Do you guys consider me an "SJW" if I think heterosexism, patriarchy, and mansplaining exist but I nevertheless think placing idpol over class struggle is cancerous, bourgeois liberalism?
Do you guys consider me an "SJW" if I think heterosexism, patriarchy...
Other urls found in this thread:
I would answer your question, but apparently it's evil for men to explain things.
Well I mean those concepts definately do not exist but I would not say they are a big problem in the western world at all. The people that do these things are very very very very veeeeery rare.
So, kind of, kind of not?
I'm on the same page as you fellas. I just really don't like the toxic environment that a lot of idpol obssesed people cultivate.
And i obviously do not approve of sexism, patriarchy or "mansplaining" IE talking down to people. But these words are used as boogeymen to shut down anyone who disagrees with the bourgoies feminist agenda even slightly.
And even if they are gay black transexual lesbians, its pic related.
What this means is "I have identified my interlocutor as male and do not like what they are saying, therefore I shall make that the issue rather than the topic under discussion".
You're an SJW liberal with potential to be an actual leftist.
So if someone acknowledges things like racism and patriarchy exist while still wanting to replace the capitalist system they're a liberal? That doesn't make much sense unless liberal just means people I don't agree with.
Mansplaining isn't just men explaining things, it's this and it still happens
is there womansplaining?
You're the one unironically using the term mansplaining. If you believe that racism and "patriarchy" exists as a symptom of the capitalist system then yeah you are a leftist.
Personally I don't believe in any third wave feminist bullshit at all and I think it is completely incompatible with worker solidarity.
Ever been to a playground with your little cousin and listended to "as a woman" or "as a mother" even though you know damn well your cousin is allergic to dogs.
I'm not OP so I didn't use mansplainsing.
Well patriarchal relations and institutions existed prior to capitalism but I do believe that emancipation from the capitalist mode of production would alleviate many of the issues that idol rails against.
Somewhat the case in the past, but LGBT people are accepted now
Myth. Women earn more than men in their 20s, live longer, commit less suicides etc
No. Frothing at the mouth anti-idpol is as bad as fronting at the mouth idpol.
As long as you can critically approach liberal theories, they have some merit.
I mean, I'd probably banter to that effect, but no, not as long as you believe that racism, sexism etc. result from class rule, cannot be solved without first solving the material conditions that cause them, and cannot be ultimately blamed on the working class' supposed boorishness or something. The rest is just detail.
I take issue with this term, though, because it's ad hom and fails to respond to an argument regardless of whether or not it is indeed happening.
If people are being unfairly condescending, they necessarily make themselves more vulnerable to rebuttals on rigorous, theoretical grounds. If their arguments do not seem compromised by condescension, it may be warranted after all. We all have to be open to the possibility.
I don't know enough about you, but this definitely means you're a total fucking idiot.
Patriarchy and heterosexism are totally a thing, they're just not very prevalent in the West. Go somewhere like Uganda or Afghanistan, on the other hand, and you'll be able to identify it quite handily.
Yeah, and nobody debates that, but you'll find that feminists and assorted idpolers don't go to Uganda and Afghanistan to bitch at them.
yeah fair enough. I just find it rather amusing that pink haired fatties cry in the West rather than do some good in the world
Gee it must be pretty dingy inside that motte
I'm a feminist, but…
I honestly don't think that patriarchy exists in today's western world. (webm related)
If you want to understand how the Woman is non-existent, plz read pdf related.
If you want to understand how feminism can exist post-identity-politics, read: publishing.cdlib.org
If you're talking somebody having material power over you and using your sexuality as an excuse to subject you to violence or deny you legal protection or things you need to survive, it's a problem and leftists should be and largely are willing to analyse and address it.
If you're talking Uncle Jim making an off-colour joke about gays, then get over it. Most of this kind of problem can be solved from your end - don't build your entire identity around your sexuality and don't be an insufferable faggot in public.
t. insufferable gayfag
There are patriarchal structures - such as traditional views where a man is considered to be the head of the family and expected to be responsible for them (and is understood to have certain power to discharge that responsibility).
