not apply to how you present yourself to society. You literally can't change your genes, hence neither gender. Using the term "gender" keeps people from addressing the issues surrounding discrimination of those who adopt non-normative "roles in sexual intercourse", or face discrimination based on their Qualities that diverge from the extreme ends of masculine or feminine. Calling such things "gender" gets the issues dismissed as confusion about one's genes. "Romance Role" or "Love Role" would be more descriptive, and possibly more powerful. Everyone is concerned with love and romance. Complaining about what sounds like DNA isn't very sexy. "Gender" as a term was designed to fail...

isn't identity politics a part of lgbt politics? i dont know if that'd fall under feminism, maybe just the lesbian and bi portions but feminism is first and foremost liberation for women. the queerio identity politics can tack themselves onto feminism but to be quite honest i dont think it has anything to do with it.

Feminism strikes me as a "girls only" clubhouse. It's exclusionary, generally to the detriment of the feminists. For example, take the local "girls who code" meetups. Their topics are invariably terrible. They never have any advanced or even intermediate topics. They are stuck in the beginner end of the field because they self segregate. I don't get angry about them. It's sad really. The blind leading the blind. I'd love to reach out and help a few of them, but I realize my assistance would be unwelcome "mansplaining" so I don't bother.

>>14364 Identity politics is simply just "I am part of X therefor things that benefit X is the only thing that matters and everyone else can fuarrrk off and die". It applies equally well to feminism and lgbtxyzbbq. >>14367 >Feminism strikes me as a "girls only" clubhouse. It's exclusionary, generally to the detriment of the feminists I think that's what tends to happen when people are exclusionary out of spite. Men-only societies exist for a pragmatic reason, the absence of females and sexual tension cuts down on distractions and internal conflict so the group can focus on their goals. Feminists don't think things like this through though. From their perspective men are just being assholes and feminism is their opportunity to get revenge.

>>14374 where are you getting these assumptions about feminists from? feminists want to and try to have female only socities to feel safer and focus towards advocating their goals. its no different then male only groups. are you just upset men arent included in a political group literally made for the opposite sex?

>>14378 >where are you getting these assumptions about feminists from? If you actually read the thread instead of jumping to conclusions you'd see it was a response to >>14367

>>14378 >focus towards advocating their goals It is easier to spread hate against a group who are not present to defend themselves I'll give you that. >to feel safer Safe from what exactly? They can't have it both ways. Women demand that men do 100% of the work to initiate romantic relationships then complain that men are predatory. Here's a newsflash, the guys who "respect women" don't get laid and don't pass on their cultural/genetic disposition to the next generation. This is why you can't take feminism seriously. It's all about how men need to change society to accommodate what women want. There's no reflection or personal responsibility on the side of women, feminism turns them into permanent victims. Other so called equal rights movements are the same. lgbq is all about how non-lgbt people need to shut up and accept whatever bullship lgbq people want. Nobody stops to think, "maybe if we didn't sexualize children in obnoxious public parades then people would respect us more...".

>>14410 > Women demand that men do 100% of the work to initiate romantic relationships then complain that men are predatory. Where is this coming from? why do you relate taking the initiative with being predatory?

>>14412 >why do you relate taking the initiative with being predatory? When a man you like hits on you it's love at first sight. When a man you don't like hits on you it's predatory toxic masculinity.

>>14451 Different women are going to have different boundaries, some don't mind randoms flirting and others are going to hate it no matter what. All your arguments are you generalizing and stereotyping women instead of actually saying something of value.

>>14455 All your posts are rejecting ideas you don't like without discussion instead of actually saying something of value. ha

Behold, the Feminist hivemind speaks: >>14455 > All your arguments are you generalizing and stereotyping By your logic, there is no such thing a woman, a man, a Tree, a book, a banana, or anything. All words are generalizations. Your rhetoric was deconstructed and destroyed by Plato, it only works on the ignorant. See: >>14344 > By this logic there is no such thing as a cat. There is a word that represents the concept of a cat, but this is a generalization. All of human language is based on compression. No word is reality, (except perhaps the words of gods, if you're into old-word mentalism of gods=physical forces). Part of the feminist ideology at the higher levels of Critical Theory is to deploy divisionism at the Platonic Solids vs Forms level. Plato recognized there were conceptual forms that were symbolic and thus perfect in their symbolism to meaning a thing, but that the concrete examples of reality (solids, which are identified as resembling these forms) are imperfect. Thus the feminist leverages the Marxist Critical Theory attack of "You can't categorize me!" Which is literally ignorant, as this canard only works against the philosophically illiterate (hence, most feminists being useful idiots). I was able to predict this response by application of generalization and experience. You just disproved your own argument while providing evidence in support of my hypothesis. To quote Neil Degrasse Tyson > "It's Science, bitches." Words / Concepts are (Platonic) symbols applied to imperfect unique instances of concrete being. They are generalizations which apply to more than one concrete instance. In computer science they would be "classes" of objects. A class need not contain a list of every memory location that an object may exist at, nor every property that concrete form will have, but the instance of the object needs do so in order for it to be a unique concrete individual of being. This principle is not just arbitrary, it's a principle of reality that's so useful we've identified truths using it about how all systems operate: Cybernetics -- The Science of governing dynamics in the animal, machine, and social structure... Using generalizations and classifications we're able to give degrees of self awareness to machines. The Class "Woman" exists apart from women. In order to have useful discussion, rational minds will agree on what a concept of "women" entails. We can use this generalization to discover truths about reality. Applying the generalization does not erase the deviations from the generality. The graph is useful because it displays a trend. Language is useful because we apply a symbol to the trend itself. The graph admits outliers exist, so do generalizations. All language is generalization and stereotyping. All self awareness stems from recognizing a general pattern among experience. I want pseudo intellectuals to leave. >inb4: Neil Degrasse Tyson is a misogynist!

