Recently, I've been running into the statement that feminism helps men...

Recently, I've been running into the statement that feminism helps men. I haven't actually encountered a feminist which can explain to me thoroughly just how it helps men beyond spooked gender non-sense. I've actually had more thorough and well thought out responses from their opposition explaining how feminism does not help men at all, it doesn't help that I am basically a child of a divorced family and my father's practically in a shit relationship which would cause him to basically be thrown out to the streets, robbed of his income and basically have any of his will to live sucked out of him.

And it isn't just that, you've got rape, sexual assault charges and all kinds of defamation which happens all over the world, especially in Israel. It is worse in europe where in france, you can't even check for paternity results as a male because it is practically illegal. So you could be held down in a relationship, caring for the result of a fling despite you not even being involved in it.

I don't think feminism is a immediate danger, but I don't think at all that is helped anyone. It has reversed gender/sexual relations, made western men and women hate each other and has segregated and seperated them. None the less, children are being taught false premises by the establishment and are told to against their nature and act like a completely different person then themselves.

Leftypol, while I think there's a lot against feminism, is there anyway you can actually support the stance of women's liberation/feminism in the west?

Other urls found in this thread: statistics

OP raped me

Women are cunts. Hopefully under communism they're eliminated and we have artificial wombs and waifu bots.

Feminism can't really go any further in the west because they already have all the same rights. The reason feminists clamor to provide reasons why we still need it is because it's porky's ideology that he desperately needs to keep the working class in chains and fighting amongst themselves with their idpol demons of 'patriarchy' and shit.

Artificial wombs mean artificial birth canals. You're basically wanting a world of MtF trans people.

Either that, or you're wanting everyone to have c-sections with big scars left over from the surgery for the rest of their lives.

Either way, men are not going to be qt after pregnancy. We'd all have beer guts after producing children. Beer guts with scars. Sexy as fuck future you're painting so far.


Ernest Bax was an anti feminist socialist who called out their bullshit a century ago

better than having actual women around.


I mean external user

Basically growing people in matrix style pods. It's coming whether people like it or not.



Sounds realistic.

I spot some anarcho-feminists here and on /anarcho/ so I was just wondering whether you guys are onto this shit as well.

I'd say it's more just generic mission creep

Once the actual legal codification of sex differences was removed (i.e. woman gaining the vote, illegal to explicitly bar female entry to positions etc), those involved needed something to justify not only their needs for further reform, but their current positions as "feminist advocates". And when you argue from a "blank slate" view of human nature there's a million different causes you can latch onto to justify further reforms. So you essentially have a cottage industry of feminist organisations, NGOs etc that will find any rationale to justify their continued existence.

Also there's

I know what I said above leans heavily on the MGTOW or Holla Forums line, but I think "feminism" will never go away for the same reason you can rarely halt military spending - those that benefit will always find an argument for why you just need to spend or do a bit more

That's pretty fucked. Constant division.
You know, I just dislike feminism as it is more of a division creating element used for some overarching whining about a boogyman which ultimate targets the rights of men against the establishment, essentially these people are just useful idiots. I don't mind the idea of a woman who's just as capable as a man. Infact I kind of wish women weren't so genetically prone to being less capable and more sheep like. It'd stop a lot of ridiculous bullshit.


can we, uh, not do this

I'm rather surprised that this thread has turned out like this

I saw a similar thread on Holla Forums and it didn't turn out very well, it is because they're more so dealing with trolls or that Holla Forums's more prone to havng liberals?

No one has actually used that bullshit, and the whole point of this thread is establishing if there is actual reasons to support feminism rather then spooky shit. Reading comprehension mah nigga. It's mandatory for social interaction.

No one is a MRA on here

That and upper class people reaaallly enjoy the satisfaction of having an ideology they can push around onto people.

I kind of am, but unlike a bunch of MRAs I actually think feminism isn't totally ridiculous.

This is a big component as well. It's always the celebrities frontlining the progressive/identity politics movements of today, mostly rich people and well off people. The prole and the working class are actually going to turn less and less in favour of the left if this shit keeps occuring. It's kind of sad how the old left is dead today. There's only two choices about now, either classic liberalism or fullout authoritarianism.

The statement that feminism helps men is based on the theory that feminists are more likely to engage in casual sex – making it easier for men to get laid more often, by a greater number of women, without the burden of a relationship or commitment.

I'm not saying that not saying that theory is necessarily true. Kind of depends on a number of other factors.

I see it has contaminated leftypol as well.

That's.. kind of silly. Yes, there's less government restrictions, in place of having sex. Buuuuut, there's also other laws making that redundant and actually making it worse for male/female relationships in the west beyond immigrants and people who aren't very vulnerable to the law. There's actually more protection of criminals and wrong-doers in today's society.

Feminism is not about women's rights anymore. It's pure ideology now.

One thing I really wish feminism would do is just come out and say that they purely advocate on the rights of women instead of attempting to turn it into this all-encompassing world-saving ideology. Like the fact that they purely advocate for the rights of only one group doesn't implicitly make them a supremacy group by any means, and all the other groups that advocate for other idpol groups can get along to doing their own shit.

I don't think it ever was anything other then pure ideology. I'd make a good bet a lot of civil right movements from the 1800s to now were just funded movements in favour of divisive change. What better way to make the average joe hate themselves and others then push the common identity politics. It's kind of screwed how fucked up the shit really is.

oh god shut the fuck up

I hate this idpol problem we have now as much as the next guy but don't trivialise legitimate, organic movements that actively improved the lives of millions of people.

Cry more

Yeah and not every man gets sex easily. Women just fuck the same guys. They still mock emotional and shy men.

What is actually wrong with advocating for men exactly? Women don't.

The idea is that breaking gender roles for women naturally does the same for men too and frees them up to be whatever they want, and act however they want without fulfilling preconceived ideals of masculinity.

