What are some poor or disabled groups that feminists empirically hate?

Who actually gives a shit though? Fuck off back to reddit you fucking nerd.

no one actually considers modern day feminists as leftist, some leftist groups just cater to them because they never updated their decades old mission statements or manifestos and so the second wavers that was meant for are now used for third wavers

Also in some groups, especially Democratic Party locals, feminists are a huge percentage of the female base, unlike the Republican Party, where even though it's a shit party, they can get women on board for their non-gender specific issues

Ironically the only man that feminists like are wealthy white males that are sensitive to their issues.

Women can ignore your ugly autistic asses all they like. Just because a girl won't fuck your 5'3' toad-like body doesn't mean she's a feminist

Go back to Holla Forums where thier whole goal is to create a world where blonde women are forced to fuck them. You don't belong here

This is debatable, especially if said old white man is wealthy enough to raise a child

This is where Holla Forums becomes capitalists.

people forget how crazy some of the second wave really was. In the 80s, radical feminists teamed up with the religious right to pursue a series of moral panics centering around muh evil trans people, satanic daycare abuse, pornography, 'rights of the victims of crime' (which contributed to mass incarceration) etc.

'feminism' has never been an unified unambiguously leftist movement, see for example the Pankhurst family. Emmeline Pankhurst was a suffragette who even resorted to arson and sabotage to fight for the vote, tactics too radical for her daughters. At the beginning of WWI (a crucial period for the left that saw most workers' parties line up behind the war) Emmeline came out as a jingo and supporter of mandatory conscription, she later became an all out elitist pro Empire Tory. Her daughter Sylvia became a leftcom and one of the first left wing critics of the bolsheviks. Meanwhile,her other daughter Adele moved to Australia where she became involved with a pro Japanese fascist conspiracy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Pankhurst

modern mainstream media feminists are invariably bourgeois agents selling 'feminism' as an aspirational lifestyle.

I'll add men who are ignored by other women
happens a lot in the animal kingdom, but feminists seem to rationalize it instead of conquer it

You are blaming feminism for why you can't get a gf. That's really fucking pitiful. At least blame capitalism… you won't be much more correct but at least it'll spurn you to try and overthrow capitalism instead of trying to establish the socialized pussy committee or whatever

2nd wave feminist had it's huge share of misandrists, but they didn't monopolize liberal discourse, and their militarism was much more tongue in cheek than today.

They even had debates with people they hated!

But, and this opinion might be unpopular, some feminists took abortion rights to mean that those capable of childbrith were more important than those with "inferior" or underdeveloped brains (infants), and I think that mindset has had a bad effect on third wave feminism.

*ahem*
Excuse me…
But what the fuck?
F E M I N I S M A S A M O N O L I T H
Much?
Just to make this clear: NOT ALL FEMINISTS think THE SAME EXACT THOUGHTS.
This is the same thinking as "All Leftists are Antifa" or "All leftists are poor/unemployed".
Case in point, I'd identify as a feminist and I don't hate any of the people that you've listed.
I view them as people, and want to do my best to help the poor and downtrodden (why I'm a Socialist), but clearly you can't return the same courtesy to feminists and act as if they are humans who while being united under an extremely loosely connected banner of female emancipation (as well as male emancipation from the aspects of patriarchy that oppress men). Instead, they are an unautonomous mass of faceless succubi who are on the hunt to ban all fun.

Like, there are some things I like within feminism, some things I don't, so why the fuck are individual feminists to blame for everything bad done in the name of feminism.
Like, have you people ever spoken to a real life feminist? Fucking hell.

Modern feminism is a symptom of capitalism.

Also income/wealth factors GREATLY in how well a man's sex life goes. It doesn't matter if you are 6'4" and even 8/10 you aren't getting any attention if you still live with your parents at 30. Which is something despite their best efforts a lot of people (not just men) are facing. Like me and my sister.

feminism is always a single movement just as the labor movement is always a single movement

The idea that feminism is individual to the person or that certain groups make it so you can't criticize and move the goalsposts all day is a neoliberal construct that even most radfems with acknowledge

I can see you arguing that feminism has been corrupted or needs to be reformed, but to say that feminism is redeemed by small, abandoned sections doesn't make any sense.

