Is there anything to feminism whatsoever?

Fuck off imposter I fully support Feminism

Nice try faggot, I support abortion as long as it's for none black babies

WE ARE ALL AFROPLASM.

Feminism is for cucks.

#BLM

this

Nah, it's alright.

In the west no, in backwards countries like saudi arabia? obviously. class struggles stretches between genders.

Indeed there is, as the commodification of women, and unpaid household labor are real things, and are inextricably linked to capitalism. There is nothing to liberal feminism, but there is something to Marxist feminism.

Marxist Feminism was a mistake.

Forgot these links. Read them please.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

marxists.org/subject/women/authors/davis-angela/housework.htm

marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1914/marriage-love.htm

...

There is still the issue of unpaid domestic labor and commodified sexualization of women in the West. Just because these problems don't have as much gravity as the problem women face in the Third World doesn't mean that western women should be given a platform to voice their perception of their own existence.

It's counterrevolutionary.

Anybody who does domestic labour gets to keep the surplus it produces, you alienated liberal.

Origin of the family was a mistake

There is literally nothing you can really do about this.
You can't fight nature, you can't expect a peacock to not act as a peacock.
In our species women are "the beautiful ones", now add this to capitalism and you have this commodified sexualization. Hell, we probably would this have this problem even without capitalism, just to a lesser extent but still.

Then it should make it easier to make feminists into actual leftists and not the Beyoncé/Clinton apologists. Just make the commodification and objectification more of a talking point and not so much the nature of why we do those things. I'm not so sure that those are entirely natural though, I think there could be a good argument that the whole "beautiful sex" is a product of capitalism but I haven't had enough Red Feminist theory for that yet.

That doesn't matter if there is still patriarchy, idiot. Keeping your surplus =/= access to consumer goods.

The existing socialist countries didn't/don't have commodified sexualization at all.

Additional point: I think this whole human nature argument is a little silly. It is the commodity fetish which is presupposed by production for exchange (sex sells) that presupposes this. Many men, including me, would love to see female characters on screen not being a dumb sidechick with a cleavage (or the vulgar opposite of a muh empowered amazone) because it's not relatable while most male characters are often relatable or at least designed to appear relatable.

nope, it's shit. I fully support gender equality, which means I have to be an anti-feminist. Look at how feminism has treated MRAs just because the latter thinks men's issues deserve attention too.
Fuck feminism

It's an old image that I think is from Tumblr originally.

because having a roof over your head isn't payment? If women want to be the breadwinner nothing is stopping them, tons of guys would love to stay home and do chores instead of taking shit jobs. The fact that women don't have to be breadwinners is female muh privilege, not oppression

doubt.jpg

Dropped.

What the fuck is with all the reddit in this thread? Western women are probably the most priviIeged group on the entire planet. Who gives a shit what their needy asses think?

Hi Milo

lol it's a maoist

No, don't do it. Just throw yourself in front of a train.

"Yes, but no."
It's one of those things where the effort you'd expend to come to an appropriately nuanced and informed conclusion is far greater than the value of having any opinions whatsoever.

Best just to watch Yes Minister and drink during the day. Or, y'know, class struggle and all that.

Maybe it's just because my family is weird but the whole unpaid domestic labour thing really feels more appropriate for 1950s fantasy than a universal sort of thing in the modern west. I'd wager my father did more around the house than my mother overall.
(Due to the distribution of paid labour.)

Shooting a half-baked hypothesis from the hip at the risk of undermining any other point I had:
I think it depends on how we define muh privileged. It would appear at present that women are increasingly advantaged in "getting to the middle", while men remain advantaged in getting to the very top. Now on the one hand, the increased aid towards finding yourself in the middle-income-distribution is obviously tempting from the perspective of someone with much greater chance of falling into the underclass without any hope of escape, but once you're safely in the middle income distribution, finding you keep rubber-banding back there would be incredibly tedious since you've got blinders on as to the risk of falling lower.

And of course, it's the middle income distribution everyone wants to court.

Women love to exhibit and show off themselves. You think the hot female characters are not relatable because you are thinking with a man's mind.
Between some average woman character and some hot babe, women are going to relate much more with the hot babe even if they are just some average Jane themselves because in their minds they all want to be hot and desirable and they all envy and try to be just like other hot women.
Not everything is the result of external conditioning, some shit is simply innate.

This is not true with the girls I watched movies with. The average dyke with SJW glasses on Facebook surely loves Daenerys Targaryen like any other generic Mary Sue, but pretty much every girl I dated (I've dated models and I've dated feminists) was royally annoyed by dumb commodified bitches like that plastic chick in Jurassic World for example to which the Bechdel test applies.

Oh fuck off you faggots, and stop pretending you have an argument when you don't and that I don't because I'm mocking you:
1) Women aren't subject to the draft (USA)
2) Women aren't subject to combat operations (West)
3) Women aren't expected to take up "mens work" - the highest fatality work in the country, by anyone from the DWP (UK)
4) Women get custody by default
5) Pay gap is created entirely by women taking maternity leave

So shut the fuck up and stop peddling your faggotry because everyone knows what's up and the majority of them have closed this shit tier thread.

and you can especially shut up you over opinionated teenage virgin.

>the problem here is that housework doesn't pay i.e. it hasn't been commodified and robbed of its value to the community except by now it pretty much has and communities that were still around in the mid-20th century are now gone, look at black communities for instance
Good fucking job, feminism.

Almost everything you just mentioned is either a mildly distasteful signpost or irrelevant to the middle income distribution, which is the point I'm emphasising here.

Sometimes it does. See for that outlook.
When you find yourself shackled to that sexual free market socdem for your housing needs, there's scarcely an alienated form of labour in the land that wouldn't represent an increase in dignity.

Why on earth do you think socialist feminists don't want to change that?
Yeah no shit the economic system puts women on disadvantage because of the profit motive. In socialism, like in the GDR for example, day care centers where integrated into the firm, so there is no dichotomy between motherhood and work. As far as I know this is also still the case in the DPRK.

Imagine being this retarded.

yes. Nobody is forcing women to be dependent on guys, they are CHOOSING that because they prefer to do that than get a shit job. That choice is muh privilege.

As opposed to what? Getting money which you then have to spend putting a roof over your head (and feeding a woman who refuses to work)? It's obviously a better deal than being the breadwinner, otherwise we wouldn't see so many women who refuse to date guys that earn less than she does.

Come on let's stop kidding ourselves, the majority of feminists are pieces of shit. Socialist feminists are fine but they're not the mainstream school of thought on feminism. It's ridiculous to even pretend they're the same, because the vast majority are liberals. Socialist feminists call themselves "Socialists" - stop being a fuckboy and twisting words around.
I'm going to bed since it's clear you're both teenagers desperate to get some poon.

your whole post is bullshit but I couldn't miss that you left out the part about women getting default custody. You know, something that feminists have repeatedly fought to keep. Feminists aren't just ignoring sexism that benefits women, they repeatedly fight for it. Every time anybody pushes for more balanced custody feminists are the first to shoot it down.