I agree. I'd rather this liberal movements be honest about their intentions. I kind of laughed hard at the result of the elections because it really showed their true face. Their movements have a mask of individual rights, freedom for the people but really they couldn't give a single shit about any of the things they advocate. It's usually just self appeasal.

I think it is a facade. What they seem to ignore is that men didn't get a suffergate/rights movement untill just before women got their own rights. They seem to forget the majority of european history where men and women alike were downtrodden, treated like shit and barely cared for.

All these movements did is ask master not to give them a beating, it worked. But life is still just as controlled and fucked up as usual. If you think idealistically, sure it was a good change. Realistically? Fuck no. It was pretty much just a "You did good" sticker on your book of world history.

But most of those preconceived ideals of masculintiy aren't social constructs, they're behaviour carried through centuries of human development and all these identity politics movements do is try to change people under some humanist banner. What we're seeing now is that it doesn't work at all, and it creates a lot of social and ethical issues. I mean half of america's most iconical shootings are a result of it.

Yeah and then women still expect men to be taller, earn more, be outgoing and daring, be muscular, dominant and confident etc. Even feminists date these people. Laughably hypocritical.


Literally all feminism has ever been about is purging lower status men and letting women fuck their desired men with impunity, while the rest are labelled creeps.

The problem with modern feminism is that they won't own up to the fact women want to commoditize their sexuality.

That's why you get these warpped definitions of oppression like video games with half naked women being called oppressive.

What's really happening is that unattractive women don't want the social average of attractiveness to be raised because it was make their commoditzed sexuality worth less.

But they don't realize this themselves so they call it a form of sexual assault. It's ridiculous.

Meanwhile legions of poor men that have been rejected not on their character but class, jump all over them for such stupidity but it's so obvious even to normies that they're animated by bitterness and not any real theory or concern for the wellbeing of oppressed minorities

Yeah and by breaking those gender roles up so other people can leave them, you break down the structures that sometimes allow someone to fit into that gender role when they actually WANT to. That argument is a totally double-edged sword unfortunately.

Young men doing mass shootings because tfw no gf shows a gaping entitlement problem. It's not a problem brought about by feminists.


Truth. Sex bots oughta fix all that up in a jiffy. Or we could like, literally enact communism so their sexual value can't be attached to a market.

Fortunately I never fell prey to such tactics because I was never attracted to women. Their sexual currency isn't worth anything to me.

This is encouraging to see.


Feminism can help men because it can help them overcome their spooks.

It's hard for the dominant liberal and gender feminist paradigm to articulate this because those tendencies are themselves pretty spooked.

This isn't a problem with Marxist and socialist feminism. At least, it shouldn't be.

Where do you think the entitlment comes from? Take a brief look at history, since when did a men sit in a tower and curl down their hair to let rapunzal come up and rescue them? The majority of men wouldn't act like Elliot Rodger did, They'd go and ask the woman, or they'd just find another. Elliot has the behaviour of a woman my friend. You can guess what caused that.

The thread isn't about telling me that it can.
The very purpose of this thread is to explain why it can. You can go "y-yeah but ti does help" but it's bullshit to me unless you can actually get your point across.

Feminist buzzword. It's entitled to feel companionship? Gtfo

A woman can still be the 1950s housewife if she wants. The breaking of gender roles just means the obligation is no longer there, and she can drop it at any time she pleases. The archetype of gender roles and what they entail will always lurk in society seeing as they had such a strong grip on it for so long. If you wanna go back to em go ahead, it's the choice aspect that it's integral.

It's very similar to the debate in the Muslim world about the hijab. Feminists aren't fighting for every woman to be banned from wearing the hijab, they're fighting for the choice, for the woman to decide what they want to do. If they decide of their own free will to wear the hijab, then that's an empowering choice and something to be supported.

Those first two pics are telling. Feminists are insane hypocrites

Why would sex bots fix it. We have prositutes now. Maybe because you were never attracted to women you don't realize most men want intimacy from women. Which includes sex but entails a lot more.

If anything I find "male" Andrea Dworkins pretty amusing!

The fucking hilarious thing is that a lot of women who espouse feminist dialogue actually do this shit. They want to be traditional women. It's such a fucking redundant, stupid ass movement which legitimately doesn't change anything (Which isn't surprising, since you can't really change nature, it isn't just a spook) I'm kind of disappointed this thread isn't giving any reasonable answers to feminism. I kind of wanted to believe there was some sort of thought behind.

This is pol teir.

That's 50s housewife thing is a myth. It was created by porky to guilt women into leaving the workplace after WWII.

Women always worked outside the home in significant numbers, just didn't earn as much as men

There's a whole set of rituals and social mores established by the reigning cultural paradigm that tells you what to do, how to think and how to act based on the concept of being a "man".

This is, of course, a load of nonsense, but specifically why this is a load of nonsense is a feminist critique.

Good person

"Its because I am a Nice Guy instead of an uncaring asshole, isn´t it?"

I disagree. It's made men who believe in traditional gender roles hate feminists and feminists hate those men.
I have no problem with most feminists, if you could call any person that doesn't believe in socially enforced gender roles a feminist. Or people who believe in women having equal treatment under the law. I agree with those things.
Now there's arguments to be had about things self identifying feminists propose that go beyond what I just said, for example the idea of automatic or subconscious "privelige", that you don't necessarily have to agree with to agree with the other two things I listed

Fairy tales aren't real bud. They merely reflect the regressive ideologies of their time. We're beyond the days of nights in shining armour and helpless princesses. Telling that you base your politics on that shit tho.

People like Eliott Rodger and all the bitter /r9k/ woman haters aren't entitled to love because they're horrible human beings.

But that's true. Even people like Breivik and Manson get more female admirers than your average shy guy.