This isn't filtered? poor form mods

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

exiledonline.com/exterminate-the-men-honoring-andrea-dworkin-a-feminist-who-meant-it-and-paid/

They literally stormed events.

3rd wave is mostly sex positive, standing up (if awkwardly) for all manner of sexual and bodily rights. Radfems (a 2nd wave creation, FYI) stormed gay events, alleged that gay S&M was woman hater, and consistently advocated banning pornography. Having a "sense of humor" doesn't really mean much - especially if you're comparing them to 3rd wavers. Snarky bullshit is snarky bullshit.

Tbh, a lot of the feminists today holding extreme views are actually just loud people based in the 2nd wave. And for all the snark in the world (and 3rd wave snark is a lot less vicious than 2nd wave snark), you're getting an amplified dosage between Twitter and flaming retards who insist on showing mean Twitter posts to everyone because they think it's a valid point.

this is just plain wrong. the labor movement has always been made up of conflicting factions. Mainstream social democratic parties lined up behind WWI, the soviet state ended up shooting the Mensheviks the anarchists and the leftist opposition. Similarly, many of the more leftist early 20th century women such as Goldman and Luxembourg saw the quest for suffrage as a bourgeois distraction. My main beef with tumblr type 'intersectional' feminists is about their lack of historical context.

youtube.com/watch?v=RlHtd3o4IEw&index=45&list=PL22a5iyzAVe-auVkLf9CVuQmYsmGmaFAJ
For example.
This is just so depressing, like why the fuck are we making enemies out of feminists by completely strawmanning them as a hivemind.
The solution to bad feminism (which there is a lot of) is good feminism, not stamping a boot in the face of women's emancipation as a whole. I can't think of a more accurate usage of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Angela Nagle:
Modern day US women do not live under a patriarchy
vocaroo.com/i/s10AE3j6VS8s

People who want to have people on the bottom of hierarchies in leftist spaces

the internet and callout culture prioritise form over content. most of the online discussion around 'feminism' amounts to snark and ingroup signalling with no substance. banal pop culture is seen as more important than material conditions. people tend to be more reasonable offline, but I'm still not a fan of bell hooks et. al.

Yawn. So what if some feminists prefer some spooks to others? None of them are interested in material conditions or reading in general. Kill yourself.

I don't have any problem with feminists being feminists, good or bad. I have a problem with feminists setting up their gender discussion camps as complete leftist vanguards on social media.

It doesn't make sense regardless of how much sense they are making in any given year.

Almost the entire left deals with this subset poorly

"All feminists are bourgoise feminists"
What a ridiculous pre-supposition.
Bourgoise feminists who don't care about how capitalism and hierarchy affect people's lives are scum to me, or at the very least ridiculously ignorant people I wouldn't trust on any matter.
But the very foundation of anarcha-feminism (and a fair amount of intersectional feminism; intersectionalism literally means being aware how different social identities *intersect*, one of which is class) is the deconstruction of these unjustified hierarchies. The patriarchy affects men too, I can speak from experience. I was sexually abused by my mother, and the manner in which society would view that and the times I've become extremely distraught about it in a highly patriarchal way; I'm sure some (fucking terrible) feminists, such as those who reinforce gender norms, would be part of that, but I'm still a feminist because I'm able to separate the wheat from the chaffe about feminism. Actually look into feminism, let go of confirmation bias around your presuppositions and persecution mentality. A good feminist is welcoming to men and understands the importance of class in the modern world, but you won't find good feminists unless you look for them (I repeat that the solution to bad feminism is good feminism, crushing feminism just leaves the problems to fester and mutate).