Not entirely, just mostly. And the pay gap doesn't factor in women who just plain aren't in the workforce, which is not an option for men the same way it is for women. You forgot some other ones though.
6) Women can for the most part call the cops in a domestic violence scenario and have the man taken away even if she's uninjured and he is. Even though rates of domestic violence are comparable between men and women according to government statistics.
7) There are domestic violence shelters all over the place, but almost none of them will accept men and if you try to start one for men good luck. The most famous example ended in the founder's suicide.
8) Female genital mutilation is rightly seen as an atrocity, but a significant minority of men had their genitals mutilated near birth in the west (about half in the US and about 95% in Israel, although the practice is in decline everywhere).
9) Men routinely get roped into paying child support regardless of whether they consented to having the child (unless you count having sex as giving consent, which is the same argument pro-lifers use against abortion). In some areas it's not even necessary to confirm parenthood, and the state goes after whatever man the woman decides was the father.

This is what feminism literally espouses and it's in direct contradiction with the most fundamental Marxist analysis of wage labor. You're getting pedantic over an issue that's too broad for that shit.
I'm sorry, did capitalism disappear when I wasn't looking? Is the wage system now gone?

Like a US election: The problem is that the circumstances arise for that sort of perverse choice to exist at all.
(So, as always, the solution is to destroy capitalism.)

Who the fuck are you comparing women to when you say they're oppressed? Having a perverse choice is better than not having any choice at all. Men don't have a choice. They either accept their role as a breadwinner, or they remain single (and still have to provide for themselves)

>>>/liberty/. Socialism is about maximizing positive freedoms, not your dumb anglo concept of negative freedoms. If a family decides to live with a parent being a housewife/-man they should be granted access to consumer goods the same way like a person working in a firm, otherwise you create inherently patriarchal (or matriarchal for all I care) superstructures due to imbalance of power. That being said, socialism should in the long term overcome the antagonism of family as an economic model and resolve it by integrating both into each other (day care centers in firms, etc.).

Projecting?

My point is really more why liberal bourgeois talking points are all anyone cares about.

I would actively refuse large sums of money or social democratic election victories if they were contingent on me accepting a girlfriend. I am a hermit first and foremost.

Based in science. A child has a different relationship with its mom than with its dad.
You should really stop watching these anti-SJW videos on YouTube.

The argument is not that it's good that women have the choice. The point is that women have a choice that men do not and in this respect it's insane to argue that men have an advantage, which is the claim of feminism. Yes, the system as a whole is the central issue but the discussion at hand is whether feminism as an ideology is a useful tool in that struggle. The central claim of feminism is men's advantage over women so addressing that point directly is entirely relevant and in this particular context saying "the real problem is capitalism" is distracting from the critique of feminism as an inaccurate view of things and as unhelpful to class struggle. It's important to have arguments about the utility of the various tools in our toolbox and going "guys but class is the real issue here" is just a platitude that appears to be intended to draw us away from useful critique of our methods.

...

So are you against gay dads?

As I said: Female advantages cluster around the middle income distribution while male advantages tend to cluster at the top and bottom.
A much more useful approach, and the one I advocated in my first post before engaging in hypocrisy because my time is worthless now, is to just ignore it. Critiquing feminism is also not useful to the class struggle. The problem with feminism is far less the claims it makes or the social movements it causes and more how much time left-wing movements sink into arguing over it.

I'm mildly amused that I've managed to get myself posted as being the pro-feminist one here, given my approach of "ignore it for simplicities sake" sometimes extends so far as to ignore women (collectively) entirely.

On a Maotist who has been called out for being underaged and having the mind of a simpleton in multiple threads, as always happens with Maotists? Doubtful. Take your wontons back to Hong Kong, faggot.

Yes, because an ideology that has demonstrated significant staying power, utility to the ruling class, and a poor representation of reality doesn't warrant significant discussion. I daresay the real problem here is that people get too caught up in their emotions and perceived social duties when discussing this and instead of coldly analyzing the issues they fall into moralizing and hand-wringing. Which is another aspect of the ideology that warrants discussion, since as you point out it acts very effectively at getting people to sink into discussing it unproductively.

feminists have been fighting AGAINST equality since the 70s user. That's a long time before youtube came out. Maybe you should stop listening to your feminist friends on facebook and tumblr?

critiquing ignorance and false statements is always useful. Bernie Sanders would have been a huge step forward for leftism, but he lost because of the lies spread by feminism.

If nobody discusses it, it loses all power.

Not really. Economists call it opportunity cost, if you don't actively enjoy arguing then it's basically just a deadweight loss to do anything but ignore it.
I'm always one for making simple excuses that let one purge the tedious, but that's just silly. Sanders lost because the Democratic party is stupid, corrupt, stupidly corrupt, corrupted with stupidity, etc, etc. Had it been Bill Clinton's turn the outcome would've been essentially the same. (Except perhaps the horrifying possibility he might've beat Trump.)

lol, dude. Men are physically stronger than women,
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
There was an article a few years back where the top female enlisted in the army were equivalent to the bottom 10% fitness among men in the military. this is just biology. of course men can abuse women but not the other way around, you might as well ask if teenagers need special support because a 6 year old is physically bullying them.

So you literally called me underage for four times, get triggered by my flag and don't have arguments.

We don't have the power to make nobody discuss it dipshit. It's useful to the bourgeoisie so they'll keep using it. If nobody discussed nazism then it would have had no power in the 20th century but its opponents couldn't stop the Germans from discussing it.

I have my doubts. I mean, they did have the whole SA thing.
(And as WW2 then demonstrated, the best response to Nazism was to be found not in the discussion hall but thousands of feet up in the sky carrying incendiaries.)

Funny how you are being so staunchly anti-IdPol in this thread but pull off a complete SJW on me when you see the chance. No, gay dads probably won't ever be able to replace a biological mother. That doesn't mean I want to prohibit them from adopting homeless children.

Oh fuck I guess this magically means that women never physically hurt men because they're too stupid to pick up a heavy or sharp object or to realize that less damage is still damage.

Men can't defend themselves you moron, because they'll be seen as the aggressor. They'll often be seen as the aggressor if they don't fight back too. There are endless arguments that even when a man never lays a hand on a woman it's still his fault if the woman strikes him. My sister came back from college arguing that women instigate domestic violence because they "know" it's going to happen eventually so they'd rather force it to happen at a time and place they choose rather than wait for the inevitable attack from the man.

"Nobody" includes the nazis just like how in this context "nobody" includes the feminists. If you choose not to talk about something that doesn't mean other people will follow suit, especially not when they have an interest in continuing to talk about it.

tbh to me this just emphasises the limitations of group analysis.
i mean, a 6 year old could beat the shit out of a crippled teenager, for quick and vaguely insensitive example. viewing it purely through the lens of age creates a bizarre myopia.

Most of those people will fall into a black hole rather than having productive discussion. The left should aim to seize the initiative while they're distracted rather than bogging themselves down.

If Bill Clinton ran against a woman, no it wouldn't. The media relentlessly attacked Bernie because he was a male, every time he disagreed with Hillary they called him sexist. There was a 20% gender gap in the primaries because of how many liberal women are feminists and couldn't vote for Bernie. You reverse the genders and Bernie wins.

kys user

All this thread is convincing me is that women and their supporters just need to be punched in the face. Punching people is the only real way we can structure a society - any other way is doomed to be subject to semantics and nitpicking.
Come fight me about it.

Imagine my shock.

I'm seeing a white-black divide much more notably than a (white) male-female divide here.

Both are present. It has more to do with the establishment vs not the establishment tbh. The Democrats have billed themselves as pro-woman and pro-minority for decades. A lot of people have fallen for it. Then some white dude (boo, hiss) comes in and starts talking about other things so he brings doubt. Note too that this is the NY exit poll, which is Hillary's "home state" and had some of the worst election fraud in the country. Loads of people (I forget the numbers) had their registration changed or revoked and it was mostly young people who were expected to vote for Bernie.

