Is Feminism a double edged sword?

Something I have noticed is that Asian feminists are particularly reactionary. A significant portion of them actually sleep with the alt right while brushing off any criticism as "toxic masculinity." For example, the wife of Kyle Chapman is Asian and a self proclaimed "feminist." How one reconciles feminism with fascism is a logical puzzle clearly above their heads, so it is obvious that women like her are appropriating liberal rhetoric for conservative ends. They are in fact doing exactly what you described in your post.

Nah listening to album

No, all moral discourse in our society is manipulative, because morality is a nebulous transcendental obligation rather than a sociological fact encoded in a group's language use.

I dunno, most of the public would define social democrats who advocate policies like those of Bernie Sanders to be on "the left" regardless of whether the person advocating these policies wants to eventually end capitalism altogether. Likewise, does market socialism count as the end of capitalism?

Reducing things that disproportionally harm women (and are human-created, like work discrimination and violence) as much as possible. The more idpolish brands of feminism may have dumb ideas about how to go about this but I can't think of any self-described feminists who wouldn't agree with this goal.

Morality literally concerns itself with "oughts".
It's inherently manipulative, otherwise it would have no purpose because everyone would automatically be compelled to act in accordance.

That seems more like an idpol sort of feminism, though.
A lot of the feminist I like focus more on gender dynamics in general, and how men and women each end up getting fucked over at some point because of whoever or whatever has power.

Feminism is usually pretty spooky, yes

liberal feminism, which has been incorporated into media and corporate discourse over the last few years, is unable/ unwilling to address the elephant in the room (capitalism). That results in a concept of liberation that's basically just individualistic hedonist capitalist success at the expense of everyone else.

Could it be that sex is not a good enough reason for categorizing people?
Same as skin color and ethnicity?

HMMMM….

In the U.S. maybe. Regardless, popularity doesn't make an opinion correct

If they abolish private property and seize the means of production, it does. I think it would horribly, though.

Nah.

"What should I do if smoke starts coming out of my car's engine?"
"You ought to take it to a mechanic."

It's not impossible to make a morality of such statements, as long as some goods and social roles are communally recognized and appreciated.

Sexual "liberation" is only the liberation of a few just like how capitalist "freedom" is only freedom for a few.

It's also not impossible to interpret into an egoist framework, either. So?

I can say you ought to kill yourself, because it would do some good to be rid of moralist and the deed would be communally recognized as positive event by non-moralist.
I am now a moralist.

*end horribly

Well, can you point to any goals of Marxist feminists that are goals they focus attention on because of the specifically feminist character of their Marxism (as opposed to goals all Marxists would share), and which aren't about "reducing things that disproportionately harm women"? Not that I'm saying it's a zero-sum game since many things that disproportionately harm women may also harm men, but usually in less blatant ways.

Emancipation from what?

From everything they have already been emancipated and don't really care about emancipating those that have not been.

Fuck off Theodore, you have shit taste in music.

We should support feminism in the same way we support bourgeoisie revolutions against Feudalism: not ideal but practical and, I hate to use this argument and choice of words, it's better than nothing.

I think a better analogy is supporting CIA operations to overthrow capitalist regimes in oil-rich countries.
As long as they dress their liberal imperialism in the proper progressive narrative, they get the support of the left.

Emancipation isn't a binary on or off switch. Black Americans were emancipated, yet would you describe them as free? Why give up on them just because someone else is suffering worse? Literally muh starving kids in Africa tier

That the meaning of "feminism" is so overly arbitrary are what make it so effective. Identity politics are cancer because they forcibly divide people by biological traits they cannot control, thus severely hindering the discussion and spread of meaningful ideas. It removes political theory from debate so the dominant ideology can remain uncontested.

It would be unintelligible to define myself in community with you and other Stirnerian egoists on the internet. I am not free to define myself, but I can discover how I'm defined.

Our shared narrative is pretty tenuous.

Obama is free. A black guy on death row isn't.
It's almost as if you can't treat entire races as homogeneous groups which are either oppressed or oppressors.
The problem with identity politics is that people get so focused on identities that they forget the real thing they're meant to be stopping: human suffering.

Obama is a CIA nigger plant to preserve the establishment, of course he's free. If you look at suffering and emancipation in binary terms of yes or no, you're going to either overlook a lot of suffering. Suffering is relative.

What the fuck are you on about?
Not everyone can have the means of production (for now) but the majority of people have genitals what enjoy sex.

social justice, the cancer reach every spot i see

...