Worse than not reading feminist literature is pretending it does not exist.

in post-feminism, there is almost nothing wrong with that

Except everyone who controls the media narratives in left wing circles. So that is a pretty big problem.

Yay I can really feel the fear in the capitalists as they parrot the same thing and give them money and jobs.

There are marxist and even marxist feminist critics of 'intersectionality' which is a relatively recent ideology arising in the 70s and 80s
libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

Can you make this into a youtube vid or webm?

Because they are an hivemind. if you really care about equality among everybody, they woudl call themselves humanists.
Calling themselves feminists and then not giving a fuck about problems which don't affect them, makes them look like an hivemind.

Any female nowdays who says she's feminist, the first thing that comes to my mind is "she's a capitalism apologist"

Correct, and it's not enough to hide behind good intentions or ignorance. Feminism should be punitive ideology for anyone to hold knowing the facts on the ground. Woman outearn men in all areas until the baby years which are now in the 30's, and in managerial positions and all educational domains.
To keep flogging this horse is to be guilty.

Radfems still do criticize S&M, specifically sadomasochism, for fetishizing dramtically unequal and oppressive power structures and roles in society, often in the form of race play, nazi play, slave/owner

This is one of the things radfems, some Holla Forums people, and Holla Forums agrees on

What a spooky thing to say.

Why the fuck are fetishes now some political issue, this stuff disgusts me.

They always have been buddy.
"muh bedroom"

But the more feminist they are normally the more they're into that shit. I can't be the only person that's noticed this right?

As if fetishizations don't leak into the real world and cause negative feedback

this

Not really, radfems are actually an extremely small bunch, and the vocal and noticeable ones are the pro "sex"-with-chad feminists

Not muh bedroom, but public displays of fetishes at Pride as if that is a fucking thing you are most proud of. Even stuff like crossdressing as some sort of class of person when it's fucking male sexual fetish, not something that needs any political bent.

I don't have to pick out which parts of which individual;s right-wing thoughts are correct to be able to label rightwing thought as trash.

Yea the more both genders ignore how material conditions influence mating in a marketized dating field, the sooner we end up like Japan, which is bad for both genders.

tfw chad sexing feminists

??
just because radical politics and fringe subcultures often intersect it doesn't mean you're saying the truth there.

"sexing" it's important to note that in the post-recession female pornography like 50 shades of grey stuff, the dominant theme was extreme power play (which has always been in romance but nowhere near this extent) as opposed to foreplay/sex/romance.

yeah because police officers and factory owners don't get off on power. Sex is important as fuck yo, it's how we make new people, it just has to influence us in very major ways

I don't think I follow what you're getting at, it doesn't contradict my post.

...

this is meta-idpol
the point is to get the feminists out so we can focus on non-identity stuff.

I mean go into any FB/reddit/even some IRL leftist groups and 90% of the discussion is idpol,

Don't forget the male "allies". They seem to loath them for being weak and emasculated.

which is why I don't fucking understand why they pretend to have a problem with "toxic masculinity", but will insult men for being "weak" more than women….

constantly

Yea my mom is a real life feminist. She didn't want kids because she didn't want to be tied down (typical of 2nd wavers in their college years).

Then decided to get married to a tall extremely overweight guy for his money.

Now she's miserable, overweight, doesn't have sex or intimacy with my dad, says she never wanted kids in the first place etc

They do hurl insults around like you are ugly, you have a small penis or you are a looser constantly don't they. They are very angry at men but seem to only take it out on those who are unable to defend themselves. And more often than not those men are their "allies".