I saved that picture and didn't realize it was race too. Pic-related you can see there is a big gender gap for NY, which was a huge victory for Hillary. Other states had an even bigger gap, I remember seeing 20-30% difference in some states between men and women. If we only counted male votes Bernie would have won.

have another picture I got from this board that sums up Hillary's campaign.

well thats an exception obviously, but not using any weapons thats not the case
laugh it off, stop being a pussy. If a 110 pound girl starts hitting you turn around and walk away, its not like she can seriously injure you with just her hands. If you're at the point where you think a girl can hurt you, you need to re-evaluate your manhood. If she has a baseball bat or some shit then ok but if shes just having a tantrum then w/e. If shes your GF its time to break up. If shes your wife and is acting like that im sorry but you've made a mistake marrying a woman thats immature and can't use here words.
Because men are biologically stronger, if a woman hits you as hard as she can, you just get a light bruise, if you hit a woman as hard as you can you can potentially seriously injure or kill her.
Citation needed, this sounds like bullshit. I mean sure the woman can lie and say he started it, but how exactly is feminism responsible for people choosing to falsely accuse people?

This

The bourgeoisie are who forced that guy to work such a dangerous job. Most jobs are dangerous and low paying because the bourgeoisie won't pay for safety equipment and won't lower the amount of hours.

Being able to access markets, which the stereotypical in your bottom picture cannot, is critical to survival under capitalism and puts anyone who cannot in an extremely vulnerable position. Also plenty of women work in dangerous jobs.

You have clearly never had a physical altercation with another person and should stop posting. Life isn't a video game where different stats make some opponents unable to cause harm.

If a woman hits a man she's seen as defying gender roles. If a man hits a woman he's seen as a pathetic waste. This is the case regardless of the circumstances.
It's responsible for propagating the idea that violence is one-way and making it much easier to lie about violent altercations. Do you even know what systems are?

That would be my understanding, more or less.

Often an interesting thing to do. When you break voting down by gender it's fascinating to see some of the inclinations. (In Britain: Women have leaned towards the Conservative party from at least 1974* until 2005, and in Scotland towards Labour and away from the SNP until 2015. I think in 2017 women actually leaned more pro-Labour than average by quite a large amount.)
*1974 is the first year for which polls did a gender breakdown. The "Women lean Conservative" thing has been recognized much before then. I do recall that one textbook claimed that every election from 1945 until the 80s would've been Labour-won but for female votes.
I do get the feeling that idpol would still have been marshalled to the aid of any white male candidate standing against Sanders, on the (implied) basis that Bill or someone else cared more for those issues.

Again, you say this like it's a universal truth.
If a 110 pound girl starts hitting me, she'll probably knock out my breathing tube.

*stereotypical housewife

Funny, i was about to say the same to you
As it should be
Is it? I've never heard a feminist say "falsely accuse men, its only fair".although there are other problems with feminism, thats beside the point Violence is not one way but its a fair initial assumption to make given that man on woman violence is way more common and dangerous than woman on man. If a child started hitting an adult, and the adult hit back, of course the child was in the wrong to hit anyone, but the adult is wrong to hit the child under any circumstances. As I explained earlier it is a biological fact that a woman on average is only half as strong as a man. If a six year old came and punched your leg, would it be appropriate to punch the kid back in the face? no instead you should restrain them and stop them from doing that, not hit them back. That is the mature response. There's a reason people look down on guys who beat women and children

And?
And?

Obviously not because despite supposedly not having access to markets women managed to survive under capitalism.
Danger is relative. The more dangerous jobs go to men, as evidenced by workplace fatality/injury rates.

Well its different for an able bodied normal age guy than a injured/disabled guy. No one would think its ok for a regular person to beat up a disabled guy. Thats why this quote:
is bullshit. But im talking about the normal case not an exception to the rule

studies have shown women are more likely to use weapons in DV
and if she has you cornered? A smaller person can hurt a bigger person if the bigger person can't defend himself due to sexism.
And what happens when you try to break up because she hit you, and her response is
Good luck with that user, can a big strong man beat the police too?

94% of the people who die at work are male. And you say that's muh privilege?
why? She can get a job if she wants. She chose not to. She does that because she doesn't want a job not because she's not allowed to have one.
no they don't. See above, almost everybody who dies at work is a man. Thousands of men dies at work every year against a few dozen women.

Who gives a shit how "strong" someone is when they have a kitchen full of knives or access to a gun?
How about, instead of making assumptions, we hear people out when responding to a domestic disturbance? It was infuriating when my ex would get drunk and brandish weapons and screech at me until the police took ME to jail to "cool off".

You can restrain her from hitting you, just don't hit her.
Again, its wrong and bad if a woman lies and falsely accuses someone, but what the fuck is "feminism" supposed to do about it? Theres no philosophy that can stop people from lying or manipulating.
it must have been this terrible feminist polemic: pic related. Those SJW BASTARDS! /lel

holy fuck please never post here again you fucking dumbass

Are you clinically retarded or something? This isn't how fights work. Life isn't a movie where if you grab a woman by the upper arm she's rendered helpless. Christ, you're not just an idiot you're also really fucking sexist against women, aren't you?

Like I said, weapons are one thing. Obviously if she has a gun then physical strength doesn't matter.
Unless you have a kid together or something this would be the end of it for me. If shes that psycho, you gotta break up with her before it happens again.
I agree, the cops do need to hear someone else and not just assume, although as I explained the reason they make that assumption is because thats how it usually goes 9/10 times. But thats just one thing to add to a long list of things police need to do better, such as not shooting minorities whenever they feel like it and being dicks in general

Physically retaliating against the tantrum of a child can't be compared with female-on-male domestic violence unless you want to claim that the average woman has the mental capabilities of a child.

You're right user, feminists are all about equality and have never ever spread the idea that only female victims of DV matter. Pic-relateds are all lies!!!
you've never been in a fight, so stop talking
stop telling us that women never lie. Stop telling us that men are never falsely accused. Stop telling us that all men accused of DV are automatically guilty.

I like the part where you completely ignore how sexism is built into the system here as if the behavior of the fucking cops isn't relevant at all.

Feminism is, in one of the many wonderous ironies of our age, proof positive women are incapable of independent intellectual thought and will destroy everything for personal gain when foolishly entrusted with this capacity and left to their own devices, and should be reigned in with panoptic internalized control memes at all times.

...

Imagine being this spooked, beholden to idpol, and being completely unaware of it.

is because misandrists like you told them to. Fuck off and die, my friend's ex held a knife to his throat once because of feminists like you.

no user, that's your whole fucking movement

The reason man on woman violence and woman on man violence have 'double' standards is because men are biologically different and stronger than women. This is not excusing a woman to hit a man or do whatever she wants.

Fine then go punch a woman in the face, i dont control you or your actions, just know that people will see you a douche

If anyone including feminists actually claim that women never lie, that is crazy. But again that sounds like a strawman.
I'm done arguing, if you motherfuckers want to punch girls so bad go ahead, but people will see you as an asshole anyway

The problem is that even if that's not something anyone wants, it's something that people don't give much thought to.