These are almost extinct in the Anglophone West and are limited mostly to certain first and second generation ethnic minorities/immigrants and particular religious groups. Should they be potentially dealt with? Sure, but this is a fight which is by and large already won. Elsewhere in the world it's a different story, but I think the 20th century has shown us that positive results are unlikely when moralising Westerners go over to these places and start sperging out.
If you're talking capital-P Patriarchy from feminist theory where society is built and maintained for the benefit of all men at expense and detriment of all women then this simply doesn't exist and has never existed except as a boogeyman for hucksters to part fools from their money or a propaganda technique to get people mad at whoever our governments want to bomb next.
So depending on how important all this stuff is to you - you might get teased with the SJW label - but even people here in this disgusting cesspit of brocialism and manarchism will be mostly fine accepting you if you're willing to analyse these things from a class-based perspective and can handle the bantz
Don't forget boydigism, we have that too
I think those first two exist but literally what is mansplaining? Apparently it has something to do with men being unable to understand their muh privilege and then explianing somehting in a condescending way.
But 99% of the examples that are just regular explaining or dispute of their position
A difference in opinion
Or conspiracy theories that aren't really explaining and certianly aren't worth your time
But what if I was an expert and what if she was ignorant on the topic?
At worst it seems like an escape hatch so sjws don't have to actually engage in a discussion. At best it seems like a word that sociology drop outs try to apply to whatever topic of discussion they think is offensive.
why is gay culture so shit?
I love this.
Honest answer? A combination of an almost pathological need to be transgressive and subversive - maybe borne out of a history of having to maintain a life partly hidden from wider society, maybe a rejection of "masculinity" that we feel had rejected us - and, more importantly these days, a shit ton of marketing and social engineering built around maintaining a discrete demographic ghetto (ie. "identity") to sell shit to.
At least for young gay men, some of the character of this is steadily changing as we are falling out of fashion with the liberal progressives. It's been very interesting over the last 15 years or so to watch it shift and now many run-of-the-mill gays are wholeheartedly embracing "traditional masculinity" as that is now considered to be more transgressive than the effeminacy that used to be the bread and butter of young fags.
"mansplaining" doesn't fucking exist. treat individuals like individuals and have the courage to listen to them and not throw away their arguments off the bat because of who they are
post boobs, Genossin
Did you just ASSUME my GENDER??
…I agree with patriarchy in certain aspects
women should stay out of military
theyre the second ones on lifeboats after children
So I looked up "mansplain" on urbandictionary and all I got were antifeminist posts making fun of the concept.
However I've seen no indication by anyone likely to use the term what the actual, tumblr-approved definition of mansplaining is.
Would OP care to mansplain it?
Tfw you're about to say women should stay out of the military but before the thoughts leave your mouth they're splattered on the wall behind you by a female Soviet sniper
dont worry your silly little head about it user, it isnt a problem :3
This only makes sense for combat roles. Even then you have groups like the YPJ and several difficult questions about turning away any able body from the proletarian militias. Community defense is a human right.
Hiking fifteen miles a day with a hundred pound sack may be off the table, though.
It should come down to acheiving and maintaining certain physical standards with help from your comrades
so you mean pretty much the only thing the US hasnt outsourced to KBR and Halliburton yet
Anybody can fight, my dudes. Women can travel as light infantry, no 100 lb sacks of equipment necessary. They can form special units that adhere to and maximize the efficiency that their physical forms allow.
shit, forgot webm
So apparently mansplaining means to condescendingly explain something to someone who is actually more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.
While this might be a legitimate phenomenon that happens in everyday life. The term is A: usually misused, and B: horribly ineffective for use in arguments.
It's far more convincing to the outside observer for the injured party to say, for example: "I am aware of the difference in mean black in white I-Q (wordfilter) scores, as I have a degree in sociology. Here is why I think the conclusion you drew from these studies are wrong."
Than, for example "Whitesplaining as usual, bigot."
Personally, I really wish people would have actual discussions with eachother instead of immediately getting pissed and throwing buzzwords everywhere.
if they meet the requirements why shouldn't they fight?
Google the MOS list
This is more what I'm getting at
Plate carriers are heavy but not that heavy, crewing served weapons is relatively low-intensity, etc.
It all comes down to what specific tasks you expect of the unit and what specific constitutions the members have.