I've never met a woman that actually gave a fuck about feminism, it's a massive strawman gave 90% of women don't care about anything beyond the latest rihana single, the 10% remaining women that actually read feminist claptrap are repugnant hambeasts who you just have to be nice to for them to stop caring about feminism.

baybe baybe workworkworkworkwork

*ahem*
Excuse me…
But what the fuck?
S O C D E M A S A M O N O L I T H
Much?
Just to make this clear: NOT ALL SOCDEMS think THE SAME EXACT THOUGHTS.
This is the same thinking as "All Leftists are Antifa" or "All leftists are poor/unemployed".
Case in point, I'd identify as a socdem and I haven't murdered anyone or ordered the murder of anyone
I view them as people, and want to do my best to help the poor and downtrodden (why I'm a Socialist), but clearly you can't return the same courtesy to SocDems and act as if they are humans who while being united under an extremely loosely connected banner of electoral success (as well as proletarian emancipation from the immediately solvable problems of capitalism). Instead, they are an unautonomous mass of faceless crypto-fascists who are on the hunt to murder one jewish chick.
Like, there are some things I like within Social Democracy, some things I don't, so why the fuck are individual Social Democrats to blame for everything bad done in the name of the SPD?
Like, have you people ever spoken to a real life SocDem? Fucking hell.

Probably one of the best posts I have seen with a Nazi flag.

there are no waves of feminism, only classes
socialist working women feminism has always rejected the bourgeoise idpol bullshittery that always was crazy and useless
look it up

Yet feminists will claim everyone who expresses disagreement with them is an evil right-wing bigot who joined the KKK at age six and instantly started raping every woman they could beat into submission at puberty. Double standard, much?

Helpful instructions.

But that isn't unreasonable.

Feminism brought about economic changes that do make it harder for most men to get girlfriends. Gender equality and liberated sexuality have, as a side effect, far fewer people forming long term relationships and having children.

There are many other factors that contribute to this (economic factors related to being in a service economy along with advances in communications technology), but feminism is to some degree responsible for more people living their lives alone.

Woman are not as happy either in this alienation and 'having it all' garbage. Male/Female relationships are also a mess.

1st
2nd
3rd
-> mostly upper / upper middle class

...

Bullshit. It's the nature of capitalism itself, excess of narcisism, everything is a competition, everything must be fast, anything that requires a little bit of effort(relationships and having children) and people don't want it anymore.
I dispise feminism, but capitalism is what caused nowday's society, not fucking feminism, they were too irrelevant for many decades.

So what do you want to do about it? Go back to more archaic gender norms?

What have you become mate

You've got me there

Feminism in all is bourgeois ideology. Rosa Luxemburg wasn't feminist.

Please stop saying this whenever a thread about women appears, every time. You fucking autists. Calm down before you piss yourself.

You sound indistinguishable from Holla Forums.
Oh shit, I was unaware I was in the presence of a certified memer *tips*

Radfem is pure boullshit, I'm not suprised Holla Forums agree with them because it's actually a form of Not Socialism, where women are nationality.

Not even one person said it unironically.

Feminists sound indistinguishable from Holla Forums, actually. Their ideology is nationalist.

ITT: marxist-feminism doesn't exist.

I am disappoint

This is my point exactly about feminism not being a monolith.

HORSESHOE THEORY FTW

It's all implied subtext. That in order for society to be "equal", women have to endure being in a forced social arrangement they might not necessarily want for themselves, an investment that not only requires money, time, and energy for both of you. But energy for when it stops working.

You're all lonely and saying women need to stop being picky…somehow. This is a fucking monkey's paw wish. Nobody should ever want this.

back to r/socialism. If you don't see anything wrong about feminism and you think we sound like Holla Forums it means you are to corrupted in the mind to post here.
Don't worry tho…one day, folks like you, the feminists and the Holla Forumsacks will be sent to re-education camps where you will learn how to become useful and decent members of society :)

...

Why you need to add feminism to marxism? Isn't just ordinary marxism sufficient to liberate working class? Are you suggest that marxists should liberate also some peope who aren't working class, because they're women?

I'm for all ideas to be unbannable but god damn it if feminism doesn't get banned on the board for marxism, I'm going to throw an actual tantrum.

Well if you did it now it would be indistinguishable from half the posts on the first page. Keep that rage bottled up and go crazy during the Australian hours.

Get that noose built.

How is that weird?