Consider a boring, detached example from economics:
You have "hawks", who're concerned about inflation, and "doves" who're concerned about unemployment.
This impacts on monetary policy because there's a relationship between monetary policy, employment and inflation. (Even if the mainstream view holds it primarily to be a short-run thing.)
It's not that Hawks want mass unemployment, and it's not that doves want 20% inflation. It's that Hawks are only looking at the inflation statistics without caring what unemployment hits, and vice-versa for doves. (In practice we're talking relatively small movements, maybe more 4% give or take inflation vs 2% here-or-there on unemployment, but to visualise.)

There are a lot of other political economy things relevant to the employment-inflation example, but they're not really relevant. Everyone wants a world with low inflation and high employment - but when it comes to making that tradeoff, people pick their horse and run with it even when 10% of the working-age population are having their livelihoods destroyed or the world has a paper shortage as prices are updated weekly.

bye user

doesn't MMT say you can have full employment without significant inflation?

further proving it's ALL about appearances with you asinine conformist parrots. so long, enjoy your cats.

>

I believe so. You could also achieve it with price-and-income controls of some sort or other policy, but for simplicity sake representing it as it functions in the mainstream was easiest. (Since it's a relatively simple and - hopefully ITT uncontroversial - two-way tradeoff.)

this is a result of traditional notions of women being the embodiment of human grace and goodness, the so-called "women are wonderful effect". it is one of those areas where women and men both will generally not brook any kind of challenge to their idealised views of women. fundamentally, both sexes love women more than they love brutish men, who are expected and required to deal with all the darkness of humanity it order to shield women from it (and consequently receive the kind of social respect that women have often not had access to) and this shows in the way we tend to simply disbelieve bad things about women or, when confronted with evidence that we can't ignore, endlessly justify and rationalise their behaviour in ways we never would for men. Men can simply just be bad, women are always 'provoked', 'mentally ill', 'too giving', and all the other excuses that we make for them.

it's not something that liberal feminists challenge. either there is a cold calculation that challenging it might reduce womens' collective social status and so it is left unaddressed (the usual approach from politically engaged ideological feminists) or it is simply a traditional notion that continues to be held because it's never really been challenged (more common in your garden variety "i just like, believe in, you know, equality???" feminist). There was a brief time, mostly in the interwar period, where left-wing feminists actually DID talk about this stuff seriously but marxist/socialist/whatever feminism has been basically a dead current since the 1950's and even today "socialist feminists" are mostly just socialists who are also liberal feminists.

actually the 60s. Many of those feminists joined the men's rights movement. MRAs supported people who wanted equality for both men and women, but most other feminists didn't so those feminists became MRAs.
Either way: There aren't many feminists today who want equality. A feminist director, Cassie Jaye, just came out with a documentary about MRAs. And now she's not a feminist anymore, because you can't be a feminist if you think men matter

for the last fucking time you can't deny the biological reality that men have higher testosterone levels resulting in higher muscle mass and aggression than a woman? This is simply the biological reality. Gender is not physical sex

The removal of that superfluous question mark and it's replacement with the qualifier "on average." would bring this question much more closely in line with material reality, as well as sending the correct

this is unrelated to either of the posts you replied to.

Nah, it's a wastebasket term for about a hundred different, sometimes opposing and antagonistic ideologies. At the moment a number of flagrantly misandrist ideologies have laid claim to the word, but it could fluctuate again at some point. Once I read up on the history of feminism I stopped calling myself a feminist because the term is so inconsistent. "Egalitarianism" more succinctly describes what I stand for and what feminist apologists often protest it's all about after they finish advocating for sexism to the benefit of women or the detriment of men. Why continue using a phrase that has been so thoroughly run through the mud as to derive it of all meaning while charging debate every time it's used?

Uhh the reasons many 60s feminists are now MRA's and TERFS is because they're bigoted conservatives who were progressive by 60s standard, but not modern.

Cassie Jaye is an idiot, and the Red Pill is a bad film. The MRA movement doesn't give a single fuck about mens issues beyond bizarre sexual politics and neo-masculinity shit.

The actual Mens issue movement is called Mens Lib which is part of Third Wave Feminism.

The hilarious thing about MRA's is they hate third wave feminism so much, when in reality, Third Wave Feminism is a trillion times more moderate than 2nd wave. 2nd wave radfem is quite literally that "Lock men up in dungeons and have them be our slaves", but because Conservatives can't understand that not everything has a linear progression, they think third wave feminism, which is mostly about actually addressing class and racial issues along with gender ones, (largely a part of 2nd wave became what we call "Corporate Feminism") is somehow worse than literal like Posadist tier 2nd wave Radfem TERF shit.

People are actually arguing this on Holla Forums?

lel i remember you, still shilling your subreddit huh? keep on lickin' that boot, maybe feminism-senpai will notice you one day

I dont give a shit if a woman wants to have a job or rights or wear pants or whatever stupid shit she wants to do.
If you read about the history of feminism, in america at least they were always awful people, they were responsible for prohibition, and they also teamed up with the pro slavery democrats after the republicans rejected them. They also excluded black women from marching with them.
Feminism doesn't even seem like a coherent and rational thing in the modern day, you have terfs that hate trannies, you have white feminists who use feminism as fulfilling their self indulgent ambitions and dont really give a shit about colored women or poor women. muh more women ceo's.
You have feminists whose whole main goal seems to be some sort of moral crusade against any form of media that promotes women that are better looking than her.
You have feminists that are pro slut.
You have feminists that are pro modesty.

All in all feminism doesnt seem to want to actually improve the material conditions of women, but rather to help women become more absorbed into the capitalist system.

it's all garbage and i'm frankly embarrassed for anyone who gives it the time of day. usually if any girl starts talking to me about how they're a feminist, i just laugh and go "ew" and ignore them. works a treat when they attach their dumbass basket of meaningless and harmful opinions to social/sexual rejection. wonder why? is it because you're not sincere, you have no convictions, you're about as interesting as paint drying, and your "liberation" is a lie?

That joke isn't very funny once you know that all ant colonies are composed of sterile females.

Let me guess worms are niggers

No user, that's pedophilia.

This thread is filled with the non homo gay

read anarcho-feminism.

feminism is the abolition of gender roles.
it's on point. but there is such thing as femnazism, or femalism. depends on how spooked one is.

The big thing that divides feminism seems to be class and race.
I think race is slightly more acknowledged than class. I dont think i have ever seen anyone do a class analysis of feminism, not even a feminist.
I thought about that when Hillary lost. All those poor white women from middle america didn't vote for Hillary. And no amount of muh first women predddit brainwashing worked. Trump was a better liar i guess.
I mean Hillary was upper class liberal white woman feminism incarnate.
I think in a small way its probably good that that didnt win.
The face of feminism seems to be like some upper class liberal white woman striver who is sassy and fighting da good ol boys club and is protesting the lack of women in doctor star wars trek.

Not a homeless women, or a women who cant feed her kids, or a woman who hast to work multiple jobs to live in a one room apartment
Modern Feminism doesnt seem to actually confront material reality, its filled with contradictions too.
I think colored feminist have different interests than white feminist in general, they are dealing with their own peoples patriarchy, but at the same time being under another patriarchy, and at the same time having to deal with white feminists who only think about themselves.

tbh the image comparing feminisms isn't as smart as you think.

propaganda vs ballsy individuals doing what they want
I prefer the real shit.

A fight isn't a fucking Tekken match, it's a dynamic, fluid event. I've seen women half the size of the average man kick the crap out of people because while they lacked the overall size and strength, they knew their advantages and what they were doing. Call them exceptions to the rule all you want, but you can't ever underestimate a woman, even the average one.

