Why is it that feminists see oppression in every minor cultural practice...

Why is it that feminists see oppression in every minor cultural practice, but workers don't even feel oppressed when they have to sell their work and the fruits of their labor get robbed?

Other urls found in this thread:


One focuses on idpol and culture the other focuses on class and their relationship to means of production, it doesn't and their rebellion can only be brought about by class consciousness/ education/ material conditions.

Feminists (adherents of an ideology) aren't equivalent to workers (a class)
The more accurate comparison would be how communists see capitalism's influence everywhere just like feminists see sexism's

Feminism is completely unthreatening to porky, and in developed western societies already achieved all its purported goals decades ago. Thus, it is a safe outlet for class frustration by proles, and a useful conduit for pro-porky propaganda to be camouflaged, so porky fans the flames of even the most psychotically delusional feminists.

Class consciousness is utterly antithetical to porky, so even the most blatantly obvious class oppression is downplayed with all of porky's might and subtlety.

Some cultural studies can get ridiculous, but people DO study women and how they fit in social relations and production. A few liberals on twitter who hyper focus on "microagressions" don't represent feminism. Never have.

This post is reactionary as hell. Unless you are Holla Forums it makes no sense why women do the bulk of unpaid labor and well… it goes unpaid.

Also typically exploitation makes more sense in the context of workers than oppression.

go back

feminism is revolutionary if you do it right (not liberal feminism)

There is nothing wrong with feminism in itself, and most people who identify as anti-feminist are reactionary retards, but you are hugely downplaying all the toxic shit involved with modern day feminism.

Every single Women I've met who self-identifies as a feminist is very concerned with issues like cultural appropriation and unironically complains about man-spreading, masnsplaing, male enlightenment and other culture war bullshit like that. The feminism you are claiming is some marginal twitter phenomenon totally dominates the movement and that's a reality we should recognize.

This has to be the strangest meme ever to emerge from feminazism

Forgot pic

Maybe it's just where I'm from but I've never actually met one of these people. I might have just gotten lucky.

It seems you've done it again pal.

If you were to pay someone what a typical housewife is worth it would be in the high 5 digits. Hire a cook and maid for a year and see what kind of check you write them at the end.

This isn't even labor and none of this is exclusive to domestic labor or even women in general.

Cultural Marxism

Ah, there we go.

Opression is not about how you feel, it's a cold, hard fact. So 'mansplaining' is not opressive, wage labour is.

Oh, and maybe you already know what I'm alluding to, but if you don't, look up "emotional labor".

We're through the looking glass on these people.

Because postmodernists are retarded and the working class is alienated, if not usually brainwashed proactively.

what are you talking about. I didn't even imply anything bad about feminism

Read zizek
We all have ideological glasses. There is no glasses free world. We look through the glasses of communism, they look through feminism.

The level of detail in this shit always disturbs me.

Feminism is encouraged by the ruling class because it doesn't pose a threat to capital. Communism does.

That's just the usual creepiness of longer running memes, what really tips it over the edge from "creepy" to "this is the product of a broken mind" for me is the nonsequitur adage plopped into each one.

Also, the fact that most of them are drawn by actual femanons on girl-dominated boards, parodying each other.


Those exist?



Women have a greater tendency to notice and complain about things than men do. Part of human sexual dimorphism is that women are more sensitive and men are more tough. This is socially conditioned to a degree, but it's also physiological. Women's senses are generally more fine-tuned than men's, particularly the sense of touch. These traits will probably go away eventually but for now we are still dealing with hangers-on from out time as hunter-gatherers, when men had to hump it across nasty terrain to go kill some food and women had to make sure the helpless idiot babies were safe from a world where everything was trying to kill them.

This tends to manifest in ideology. Feminists are mostly women, and feminism is shaped primarily by women. So their complaints are mostly going to be things that men wouldn't notice (because if men had noticed these things, they would have done something already). Workers are mostly men so they don't tend to call out bullshit in the workplace. A lot of the complaints feminists raise about the workplace are actually not gendered issues at all, just things that men are more likely to take in stride and women are more likely to complain about. Noticing bullshit at work is very much a good thing and the complaints should be taken seriously because they can help show people the class conflict inherent in their workplaces.