>>14455 >Different women are going to have different boundaries, some don't mind randoms flirting and others are going to hate it no matter what. Congratulations! You have now debunked Feminism. By this logic, there is no need for Women's Rights, and indeed Women's Rights can not exist, because they would be generalizations applied to women, based on the aggregate of their experience. By refusing to accept that there are trends in prevalence of female behavior the feminist seeks to ignore any and all complaints of the "oppressor class": See: >>14344 > Incentive for Group division is given by offering the "minority" a free pass to say hateful things about their "oppressors" while silencing any opposition to the application of this divisive stratagem. The "oppressor" groups never get to have their say. and >And all of these feminists are in a "HiveMind" as they simply fell for the Critical Theory style of one-sided filtering of past wrongs to create and exacerbate divisive "identity" group politics. While dissolving any criticism of women, while being hypercritical of the Marxist "oppressor" class, "men", "cis", "straight", etc. The feminist reveals its true nature of political tool, a useful idiot programmed to repeat rhetoric that has ulterior motives. Namely, these ignorant pseudo-intellectuals uselessly regurgitate feminist claptrap. Their rhetoric falls apart at the merest inspection because it was designed to fail. Designed so by Engels, Carl Marx's financier, and later refined by Radical Feminism of the 1960's by communists for the express purpose of dividing and pitting the culture against itself. I reiterate: > [Feminist] political ideologies do not have your best interests in mind. While they pay lip service to the plight of the disadvantaged, At the higher levels where policy is created, they are disincentivized from fixing your problems, and putting themselves out of a job. The solution is to realize that there are certain behaviors and qualities that make up a form called "women", these commonalities should be (and were) derived through generalization. Using this classification "woman", we can identify the prevalence of common action. Is it more common for a woman to do or experience X or Y in a given situation? We can then describe situations that both negatively and positively impact women, and how women impact the world both negatively and positively. Using this knowledge we can the create Women's Rights through activism to achieve specific goals that affect the majority of women. Furthermore, we can identify what rights may be afforded to all individuals, not merely women. Individual Rights is compatible with Women's Rights. Feminism bolts all rights of identity groups onto itself to make sure it can never efficiently solve any problem. TL;DR: Without generalizations there is no Women's Rights. Feminism is stupid.

Allow me to craft a response one may use against any Feminist who says something like: > "You're just using stereotypes and generalizations". OK, so I can ignore everything a Feminist says about any oppressed group, because those are just generalizations and stereotypes. You see, the purpose of cultural subversion is to exacerbate and inflame discontent and division of culture, with the purpose to affect the demise of a nation. We did not get to the current state of outrage farming by accident. Let me put it another way: If a KKK member came up to you and said, > "KKK is part of the civil rights movement. We want to better society through promoting diversity through segregation. Let me explain to you the inherent evils of blackness." Would you just listen to their propaganda and never research the history and motives of the KKK beyond what the KKK says about itself? Would you just blindly take what the KKK says at face value? No. So why then do Feminists just blindly accept what Feminism says about itself when it comes to them and says: > "Feminism is part of the civil rights movement. We want to better society through promoting diversity through segregation. Let me explain to you the inherent evils of men." The answer is irrational appeals to emotion are used "Think of the Women and Children" style, to short circuit one's thinking mind into promoting a destructive ideology that truly cares only about destroying its host nation...

Wonder what's next Maybe something along the lines of "what are humans if not a group of atoms together?" this means feminism is stupid and shouldn't exist

>>14467 >By your logic, there is no such thing a woman, a man, a Tree, a book, a banana, or anything. No, that's not what generalizing means. There are such things as cats, but observing black cats and coming to the conclusion that all cats are black would be generalizing. There are cats of different color and there are women who enjoy random flirting and other who hate it. It's really not hard to understand. >>14473 >Let me explain to you the inherent evils of men. Except Feminists never argue that men are inherently evil. Maybe it's time to put conspiracy videos aside and start reading books on feminism, so you can actually attack the theory instead of a low-tier strawman of it.

>>14476 Group identity is secondary to personal subjective experience of the world. You are an individual first and foremost. If we were to act on individuals as if they were part of groups as firstly in mind then we open up pandoras box of allowing racial, sex based and culture based biases to dictate our interactions. I don't say people don't have them, but at least for me I try to act as if the person is individual and base my opinions on that first whilst pushing the biases and preconcieved notions aside.