Femen is legit funded by soros, im not joking.

so they're getting money for doing what they want?
GOOD.
I wouldn't fucking complain either.

Not paying much attention to this physical altercation conversation, but here's a fun martial arts fact: women's lower center of mass means that it is typically easier for them to deliver powerful kicks than men.

I looked up that stat, and it's for the US, not internationally. Women are far more likely to be sexually assulted (1-7) vs men (1-70).
There's plenty of other stats where women suffer more. But my point is that if you can't buy stuff you will die under capitalism. Patriarchy keeps women from doing that. I agree that Western women enjoy many muh privileges that were granted under the assumption of patriarchy like marriage and child support being enforced by state violence, but to say men do not enjoy any muh privileges over women because they comprise of all the work place deaths is wrong. Also how come these same type of statistics regarding police brutality against blacks don't instantly convince reactionaries like you of racism,

Ephebosexual here. I'd just like to thank all the feminists in this thread and beyond for acting like such utter shitheads that you allow us to redpill more people about your fake rape hysteria every day. Keep doing what you're doing. I eagerly await your explanation of how since all sex between adults and teens is supposedly rape due to the (almost completely imaginary) mental capability gap, that somehow doesn't also mean that all sex between men and women is rape because of the physical strength difference. Oh wait, feminists actually do think all sex is rape. Never mind.

probably. that pro-choice stuff is bullshit tho.

yeah dude. return to your socially retarded echo chamber >>>Holla Forums
bye bitch

Sure they do, those same stats you site from the department of labor show women get a 3rd of all workplace injuries. You're point is well taken though, there is cultural pressure on men to take dangerous jobs that just don't exist for women. If there weren't such a cultural bias against men as being disposable I bet industries like construction wouldn't be able to get away with half the injuries they get away with now.

>>>/retards/

ITT spooked af Holla Forumstards. complaining about women.

LOL, pathetic. How does it feel that people are finally waking up to the lies you've told them?

here's a fun fact for you, stirnerites are actually worse than MRAs, bitch

here is a fact for you. god doesn't exist.

Just stop. Nobody's buying it.

Does anyone have the leaked CIA how-to booklet for subversion where it specifically calls out that women respond to confidence and men respond to "qualitative argument"?

It wasn't a theoretical paper or study, it was literally their instruction booklet.

this is more likely to be some brain surgeon from left twitter doing le ebin trole XD than it is to be genuine Holla Forums tbh

...

It's got enough going for it, especially when it isn't batshit commodified liberalSJW version

Checked for trips of truth.

That said, they don't seem to be useless at the art of obfuscation and misdirection.

Though I have to admit, watching feminazis sperg out with their complete lack of logical arguments is fun sometimes.

Everyone here's all for the abolition of gender but in a few years we can just abolish sex. Think about it, pic related and parthenogenetic. Seems way simpler than abolishing the social constructs given 60 years of trying amounted to little more than the fall of Sweden.

sex will be abolished when technology is advanced enough to allow us to.

Everyone will be attractive as fuck and reproduce with themselves. You can go fuck yourself in the future.

Sex only exists through gender though. While it is supposedly pre-social, we only have access to it in the form of gender which is mediated by economic, historical, and power relations. As soon as we can speak of "sex", we are necessarily speaking of gender.

no. its different. gender is female male. the bullshit.

Could we create more sexes instead? If there's a vast array of sexes no one would be able to create any subjugation system because it would be too convoluted and confusing to rig one up like that. Could be more interesting. Why not just reprogram our brain to find what''s """ugly""" now attractive? If we could do that now most feminists would probably finally stop talking.

Always good for a chuckle.

It doesn't matter how much muscle mass someone has. If a person starts a fight with another person they should expect them to fight back. If you saw a scrawny little man pick on a boxing champion you wouldn't think the boxer is a monster for laying out the weak dude. You'd blame the weak dude for picking his fights poorly. This shit has nothing to do with relative strength, just gender.

yeah probably
with tech that advanced one can change to any form it wants.

you can be unisex. hermaprodite or a gemini who switches sex on the fly. or whatever.
the more science learns about biochemistry the better.
I would gladly fuck myself.

You fucking what mate? Plants have distinct sexes.

how does a plant have sex when it has no legs or pelvis?
i guess i can see a venus flytrap sort of vagina dentia kind of deal but what kind of flower is stupid enough to go for that?

they have their respective sexual organs, etc

there is male marijuana and female marijuana. but weed doesn't cares about gender they don't take into consideration beliefs of thats for females and whats for males.

The one that is smoked is typically female. Weed can be hermaprodite sometimes too.

They bukkake pollen everywhere.

Don't bees fuck flowers?

Yes but they don't need bees to subsist. Bee movie is a fraud.

yeah
but

Liberals fucked everything up with Peggy McIntosh's bullshit and critical race theory. Then later on Porky further COINTELPROed it to high heaven. Shit's beyond buggered.

Everytime I see idiots trying to recruit me into the feminism cult, I start thinking about pic related.

...

>>>/reddit/
>>>/mentallyill/

DPRK did more for the liberation of women than any capitalist country ever did

What am I looking at?

the men's liberation movement was another name for MRAs you retard. Warren Farrell is a men's liberationist.

oh yeah, I don't reddit much but I forgot they came up with some bullshit "menslib" subreddit pretending that feminism fights for men. Tell me , why did you just create your subreddit now? What were feminists doing until then? Why weren't any of you talking about men's issues before? Could it be that none of you have ever given a fuck about men, and only pulled that place out of your ass once the rest of society realized your movement was anti-male?

feminism is the abolition of gender roles that benefit men while keeping all of the gender roles that benefit women.

no, it's mostly just egalitarians who want both men and women to be treated as equals vs a couple of feminists still clinging to their female supremacist movement.

How is wanting compensation for unpaid labor, which is an essential component in the valorization of capital, a controversial opinion in a leftist space? Regardless of gender homemakers should be compensated by capital for their labor.

because muh idpol xD

Because most of Holla Forums are recently converted Holla Forumsyps or lolberts, most users on this board only got into leftism through online activity or memes, they never actually had experience with applied leftism in praxis, never met other communists, and are communists entirely because they are being alienated nerds, but Holla Forums is racist and racism is scientifically outdated so they adhere to communism as the correct ideology. If most people here get a job or a girlfriend they will turn into centrist SocDems complaining about smashies and SJWs. Girls don't want to fuck them, so girls aren't entitled to level complaints that they get commodified in every movie, that household labor is unpaid, that they are alienated by the socio-economic consequences capitalism forces onto them, they all can't do that, because for the average Holla Forums kid, girls are the great other that don't want to touch them. Hence the obsession with traps, fuckbois and other bourgeois decadent stimulation here, pure alienation.

you're right user we should all be true progressives like you. A father's place is in the workplace, only mothers should get to spend time with their children. Women are fragile and helpless while men are big and strong, so male victims of rape and domestic violence don't need any support. Women are children who can't be held accountable for their actions, so the justice system should only penalize male criminals.
SO PROGRESSIVE!!!!

k
Early 2nd wave feminism had crazies but it also had egalitarians who supported equality for men too. Those egalitarians are now MRAs because you drove them out, and now ALL of third wave feminism is anti-male.

I think it's more because they don't want to be associated with liberal/radfem types. I feel like often of times Holla Forums is feminist until they are explicitly asked whether they are.
Also, I don't think the majority is converted Holla Forumsyps.