Shit's a lot more complicated than this tbh, just thought I'd add some commentary on the biological component that people tend to overlook human biology in some of the strongest irony to be theoretically possible.

Indeed, things like the pay gap take such a finely attuned set of senses to detect that to a man everything they have at their disposal still makes it seem completely imperceptible to them.

An old chestnut on such dimorphism of attitudes:

Nice motte & bailey fallacy you've got there

I still want to fuck Irma and Cornelia

You realize I'm saying that nagging is actually an evolutionary advantage, right? Being a tard who thinks men and women are equal as in congruent is even stupider than the people who think that because we're different means we should be valued differently. And the pay gap is not something that would be apparent to your senses you mong. Even if people openly discussed their pay (which is taboo), you'd be getting an incredibly shitty sample because within any work environment people are going to end up in different roles that require different amounts of work and it would be very difficult for a worker to parse all of that information (they're not going to be aware of exactly how much overtime other people work).

The wage gap is primarily due to vastly different gender roles when it comes to parenting. When kids are born, men wagecuck even harder and women go do a shitton of unpaid labor raising kids. There are two ways to get rid of it (within capitalism, abolishing which would also fix the wage gap by eliminating the wage system): one, simply pay women more for less work at the job or two, even out which parent raises the kids. There are other factors, but this is by far the biggest since it takes women out of the labor force entirely and if/when they rejoin they have lost years of career advancement. Feminists would never support either measure because one is a pipe dream and two might look like concern for men and that's almost as big a taboo as pedophilia.

Nice piece. Read from a leftist perspective, I would say that the alienation of the "homeowner" meme is at the heart of this too. If people lived in communities like we historically did, we wouldn't necessarily need an intimate partner to nag us. We would live with our neighbors in a way that our culture would consider "intimate" and they would know about these issues and take an active interest because we're all part of the same community. Sidenote, I think a lot of the "battle of the sexes" shit is down to this type of alienation as well. When people live as a community, they can spend a more balanced amount of time with people who are more like them, rather than spending most leisure time with a single person of the opposite sex who can be challenging to communicate with because they think so differently. People used to spend a lot more time in groups comprised mostly or entirely of one gender, and what's left of that sort of community tends to get lost when people get into serious relationships or get married.

pic related

feels really REALLY bad man

Not sure which position you're comparing to flat vs. spherical earth, but thinking men and women are the same is trivially incorrect while value judgements are wildly more complicated and not obvious at all.

Yeah, and to make things worse boomers very rarely have even an awareness that the world is changing that way. It's going to hit a lot of people like a freight train when the world changes out from under them as automation and globalization buttfucks national economies further.

I was referring to the underlying mentality that typically justifies both positions. That either women and men are the same in every way, or they're different in every way, the anti-intellectual rock and hard place.

Sort of like all the contrarian shitlibs who insist race isn't real, in spite of how blatantly insane that is, unintentionally greasing the slippery slope "race realists" slide down on their way to supremacism. Or the absolutist nature/nurture stance (interestingly 100% inverted between Anglo SJWs & some European SJWs, though they seem utterly unaware of each other due to the security of their dogma) demanded on sexual orientation, that has sent public opinion on the subject running in every direction from the closely policed medical community.

If they were just willing to concede that such differences exist, but are largely inconsequential, it would defuse so many situations.

Yeah but they don't want to defuse social situation. The people you're talking about get their sense of identity from that central struggle of their false consciousness.

Because feminism isn't just amenable to Porky, but beneficial, both from an idpol perspective and for the growing physical utility of women over men in the business sector, which can be propagandised as equality when really it's just the march of post-fordism rendering the other 50% of humanity obsolete.

Something like:

Don't worry, you'll be paid soon enough. Don't forget to thank Porky for being the great equaliser.

The typical housewife is an r9k meme at this stage.

one component of it is down to women being willing to accept lower pay when pay is negotiable.
tbqh i'd like to see pay negotiability abolished since i'd probably fuck it up too.

You act like the pant-on-head oppression athletes are the few lost minds of the feminist movement. It may have been true 10 years ago, but now you have to dig in tons of crap to find something of value.