>>14511 >>14476 But just to add, I love how you guys have always smug one or two liner remarks instead of formal arguments that try to debunk things. Instead of replying to someone you just make a comment ITT as a high horse commentator to the plebs down below. Please, refrain from such mode of discussion if you want others to take you sincerely. But you don't think they can, right? Nobody really listens to you sincerely or listens to your ideas so you assume nobody will. You assume nobody will change their opinions and that allows to you rationally explain that violence or condescending way of speaking is okay. I would assume you, and people like you haven't heard about the "you can't change the world around you, you can just change yourself and then you will see how world around you changes". Your perception about how people are stubborn in their beliefs is sort of reflected on you and so you also become stubborn. I don't know where that circle began but you need to have honest communication with others, meaning 1 to 1 communication. If you are just going to yell from the periphery some smug one liner, or add something banal comment whilst 2 honest people are debating then you might not comment at all since this is just ego driven self serving and doesn't really help your cause.... if you believe you have one that is. Also, individual approach to dealing with people is much more liberating and makes the whole system more effective. We can talk about whether or not the system ought to be the way it is right now, but individualism is much more desirable nonetheless. If you want to balkanize and tribalize todays world then you might as well argue for "might makes right" between such groups which implies that patriarchy is just.

>>14511 Good for you, but completely impractical in society to achieve any kind of goal, let alone one where you desire to change things at a large scale. The part about culture not dictating your interactions is cute, without culture you're nothing but a blank slate with basic instructions for survival, but hey at least you'd be an individual.

>>10877 Are you a SJW? All of your theme-questions point this out.

>>14513 >Achieve any kind of goal >change things at a large scale Are you going to imply that people, individually, aren't able to do this or that you're just incompetent and don't want to hold burden of that responsibility and would rather to hide in the shadow of "the crowd"? But I love how you preface it with the usual smug "Good for you" as if I am the child that needs to grow up here. Change yourself, change your immediate surrounding and you will see how the world changes for the better. fuarrrking domino effect. And even if you aren't going to assasinate Franz Ferdinand you will change the world just by behaving bit different and changing your life for the better. >The part about culture not dictating your interactions is cute It is cute how you assume the mainstream culture is the only culture that exists today. It is also cute how you can't hold a honest 1 to 1 discussion without hiding your ego behind these offensive "insults". Awwww. There, I fell on your level now. Feel better about yourself? >without culture you're nothing but a blank slate with basic instructions for survival Either you don't know what culture is or you think it encompasses far further than it actually does. In both ways I would suggest you that you poke your head out of your ideological bubble, try changing your own life for the better (you know, as sort of preliminary workout step before going out there and changing the world) and seeing what happens. If everything keeps going your way then just keep at it. Just to add, love how you completely ignored how I mentioned that group identity is secondary and try to change my argument into "we are all just individuals". Lmao, and I never said anything about culture.

>>14509 >Except Feminists never argue that men are inherently evil. Your assertion that people who do not conform to your notion of feminism are not real feminists and exempt from discussion is a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman >Maybe it's time to put conspiracy videos aside and start reading books on feminism, Asserting that everyone who disagrees with you is merely ignorant is also not arguing in good faith.

>>14586 >Your assertion that people who do not conform to your notion of feminism are not real feminists and exempt from discussion is a fallacy. The poster I was replying to wrote : >So why then do Feminists just blindly accept what Feminism says about itself when it comes to them and says: >> "Feminism is part of the civil rights movement. We want to better society through promoting diversity through segregation. Let me explain to you the inherent evils of men." If they are correct, then Feminism as a whole claims that men are inherently evil. Not one feminist, not ten, but Feminism as a whole. It's not like the movement was born in 2017, it takes very little research to learn that feminists don't believe in some kind of evil spooky nature that men got from birth. Rather, the common explanation among feminists on why we observe statistically more harmful behaviour in men than in women is that they are socialized/educated in a specific way that differs from women. >Asserting that everyone who disagrees with you is merely ignorant >everyone who disagrees with you >everyone I was replying to exactly one poster.

>>14588 >If they are correct, then Feminism as a whole claims that men are inherently evil. Not one feminist, not ten, but Feminism as a whole. That all feminists think men are evil was obviously not the point and not even explicit. I think you're deliberately misunderstanding the sentence in a way that makes it easier to attack. >Except Feminists never argue that men are inherently evil. >never Now that's explicit. And wrong for the reason >>14586 explained and a browse of Twitter archives for #killallmen will show you. >I was replying to exactly one poster. Again "everyone" was not at all the point. If you've read so many books on feminism then you should be able to contribute more to the thread. Just saying you've read some books therefor someone else's opinion is wrong is not arguing in good faith.