So it's just a bunch of idealized bullshit trying to change what isn't bound to social thought. I'm not surprised.

I know you purposelly focused on that to ignore my point. Don't do that. Makes you look like an idiot. You very well know I was addressing that the natural behaviour of a man isn't to act like a woman and sit around waiting for a confident approach. A single look at the animal kingdom beyond obvious exclusions considering species would tell you this.

Please. This shit is fucking ridicilous, it doesn't fool me. This spook of a over-arching patriarchy is ridiculous. We know very well that traditional values come from centuries of human development and aren't just attached to whatever religious outview you dislike. A perfect explanation of my point would be women in ultra-liberal societies like the nordics converting back to traditionally female positions despite openings and actual will for men to encourage women into other fields.

'privilege' is a complete invention of porky slop that keeps the working class infighting among themselves forever.

The only muh privilege that counts is how much money you have.

I've never harmed anyone physically, never exploited or abused anyone, never knowingly done anything immoral, never demand things from anyone, but I'm a horrible person for wanting a partner and being a virgin? OK.

Males Feminists™ are the worst and are the type to say "on behalf of all men, I'm sorry for [dumb shit]".

They don't hate those men. They hate poor men, and they hate being called out on commoditizing their sexuality.

The whole nice guy thing is just women rejecting men based on class instead of character. Plenty of awful men that are rich can easily get women. Just like plenty of awful pretty women can.

Amerifat women get triggered because they have so many spooks around their vagina. Thank god gen y isn't like that


It's your relationship to the means of production

But if most people nowdays regardless of their gender are generic, why should i bother approaching them friendly catposter?


I didn't say they're not real feminists. I'm just saying there are some things that believing definitely makes you a feminist (my first two examples) and other things that are more contentious. I agree with the basic idea of treating women as equals, which is the primary facet of feminism, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with something like"rape culture" which I partially agree with but not totally the way many feminists think of it

No. Lotta people in your position. It's natural and human.

I'm talking about people who dedicate significant parts of their internet presence to spewing bile about women and how subhuman they are, yet still whinge about tfw no gf.

I think that's due to depression and social isolation more than any deep ingrained hatred.

any particular source or study about this or

Who is classed as Gen Y?

nah, that's socially conditioned.
Im not saying we don't have "natural" inclinations to certain features like youth and wide hips or whatever

I didn't say I want a virgin

I mean I'm a virgin and want a partner. Feminists mock men for being virgins.

Also, of it just happens by itself, why do we need social or legal enforcement of it? (Ostracizing a women who wears pants or does carpentry)

These are just the extreme, evolved versions of the user you're replying to, if Feminists and mainstream culture have mocked, trivialized and fueled their suffering enough.

Well the social isolation is self imposed most of the time. These people reject the world and act surprised when the world rejects them in return.

I'm saying it's natural for a virgin to want to have sex and have a relationship.

There is no obligation my friend.


This shit couldn't get anymore worse fam, even a broken clock is right twice a ay.

It's a source, but I've seen people dismiss it for odd reasons.

1995- to 2010

It's unfortunate that virgin is used as an insult to lazily explain away men who disagree with feminism.
Talk to actual educated feminists, they will tell you there is literally nothing wrong with a man being a virgin.

I'm sorry mate, but that sounds super fucking ridicolous.

Sort of off topic, but women in men's clothes is pretty much my greatest fetish.

Well, I hope you appreciated the conversation.

It really depends on what you mean by "feminism."

Bourgeois liberal """feminism""" is trash designed to get rich women more priviIeges.

Socialist feminism is aimed at ending particular forms of female exploitation.

Freeing women from socially assigned gender roles should necessarily help men as well because no one should be forced into being something just because society tells them that's how they "should" act.

Again, there is a difference between women's study majors whining about "rape culture" because someone made a joke that they didn't like and actual revolutionary feminism. In the US for example female Latin immigrants are heavily exploited because of their status. They do all kinds of difficult, domestic labor for their wealthy employers for a pittance. The "Mexican domestic" is already a cultural cliche, but I imagine the reason "feminists" don't talk about this particular form of labor oppression is because it's frequently perpetrated not only against women but by women as well, and if these rich bitches have children, Inez is probably the one taking care of them while they're busy chairing the women's studies department or whatever. That's to say nothing of the millions of wives and mothers that receive no compensation whatsoever for their essential work as caregivers to their own children, the "stay at home mom." I'm not sure there can be more "socially necessary labor time" than ensuring the proper care and education of children, but that's just a personal opinion.

It's important to remember too that many of the things you're complaining about in the OP are a result of liberal feminists trying to find liberal answers to structural problems inherent to capitalism. The entire marriage structure is flawed in numerous ways, but in particular this concept of alimony is especially troublesome. It makes sense only in the context of capitalism, where the role of guardianship is delegated to individuals that are expected to act as a single unit regardless of the circumstances and which if broken up immediately puts the remaining child and parent in economic danger. It's not a secret that typically it's men that are forced to pay things like alimony while women tend to receive all sorts of benefits and preferential treatment from the courts. This should be a problem for feminists if only because of its inherent chauvinism. It should be a problem for socialists because it immediately transforms marriage from a social bond into a economic pact of servitude. What else can alimony be described as but economic exploitation?

So we can see then that feminism's cardinal sin in the western world is that it not only abandoned examining society along material lines but that it also gave up trying to transform that society as well. If you remove the capitalist concept of marriage and child ownership, then you no longer have a basis for this male exploitation. If feminists were fulfilling their proper role, they would be trying to dismantle these socially oppressive relationships rather than trying to legally amend them with the bourgeois legal system.

It goes both ways. People that get bullied or abused will naturally resent the world.

Men who are virgins should just sleep with a sex worker.