No way, at least absolutely not at the leadership level. The 3rd-wave coup by misanthropic lunatics in the 1970s was a full sweep of every formal feminist entity in academia, government, & NGOs.

A better example would be the black community, who fought off a similar attempted coup by black nationalist fruitcakes in the 1970s, instead continuing to push for fair racial equality while sweeping the idpol scum under the rug. I often used them as a counterexample of what feminism has become, up until BLM surprised me by driving them totally insane almost immediately after they emerged in the 2010s.

Maybe it's just an impression because the internet give a tribune to the cohorts of idiots.

I never got how the black right movement went from promoting education and civilized behavior to looting the liquor shop.

read Engels on household labour, you don't know what you are talking about
then read up on Marxist feminism

there's nothing wrong with condemning bourgeois feminism

Engels is right that housework is labor, but Marxist feminism is just as bad as bourgeois feminism, and I'd argue it's worse because it dilutes the concept of class and deliberately ignores how the wage system interacts with a household.

What happened 10 years ago (2007, year of the great interwebs cancer) was, I think, the incidentally prominent occurrence of something that had already been underway elsewhere.

Throughout the 1900s, postmodernism (the "big daddy" ideology of SJWs) had slowly been bubbling through counterculture, one subculture at a time. First philosophy, then fine visual arts, theater, art music, poetry, literature, leftist activism, arts & crafts, art films, genre fiction (fantasy first, then horror, and finally SF), comics, hacker culture, new skeptics/atheism, and had just started digesting vidya and forums in the mid-2000s.

Around that time, coincidentally, geek hideouts (the intertubes) and geek culture suddenly flipped into prominence as the modern world made getting online a practical necessity for normalfags. This gave the pomo conquerors of geekdom's (semi)formal establishments an unprecedented rush of influence and attention.

For the sake of hope, I like to imagine the influx of normalfags also created the backlash against SJWs, who until then had primarily dealt with (let's be honest) submissive and socially incompetent subcultural rejects and refugees who had been steeped in one form or other of this abusive environment for decades.

That's the only kind there is. Feminism is bourgeois, always has been, always will be.

oppression olympics is at least 30 years old, you just didn't see it outside academia back then.

Because feminists are weak

Imagine my surprise.

Being personable usually takes work, both in terms of good hygiene and fixing the (probably) shit personality one was raised with.

You misunderstood.

The glasses are a symbol of the work you need to do to free yourself from ideology that is already within you.

that doesn't mean anyone is required to do it

Well then the communism glasses are rose-tinted and the feminism glasses are smudged with vaginal discharge.

And yet, feminists are some of the most unlikable human beings on the planet. Seems to me that they managed to free themselves from the oppression of being polite and well-adjusted members of society, unlike the rest of us plebs. Why won't people pay me to take showers and dress like I'm not homeless? Why won't someone pay me for being pretty? It's not like I want to be pretty. It's not like it gives me any advantage over my uglier counterparts or anything. It's not like I like looking in the mirror in the morning. Gee, I'm so oppressed. The other day I had to suffer the humiliation of spending my hard-earned cash on more clothes and a new pair of boots. Save me, feminism!

Seriously nigga?


Bad break-up huh?

dubs confirm

Nope. I'm just saying that feminists are mostly jealous bitches that want to drag the rest of us down with them. I like the way I am. No feminism needed.

The first class war was the war on women, it continues to this day, fighting hatred of women is a part of fighting capitalism.

Nobody hates women more than other women. Get over yourself, feminist faggot, and you've got it ass backwards. Fighting for feminist idpol will only get you more feminist idpol. If you want to liberate women, focus on class struggle instead of your bullshit myths.

I already mentioned it upthread, but I am seriously not making this up. Feminazis are insane:
the-toast.net/2015/07/13/emotional-labor/ (a sarcastic take)

isn't emotional labour supposed to be when your boss makes you smile and act chirpy to the customers when really you're one returned product away from throwing yourself off the roof?

Feminists are Porkys

Originally (and I think that definition is retarded as well, since being nice on the job is part of "being a decent person", not "working", the stress falls under the broader category of "having a shit job", the temptation to be surly is a side-effect of that, not "labor" in and of itself), but read some of those articles and you'll see them extending it to every sphere of life.