>>10877 So much wrong stems from feminism, it would be fair to call it the Mother of All Evil. In essence, feminism is sexism and hateful bigotry against men, but its ills don’t end there. The way feminism promotes desertion of ages old bonds between men and women and abolition of women’s needs and priorities from their natural balances, negatively affects all aspects of our lives. Luckily, not all women are so braindead as to fall for the pretext of “equality between the sexes“. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that men and women are different for a reason. We were never meant to be equal. To the contrary, we were made to be opposites that complement each other. You were built for this, I was built for that, together we can do it all, including things neither of us could do without complementing the opposite. I said it before and will say it again – chivalry and gallantry are hard to come by these days, because women worthy of it are impossible to find. They are being overpowered by narcistic, borderline psychotic feminists blindly subscribed to the insidious men-hating ideology that has neither moral authority nor intellectual legitimacy. Feminism is not only anti-father and anti-male but also anti-mother, anti-child and anti-woman. Feminists hate women who are so dedicated to their husbands and children they would stay at home to manage their households. Through manipulative spread of insidious half-truth, feminists jump on “victimisation” or “exploitation” screaming bandwagons all the while sacrifices made by husbands and fathers are intentionally left out of the picture. Feminism directly resulted in destruction of family and community and replaced them with widespread utilization of state bureaucracies. As a result our children grow up confused, lacking stable family ties and properly developed ideals of adulthood. Young girls are conditioned to perceive men as threats to their safety and dignity. Statistics on “Powerless” Women The notion that women are “powerless victims” is so fundamentally absurd, it needs special address in this article. Here are a few stats: Women live on average seven years longer than men Women make up 55% of college graduates Women cast 54% of the votes in elections Women win almost automatically in child custody disputes Women suffer only 6% of the work-related fatalities (94% are suffered by men) Women are the victim of only about 35% of violent crimes Women are the victim of only about 25% of all murders Special legislation has been passed to punish “violence against women” as if “violence against men” was not quite up to par Two out of every three dollars spent on health care is spent on women Of the 25 worst jobs, as ranked by the Jobs Related Almanac based on a combination of salary, stress, security, and physical demands, 24 of them are predominantly, if not almost entirely, male Men commit over 80% of all suicides Powerless victims? I think not! Feminism is not empowering. Support for feminism shows you are feeble minded and have failed in your most natural role as a woman, the caregiver.

>>14599 What feminists don’t understand is that the natural role of a woman is not demeaning. It’s honorable and respectable. It’s also the most desirable and necessary for our basic survival. What’s despicable is women dishing their natural role for a role that’s unnatural and contra productive. Bear mothers are known for being the most overprotective of their young in the animal kingdom. This is because hungry male bears could turn on little cubs and confuse them for easy snack. Can you imagine if bear population was plagued by feminism the same way human population is and bear mothers would refuse their natural role of an overprotective mother because they’d feel they should have the right to act like male bears and eat little cubs for snack? This whole idea is so absurd it hurts to even put it into a sentence, yet that is exactly what is happening with humans. Human females have gone ape soykaf and are wreaking havoc on the entire population, weakening the minds of men and turning them into zombified, pussy whipped losers. Feminism is the root cause of many of today’s ills that did not exist in the past and should be put to a swift and violent end. Instead of condemning single mothers and spitting them in the face like they deserve, we have been pussy whipped to empower them and encourage them in bringing their offspring up to be just as despicably pussy whipped. If we want to survive as a species, we need to cleanse the planet of feminism. Leave none behind. Feminism is a plague that ought to be treated as one.

It's 2019, imagine appealing to nature in 2019. Challenging what was perceived as natural is what has brought so much to our species. At this point is not even implausible to think we can stop the natural process of aging, or live in places where humanity wasn't "meant to be" I wonder why men's rights are unable to have a good case for themselves if all the statistics are so biased against them? maybe it's because that has little to do with feminism so when they challenging feminism they rightfully sound like whining for no good reason. Seems to be a matter of poor perspective A lot of male suicide? The problem is related with mental health, the hardships of current life, stress, unability to open up, all of those things aren't ignored, little to do with women unless every single suidice guy out there directly blamed women A lot of work accidents? This is a problem with job environments, nothing to do with women. Also not ignored Crime and murder? A problem that goes beyond feminism so much that is not worth of giving it more thoughts in that context Women can graduate from college and vote? awesome stuff, these were the triumphs of previous battles, they were successful and help humanity to advance. The lack of organization is honestly shocking, progress can be made for all these unfortunate men but for some reason it just doesn't happen. A guy proposing scholarships for men and ending up stealing the money is one good example of how either it's nothing there or if there is something it never goes past a whining gimmick A lot of problems go beyond feminism and a lot of us feel hard done by the current system, it wouldn't be surprising if feminism expands into this general movement against it (like it has done with other groups already) because most elements overlap, it just requires to replace that jealousy and insecurity of a well formed movement to actual action and proposals of ideas. If things fuarrrk up as expected in the next couple of decades it'll be inevitable really.

>>14602 feminism is already taking it's slow breath around the world...it will eventually die in so called first world countries, it's only a matter of time. There was a loads of talk and rallies in my country like five or six years ago when feminism was in it's peak year, but as the false rape accusation grew along with metoo...feminism put an axe on their own foot. Thanks to this Neymar case, everyone in my country thinks feminist should be shot naked!