Feminism is not a monolith, but all feminism is based on cognitive error that men are ruling class, or that somehow male bourgeoise power benefits all men, even if they're exploited workers. Which is form of female nationalism and it's indistinguishable from other form of fustions of marxism and nationalism, that always in history lead revolutionary movement to failure and transformation to it's own caricature.
29 year old former feminist here, and femanon. Fuck feminism.

Pregnancy, and child rearing, are emotional, physical, medical labor. Women go through physical labor, men do not. How do you exactly solve this problem, is that work and cost not to be counted as actual labor? Why or why not?

Among many other issues, thinking it's binary it's either workplace or not labor, doesn't really make sense. You can't say when you have that much resource and intensive physical work or not. How social issues push this into the matter of personal rather than practical, is something I really never see discussed here.

Not identity but strictly biologically, the social and physical practicality of women's bodies is put outside of a context of labor, and that labor is stolen when a society refuses to answer it.

Have you got a youtube account or anything? I'd be interested in hearing more from you.

Confirmation bias ftw

What fucking definition of feminism are we using

Come on, you could throw that one out at anyone in the thread. Try harder.

Right wing feminists are a thing.

All this kind of analysis is included in original marxist thought. You don't need to be a feminist or identify as feminist to see sex-specific kind of labour that is done by women.

Also, in modern times many women don't only do traditional sex-specific women's work, very often and even usually we do the same kind of work as men, in exampe in the industry. So our market siuation and market opression has in a large majority the same origin as opression of men.

do i really have to respond to this crap

Yes

Oh? Then what's wrong with expanding it, are you actually only upset when the term feminism is put on it?

But it doesn't take a Marxist to make that social jump clear, that has been historically seen. An element has to be discussed whether or not the labor women's bodies go through is actual labor, or is just personal problem. And understanding that is a problem men have, that women often don't. It's easy to see why this is.

This is not identity politics, it's strictly sexual bias that most modern societies have, a cognitive dissonance between the sexes on what is or is not personal or physical labor.

Usually this element is ignored in attempted socialist societies, in fact it's been used to make reproduction a tool. You might get more if you have more children, but at what cost, and is that labor actually seen as valid as any other workplace labor? Despite the expense?

No, it was not.

Pregnancy is and will be what differentiates men and women, and it is, and will be, stolen labor in most societies. The problem is rarely addressed.

The tyranny of biology isn't labour, it's a child rearing isn't labour, doing the garden isn't labour. It's used to divide.

Women all around the world still do the majority of housework and child-rearing. Which is wok you don't get paid for.

How is childrearing not labor?

Yes, it actually is. You can say the tyranny of biology is actually labor, organization of beings is labor. And so is their roles, the work they put in. Health is put into question here as well, what of the health of a person who need better faculties in order to do labor?

All these things are ignored if you simply aay "But biology", it's in bad faith to argue this because labor itself can be reduced into various biological aspects.

this is the funniest goddam post I've seen on leftypol in a long time

Families don't need capitalist analysis of chores, that is cancerous as fuck. We don't need an outside analysis based on earnings to deal with chores of loyalty, family and necessity. We need good relationships and communication, like all good marriages have and don't get bogged down in penny counting over putting the bins out versus wiping the babies arse. Why bother fucking living, is there no sanctuary from capital?

I agree but it's rarely question that is taken by feminist movement. It's usually right-wing and conservative political movements that notice women's homework. Feminist movement is usually focused on, in example, deconstructing the role of wolman as mother, or moving us to corporate career as an option. Ony one outcome is that in thos traditional societies most of women supports reactionary, traditionalist movements with their 'family values' because that's mainstrem feminist movement offers them is incompatible with their choices and life ambitions .

Fuck off back to SRS

How is the amount of resources put into keeping a family together, and actual labor of reproduction, not labor? It is the physical act of putting on a social role that requires work. In any case it is labor, and is not to be confused with "chores".

Explain to me, earnestly, how you attempt to define what is and is not labor and what physical force for society should be restricted "to the household".