And we need to get rid of feminism to get rid of that cultural bias, because feminists believe men are disposable. Anons like get triggered if anybody even mentions that men are viewed as disposable, and that user will do whatever they can to prevent society from changing that view. They'll call you a "bigoted conservative" if you don't think men should be dying by the thousands to provide for their family.

This is a problem that can't be solved until feminism is defeated

1. it's not
2. that isn't what feminists advocate

t. angry idpoler who feels "oppressed" because the idpol he so wants to spew is banned here

I urge you to read my posts in this thread which are mostly unanswered, most of Holla Forums has an unhealthy impulse to regurgitate talking points that you can literally find in an average Sargon of Akkad video. Realizing that capitalist alienation and commodity fetishism expresses itself differently for females isn't IdPol. I want to live in a society in which female movie characters are not plastic barbies, or in which women don't have to go on maternity leave whenever they get a kid because their firm has an integrated day care center. These are basic criticisms of capitalist social policy that are as old as the fucking communist manifesto and you are a piss-poor leftist if you want to pretend that the struggle for women's liberation ends by having quotas for female CEOs.

that's because people like him are often correct on feminism. the mainstream left simply will not criticise feminism, which means those who are looking for content critical of it will inevitably be siphoned towards people like cuckkad and molymeme instead of a leftist critic

feminism, and the left's refusal to criticise and distance itself from it, is a major recruitment boon to the growing right

basically feminism is destroying the left

*bourgeois feminism

Feminism is very heterogenous and much of its intellectual production is criticism of itself. If feminism is indeed "a major recruitment boon" to the right, then we should become even more fervent feminists.

this tbqh

aka mainstream feminism that actually gets popular exposure, aka the only feminism that matters

good thinking

Wrong. I support gender equality, so I am an egalitarian and antifeminist. Stop buying the meme that feminism is for equality, if that were true then egalitarians and MRAs wouldn't face so much opposition from feminists on men's issues

I guess you think we should do away with the abolition of private property as well?

Self-identified "egaliterians" are just MRAs astroturfing. MRAs are a conservative movement that has nothing to do with emancipation. This is obvious from its practice, its discourse, its alliances, and so on. There is literally nothing radical or revolutionary about the MR movement.

Bourgeois feminism is an oxymoron. Women can not escape commodification under the capitalist mode of production.

Stop twisting the meaning of words simply because you don't want to be associated with those dumb liberal blue-haired social studies warriors. Feminism has always been about women's liberation, not subjugating men and turning the world into an AnFem sex dungeon.
You proved my point, you support equality for the sexes (which is the goal of feminism), but when explicitly stating a label to attach to this goal you pick 'egalitarian' over 'feminist'.

that's a nice non sequitur
acknowledging feminism's problems and delusions has nothing to do with bowing to our enemies. as i mentioned, if leftists would criticise feminism instead of making apologia for and coddling it, fewer people would end up in the arms of the right

OP here. Some how reading all the replies in this thread has made me even more convinced that I really have no idea if feminism is even worth one single shit.

This thread was a great success. Thanks for your insight, Holla Forums

It's not a non sequitur. If we dropped the abolition of private property, less people would be anti-communist. The problems of feminism(s) aren't the problems the right perceives, it's essential for any radical movement.

Tbh I'd be into this.

They would chop your dick off, fam.

I'm sure Hoochie can hook you up

then what are the problems?

1933721
Ok

Nope, the moderate mainstream feminists are the ones who oppose equality. You realize that ITT there are feminists like the one above who fight against gender equality right? ITT we have feminists saying that anybody who doesn't hate men is a conservative bigot. That's the view feminists have most places you go. Stop judging feminists by what you want them to be and look at what they actually are: A regressive movement standing in the way of egalitarianism

Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

And "what about the menz?" Nobody is against emancipating women ITT, the disagreement between the feminists and egalitarians is whether men also deserve liberation, or if only women matter. Egalitarians don't think thousands of men should be dying at work to provide for their families. We male victims of rape and DV should have the same support as women. We want fathers to be emancipated from their breadwinner role just like women are emancipated from being in the kitchen.

Those are the issues that feminists disagree with us on, it's nothing to do with women's issues we already agree on that. But I don't see how you can call yourself a leftist and then say you don't have any problem with the thousands of men dying or men working 80 hours a week for their families. Or to say that anybody who does think that needs to be changed is a "conservative bigot."

He's right you know.

AnFem sex dungeon was nasty, Zinnia Jones and Laurelai Bailey were there, trying to rape me. I had to make like in that pic and club and club about the skull until they fell down.

Sickening. Utterly sickening.

Right, I'm dehydrated, tired and I don't read tomes so I want an explanation here:
What are the mechanics of providing compensation for household labour?
Does the state just pay you? Should your partner pay you? What if you both work and split it 50/50, who pays who then? Should your boss pay you more (yes) but put it in a special "this is for mowing the lawn" fund?

Abolishing capital is easy, this confuses me.

It really just depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to elevate women to a more muh privileged position in society where they are treated better than men, then yes feminism is very worth it.
If your goal is equality where men aren't better than women and women aren't better than men, then no feminism is not worth one single shit.

Prostitution was always alive and well in communist countries. Cuba still has 14-year-old prostitutes.

The vast majority of sex slaves are enslaved to make money in first world capitalist countries though.

agreed
fuck men

Start with Marxhead in leftytrash, he's REALLY in need of it.

Feminism is a euphemism for witchcraft or paganism.

Those people are on the "teach boys and men not to rape" train and explicitly only view male victimhood as possible in the sense of being forced to be an oppressor.

No shes just short.

Regarding your second pic…
A lot of feminism is and was virulently racist. Suffragettes especially had a tendency to propagandize black men as subhuman (one argument for women's suffrage being outrage that blacks got the vote first). Knowing about the strain of racism within feminism and looking at the way they sometimes talk about men… It seems pretty clear they just took their rhetoric about black men and extended it to all men. It's not racist to hate black men if you profess hate for all other men too.

[citation needed]
And is emancipating women from being in the kitchen (freeing them from being chained to a husband, because they can't provide for themselves) not the same as emancipating men from having to be the sole provider in a family, from not being able to be a father?

That isnt what feminist advocate at all though. They advocate "the right to work" AKA all women should work just as much as men so the total workload of the family becomes even higher, while the wages go down due to an influx in workers. The right to work doesnt give working women any power either, we need socialism.

...

Ha caught you porky. What worker would take paid leave over having their kid in a day care even if it i in the same office building.
Maternity leave should just be extended to both sexes.
Also most non rad fems like yourself want to actually be at home to raise their kid instead of putting them in a kid warehouse i.e. Daycare.

*wouldnt take leave

Not when "emancipating" women means they divorce their husbands and get paid alimony and child support taken from the men's wages.

Agree but this won't fully solve the problem. Men would take paternity leave much less often. There would have to be a huge cultural shift that a stay-at-home dad isn't "letting the family down". And at that point we might as just well move to communally raising kids which is better anyway and probably less work than getting people to see men as both competent caregivers and not necessarily responsible for breadwinning.

Why would men take paid leave less often. Men and women don't take vacation because they are afraid of retaliation. Just enforce the laws against that.

that pic gave me communism …

There's probably more single moms struggling on the dole than there are divorced moms who get alimony while their ex-husband struggles to get by. Of course, there are cases of 'gold diggers', but overall that isn't a problem for the working class.
Both men and women get fucked over, but women get the shorter end of the stick for sure. Especially when you look beyond the first world.