Basically "pay me to be a functional human being"

nah tbf even the idea of being forced to pretend not just to be pleasant and serviceable (i.e. functioning like a normal human being) but actually go above and beyond and feign genuine enthusiasm to a level most people couldn't manage even about their genuine passions, etc, as most businesses want (just read a job description) is enough to make me wish i lived in the USA so that if i ever had to take such a job, i could randomly whip out a gun and shoot myself mid sentence. End my suffering and irreparably stain the reputation (and the furniture) of my employer.

job descriptions always bring out the violent suicide fantasies.

Life outside work, too, is full of situations where enthusiastic agreement has to be feigned for the sake of… Uh, diplomacy might be the nicest way to put it. And there are lots of jobs where direct emotional contact doesn't occur, but they still revolve around lying and being a total slimy backstabber for money (advertising will drain your soul into a jar on your client's desk).

Eh, life outside work usually doesn't make you push to unrealistic levels of enthusiasm because it comes across as sarcastic in other contexts.

Advertising is one of those jobs that makes me wonder why more people don't shoot up their workplaces.

holy fuck lol

It's the easiest way of convincing somebody to pay you for making art. Like medieval religious iconography or Bolshevik state capitalist propaganda, even if you don't manage to slip in subversive meaning, the artistic substance of your execution can imbue merit transcending its stated purpose.

I mean, I actually kind of like advertising historically and such, some of it can be pretty nice (usually for companies that have long since died.), but I would regard it as amongst the most explicitly evil careers you can take after reading globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/think_of_me_as_evil.pdf

I think you're REALLY underestimating how important feminism is Rojava for example. My perspective has been completely changed now that I've seen an actual REAL WORLD example of the revolutionary potential of feminism.

People are so stuck on the memes and hyperbolic examples of commodified bourgeoisie feminism that it's getting ridiculous and playing right into capitalist's hand. It makes me wonder just how much of a role corporations might have played in the commodification of feminism in western society in order to alienate people from it.

Good post, and I'll just share this: found a good article about female comrades during the Spanish Civil War that is reminiscent of Rojava

but lol all feminism is dumb because i watched some 2-hour long youtube pedant bitch about neon-haired whiners, also, i totally don't browse /r9k/ :^)

Rojava only makes sense because women there are treated like property. Feminism makes no sense in modern societies like the US. There is literally no legal right women do not have. Stop kidding yourself. Capitalism is great at being egalitarian as long as you continue to propagate it.

I would actually nominate most financial industry work. The oft-maligned occupations of police and military, for instance, will at least hold the simple value of fairly enforcing peace and order under socialism, but much of high finance varies between Ponzi scheme, outright theft, and concealing crime from the authorities.

In any case, putting up with peoples' shit isn't part of capitalism, but part of life (even if capitalism adds to the pile).

MENA, like much of the 3rd-world, are culturally where Christendom was during the Islamic Golden Age: The dark ages. Nobody aside from the most fanatical unironic mis0gynists has anything against the accomplishments of 1st & 2nd wave feminism, back prior to the 1970s when western feminism still had enemies to fight and victories to attain.

3rd wave feminism is the cancer, and (tellingly) it has no relevance whatsoever in the 3rd-world.

I don't think your post was, but anyone abusing modern 1st/2nd-wave feminism in the 3rd-world to whitewash 3rd-wave feminazism in the 1st world committing a blatantly dishonest motte & bailey fallacy.

you sound like a liberal dude

Actually they do not have the right to appropriate the state to do their bidding and instituting a dictatorship of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie do have this, and so we live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

You sound like a retard desperate to shoehorn muh feminism into everything you see. We do not need you. You people are weak and will be put against the wall when the time comes.

arguing that women are equal because the law says so is retarded. this is leftypol, you should know that legal equality is meaningless in a capitalist society where porky runs the government.

I get that impression, although I think it's still a little naive to focus on broad waves of feminism when it is such a diverse field, which is why I prefer the term 'bourgeoisie feminism' since I think it's a lot clearer as to what my contention is with, the focus on the superficial language offences of rich first-world white women, that sort of thing. I prefer to be clear with my language and not rely on buzzwords, but you're right.