Having a child is not a mere "chore"

schizo does not equal psycho

and schizo men I know do just fine with other men. Since when are there no mentally disabled women to date mentally disabled men?

The concept of family is a bourgeois institution and is cancerous as such.

...

For example here where I live (Poland) only conservative catholic ruling party had proposition of direct financial assistance to families. Feminists have criticized this social assistance from view that it strengthens the traditional family model and leads women to leave their work and change to childcare. Of course most of working class women prefered to be mothers and do the childcaring that work on lowest paid physical positions for minimal wage. It's always better to spend time with your family you love than to carry out the extremely alienated work of industrial worker, cleaner or salesman.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Unless we're to equate the physical act of reproduction as equitable labor to feeling love, which is absurd.

Nope. Making women economically independent and encouraging them to focus on careers is a huge part of why so many people marry late or never.

There's a misconception that, after dating ten people or so, you'll run into somebody perfect for you in your late 20s. It doesn't work out that way for a lot of people.

I don't think capitalism is wholly responsible for all of that.

You have a handful of options;
-make women economically dependent on men (historical option and a pretty bad deal for a lot of people)
-arrange marriage, at least once people hit a certain point while being single. Personality testing and machine learning algorithms could make this quite sophisticated.
-provide greater financial incentive to marry (among the working class a lot of women choose not to marry because it would limit their financial support from the government)
-suppress the polyamory and free love movements, attempt to maintain a culture of monogamy

I wouldn't say women benefit from current gender relations or that they're oppressing men.

try to contextualize the image in response to the discussion of disabled people

It's completely not true, at least not in everything. There are some opressive aspects of bourgeois family, but most of people love their families, are heterosexual and don't have a desire to challenge gender norms, which makes them to feel comfortable in traditional family models. That means, traditional family is something they perceive as friendly and their deisre is to have as much free time to spend with their families as they can.

In the interes of bourgeoise, in the other hand, is to destroy traditional model of family because more alienated worker is less attached to the place of residence and easier to relocate.

Endless complaining about identity politics is just as bad a identity politics itself. Give it a rest. I am on this board because other leftists communities don't have any nuance in their take on identity politics, but this board is starting to seem just as bad just from the opposite perspective.

If you haven't at least read Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Engels, and Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis, please abstain from discussing feminism.

This.

Labour to ones self isn't owed anything, it's profit created for your well being. Woman have children and care for them because they want it. not because they are doing a service for others. Men who take the responsibility spend their whole lives thinking about it and working for this responsibility and they are owed nothing either. It's sinister to divide people by atomising this work for themselves and their family by extension into being owed for worked done that generates profit.

...

Disabled people should be given their share of labor for the physicality of what they preform, but to bring emotions into labor itself is to open a can of worms, to open pandora's box. To open identity politics.

How one feels in relation to their state in the world may be depressing, but it is not labor in the same sense a woman preforming reproduction is labor. Indeed, if you look at this, all you can see is stolen physical labor made personal and emotional, equitable with common feelings infatuation. This does not matter if one is disabled or not.

Cringe as fuck. I also love how your hypocritical ass is ranking people unironically

the average anglo-saxon modern form of feminism

Trying to split hairs on feminism as a modern movement when discussing the *net impact* of feminism. you buy into the feminist claim that feminism is unique to each individual (which it's not)

Why the fuck are you demanding people read work in order to defend people who have never and never will read it.

How is pregnancy for the self? If anything I can tell you ten ways it can be coerced.

You can't be serious. In all contexts?

Again, this doesn't answer the question of whether or not it is labor. "Wanting" to do labor is still labor, you have no real working definition of what is and is not the division between physical labor and emotional feeling.

This is a problem.

is there any empirical evidence for this?

got u covered, fam
youtube.com/watch?v=kxtppBa7CxE

Here's the source

Forget about the reproduction part, you are getting hung up on it given the image should have just said "be intimate with". It plays out similarly in dating, attention, intimacy, sex, romance, everything to do with that sphere

No

In context that woman have children today, they want them, there is no point talking about third world countries and labour.