They'll catch shit for it in their social lives, and we're trained to see our role as wagecuckery to pay for our families. You need to put in effort to get people to deviate from what they see as their role.

The difference is my example is an accomplishment of feminism, which is what we're discussing here.

Jesus Christ, read a book you alienated faggot. Labor and maternity are not mutually exclusive to one another and only became this way through generalized commodity production. Integrated day care centers within cooperatives has been a basic element of Marxist-Leninist policy since ever. Looking at your flag it is not surprising that you are a meager reformist who wants to palliate the effects of capitalism by extended maternity leaves instead of abolishing alienated labor all together.

Which is exactly what integrated day care centers into workplaces are. In the GDR labor and social life have been made symbiotic again by having the workplace not as a place to work but to communally live as well which includes day care centers, kindergardens, sports teams, festivities and even further education. A similar thing is practiced in the DPRK. North Koreans have long breaks from work where they visit a closely connected center of public education where they study in their free time.

This is a good thread

Daycare centers are child warehouses, I know because I was raised in one. Particularly every parent would rather do traditional maternity and raise their infant at home instead of dragging them into work and having to be away from them while some of the most formative months of the child's life are spent with a stranger.
Not sure what you are on about with ML coop day care centers but I took the user I was responding to to mean having the infant being taken care of in an in office day care so mommy and daddy can continue to work and be away from the infant. Something porky has been pushing lately.

Actually I'm going to make a case for DiaMat here and say that the provision of free education and generally securing the material existence for families with children in symbiotic accordance with labor and domestic work usually tends encourage women to visit universities and become "breadwinners" right away. Such was the case in the USSR which had even more patriarchal preconditions than most of the contemporary west today. The whole housewife/breadwinner thing is a purely economical specialization and has no basis in anthropology - a family can furthermore still entertain culturally traditional gender roles with the women in the workforce, this dichotomy between labor and housework as traditional/non-traditional is entirely based on the capitalist mode of production which requires to necessarily neglect your kids to some extent if you want to make a career, etc.

And judging by your flag you probably believe China is at least transitioning to socialism because capital is still subservient to the state or communist party, even though China has worse labor, human rights and environmental record then the US every had in the 20th and 21st century

Alimony isn't the end goal of feminism. You seem to imply that it's some conspiracy to subjugate men, but it's about gender equality. I believe this cannot be accomplished within capitalism. A certain amount of progress can be made, but only to a point. When we have socialism, we will be able to truly emancipate everyone. Until we get that, we're stuck fighting for abortion rights and against backward practices that you can still see in the third world, without losing sight of the class struggle. At the same time we must criticize liberals who believe getting women into political offices and CEO positions will bring about any kind of equality.

End goals don't hold a candle to real consequences.

Would you say the same about muh gorrilions?

I'm the same user. Day care centers in socialism are in direct walking distance to the workplace, in the same building complex, working hours are reduced and long breaks are implement so the mother can casually visit the child all arround her workday. This isn't like capitalist day care centers where you drop your child off and then pick it up in the evening and leave it to underpaid child care workers in the meantime.

I'm going on about this because this isn't an abstract concept but actually did exist in socialism, just ask the former citizens of the GDR who experienced this form of communal life within a cooperative in a very, very positive way with almost no alienation. You suggestion of just expanding maternity leave is just perpetuating the alienation from family life and labor.

Your flag is closer to Dengist China than mine.

Please demonstrate a relation between feminist theory and praxis and alimony

Yes. I'm not a tankie.

They fought for no-fault divorce and women in the workforce but to keep alimony and custody going to the mother in place, even though they're mostly obsolete now.

Are you not a communist either?

How so? How is having leave inferior or more alienating then having someone else take care of your child even if you can have the lesuire of coming in and out of work and visit the daycare throughout the day, which frankly wouldn't work for many positions.
You seem to assume that tradional family structures are innately bad and all the product of the division of labor. Uh. No, kids are time sinks. And most parents would prefer either themselves or their spouse or extended family care for them. Sorry if I can have that over a strange I'm taking it and most parents would too.

Not in the sense that differentiates MLs from other leftists.

Women have always been in the workforce you idiot. So now te goalposts have shifted from alimony being a feminist plot to being something feminism hasn't fought to abolish? MRAs are retarded. Doesn't the abolition of the family inclide the abolition of alimony?

Uh current China is a more naked form of capitalism today, right now, then even the US. I'm a reformist because that's consistently proven to be the best way to eat at and reduce the contradictions of capitalism. If people want to see how much worse capitalism can exploit its people they merely need to look to modern China.

So it's possible to be a communist without being a tankie, but it's impossible to be a feminist without being a liberal retard?

Not that user, but the thread is replete with examples showing the actions of feminists clearly proving that feminism could not give two shits about gender equality. Constantly repeating the same unconvincing claim is not persuasive.

I've litterally never seen a feminist speak out about alimony. I can't even find an acedemic feminist that will address the fact that the pay gap is nearly non existent for white women, but grossly large for WoC.

No shit, let me specify since you're being a pedant to avoid addressing my points: more women as wage laborers.
No, and alimony predates feminism. It's from a period where women much more often really were dependent on their husband for income. My original post is here and the point is that all feminism has accomplished in the way of "emancipating" women is to either have women continue to be dependent on men via alimony (which leaves men in a worse situation) or to put them to work as wage laborers.
Who said I'm an MRA? You people love to use that initialism as a slur for "anyone who disagrees with me".

Communism isn't inherently bloodthirsty, but feminism is inherently sexist.

Because labor and household work didn't became seperated things before generalized commodity production and division of labor. Seriously read Engels.
Care to elaborate why? It worked quite smoothly for the Marxist-Leninist states, which is still something most former female citizens of these states hold in high regard, even the critical ones. Yet these states had way more physical, traditional industrial labor than modern workplaces which are digitalized and partly automated, that means even more flexibility and open space for reintegration of motherhood into labor.
Dude, reformism is useless because of the contradictions of capitalism. SocDem states like you advocate for have an inevitable crisis or overproduction, internal debt, and stifle innovation and reinvestment. It works for a decade or two, then it is subjugated to a neoliberal shocktherapy everytime.

feminism alienates women from themselves causing them to turn into bitter prudes or obnoxious sluts, they can't seem to find an equilibrium once the ideology takes hold; either the patriarchy is too stifling and they respond by slutting it up and having abortions as means of "self-actualization", or the patriarchy is too exploitative so they become lesbians or celibate, anti-natalists, who focus on climbing some corporate ladder or publishing inane studies in some pseduo-science field about "women's issues".

Because alimony is irrelevant outside of MR discourse. Interesting how we've moved from it being the primary consequence of feminism to it not being adressed by feminism.

No they don't and frankly gender equality is a liberal and patriarchal project in that it takes the position of men in bourgeois societies as the standard. Feminism as a radical project would focus on the abolition/re-arrangement of gendered life.