Seriously you're going to realize sex is just another aspect of life and it's not really special like you think

I did, but it didn't really offer me anyrthing new. Just plain odd explanations I've had from feminsits which come off obnoxious at the end of the day. As I've said earlier in the thread I kind of wished different.

no thanks

Reform movements completly succeeded in domesticating the working class to being a comfortable docline and pacifist population. This increased more strongly with capitalism providing disctractions and remedies for the remaining missery under the system like the systemisation of life and stress.

Without all those reforms we would have revolutions mutch more quickly.

Sex is one of the most important aspects of life, though. Try NEVER having sex and you'll understand.


sex isn't actually a big deal

t. permavirgin

vast majority of /r9k/ woman haters are also racist as fuck. It's not feminists edging them into hatred. When you stay in your room all day and be spiteful of everyone doing something or being happy, that will eventually consume you and you'll project it onto all aspects of the populace. Women are just part of that.

I might eventually but for some reason I find it unappealing. Feels bad knowing you're miles behind your peers who've had loads of relationships at your age.

If your a virgin and you feel conflicted about it I it's because you probably have a lot of spooks around sex, like it has to be with someone you love and other bullshit.

Just bite the bullet and sleep with a hooker. You'll realize nothing about is changed and you can start defining what sex is to you instead of the other way around


Just fucking do it. Your miles behind because you have all these weird ideas about it that you imagined. After you do it you're going to realize it's mundane as shit and your friends are insecure

No it's not. You won't die due to lack of sex. Try living without drinking water.

This nigga solifidies my point when it comes to civil rights movements. They're basically a group of movements which inadverdtly made it harder for any actual revolution or rebellion against the establishment harder.

They are the result of society its process in creating 'good citizens people who are unsuccesfull within the system to get what the system demands of them. Thus in desperation they seek other shit like perhaps trap stuff or furry stuff or /r9k/ stuff or ISIS stuff or reach a breaking point and shoot up a school. All social outcasts are the result of society.

For me it's more how society sees virgins than actually being one that irks me

What friends?

I guess you get used to it after a certain time, but still, thinking it's unimportant in normal conditions is top alienation

A short summary of your ideology-ridden post

You won't die due to lack of parents, but it's an important part of your life anyway. Also depression and suicidal tendencies.

What's so special about sex that it's too sacred to be commoditzed. Americans are spooked as fuck when it comes to sex.

You'll all tear each other up emotionally, watch non stop violent media, spend half your waking life working for porky, but paying for sex is what's too gross haha

At this point I doubt sex is even real. I'm convinced it's a meme.

But to address your point, is there really a reason to respect feminism anymore in the west if it's become a complete bastardization of itself? I've basically abandoned the left for the same reason. It is just become a big dance of ideology. No change. No Revolution. No rebellion. It's all a big joke.

Just because people are acclimatized doesn't mean the rest of that shit isn't fucked up too.

I haven't had sex in +4 years and i'm perfectly fine.

the biggest spook of all

Sleeping with a women is benign to both parties. Only Americans see sex with women as a transaction where men somehow take away the value from women.

You are all spooked as fuck about sex.

your source is shit because it's essentially anecdotal evidence put to camera. Give me some serious study or hard numbers or stfu.

I'm gonna drop the p word here, but it's just an immense showing of muh privilege to say this shit.

>An ism can make people overcome an other ism.
Spook memes are a joke.

He means feminism liberates the choice to do it WILLFULLY compared to being obligated to do it under coercion. Its the best if your waifu is genuine about wanting to be a housewife compared to pretending to be something she doesnt want to be. This usually will result into shit behafior as she is forced to preform in an act that she wouldnt do voluntary. It creates frustration and can result into tension within the relationship as it creates a bit of a culture of silence and coercion. Some women can do the same with men tho so a balance of power and cooperation within the relationship is important.


This. "x is a spook" destroys 90% of conversation on this board. It's such a broad device, so overused that it essentially means nothing anymore. It's a cop out.

I'd agree, but I'm just using as a means to convey words. I just feel like there is no likable attributes to feminism. Anything it could had been it has failed to be.

If you watched it through, it refers to studies and citations in the video.

I agree about coercion and willfull choice, but I'm actually seeing more forced relationships under liberal/western society as a result of the economic/social systems set in place rather then actual traditional society. I'm not going to fool myself and say it isn't a problem in societies with arranged marriage but that's actually following a similar road. While it isn't liberal it is stil a form of economic marriage which is present in liberal societies.

Try 21 years

some people are born painters. some are born housewives/husbands

the point is a person shouldn't be forced to be one any more than they should be forced to be the other

That's because most men think with their dicks. That's why i don't take seriously those folks at /r9k/ and wizardchan. Because they are generic people and when they say "tfw no gf" what they mean is "why don't instagram sluts throw themselves at me?"
I am not like that, i have standards, i don't feel the need to have casual sex with random people. I have a functioning dick and hands as well as a brain.

I've got 25, who's got more?

Critique of something can help you overcome that thing.

I fail to see any logical contradiction here.

Any Wizard powers?

Didn't realize how sexually repressed all the anons on this board were.

Explains why you guys reeeee and anything that criticizes white supremacy, none of you guys are getting laid.

Seriously sleep with a sex worker so the amount of pent up bitterness can be bleed off this board

Have you read Marx? Revolutionary Potentional always appears in reaction to the material conditions of the working class. Improving sutch destroys the possibility of the revolution? Remember the shit of WW1 that made the russians revolutionary, they had their theory and conciousness but the real trigger is when your normal living conditions dont exist anymore because of crisis making you more inclined for revolt. Especially when there is a mass movement resulting from widespread reaction to the decrease of the quallity of the material conditions and lost of living standart. Read some history books on what was going on BEFORE a revolution before you spout of stuff you dont know anything about.

Its a muh privilege to have your life systemized from 6 to 5 and eat cancer inducing foods and see every fucking body so docline and mentally misserable in advanched capitalist countries.