That said, I almost think that Rojava's feminism might be a lot more extreme than even most of the Western world is even used to. It goes beyond just rights, it's a core pillar of the society itself. It's not just a third-world society 'catching up' with the west. It goes deeper than that.

Imagine how some of the laws like how police are required to study two weeks worth feminist theory before they are even allowed to handle would go down in the Western world. The anti-SJW people would absolutely lose their shit over something like that.

It's largely a reactionary movement I assume; the rape and dehumanisation of thousands of women at the hands of ISIS probably fuelled it a great deal. Honestly, I'm still learning a lot about Rojava, but what I've learned so far is absolutely fascinating.

*handle a weapon

Feminism has become more prevalent in society because porky can make a profit off it. Look at how many large corporations push gender equality and female exceptionalism in their advertisements. They feed off the cultural trend of feminism, while making feminism itself more prevalent. Notice how gender equality is now the "trendy" thing for millennials on social media. Notice how films are going out of their way to be as diverse as possible. Porky perpetuates this trend in the name of profit, hence it becomes the norm. Porky will never do this for workers rights, because he cannot profit off the liberation of the proletariat. In essence, Marx was right.

i've never heard of this before and that sounds hilarious.
Someone go tell an anti-sjw on twitter.

It turns out if you control for such autistic minutiae as "choice of occupation" and "hours worked," the gap closes to 95:100, which can be easily explained by differing cognitive and negotiation styles. But why go into all that unnecessary detail, when we can just beg the question against historical materialism and assume the economy isn't driven by market forces?
Sure, sure, if you could get "the same work" by paying 3/4 the same price to a woman, there's a persistent, shared incentive to do so in that any capitalist who does gains a competitive advantage over any of his rivals who do not, and to where different relative demand for labor from different demographics would push the wages for fungible labor between two groups towards each other, but don't fear - contradicting everything we know about capitalism doesn't mean it's false, just that every single capitalist in the world is actually so sexist as to be absolutely blinded to rational incentives, and that there's no mechanistic process akin to natural selection reshaping which individuals comprise the bourgeoisie according to their real decisions and irrespective of intent/motivation. Which actually proves feminism right, I am told.

Yeah I call bullshit on this. Police get next to no training in things they actually need to know, like how to deal with an uncooperative citizen without fucking shooting them.

Rights feminists campaigned for:

Rights socialists campaigned for:
One of those seems a lot less relevant today than the other

If women are equal under the law, that means the only way they can remain unequal is both identical to and legally indistinguishable from their male comrades: Lack of economic leverage.

No amount of hounding people will expunge imaginaryinvisible wrongthink, only by eliminating the one remaining means by which sexism can legally cause harm can it be rendered irrelevant.

1st/2nd-wave feminism happened for the most part in post-Enlightenment Christendom, whereas Rojava is positioned in an ideologically Bronze Age culture battling against fundamentalist warlord death cults. Of course they're going to have to be more radical than our feminists were to make the same achievements, sort of like Stalin/Mao trying to go straight from feudalism/tribalism into industrial communism.

Also, much of 1st/2nd-wave feminism was contaminated with bourgies, but they were fighting something real instead of tilting at windmills, lending some merit regardless.


yeah, that's the point i was trying to make.

It's true though. It's also part of a broader set of training in non-violent conflict resolution. Ideally for any cop, you really don't want to have to pull the trigger if it can be avoided. With all the controversies in the US concerning trigger-happy cops, it's easy to forgot what good policing looks like.


Personally I…wouldn't spread this around the anti-SJW people, at least not until Rojava has firmly established itself and we can be confident it's here to stay. I almost feel like Rojava to pure of a project to be tainted by the outside world at the moment.

the problem is identity tbqh.

when you call it feminism women can see "oh, this is for us" very upfront, most people are too retarded to sit down and think about the division of labour or anything like that. (i mean intuitively, "labour/labor" as a party name has the same intuitiveness. you don't have to believe anything, it's for who you are - but even then, does someone who works in a convenience store really think of themselves as a labourer? or does the phrase bring to mind mexicans and sweatshops?

identity should be eliminated. not actual individual identity, but these little pin-badges we stick to ourselves to tokenise and simplify it.

citation very much needed

Oh, sorry, it's just your argument sounded similar to the faulty "wait for my revolution" one.