But in a way, come the revolution we'll all be pogues.
theyre not strong enough to carry another woman out of the fight, let alone carry 80lbs all day and do their basic responsibilities and more
even if women magically become physically qualified, youre still dealing with women
they cant function in an office without causing drama, conforming to a specialized socialization whare youre taking a bullet for the person next to you isnt feasible amongst women
Now you're just posting sexist bullshit.
Wow do you define your political beliefs based entirely on what you read on social media?
That's why you train them
if you could find a woman who could be properly socialized into the role of a soldier, Id put $20 on a Ycnromosome being present
Can I get an example of mansplaining?
Comrade, comrade! That's why you send ostarine on the supply train, courtesy of the local All-Drugmaker Soviet!
Spot the liberal
nation-statehood is a prerequisite for considering why the nations genetic future is on the battlefield instead of the men
Nigger your original point was that they can't physically or mentally act like soliders. You have given zero reason why thats the case and have given a dumb reason why this specific example isn't
"Nations Genetic Future" is some sociological pseudo science on the level of mansplaining
Because they won't BE the nation's "genetic future" if they're kidnapped by ISIS and sold as jihadi sex slaves you fucking dolt
Mansplaining means a man pretending to have authority on a subject concerning women, and dominates the conversation above them
Obviously it's not always true but it still happens and it's annoying. It's like when rich libertarians tell the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop being poor.
Meme this into reality, lord Kek demands it!
My answer is yes.
SJ is a collectivist cult-like ideology where the leaders or "personalities" compete in a permanent holier than thou argument, and the acolytes switch ideologies with orwellian levity.
You cannot understand the lesser evil of liberalism while embracing the borg-like SJ cult.
Both are a product of porky's insidious control of the media and exist only within the confines of mediatized society.
Ask yourself this: Could either SJW or liberals exist in a society where the average individual does not spend 40%+ of their time consuming media or posting on social media? Why?
Don't listen to anyone who says yes.
being a soldier is a spook in the first place
thats my point
women arent going to go take orders and sacrifice and ask nothing in return, they pretty much wont bother unless theres an actual immediate threat, and actually picking up a gun is in their direct selfish interest, like say being suroounded by useless shitskins who cant be bothered to provide security for them, so they actually have to fight for themselves
which as a soldier, you never fight for yourself, you fight pretty much for everyone elses sake but your own, and today they dont even let you loot the places you take over
No… If I may. The Borg seek only perfection. The SJ clique seeks to dominate all other forms of life.
Wasn't feminism invented like 200 years ago?
Then whats the big deal?
thats a soldier
Lmao are you even a leftist
No is in why wouldn't they?
First worldist liberals are complete cancer.
are there demonstrations across the nation for women to serve in the military like the suffrage movement?
ohhh, yooou mean there never was an AcTual movement and all legislation regarding said policies was a projection
That's not what light infantry means, you stupid idiot.
Its clearly a Holla Forumsack or a falseflag.
its exactly my point, teenage girls arent groveling at the opportunity to grab a gun and fight for "muh freedoms" fall in line and take orders only to find out they lost their legs to line someone elses pockets
if women become magically selfless and sacrificing overnight, the physicality wouldnt matter
Women are pretty smart then
bad for the socialization of military life
But who decides if they have authority on the subject or not? The person using the term 'mansplaining' brushes any argument under the table by lowering the discussion to "you are a man so therefore your opinion is worthless"
The content of what you are saying should be judged by itself and not on your gender or race. A topic that concerns women might be free childcare in the workplace, and perhaps on one side a man is arguing in favour of it, whith a SJW female on the other side. If the male gives concise arguments supporting their opinion, is it a good idea to write him off and say it's 'mansplaining'? What about if the sides were switched and they were arguing from the different point of view, now the male is arguing against free childcare and they make all the same points originally made by a female - same opinions on either side of the argument, but this time the argument for the negative is written off as 'mansplaining'. What if a female makes the same arguments? Does that magically make the once false 'mansplained' argument true?