>>14602 >Challenging what was perceived as natural is what has brought so much to our species Challenging what was perceived as natural about the world around us. What is an example of going against /human/ nature that worked out well? >I wonder why men's rights are unable to have a good case for themselves if all the statistics are so biased against them? How about because men's rights are incompatible with anti-male feminism and feminists control the narrative? >[men's rights] rightfully sound like whining for no good reason Case in point. You acknowledge the statistics and don't care. >Women can graduate from college and vote? awesome stuff, these were the triumphs of previous battles, they were successful and help humanity to advance. Not actually attributed to feminism but I'll let that slide. In what way has this helped humanity advance if the vast majority of real work is still done by men (muh diversity in STEM/engineering etc.)? It's a good thing that women with the IQ and interest to peruse science have it easier than ever now but the hoards of women studying gender studies or literature or some soykaf instead of raising families are arguably not benefiting humanity. >progress can be made for all these unfortunate men but for some reason it just doesn't happen Feminism. >it wouldn't be surprising if feminism expands into this general movement against it You mean people realize that western women are not actually oppressed any more and move onto other things. That would be good actually.

>>14602 >"it's the [current year]" meme spouter First sentence in and you're already assuming that whole of history and humanity is behind you, that you don't need to even present arguments for your positions but that they're so self evident that you, as a person can just parrot the talking points already mentioned ITT.

>>14219 >Yuri Bezmenov Something that came to me as I was listening to Bezmenov explain the processes of Soviet subversion in the US, is that he was merely describing what the KGB was doing, and why it worked. I didn't hear him explicitly condemn feminism or "Cultural Marxism" (did that term ever make sense...?) because ultimately, the question of whether Bezmenov and the Soviet Union genuinely supported progressive movements is not relevant. The KGB observed a point of contention in the American and applied pressure on it, because they *knew* it is a divisive subject. The same thing happened with the Black Panthers and the CIvil Rights movement. There is proof that the Soviet Union at least tried to co-opt the Civil Rights movement with mitigated success. MLK, in particular, was special in the sense that he was put under pressure by both the KGB and the FBI. Does that mean that Black Liberation and anti-segregationism was wrong? Of course not, the Soviet only supported these movements because they correctly assessed the injustices and prejudices that were prevalent in American society, and sought to exploit them. I don't think that pushing for racial equality would have been an effective tactic had the US already fully recognized Black people's rights and and dismantled institutional racism. The same is true of feminism and women's rights. As long as people in the US and elsewhere *are* prejudiced, as long as there is no true social and societal equality, it seems self-evident that pushing for social justice *will* result in a divided society and political climate. I guess that my point is that it's not because "the Russians are supporting it" that it's wrong. It merely indicates that a foreign government correctly assessed that supporting a particular issue will result in division. So what Bezmenov may as well be true (at least some of it seems very much plausible), but I see it as more of a consequence of our own failure to address and fix social inequalities in our societies. At one point Bezmenov is saying that the Soviet people cannot be subverted, because Soviet media is entirely state-controlled. Is media censorship by the state something to strive for? I think not. Political subversion is not a new concept, the US does it all the time as well when arming and training insurrectionist groups in countries whose political leadership is deemed "inconvenient" (Irak, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Chile, etc). But it merely is a tactic; it says nothing about the validity of the ideology pushed by the insurrectionists funded by the US (although the CIA tends not to support left-wing insurrectionists...). Feminism will destroy America only if Americans are too stubborn to extend the same rights and liberties for all. As long as there is inequality (and it is a fact that economic disparity is on the rise),there will be a fertile soil for dissent that may and will be exploited by foreign actors. And it will only mean that the US government failed to provide what the people ask for.

>>14590 >That all feminists think men are evil was obviously not the point and not even explicit. I think you're deliberately misunderstanding the sentence in a way that makes it easier to attack. Ok great, it's not explicit. Then I'm sure the person who wrote the initial "inherent evil" comment will reply to this one and clarify for us what they meant. >>14599 You forgot stats on domestic and sexual violence, I wonder why...

>>14610 >What is an example of going against /human/ nature that worked out well? Crafting tools and using them to achieve more than we can do with bare hands?

>>14626 >"Cultural Marxism" (did that term ever make sense...?) Of course. Economic Marxism is distributing wealth based on poverty instead of merit. Cultural Marxism is distributing social status based victimhood instead of merit. The criticism is obvious, rewarding people for being in a negative state just keeps them there and pushes the rest of society in that direction too. >I guess that my point is that it's not because "the Russians are supporting it" that it's wrong. It merely indicates that a foreign government correctly assessed that supporting a particular issue will result in division. So what Bezmenov may as well be true (at least some of it seems very much plausible), but I see it as more of a consequence of our own failure to address and fix social inequalities in our societies. I don't understand how you think these "equal rights" movements can simultaneously be the cause and solution for foreign powers undermining our society. What's really dangerous is this notion you have that if we can just fix the "inequalities in our societies" then everything will be fine. It doesn't work like that, it's like jumping on a waterbed. The harder you try to force equity onto one area, the more injustice and resentment you create in another area. Your Social Justice isn't fixing anything, you're just a pawn sowing division and hatred. >>14629 >Crafting tools and using them to achieve more than we can do with bare hands? Except using tools is exactly what makes humans intelligent and separates us from animals in nature cue Space Odyssey music. Try again. >>14627 >Ok great, it's not explicit. Then I'm sure the person who wrote the initial "inherent evil" comment will reply to this one and clarify for us what they meant. Or you could just read the text instead of projecting things that aren't there.