Call it critique then and not le spook spook, spook busting is the best method to destroy all idea but only so if you really understand stirner and nobody here understands Stirner. Only folk who do are from the post-left as they developed further from Stirner with Self Theory.

Critique from spook to spook is fucking retarded because it's basically another idea trying to trump another. The person you're replying to has read stirner fully and has noted his writings.

If you seek to overcome a spook, it's better to do it from an outsider's perspective rather then try to push a disliked idea onto someone else. It's a simple as that. Pointing out the flaws in both ideas would have better results then a feminist bitching about the patriarchy. And there's not debate to be had about that.

An obligation, isn't force. You choose whether or not to meet that social binding.


Go worship your golden calf somewhere else.

I'm sorry mate, but what the fuck does white supremacy have to do with my post?

My god your not a special snow flake. Sleeping with you isn't some prize you need to preserve.

As for standards I gureentee they're all class based.

if your so happy about your standards then stfu about not getting sex

If someone's appealing to some fixed idea, or advocating behavior in service to the same, I don't see why we can't hand wave it as a spook.

Butt hurt from not having sex causes anons to see criticism of white supremacy as personal attacks.

Seriously most anons couldn't even define idpol much less offer critiques of particular cases of it

Uhh..I fail to see the correlation, or it's relevance to the thread. You've just come in and shat on a decent discussion.

Spook is just a meme on this board for fixed ideas and various other vague concepts that you're supposed to subordinate yourself to on its own ground.

I don't really give that much of a shit about Stirner, tbh.

It's more along the lines that you shouldn't subordinate yourself fixed ideas, not so much a battle of ideas.

A good example of this, from a feminist perspective, is men being browbeaten into going off to wars that have nothing to do with them because fighting for your country is manly.

Well its a stupid fucking meme and thats coming from a guy who study's that debt ridding faggot in detail. Its like calling every single thing an social construct without the explination why and how its enforced or perhaps calling it jewish dark magical deg eneracy.

Yes, you don't have to battle them. You don't have to value them or allow them to dictate an argument either.

Feminists couldn't give a shit if men died off in a war, we've seen that from the recent proposal in drraftings. They'd naturally want someone stronger then them to defend them. I'm betting you fifty bucks you'd be hard fetched to find a woman who doesn't want a man in her place at the battlefield.

I hate this random bullshit relating unrelated things to each other which ideology often does. Men don't fight for "Manlyness" it usually comes along the line of finding purpose, becoming fit, just an occupation, defending what you value about your country from opposition. If that's feminist critique it is incredibly fucking shallow tbfh family.


this is just a feminism bashing thread


When you're an ethnic minority in a country and the vast majority hate you and the government treats you with disdain, it's so absolutely retarded to call for revolution of the whole working class. Not only will the working class majority laugh that off, so will the elite of course. We're talking in the context of civil rights marches remember, wholly different to Lenin and co.

It's a thread of critique which a bunch of lonely /r9k/ faggots and people like you came and shat up.

First, you're talking about a very wide range of views.

Second, the Kurd subscribe to a feminist ideology and take a very obvious pride in the fact that they field women fighters alongside men.

Pretty tough in a patriarchal society yeah.

Men join the military to "become fit" and because they're bored. Okay dude.

I think it's more along the lines of "concepts should serve you, you shouldn't serve concepts.

Goddamn, man

get out, back to Reddit

why don't you fuck off back to pol faggot?

I'll admit to my mistake in terms of generalizing women when it comes to self defense, and that culture and society is a defining matter. But I'm skeptical to consider how prevalent this is. Women are in forces like YPG, they are strong in more tribal societies, but there's these kind of self defending women in "Patriarchal societies" especially in russia.

Yeah and rampant racism is still around as fuck in america and south africa. America even has a black president and racial tensions are high as fuck. Even so nobody ever will get along, (Fucking VILLAGES filled with WHITE and PROTSTANTS fucking hate eachother here, even fucking families hate eachother and individuals. Rascism or hate for other groups will never in the history of humanity be solved untill we go post-human) even the working class. But its possible to unite them as communists have succeeded plenty of times in the past.

Why even call your ideology feminism though? Surely there are better words to describe it which aren't burdened with so much ideological baggage. It's like insisting on calling yourself a nazi and then getting upset when people assume you're the same as all those other nazis.

The difference between female's fighting for Putin and females fighting for Rojava is the ideology. Apoism places feminism at the very core of its revolution. The YPJ is actively revolutionary in improving the conditions all of women all across Rojava. It has inspired women of all ethnic groups to take up arms and advance their struggle.

They're not only fighting Islamo fascism, but patriarchy.

Russian female fighters are window dressing and propaganda. Their presence is wholly insignificant and irrelevant to what Russia is trying to accomplish. that's the difference.


Can't we just call it equality or egalitarianism?

Russia is post-Soviet. Calling it "patriarchal" - equivalent to Muslim Fundies, India, even China - is nothing but a propaganda attempt to grant some significance to the Western Liberal "feminism".

What about Socialism?

Fuck the left. Read this:

Is this new 3rd positionism ?

I agree about the "western liberal feminism propaganda" but you ignore the fact that soviets benefited the already "patriarchal" russia for its actions.

I don't see the point in adhering to feminism in the first place. You referred to socialism/marxism and soviet societies which endorsed female choice but marx's very thoughts dismissed shit like feminism as it was disisive and instead a over-all change was better, rather then a fixation on some bullshit against men. That's why feminism, even out of the bastardized west doesn't really have a purpose to exist. Third world countries are oppressive in general, not just towards women. Rather then focusing on civil rights we should address the over-all system. Which feminism usually fails to do.

Most feminists now days focus on spooked stuff like sexual objectification.

Nah, it's standard left-com stuff.


I'm not sure I understand this bit.