It's ridiculous to base whether something is correct, truthful and helpful based on the sex of the person that talked about it. It's just a way for SJW liberals to keep control of a debate and avoid criticism.
poor people in western countries usually are responsible for their own situation if theyre able bodied and healthy
Yes. All the spooky crap you just talked about are tools used to divide and undermine movements for class struggle.
We need socialism for the rich, we do!
t. not porky
You may be an SJ, but you aren't a W.
I'd work with a lowkey stormfag as long as he kept his race fetish to himself.
Yeah, listen to the 16 y/o Puerto Mierda SJW nigger instead.
This shit is on the same level as 'mansplaining', you've just reduced someone's opinion to their age and race rather their argument. Granted, he doesn't have an argument, but don't do this shit.
He doesn't have an argument at all, so why should he be answered with anything but mockery?
Because your mockery is on the same page as 'mansplaining'. One is OK because it's edgy to call someone a nigger though, right?
No, it isn't. He didn't even present an argument. The "mansplaining" bullshit is used when you can't counter an argument. I just mocked him because he didn't even say why you shouldn't listen to someone who tells you not to listen to idpol.
That tripfaggot went around telling people that they would agree with him if only they didn't have white brains, and then got triggered when called a nigger. I only call him a nigger because he seems so obsessed with calling anyone dismissing idpol as muh privileged whites, even when it's explained to him that the person he's arguing with isn't white and it shouldn't matter anyway.
It doesn't matter that he is an idiot, you are dropping to the same level as your average SJW or Holla Forumstard when you attack the person rather than their position based on race, gender, age or whatever. Those things don't make someone an idiot.
If he doesn't have a position then just call him an idiot and move on.
He doesn't have a position.
No, but his insistence on pushing idpol does, we know this because he refuses to stop being a cocksucking tripfaggot. We already know what he thinks.
How is this different than what I did?
Chans are full of insecure men who feel personally attacked when they hear about mainsplaining and patriarchy, so they deny their existences. Those things definitely do exist. Though they're by far not our biggest problem and we should focus more on ending capitalism.
Other than twitter there isn't a lot of alternatives to leftists meeting places on the internet
thanks for chansplaining
My problem with feminism is chiefly it's puritan approach to sexuality.
Fucking ledditsplainer REEEEEEEEEEEEE
then attack him for that rather than his identity. Do you not see the hypocrisy of using his race as an insult because he is full of idpol?
you used his race and age as a determiner to him being an idiot.
Seriously, it might be really funny and cool to constantly call people nigger faggots or whatever, but it's just making it acceptable in people's minds to insult people based on race, gender or sexuality. It helps Holla Forums and doesn't help leftism.
I'm trying to insult him, not make an argument. Are some insults off limits now?
No, I said he was a fucking idiot and then called him a nigger. I don't see why some insults should be off limits.
Oh, so we should insult each other in kinder ways. So progressive.
Not an argument.
Feminism is inherently anti-leftist.
1st wave feminism stalled the insurrection
2nd wave feminism lowered wages and helped capitalism by expanding the labor pool.
3rd wave feminism is bringing left down by turning it even more into idpol cancer, weakening our popular support.
I honestly think gender roles overall need to be looked at but
Get the fuck out
To be fair it won't be more than a few decades before wars are no longer being fought by humans. The physical weakness of women compared to men will be dwarfed by the physical weakness of men compared to machines.
It's not meant to be a scientific rule of discussion or a logical fallacy, it's just an phenomenon in discussion. And seriously, how many arguments do you seriously entertain or respond to, rather than just dismissing the speaker as uninformed or not worth the time? If you receive hundreds of messages pleading the same, debunked argument, are you even going to bother?
If feminists are to be successful in propagating their ideas they have to continue discussion regardless of how annoying it is, and the ones who don't are, at least in that moment, ineffective activists. The "it's not my job to educate you" attitude is a serious hurdle in actually being successful in the long run. In any movement, you're going to have to tolerate a lot of well-meaning but uniformed assholes.
Holla Forums actually agrees with you on all of those things. They just want to seem edgy and cool.
What do we mean by "exist" here beyond "are felt to have reality by some people"? You can boil the sentiment down to "I feel like I know more than this guy and he shouldn't be talking to me as if I know less." That phenomenon can have its cause in numerous, completely unrelated things; that feeling isn't solely caused by sexism, although "mansplain" as a construct attributes it to sexism. It proposes (in application) a universal intentionality for the phenomenon when it isn't so simple.