>>14708 >I don't understand how you think these "equal rights" movements can simultaneously be the cause and solution for foreign powers undermining our society. The movements are not the cause of societal problems - the inequality they are trying to correct is the cause. Just because you were fine before these people made themselves known doesn't mean it was manufactured. >The harder you try to force equity onto one area, the more injustice and resentment you create in another area. What is the size of "one area"? And how can equality (not equity) create injustice? Equality is not reverse-dominance. If resentment is a group's reaction to losing relative advantage, then too bad. That's not worth stopping for. >Except using tools is exactly what makes humans intelligent and separates us from animals in nature Then it can be said that changing our behavior instead of always following instinct is also human nature. chimps and crows use tools

>>14708 "Economic Marxism" isn't a thing, maybe what you mean is "Marxism", which isn't "distributing wealth". >Or you could just read the text instead of projecting things that aren't there. That didn't clarify anything. Is it the case that one of the main tenets of feminism is that men are inherently evil, or is it not the case?

>>14709 You don't create equality. You create arbitrary groups upon which you define a ranking and hand out a handicap for your sacred cow equality. Then you act surprised when people at the bottom of the ladder want you hanged for giving them even more hardships because you put them falsely in the privileged section since you never consider the individual and just group them up.

>>14748 >gender pay injustice has been debunked numerous times, and why don't you focus on other work statistics like fatal accidents that are way worse for men? To keen to win the victim olympics for more freebies? >i want respect >let me insult this guy as a flatearther you're funny overall you look to me like a missionary looking for a church and not for a discussion forum cause otherwise you would approach this more honest and less onesided

>debunked numerous times ? https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap

>>14764 I'm new to the thread but anon that link you posted seems a bit self-defeating. Quoting directly from it: "IN 2019, WOMEN EARN 79 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR EARNED BY MEN. This figure is representative of the uncontrolled — or “raw” gender pay gap, which looks at the median salary for all men and women regardless of job type or worker seniority. In other words, the median salary for men is roughly 21 percent higher than the median salary for women. This figure represents a one percent improvement from 2018 and a 5 percent improvement from 2015, when the median salary for men was roughly 26 percent higher than the median salary for women. What is the gender pay gap once all compensable factors such as experience, industry and job level are accounted for? It’s still not zero. In fact, when men and women with the same employment characteristics do similar jobs, women earn $0.98 for every dollar earned by an equivalent man. In other words, a woman who is doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man is still paid two percent less. Unfortunately, this controlled wage gap has only shrunk by a miniscule amount of $0.008 since 2015." >In other words, the median salary for men is roughly 21 percent higher than the median salary for women. That would be trivially explained by differences in career choice preferences. If every man chose to be a doctor and every woman chose to be a teacher, there would be a pay gap. No sexism required to explain that gap. In reality the breakdowns are more complex, but the imbalance of men vs. women in STEM jobs alone might explain a good chunk of it. You can argue that society is sexist for pushing women away from STEM jobs, but other work [1,2,3 Sources may overlap, but more can be readily found] has argued that the MORE egalitarian and 1st world a society is, the more gender-divided the workforce becomes. (IE: In Uganda, women are happy to be engineers because it is a matter of survival, in the US people choose jobs for pleasure and not survival, so innate gender biases emerge.) >In fact, when men and women with the same employment characteristics do similar jobs, women earn $0.98 for every dollar earned by an equivalent man. In other words, a woman who is doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man is still paid two percent less. >women earn $0.98 for every dollar earned by an equivalent man >$0.98 Let that sink in. 2 cents on the dollar. 2 percent. That is the REAL pay gap between genders in equivalent positions. IMO that is a virtual miracle, not a tragedy. Consider the (debatably) large role personality traits play in income. Remember that aggressive, masculine personalities are disproportionality rewarded by our societies emphasis on salary negotiation, aggressive job hunting, etc. [4,5,6] Given these imbalances, I find it shocking that the gap is that small. Sorry for the long rant. There are lots of issues in our society wrt sex and gender and equality etc. That doesn't mean we should ignore the facts and focus on issues that are largely irrelevant. If we waste everyone's goodwill towards fighting sexism on a virtually nonexistent pay gap, how can we expect to make progress when something actually important comes along, like abortion rights or access to education? [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-good-the-gender-gap-grows/ [2] https://www.aei.org/publication/the-global-educational-gender-equality-paradox-the-more-gender-equality-in-a-country-the-fewer-women-in-stem/ [3] See attached. [4] https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/salary-negotiation-gender-wage-gap [5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/07/13/why-dont-more-women-negotiate/ [6] https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask

>>14766 Me again. Here's a slightly better citation for the personality differences/pay gap issue.

>>14766 Cheers for the sources, this thread needed them like a fish needs water

>>14709 >What is the size of "one area"? And how can equality (not equity) create injustice? Equality is not reverse-dominance. If resentment is a group's reaction to losing relative advantage, then too bad. That's not worth stopping for. Because what is or isn't deemed a "fair" advantage is entirely arbitrary. Is it more unfair that a race is born with higher IQ or is it more unfair to reject smart people from college/jobs because their race is "over represented"? You instinctively apply your moral framework to these problems and come out with an answer you think is universally correct but it's not. You're just ignorant of the biases influencing your decision making. >The movements are not the cause of societal problems - No, what >>14626 said was that social movements are supported by foreign powers to undermine American society and those same social movements are somehow going to fix the "inequality" and protect us from those foreign powers. That's not logically consistent, they can't be both ruining and fixing society at the same time. >>14710 >That didn't clarify anything. Is it the case that one of the main tenets of feminism is that men are inherently evil, or is it not the case? You're the only one who said that so it's a mystery who you are trying to get "clarification" from. The real question is do you know you're strawmaning or do you have some kind of cognitive impairment.