Feminism (at least, Socialist - Marxist - version of it) is a protection of female role in society. It's not about enforcing rigid uniformity of genders.

Endorsed what?

No. He argued against confusing methods and goals.

I had a better opinion about "standard leftcom".

No but it is a kind of coercion.

Also all you're doing is moving the argument back a little, from "choice" to "obligation". Unless your society is on the literal brink of collapse (like some children of men scenario) there is no reason to have a social "obligation" to be a stay at home mom or a bread winner. Women are biologically oriented to having kids, if they didn't we wouldn't exist as a species. That inclination most women have will keep the human population moving along just fine, there's no need to collectively shit on the few women who decide not to partake.

He means machines you retard

Im sure this thread will be full of intelligent discussion.

That said paternity tests should be legal and men should have more rights over their offspring, from being able to be the parent who gets them in a divorce or disowning them entirely to not pay child support at the cost of waving any rights to contact with the children.

He very particularly made a effort to push people like victoria woodhall out of the workers association because she was far too focused on identity issues rather then class issues, which was a problem.

Sorry, endorsed, whatever word. It wasn't restrictive. But it wasn't a outright feminist or matiarchial society. It was a society which saw people as workers, rather then feminist and workers.

Which is arguing and criticizing feminism as it has little benefit to class warfare. "Protection" of women in a society under marxism is fucking retarded because the very point of it is giving people power, women fit into that. Give a woman a gun and there's no need for feminism.

I agree with your point on coercion, but it isn't like you can't choose to die. Right now my priority is not dying so I choose to wageslave, much like the majority of the world right now. Sitting here and making comparisons of a global issue to women not cooking dinner after a man has come home back from work is a laugh.

You're confusing my lack of care for people who are willing to ask for reform but not willing enough to revolutionize as absolute that I want them to be opressed.

It has been, and your dismissal doesn't really make you look good.

Not really too keen on reading these threads as it usually just turns into a few Holla Forumsyps sperging about how womyn are demons

I realize I also fit into the bracket, but I've had self reflection. I know I'm not a violent revolutionary. But I've made a point to address that I'm not going to sit around and focus on idealistic societies if I ain't going to put in the effort to make them exist. So I basically just go with the flow as the only revolution which is going to come is on caused by standards of living.

Have you read my thread family?
I'd agree that /r9k/ types have sperged up a portion of the thread, but mostly me and other people are addressing ideological feminism, not women themselves.

No its long, i just woke up, and I assumed, as per my experience of the last 2+ years, that its going to be full of r9k type idiots.

The OP is enough to point out otherwise. I've made it very clear I was talking about feminism.

As someone arguing for feminism in this thread there's not a great deal of that.

I disagree with most posters in this thread but it's good that we can have this debate rather than roll out insults or get banned.

I specifically posted pic in previous post for you..

You didn't read it, did you?

It is you, who is retarded. If you don't give special accommodations to female workers, they will be disincentivized to have children - which is vital for healthy society.

So - yes. Soviet Union did make distinction between male and female.

Give worker a gun and there is no need for Socialism, yes?

I didn't read it as the majority of my posts in referal to feminism is addressing it's failures as a fucking identity politic movement which you've failed to recognize, or want some kind of victory over me despite that we've agreed that feminism as a form of identity politics ir pure retardation. All your image does is adopt criticism against feminism then try to apply it towards a man who mainly spoke about feminism in a dimissive tone as a result of it disrupting efforts to switch from the class system.

This is specifically why I abandoned the left. This shit is abymsall.


It isn't even bait. You want to deconstruct gender roles, don't you? Then why the hell why you want to incentivize birth? You're basically saying "We want women to be independent but we're just going to piss all over that and create conditions which make them act traditionally again"

It's just contradictory.

I don't trust socialist feminists; I trust feminist socialists.

It's because they believe that women need to represent themselves in all fields, military service included. I don't approve of their anti-patriarchal struggle sessions but in the Middle East that's probably an unavoidable necessity.

The funniest part is as a Holla Forums refugee myself I am coming to the conclusion that all the open-minded people fled to Holla Forums and the only thing Holla Forums has going for it anymore are memes and research abilities. Otherwise you're just on a board of screeching apes who couldn't debate to save their lives.

sage for offtopic.


Because this is a thread about Feminism, not how retarded the average Holla Forumsack is.

Is this some shit attempt at sarcasm?


Personally, I don't care, but Marxist Feminism is about making female gender role economically viable - which you should've known, if you read what I posted.

I did. I just don't fixate to your perspective.


this. if women have abortion available whenever it's only fair that men can bail too

That's the whole point, ya doofus.

Also, if gender roles are natural and immovable, why all the worry and angst? No amount of "feminazi brainwashing" will change what is biologically natural, right?

If you want. Only something like 7% of people identify as feminists so they're barking up the wrong tree.

capitalism is driving people against each other
socialize the means of production
work and social security for everyone
child care by the whole community, not left alone parents
and these non-issues vanish into thin air

idpol is cancer

None of that is bad, cry more.

why should anyone raise a stranger's offspring? from a biological perspective it's a waste of resources

even if that were true, which it's not, you would have to start from the premise that we are chained to our biological imperatives and have that only in mind

which we don't, as humans

It helps men because I don't want society to tell me how am I supposed to be either. I don't want to be judged on the basis that am I a man. I am unique.

Mock emotional men? What? Do you actually interact with women? I mean, yeah the majority are dicks, just like all people.

The same people who made that and the same people who share that probably don't like the idea of women in combat roles or in the heavier, dangerous trades.

So to me, the argument presented in that pic is disingenuous.

this, i think everyone suffer at some point in their lives from racial or sexual cliché.

it makes like difficult for everyone while being completely useless.

Still don't see that as a reason to literally be a cuckold. Abortion should be the norm to avoid these situations. Single mothers are plain awful.