I actually agree with (early, sane) anti-idpol movements that specific idpol legislation (both removing negative and adding some positive) is necessary completely separate from class war. It's theoretically possible IMHO for socialism to exist alongside a non-economic patriarchy/matriarchy/race supremacism/caste system/theocracy/etc. That's why the slate of anti-idpol laws we completed in the 1960s (even if they are "bourgeoisie democratic capitalist reformism") really are necessary and useful both for the capitalist present and socialist future.

But pretending they aren't there, is akin to pretending the abolition of slavery or ritual human sacrifice is a relevant topic in the modern west.

Racism isn't "wah wah somebody huwt my feefees wif mean wowds because I'm bwack", it's "somebody fucked me over in terms of my freedom, health, or career because I'm black". If such all such acts that remain today are legally indistinguishable from similar acts done to whites, their underlying motive is irrelevant in practical terms.

Racism is no longer a problem in and of itself, the system that allows (nay, requires) such acts to be tolerated regardless of race is the problem, and that is capitalism.

Because the modern form of "intersectionality theory" lacks a critical analysis of class struggles. Actually, many modern bourgeois/liberal feminists openly mock class analysis. The result is a largely unconscious working class that generally conflates identity politics with leftism, and subsequently rejects both, voting directly against their own interests

This is because the postmodern concept of oppression is wholly different from the Marxist one, and generally constitutes some extreme idealism.

Communism has become prevalent because porky can make a profit of it. Look at all the sales of marxists books and che guevera T-shirts.

It also serves the porky interest of keeping people stupid, for a communist has no knowledge of fallacious reasoning like affirming the consequent.

Because MGTOWs are correct about everything. Women are incomplete humans and need to be fed testosterone so their brains fully develop.

Prevalent how? Imagery is not ideology outside of fashy land.
Googling "logical fallacies" does not make you sound intelligent, fam.

all mras should be communist tbh because capitalism is the greatest source of feminization in the world right now.


Profiteering off far leftism (anarchism, socialism, communism) only extends to a bit of shallow iconography and vaguely nonsectarian iconoclastic "rebelliousness" or "awareness" (Apple, Harley-Davidson, Starbucks, Whole Foods, Hot Topic, punk rock, etc.).

Profiteering off idpol, especially feminazis, extends to direct integration of NGO staff & academic critical theory faculty into consultant positions at corporate and government advertising/PR/HR departments. Furthermore, their political demands and agitprop are directly incorporated into policy, branding, and deflection/outreach for corporate and government interests.

Idpol, not just its trappings, but the totality of ideology and people that compose it, are the fully consecrated Knights Templar of late stage capitalism.

I have a lot of understanding of much of the concerns and values of the less liberal types of feminists. So I don't really get butthurt about them. It's the weird-ass struggle sessions that so often stem from treating disagreement like assault that I don't get. Being an actual Marxist that accepts the Base-Superstructure theory gets you branded as an enemy partisan when the actual stakes are pathetically low. Oh and standpoint theory is bullshit that was designed for filling out research papers.

Either that was really well said, or I'm just stoned

Gulags when comrades?

that's like the one thing feminists are consistently good for and they managed to fuck it up

And all socialists are stalinists, works on paper, human nature, etc.

What is the final solution to the vagina question?


Feminism exists on a sliding idpol scale with masculism, in any given situation, things may unfairly favor women or men, which means an egalitarian would carry out feminist or masculist activism, and then stop. Further, this means an egalitarian may at any given time be feminist on some issues, masculist on others, and neutral on the rest. Because the goal of egalitarianism is to achieve fairness between the sexes, and nothing more.

By the same token, an anti-egalitarian would (depending on which idpol sectarian they are) continue their feminism after things had started tipping toward female-supremacy, or continue masculism into male-supremacy.

In contrast, there is no such thing as being "too socialist". Once socialism has been achieved, one needn't stop being a socialist to continue upholding socialism.

yep, you're totally well-adjusted