>>14766 >the MORE egalitarian and 1st world a society is, the more gender-divided the workforce becomes. (IE: In Uganda, women are happy to be engineers because it is a matter of survival, in the US people choose jobs for pleasure and not survival, so innate gender biases emerge.) This is exactly what I see as well. Almost all female engineers I know are Indians who were not even allowed to choose who they marry nevermind what education/career path to pursue. Gender equality at work is actually a symptom of oppression but somehow feminists have 1984'ed the narrative upside down.

feminism nowadays is useless except perhaps in the middle east

>>14739 Of course you create equality. You create equality by granting voting rights to everyone. You create equality by removing harmful gender roles and stereotypes. Did the Civil Rights movements cause division ? Of course it did, but that was a good thing. If I were to go in the ISIS heartland and preach about women's rights, bodily autonomy or gay rights, would that cause division and dissent ? Of course it will, and that would be a good thing. The way you talk about "defining a ranking" and "handicaps" betray a gross misunderstanding of intersectionality theory. Wether you misunderstanding is intentional or not, it is all too common among reactionary people. And that is why, as >>12241 explained, most discussions on feminism in online spaces never go beyond stereotyped ideas of what feminist theory is like.

>>14797 > That's not logically consistent, they can't be both ruining and fixing society at the same time. Let me break it down for you: - There are social and wealth inequalities in current American society - The American government and/or people are not willing to fix these inequalities - People start to organize and advocate for equality. This is what we call a 'social movement' - This creates division because most people, as well as the governement are still not willing to dismantle said inequalities - A foreign nation (i.e. the Soviet Union) sees this and decides to side and provide help to the social activists, because at the moment they share a common adversary: the US government, which upholds these various inequalities - Division grows louder, because the activists are better prepared and funded, but the government and society at large still won't bulge. All I did was describe a process by which foreign actors can destabilize US society. And that were these particulars inequalities dismantled, there would not be a vector for foreign governments to destabilize society through social justice activism. Think about the American Civil War: were slavery already abolished, there would not have been such a big reason for division and dissent. But there was a massive, glaring inequality, and there was a war over it. Yet, we would not say that that the cause of the Unionists was wrong.

>>14940 Do you understand the meaning of handicap? If yes why mention soykaf that's unrelated and why not actually cover what constitutes a handicap like hiring quotas or gender exclusive scholarship programs? Oh and while we are at it, do you really believe everyone who runs this is out to help your idealism? Business wants cheaper labor. If they can double graduates they can stop paying high salaries. The whole get women in served in the past no other purposes and it doesn't do it now either. >You create equality by removing harmful gender roles and stereotypes As defined by whom? Anyone can make soykaf up about what's right or wrong. Why should we respect your opinion above our own?

men who feel "threatened" by feminism just have extremely fragile masculinity. They are scared that if the scales aren't tipped in their favor, they will not be able to succeed any more.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>14981 >They are scared that if the scales aren't tipped in their favor, they will not be able to succeed any more. No. they are scared that the scales will be tipped against their favour. the error is due to Sexual Egalitarianism (intentionally?) misappropriating the term for Femmenin Supremacism "Femmenism". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJ6hVpyAV0NRM4907S3+juGg+TbAFAl0ifp0ACgkQS3+juGg+ TbDHCQ//W3D5/pwIh+J2v0MZI3vHa+RNar418EM7HT+B7sw124W7mbDe5bcLM2SA N2oKjNFknYyX5amXC61gfxdIHeEdPpsSXwQjLcAA6wOmI+An2cMDcz5KbgcnkXCM PQlYSE4hlrdVQAR4at8uTTCqss6De6f2sTBiTyUYmRQu4JNXlfyVGf8p6MewC8nu 8gFn2xkTCOLyiIR3CYMnuqBFMFm6wKw/+GT/aqsRdSChmLW3Iu2a0RjpXUJ3Fwv9 fgfIq8q/qtRn8AENQ5So1mdRbqoEO0VDrBhZMwKWqypEq0xIEZZqZ8PBvu/wQYFm iv4x5Qk4YJJe7ncJ4P/2Z8AZhbTwin3TC6xFcTRSesmad/T4ZrR+82TWzoXrJ/87 MkbepwVpnAA2exK5V7FxwXhYeEG7A1aWVUvCMnF3apebvhXtsHJuWhAvcVRPJndC ixKBSk5rFV9T5/g/hrboB/+InFSOCvcLkKALsulcClSCXKsKvYXKYc87RRv3f89L KvmjOXmFzMZkJz/70Ank3q1pcQMuC1U5Kjasz5f2+memysvKyQ88ozG8SHpw31Gm D5djoBsWwURiSstlWP4FOpvc6yRKcA28i17r8aqlltzyLUZgW6MGSOuMnBm3Woln JHuIFH/byJ5Z6BDmqkdP1bnJh5dYjamWkVT6Z5uInxd9vkFZRKM= =Bv1s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>14986 if you are threatened by the odds being against you, you're just a cowardly weak man. That's just how it is.