No. Feminism is a poisoned pill.

what's wrong with social justice?

where is my free gook waifu, some master race I am

If this isn't the case, then it's not worth having.

People have always had genitals and enjoyed sex. But with sexual liberation, the enjoyment of sex has become unbound and commodified. It was a project pushed by upper-middle class white Americans, who were able to deal with it well given their economic circumstances. But at the lower end of society, the move away from normative nuclear families has made a bad situation worse. The poor were by definition always poor, but they were not always single-parent households, with worse outcomes for parents and children alike in all kinds of metrics of well-being.

Holy shit. A pro-nuclear family Communist. What are you?

you've noticed that people disagree
what a brilliant insight

Damn, give me some of that sweet fascism.

How is that a problem? Legit question.

It's a tool used by the power to shut down any popular rebellion not based around sexual activity.

"Does shutting down wall street will help women to feel more valued? Help blacks to raise on the social ladder? "
Hillary Clinton.

Is it self parody or did the creator not know that Adorno disliked propagandist kitsch of USSR as well?

Pragmatic. The denormalization of the nuclear family has only contributed to social atomization, and made people not in the ruling class materially worse off in the bargain. It's all well and good to talk of abstract liberation, but in a society utterly lacking in collective childraising, you are in effect just condemning poor single parents and their children to a hellish existence.

I feel like saying that sexual/woman's liberation is the cause of the death of the nuclear family is missing some things isn't it? 50 years ago couldn't a single working parent make enough at a factory job to pay for a house and family and housewife and all other basic things?

Fifty years ago my single grandfather earned enough at his factory job to provide for three children and put enough money away from retirement to never have to work another day in his life.

Accidental sage

This statement is too facile. Sexual/women's lib is in a dialectical relationship with capital, and the decline of the nuclear family can only be understood in that context, not in any kind of causal relation.

Let us go back to the days of the middle of the nineteenth century. Back then, women were in fact being employed as workers just the same as man (and children!). They were however, paid less, because of actual honest to god institutionalized discrimination. And yes, in downturns, it was a common practice to fire men and hire women and children to drive down wage costs.

One of the demands of the growing workers movement was among others and end to child and women's labour, mentioned in one breath, and a livable wage for a single male breadwinner. And the women's lib movement (such as it was) supported this at the time. So we have a case where women are pushed into the home so to speak, but where this coincides with a great improvement in the lives of the proletariat as a whole. I am however speaking from the experience of the workers' movement as it existed in my country, can't vouch for others.

Then afterwards women again entered the factories in large numbers during wartime, and afterwards it was increasingly no longer seen as unbecoming for them to take on a job on the side. As wages stagnated from the 70s onward, it (again) became in fact a necessity to have two parents working etc.

Sorry for the rambling post, but this all to say that under capitalism, liberation is never a clear-cut proposition. As long as we are not liberated from the tyranny of capital, it will distort freedom in other spheres, perhaps even leaving us less free in a material sense (in this case, the freedom for people to have children outside of a family context, leaving the one stuck with the children severely materially constrained). Sexual liberation hasn't caused the current atomization of people, but the way it is working in capitalism as it exists seems to me like it has not been beneficial to the great mass of the people.

Its not but many leftists have a strange pathological obsession with destroying gender roles and the nuclear family. I concede its possible those things might fade away under socialism, but if you have some obsession with actively undermining them you probably have some kind of strange sexual/social baggage.

Addendum: all to say that sexual liberation is not an endpoint, but rather another stage we must pass through. Leftists must be unflinching and unconstrained by dogma in identifying the problems sexual liberation is causing, and in proposing a new synthesis, a new form of sexual or family unity beyond sexual liberation and the nuclear family. We can no longer be uncritical of sexual liberation, and obsessed with the nuclear family - the latter is already dead, the former is not as liberating as we might have once hoped.

I lived for two weeks with a couple of retired Portuguese immigrants. The women were a stay at home wife and got 6 kids and the guy was making ceramic for toilets.

Their house have 3 stories and two annexes and now worth more than one million.

Joke's on you, I am a massive cuck and agree.

Nothing wrong with the end, but the methods….

No, the decrease of the nuclear family is mostly financial. Most families simply can't afford to have a stay at home parent and a bread winning parent. Especially now that minimum wage jobs are worth less than ever and high paying jobs are getting harder to get + college debt + increase in cost of living.

pewsocialtrends.org/2015/11/04/raising-kids-and-running-a-household-how-working-parents-share-the-load/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12282492

good