Women have always been in the workforce as wage laborers you fucking idiot, it was petit bourgeois and bourgeois women who didn't work. Alimony is irrelevant for the emancipation of women and has not contributed to it, it also typically only lasts some time after a divorce, that you afford it such sinificance is bizzare. You parrot MR discourse, so I'm going to call you an MRA

what I meant to say is that "feminism" is just what Capitalism orders and yearns for. Turning women into men, turning them into cogs in the machine, making them compete against men instead of working in co-operation with them. Subordinating them to full time wage-slavery, instead of simply doing practical housework or part-time work as a minor supplement. Now they need full blown careers and 8 years of schooling to be competitive, by the time they are "settled" in a career all their eggs are shriveled up and depleted and they'll need fertility drugs in order to make autistic twins with some unlucky 40 year old who has ED issues.

Why? Do you have some marxist feminist book or article which is sexist against men to back this claim up?

Oh, not this again. Look, you're hatstand. Shush.

feminism is just anarchism for women, and the main boogey man preventing their "freedom" is masculinity/patriarchy/cis-men/etc

how can this point of view lead to a balanced life or healthy mentality?

So even after clarifying you continue to ignore the point which is that the accomplishments of feminism are minor and cause other problems, even while you basically restate this here:
So how exactly has feminism emancipated women? This is my point. It's not helping women, but it is hurting men.
So literally "disagreement with feminism = MRA"

Its fundamental assumption is that women have it worse than men and/or women's problems matter more than men's. It's even in the name.

what country do you live in? Nobody in America or any other western country needs a citation for any of that, we live it every day. This user appears to be a feminist, and claims that everybody who wants to emancipate men is a "bigoted conservative" and that the very idea that men have any issues to be solved is bigoted and conservative.
That's the reaction the vast majority of feminists have to MRAs, egalitarians, and anybody else who even talks about those problems. If you make a documentary about men's issues, feminists will protest it. If you write a book about the need to liberate men from their traditional gender roles, feminists will call you a woman hater. If you propose spending a fraction of the time talking about men's issues as we do about women's issues, feminists will fight you as hard as they can.
Obviously not. We already emancipated women, and women use that freedom to enforce traditional gender roles on men because those roles weren't as oppressive as feminists told you. While married, fathers still have to work much longer hours than women and are expected to risk dangerous jobs to provide for their family. Feminists literally won't even let us TALK about those problems, let alone try to fix them.
The men's rights movement was started by feminists. The first issue that they clashed with other feminists over was whether family courts should discriminate against fathers. Feminists have fought AGAINST equal rights for fathers since the 70s.

We're 50 years after the second wave started and feminists are STILL fighting against everybody who tries to reform alimony. How much longer do we have to wait until feminists get to their "end goal" of not legally forcing men into traditional gender role of breadwinner?

Every time MRAs try to address alimony feminists oppose it. If feminists stopped fighting against people who support equality, then we wouldn't have such oppressive alimony rules anymore.

You shouldn't watch so much YouTube. I've met several feminists in my lifetime, socialist ones and liberal ones, and none of them was like any of that what you just said. MRAs are also full of mysogonists and often racists who cloak their hatred of women with alleged fighting for gender equality. Trigglypuff isn't an example of how most feminists out there actually are.

I'm sure Richard Spencer and David Duke are also personable when you speak with them and frame their views in ways to minimize their repugnance.

Shitty motives and shitty speakers do not refute an arguments correctness.

Bullshit. Scratch the surface and large numbers have exactly the same views.

I've known feminists IRL and they tend to follow HRC's example of having public opinions and private ones. And of the MRAs and feminists I've interacted with IRL and online, way way more feminists were racists.

next time you meet one, ask them if they support liberating men from the imposed gender role of primary breadwinner/family supporter; ending male infant genital mutilation; ending discriminatory child custody practices; ending biased rape legislation; ending biased physical assault legislation; ending unrealistic male beauty standards. if that's too difficult, just ask them if they would date a man shorter than them, or an unemployed man – i'm sure you'll get some very "progressive" and "open-minded" answers

well if you're just going to lie like this then I don't even see the point in continuing our conversation.

who's talking about her? Somebody posted her as a meme above. What about NOW? Feminist Majority Foundation? Katherine Spillar? Michael Kimmel? Mary Koss? Those aren't tumblr feminists you idiot those are the leaders of your movement that oppose equality. And then there's you, are you a feminist? Because let's look at your views:
MRAs:
You:
You are an example of the feminists I'm talking about. You think it's racist and misoginystic to support equality. When you come across a group of people who wants to support gender equality for both sexes, all you can do is lie about them.

My favorite is to ask them if they've ever asked a man out on a date. 90% of them have not, because they like the gender roles that benefit them and will never date a man who isn't "manly" enough to ask her out.

Never saw a feminist criticize HRC on gender, even though she was even more sexist than Trump.

Holy shit, I'd only ever seen the first two sentences of that quote. It just keeps getting worse.

that too. slipped my mind. typical response is, "it's the man's job to pursue the woman!"

She really had a way with words.
But remember, if you disagree with any of this you're a misogonyst!

Feminism is cancer

I've noticed average white women have huge standards while qt brown and black girls are more chill. At 5'9" but fit and good looking it's easier for me to fuck a 9/10 hispanic qt than a 6/10 white butterface. Fucking weird.

This is largely correct.

No, its just pure cancer.
Whats worse is that there is now MGTOW which is somehow more cancerous than feminism

Do people not uderstand that neoliberalism is the importation of 3rd world labor inherently meant to drive down wages to slave tier levels?

No, very few people know what neoliberalism is or what socialism is.

anyone who supports feminism deserves genocide

I'm sympathetic to this idea, but have a question about this. What if both partners work at a different firm? How can you both take care of the children?

yes there is.

shame liberals and capitalism are shitting on the concept so much by trying to separate gender and class struggles and financing the craziest exponents of it (ie lena dunham) to take the merit out of the whole thing.
people should read more, smh

They are, via hubbie's paycheck.

Nice memes.

Except what your poll doesn't show is that women under 30 overwhelmingly voted for Bernie. But looking at the numbers, the actual divide that had more to do with who supported who than anything was personal income and wealth, with wealthier, older voters supporting Hillary and younger, poorer voters supporting Bernie, to an irrefutable, overwhelming degree.

Pay gap in negligible in "working class" occupations. Feminism is burger queen through and through.

wow good job user. Women under 30 still didn't support Bernie as much as men under 30 did, and overall Bernie did far better with male voters than with female voters.

MGTOW isn't close to feminism, because MGTOW doesn't actually affect anything. MGTOW isn't running corporations or running the government the way feminism is now, and they don't seem to want any cancerous laws or policies. They might be as pathetic as feminists, but they just stick to themselves and whine about women.

Strange that you consider the role of women in unpaid domestic labour to be a consequence of capitalism, but then consider a child's relationship to its father and mother to be an objective, unchangeable element of hooman naychur, based in objective, rational science™

How so? explain yourself

Moralist ideology. Spook.

Read books dude, you clearly don't read.
Don't read modern feminism, read early anarcho-feminism. Or you're really that biased that you won't pick up theory of something you just hate because "muh videogames are changing". It is clearly about abolishing gender roles as a whole which is fine, it's true that, that is a hierarchy and all hierarchies are bullshit.

Sometimes I wonder how an "MRA's for feminism" movement would look, with MRAs supporting feminism because "it removed the matriarchy from their muh privileged place in the home in an attempt at 'liberation', only to smash the matriarchy by accident by ending stay-at-home muh privilege. We must continue their work and trick the feminists into destroying all of their muh privileged places in society in the name of liberation." It would be quite funny to watch and I might just false flag it for the lulz.

...

Yeah, you should.

...

Yes, the slow sweet release of death.

Back to twitter with you, retard