And maybe it's petty of me, but I have to doubt an ideology that invents esthetically ugly words like "mansplaining."
It happens because men are socialized to assume women are less smart and capable than them. This phenomenon does not happen even close to as often in the opposite direction. I'm not saying men consciously think to themselves that they need to explain everything to women. It's just a subtle ingrained automatic assumption.
Oh and I agree about the word.
If you have a Southern accent in the US, it does happen semi-frequently when speaking to people from other regions, yet there is neither a "northsplaining" nor "coastsplaining" construct. Likely any accent considered uneducated has similar problems.
A problem of attribution still arises in every particular context, however: "is this person doing so because she thinks I'm uneducated, because I've made myself seem uneducated, or because I haven't said anything and she assumes such?" It's fundamentally unanswerable through this mere context, and it would be unproductive to invent a construct like "coastsplaining" and accuse the person speaking to me of it.
It could very well be true that is what they are doing, but, as a construct, "coastsplaining" if generalized carries with it a basic accusation of everyone who has ever unknowingly assumed someone did not know something in a conversation. It only earns contempt and ridicule rather than the understanding it might have been attempting to foster.
The "politically incorrect" left everyone
Judging by your post, reading skill must not be real for the "politically incorrect" right.
I didn't mean other instances of over-explaining based on assumptions of intelligence don't exist. Sure, "northsplaining" or "coastsplaining" probably occur. I meant that it's vastly less common for a woman to over-explain something to a man than vice versa. And yes, sexism is not the only reason that ever happens, but it's definitely up there.
Women are not inherently less intelligent than men. We socialize them to be less competent than they could be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are a young girl growing up in a society whose ideology deems you incompetent and treats you as such, you become incompetent. Besides, women are already more competent than men in some areas, less competent in others. Go back to Holla Forums.
And yet the education system is failing men and women vastly outnumber men at universities.
The idea that women are demeaned for showing intelligence is utterly fantasy. I never saw it once in school. Boys are told they're only good for physical tasks.
Even the supposedly enlightened women don't give a shit about the average quiet and intelligent man.
Women's over-performance in education is due to patriarchy. We socialize women to be more submissive and obedient to authority, causing them to do better in our very authoritarian school system. But it is good proof that they are not less intelligent.
I think in school students are ultimately rewarded not for showing intelligence or doing well but for being obedient. Women are praised by teachers for this. Boys, who are socialized to be more rebellious, get the shorter end of the stick in school specifically, perhaps, but society as a whole still overwhelmingly glorifies men and male accomplishments.
The fact that you've never seen it is not proof that it's "utterly fantasy." Try being less insecure and more self-aware.
My point was that it actually isn't actually all that uncommon depending on who you are and the context of the conversation.
Even if I allow that this is knowable for the general case, any particular case has problems in the attribution of specific intention. Within a given conversational context, it's almost impossible to gauge the private motives and reasoning of someone who seems to be condescending towards you. It's rarely at all clear in a real conversation why a person might be acting how he does.
Given that most women will tell you they have experienced this, despite plenty of other potential variables, I think it's safe to say that its a phenomenon that happens relatively often. I don't know why you're so set on proving otherwise. It doesn't necessarily mean you do it, and it doesn't mean men are awful or whatever.
Funny how women doing well gets excused by patriarchy, but men doing well is a sign that the patriarchy is evil and oppressing all women and they all have muh privilege which needs to be destroyed.
If patriarchy existed everything would benefit men. It doesn't. You will never, EVER, hear a feminist, or women in general, complain about men doing worse. They just laugh at "male tears" and tell men they're babies.
If I could choose my sex at birth I would pick a woman, without hesitation. I don't really give a shit if that makes me "insecure" in your eyes.
That's rather tendentious. We can't say that a given phenomenon is absolutely true because a group of people say it is and that they have experienced it, otherwise the many who have witnessed blood-weeping Madonnas would have proven the truth of Catholicism.
Whatever the case, it isn't "safe to say" in the least. We can say it is perceived to be true within a given historical context for certain people, but this would hardly demonstrate the truth of our assertion.