I don't have a problem with either of those. Nothing is stopping women from working a dangerous job. I'll accept equality when women make an effort.

the identity of "woman" in its current context is a bourgeois construction and feminism as a particular school of thought is necessary until the material and social means that reproduce it are eliminated

Women constantly call men crybabies, manchild etc. Look how many self-proclaimed feminists use the "male tears" argument despite criticising men for being too macho and stoic. They tell men they're muh privileged, then shrug when men commit suicide and tell them to show more emotion. Too often women just don't want to listen.

Combat roles were just recently opened to women. Like in the last couple of years, IIRC.

As for the other, yeah I know legally nothing is stopping women, but I come from a family who works in one of the most dangerous fields and the stereotypes of "women could never do this work" are still prevalent. If you don't think that affects hiring, then I'm sorry, nothing can convince you.

If you spend all your time focusing on a vocal minority saying stupid shit online, that shouldn't come to any surprise. If this is happening to you IRL, then meet different people. You're letting literally the worst of half the world's population manipulate you into thinking all women are like that.

It doesn't, as it is illegal to discriminate on the sole basis of gender

Yeah like the critique of toxic masculinity isn't a thing

I agree that single parenthood is obviously not ideal. I also agree that if someone will struggle economically raising a child, then abortion should be considered. However, the hate against single mothers among the MRA crowd seems to come from unresolved daddy issues.

This is why Women's Studies shouldn't be a thing

It's not right, and it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Being a man is bad. Feminism will help men be less like men.


No, I think gender roles are good to have for the most part.

While hate is a bit of a harsh reaction, aversion towards single parenthood is more than justified, given the relationship between the lack of one of either parents and the increased chances of ending up being incarcerated.

If it happens, you can sue the wrongdoer. This is the most efficient way you can expect mentalities to change, instead of shouting "sexist bigot" at people who probably wear proudly these labels. Affirmative action is the best way not to change mentalities and instead to reinforce stereotypes.

Why? Please explain how they help you or your society.

This is more of an indictment of our current system. It's poverty, fam.

While certainly a strong factor, poverty alone doesn't explain violence.

But it easily explains more than 80% of the violence

I defy anyone at all to provide a single fucking example of feminism benefitting men.


If you are some elite Chad it made getting laid way the fuck easier.

I guess.

This is actually exactly part of how feminism can help men. Sexism is why women are Clearly The More Suitable Caretaker even if they're obviously batshit insane.

[citation needed]

nice citation, faggot.

But single motherhood does? What about single fathers? Are they as deserving of your hatred?

Man even without anfem shitposting this gay shit gets over 200 replies.

ultimate proof that IDpol is, in fact, cancer.

Mein Gott, what a stupid faggot you are.
1. I did not say I hated single mothers, in fact I explicitly said I didn't my mother was single
2. Single fatherhood isn't the norm, single motherhood is, and by far.
3. What about X? is a fallacy
4. As I've said right in that post, single motherhood alone does not explain violence.

>I haven't read the thread so I just come in its late life because I must post my opinion!

How THE FUCK is single motherhood "the norm"

what fucking world do you live in

Because this isn't a feminist board and there are concrete, fact-based reasons for a socialist to hate feminism, maybe? I think Reddit would be more your speed. But after Hillary got rekt, I don't know if even they could stand you.

But to actually address the thread topic, feminism could have lifted up both women and men. As it stands, it's one of the most reactionary movements of all time. Feminism stands for bullying, corporatism and censorship of differing opinons.

The real world?

Burger detected.

that's still not the norm

Except I'm European. Do you think data for the USA somehow doesn't apply at all for European societies?
And don't give me the "what about X non-Western country" because this thread is specifically about the West.

Yes it is, 80% of a population having the same variable value is what is considered the norm, the standard, the average by all measures. statistics
And if you're going to come with full damage control on how single-parenthood isn't the norm tho, I'll call you an autistic retard because the fact that I was saying the norm within single-parenthood was implicit and understood by any non-dumb person.

People aren't blank slates and people seek out roles and role models, not just to aspire in society but how to conduct oneself personally. Its also harmful to destroy these roles because it leaves people filling out contradictory and uncertain voids with a fair amount of shame and feelings of sin about their own feelings. Since no kind of desire is perceived as right (except the desire for power), they must be always wrong or at least require constant affirmation from outside sources, which further necessitates living in a society of constant contradictory messages affirming everything at once. Many societies have historically found a solution for cases where men and women find themselves fulfilling opposite roles that did not involve involve constantly destroying its social fabric and making life extraordinarily anxious, as it has become today.

No it doesn't. USA is mostly an homogeneous country. Europe is a conglomerate of countries with very different cultures.
Claiming you're from an european country? you should know better than that.


Feminism is in support of the abolishment of gender roles so it also benefits men

Why do you care for a dying thing? And you are a """nihilist""" to boot. Just to make it clear, of course I will not be dealing with non-entities like this, and so on, but read your western critiques; if you find anything of any interest in them, you are beyond help, you know! lol

But I want to nonetheless seriously answer maybe 2-3 critical points made.
I think that protests, exploding, seem to converge in a series of demands which in their very spontaneity and obviousness form a kind of, I apologize for this jargon, epistemological obstacle to the proper confrontation with the ongoing crisis. What people usually demand when they protest, is really, what it amounts to, a popularized version of Deleuzian politics: people know what they want, they are able to discover and formulate it, but only through their own continuous engagement and activity. So, we are told, active participatory democracy, not just representative democracy, with its electoral ritual every 4 years which just interrupts the voter's passivity. Then, we are told, we need the self-organization of the multitude, of the molecular beneath, not a centralized, maybe Leninist, party with the leader and so on and so on. It is this myth of non-representative self-organization which is the last threat, the deepest illusion, which is most difficult to reounce.