>>14981 Conservatism as a whole system is built on this fear, that the current hierarchy is good and that if it shifts it will disrupt some natural order. It's built on arguing from tradition that everything we need to know about society we already know, and that society is already incredibly egalitarian and there are only small changes necessary to improve our condition. Of course, this leads to some incredibly stupid takes on even the most statistically evidently necessary movements, e.g. feminism. There is no fighting that in statistical meta-analyses which cover a broad range of professions and a broad range of experience levels and other demographic factors that men and women of equal social status and qualification are not treated equally, more often than not with med being favored. Conservative responses either ignore the data outright ("well, they must not be working as well" or "well, they must be choosing the wrong industries") or deliberately misrepresent the goals of their opponents ("you want female supremacy!!!11!"). Too much soykaf in this thread.

>>14992 It's about keeping wealth. That's it. Nobody gives a fuarrrk about equality, they want to keep their gains which is why it's mostly the elderly. Your fanfiction is pure cringe.

>>14975 >As defined by whom ? You're right, there is absolutely no way we can collectively determine which societal dynamics are harmful. Brb shooting up a school because after all my moral sense is just as good as anyone else's. And yes, capitalist interests and market forces are at the heart of every labor-related struggle, and that is another problem in itself. That doesn't mean that we should not push for social changes just because capital corrupts everything. Sometimes it is a lack of diversity in itself that can cause poor or subpar performance, as, for example, is the case with firefighters : https://hbr.org/2018/12/making-u-s-fire-departments-more-diverse-and-inclusive

>>15002 So you found one common point. Are left and right one party now without any disagreement now? Seriously this entire thread is a sequence of failures to argue a given point.

>>14766 you will be ignored because feminists don't like facts

>>15027 Neither side here is particularly receptive to facts unless the carefully selected facts support their position. Stop pretending that only the other side is guilty of it.

>>15027 We're not against facts. We're against unconvincing arguments. You can cite a study, I can cite a study. My study will come to the opposite conclusion. Not just on questions in the social sciences. I can do that for physics, too. It'll be one you can find in a scholarly journal published by a scholarly society. it'll have citations to other studies, too. I might even be able to find a few such studies that concur. It won't even matter whether the findings are right or wrong, you name the fact (false or not), I can find support for the opposite fact. One study is never enough. If you want to convince people of some empirical fact, you'll need to provide all the research that has been done relevant to that fact. This probably means sharing a few critical analyses covering all research done done about that fact. (And boy do they gotta be critical! Nothing convinces a man more than being shown how all the fullest attempts at invalidation fail, other than seeing for himself.) >>14766 will be ignored, not because we don't like facts, but because insist on a complete view of the topic before we rest our case. If the complete view shows we were wrong, we accede, if we were right, we succeeded.

>>15034 >>15028 Read the fuarrrking thread before complaining. The data was posted by a pro poster as evidence and the poster after that took the effort to actually read it and point out it shows the exact opposite. When you get wrecked by your own evidence you have no room to complain about bias.

>>15038 >When you get wrecked by your own evidence I didn't though.

>>15034 > I can do that for physics, too Show me.

>>15039 You used "we" and wrote as if it were one hivemind you could speak for. If you want to represent everyone you also take the heat for everyone. Concern about source quality is irrelevant if you can't even be bothered to read your own sources and check if they actually support your stance. In fact it begs the question how much else was derived likewise. Reminds of how most christians practice their religion.

>>14998 That's capitalism, not conservatism as a whole. Conservatism is both economic and social policy.

>>15042 >You used "we" Wrong again.

>>14766 > in the US people choose jobs for pleasure and not survival huge citation needed. i work to not furrracking die. > aggressive, masculine personalities are disproportionately rewarded by our societies emphasis on salary negotiation The last meta-analysis of salary negotiation found that not only do women feel more pressure on average and are thus less likely to pursue raises more aggressively, those who do so often face strong pushbask due to seeming overly aggressive as a woman. If you have sources that demonstrate otherwise I am interested in reading them.

>>15043 >huge citation needed Not him but if people would earnest chase money they wouldn't go for degrees known to end up as walmart employees.

>>15060 Well often people go into those degrees with little to no planning and with no real idea of what they want to do, so they just end up picking something they care about on a personal belief level and decide to go from there.... then they end up in walmart, majors like philosophy or gender politics aren't meant to give you a job, rather they're meant to be applied to something, like a business or a job, if you wanted to be a journalist for the washington post or whatever else news channel, then something like gender politics might be right up your ally for example.

>>15335 Isn't that exactly what was said? If they were chasing money they would plan accordingly. The fact that they don't just shows how little they worry about income. It's not a big hurdle to google income across professions & requirements to plan accordingly otherwise.

>>15060 m8 how fuarrrking stupid do you have to be to think that people actually plan that? People take that walmart job so that they don't die in the streets.