I'm not saying men doing well is evil at all. Only idiots think that way. Patriarchy doesn't mean everything benefits men, it means men dominate society. This has positive and negative effects for men. As evidenced by your infographics, being the dominating gender has plenty of negatives. That's why destroying patriarchy benefits both men and women.
I agree that the feminists who laugh at "male tears" etc. are awful. They are part of the problem and only perpetuate the patriarchy the claim to want to abolish. But it's also a defense mechanism that comes along with living in a society that oppresses you. I would even say most feminists treat the situation incorrectly and ineffectually. That doesn't mean feminism itself is flawed ideology.
You are incredibly unaware of how women are treated in society if you actually think you'd pick being a woman over being a man.
Comparing something a small minority of people report to have experienced to something that half the population experiences daily is unfair. You seem pretty set on convincing yourself it's only perceived by certain people and not necessarily true, so I'm not going to argue further, but I encourage you to observe more closely the way men treat women in day to day interactions.
What, having men take care of you, pay for you, never expecting you to do anything, never worrying about being alone or seen as "creepy"? Yeah sounds awful. As a shy man I'd take that any day.
I was originally going to use demon possession as my example as that was widely perceived as a real phenomenon in medieval times.
Of course it's only "perceived by certain people"; if it were perceived by everyone as valid we wouldn't be debating whether the idea is necessarily true.
There's no "simple" perception or observation that would afford such a thing. "Mansplaining" is an interpretation which only appears upon reflection, not something within the perceived object.
That's all great if you enjoy that, but imagine being a woman who is more naturally assertive, ambitious, and self-determined, living in a society that expects you to just let men do everything for you and teaches you that you're less capable than men.
If you're shy and that sounds like a nice lifestyle, then you should have an interest in feminism and taking down the patriarchy. The patriarchy is what prevents you from being able to live that way. You live in a society that expects you to be the assertive provider, but you don't want that role. That's fine. But those expectations aren't going to end without ending the patriarchy. You of all people would benefit from a more gender-equal society.
But they can still have a good life. Society respects dominant, outgoing people.
I dislike gender roles. I'm just reluctant to embrace feminism.
I just can't accept feminism until they do some serious introspection and admit that men are treated like disposable human meat. Gynocentrism is genetically wired into us because we have a biological evolutionary incentive to protect our egg-producing gender.
Yea women have issues but so often I see them complaining about something that is essentially just their own 'privilege' backfiring on them. I want there to be a group that advocates for the human rights of females, but I also want one that does the samr for males that is treated legitimately. Its just very hard to trust any self described feminist because I have no idea what I'm getting into, they tend to hide their more insidious and destructive ideological bias and insanity until they have reeled you in enough to emotionally manipulate you.
I really would like to find some feminist groups that are not hostile to mras and maybe even work together. People like Christina Hoff Summers come to mind.
I feel you user, glad someone feels the same. Even a lot of these self described feminists still like aggressive men.
Society respects dominant, outgoing men*.
If you dislike gender roles, you should embrace feminism. Tumblrinas and SJWs have totally perverted the word, sadly, but they fuck everything up.
Internet feminists are awful. At its core, feminism is what you are describing. The subordination of women is a dynamic that effects everyone negatively.
how many women prefer shy men?
More than you'd think, but not that many. Again, women's preference of dominant, outgoing men is something that is socialized and something that ending the patriarchy would end as well.
Well good luck, I don't see patriarchy ending any time soon
This makes no sense. Women seek out those men because instinctually they expect those males to be better protectors for them and their children, this is a cAarry over from hunter gatherer societies.
And how do you propose we 'end' the patriarchy? Kill all men or something?
Yes that is exactly what we should do.
You are incredibly vague and your argument is basically "because vagina".
You remind me of the cringeworthy cucks that jumped every WoW related forum to explain why Sylvannas wasn't evil because despite openly admitting a campaign of worldwide extermination followed by necromantically raising the remains as brainwashed loyal undead…
"She had gone through some rough stuff you know…"
Back then , in 2009/10 you couldn't see a goddamn wow lore topic without one of these retards dumping an unsolicited essay about it.
Fuck off. No pussy pass.