Yes, there are in every revolutionary process ecstatic moments of group solidarity, when thousands, hundreds of thousands, together occupy a public space, like on Tahrir Square, in Cairo 5 years ago. Yes, there are moments of intense collective participation, where local communities debate, decide will people live in a kind of permanent emergency state, taking things into their own hands, with no leader guiding them. But, I claim, such states don't last, and tiredness, getting tired of it, is not a simple psychological fact. The large majority of people, and I am not here presenting you the variation of that "90% of the people are idiots," no? I include myself into this large majority, that wants to be passive, and just rely on an efficient state sexuated apparatus. Like, I'm sorry to tell you but I wouldn't like to live in a state where some kind of permanent participation, engagement is going on, learning about what the other's sex is, its magnitude, how it functions, relative to what, and so on and so on. I much prefer to be a passive citizen, there is a machinery of state, or whatever, social services which smoothly does its work, and the less I know about it all the better. I don't despise ordinary people for this.

Next point:
People are supposed to know what they want? Especially when they are engaged? I claim, no, they don't. Up to a point, I claim, even the majority even don't want to know, really. We should rehabilitate the term elite, perhaps not even in the old class sense. What does a good politician do? A good politician absolutely doesn't follow or learn from the people what they want. No, he tells them what they want. And if he is a really good politician people have this high fact: "Oh my God, how clear, now I know what it is that I want." The leader, which is precisely a trans-democractic leader, strong charismatic leader, is strictly correlative to this low-level, elementary self-awakening of the people. They belong together. It is as if, you want real awakening of the people, you want strong, charismatic leader on the top. Does this rejection of direct democracy mean a resigned surrender to the hegemonic power structure? Am I simply saying, yeah, yeah, revolution is good for…direct democracy for a couple of month, when things are in turmoil, but things return back to normal, and so on and so on? No! I think that there is nothing inherently conservative, or authoritarian, or whatever, in being weary of the usual leftist demands for continuous mobilization, busy contribution, and so on. This is the leftist superego logic: the more you participate, the more you are guilty for not participating enough.

The true battle of the left has to be won here. By here, I mean, in the domain of citizens' passivity. The true measure of change is not those ecstatic moments where we are all on Tahrir Square or whatever but when things return to normal; is this normality the same as before? You know, how is your everyday life effected? This is the revolution that is truly difficult to make. The same holds for sexuality, where, sometimes, the best cure for impotence is not just to "relax and let go" (the moment one formulates this as an injunction, it has the opposite of the intended effect), but to approach sex as a bureaucratic procedure, establishing in detail what one is planning to do. Sexual difference is purely formal! The way it structures our symbolic universe, the way it functions in the human universe, is not immediately linked to biological sexuality, so that even natural sexuality can be sexualized (there you can see the formal status of properly human sexuality). What do I mean by this gap between formal structure and immediate reality? You can well imagine a couple making love, or to put it more brutally, copulating, but without any excitement, doing it as a purely instrumental activity. It's just a literal way. And on the other but equal hand, someone could explain to you how in the simple activity of lovemaking, penis penetrating vagina, the moving out and in, the whole cosmos resonates, the two opposing cosmic principles are dancing with each other. And I remember how we all felt so exalted, you know, so that we could say: "No, it's not just I want to screw that girl, it's that I want to do a deeply spiritual thing, the whole cosmos will dance in it…" Such a link, between ontology and sexual difference, is the key feature of revelations which elaborate on the origin of the universe out of some kind of a "big bang," struggle between a masculine and a feminine cosmic principle, light and dark, heaven and earth, yin and yang, and so on an so on. It's not only an assertion of the gap between the meaningless, cold objective reality, accessible to mathematized science, and the subjective universe of meaning, which we project onto reality, but underlying this gap is already a desexualization of reality.

You becoming a girl is a spook.

This almost summarizes the paradox in the statement that Feminism benefits men imo.

Basically, all feminist thought today accepts the theory of the partriarchy. To believe in the such a heirarchy makes it impossible to say the abolition of it would benefit men.

Feminism stopped being about abolishment of gender a long time ago.

I came late to this thread to post exactly this…

With the caveat that actually existing feminism' has long dropped this position and turned into identitarian victimhood politics.

Most people can comprehend that it's good to oppose forcing people to behave or not to behave in a specific way based on society's whim, because they understand that once you allow it in principle, sooner or later someone is going to target something they like.


Daddy issues are more of a woman thing. My parents are still together and doing ok. My distaste towards single mothers comes from seeing members of my family become single mothers. They are almost all poorly equipped for the burden.

That's pretty much it really. "liberated" women and feminists still rinse "sugar daddies" for their money

The strife between males in females is not due to feminism per se, it's due to the eugenics industry. Abortion causes women to strike out at men.

>very different cultures
Yeah, no. This kind of data doesn't vary much from Portugal to Poland to Sweden to France

How do you mean?

What are you, gay?

You obviously don't know what a feminist looks like.

They can't all be awful tumblr types?

One argument I could see is that making women eligible for the draft with drive down hawkishness in general and thus less dead men. Too bad that's generally not the kind of feminism that feminists argue for.

One the other hand it's feminists that have perpetuated hysterically inaccurate campus rape statistics.

Women didn't go out and get jobs in mass in the '70s solely due to women's liberation movement. The wage stagnation that started then was never resolved, and Americans are now the most overworked people of any industrialized nation. Your spouse really has to be some sort of porky to free yourself up to devote to house work these days.

Why were you taking the piss out of good old comrade Zizek ?

It's precisely the kind of feminism actual feminists argue for. Some random thot on twitter = not exactly a feminist intellectual.

Only time feminism can help a man is when it allows you to fuck a feminist.

It's also why people won't shun and ostracize you for being a 30 year old unmarried virgin.

If you want to go back to that, you're going against your own interests

spooky shit m8