The very fact we can't take a ruler to romance, loyalty, love and draw labour graphs over it is obvious because it has no business being judged in such a binary way.

ok, then we never had a sexual revolution then. Birth control meant nothing

As to what is owed for the labour, the fact this will be arbitray, between every family, is obvious it is not actual labour.

That still isn't enough proof for me that it isn't stolen labor, as any act of labor is for the rest of society.

When it comes to reproduction we clearly can.

This has nothing to do with birth control, this is a question of if creating a family and the act of pregnancy is labor.

Why is it arbitrary

No one in this thread is talking about reproduction, that's a holdover from whatever right-winger made that image, it applies the same to intimacy without reproduction.

So dismissing inequality of intimacy, or not wanting to talk about intimacy without reproduction sounds like you are saying that birth control never actually changed the dynamic of sexual intimacy.

The reward for the labour of being a mother, there is no way to standardise how a family relates to each others work. Full time mother, father works, two working, etc. He does the bins she and garden and cooks, she washes up and hoovers/

A man pays for the reproduction like a mortgage over his life, through work, educating, chores, love. by being a good father to her offspring. Getting further analysis in is ridiculous and only serves to atomise a family into commodities.

I am talking about it and I brought it up several posts ago as to why it's a problem in most marxist discussion here, when it comes to labor. Labor is biological force, for whatever societal goal, therefore, pregnancy is labor. If it is not treated as if any other labor than the workplace, it is stolen or coerced labor.

"Intamcy" in this context, is emotional, not labor, and not required of being looked after.

That's not equitable. That is an entirely an emotional definition of a physical labor act.

That's fine and all, even if I argued to the contrary in the real world often times, pregnancy is labor. You're also in agreement with me reproduction for the purpose of society is a kind of "job". You know I'm right.

There can be endless discussion about the rights of NEETs, women, etc. However, when it comes to discussion of what is and is not labor we are forced to distract from the actual fact and treat emotions at the same vain as pregnancy, and that is still a ridiculous proposal. And you agree with that as well.

You cannot be separating mother and labour from emotion and duty surely? She isn't going in with a punchcard and hating her oppressive boss (the kid) unless she's a sociopath. Woman without maternal instincts don't have children, or if they do they shouldn't. It's not Starbucks.

I am. I am implying that pregnancy is labor and if it is not compensated in some form, the labor is coerced and stolen just as much as labor from a private company is stolen.

It's an act of labor that has negative health impacts, in any other workplace environment this would be grounds to unionize. What emotions there are do not matter to the material aspect of it, itself.

We are speaking of material things, not emotions.

...

Women without material instincts have children all the time. What the fuck do you think happen in countries that outlaw abortions?

Who owes the single mother on IVF for reproduction then if it's labour?

We are talking fully post sexual revolution and first world conditions here, talking about labour in peasant economies is ridiculous.

Do I need to tell you what and who a person's labor belongs to in socialism. Most of this is covered by health care, and that was a start, but it isn't in the states by any means, indeed they're trying to erase away the material aspects of it to replace it with emotional and spiritual ones.

Not too distant from the Muslims constantly scapegoated about their sexism.

I'm saying this is an unanswered question to the minds of most of the user base here because they have never thought about it before.

I would argue pregnancy in the first world is just as demanding a job than most. Putting the first world before anything does not erase its labor context.

That's not an answer. Who receives the profit from the labour of a single mother of her own choosing, healthcare has nothing to do with it.

It is. It is an answer. If you don't know who your labor belongs to, than you don't understand Marx.

You know what's most interesting? That in countries that outlaw abortions, most of young women support parties that keep the aborton restrictions or even want to introduce full ban. Because, despite all of their reactionary catholic barbarism, they at least support mothers - which was never proposed by feminist movement, focused mainly on deconstruction of gender role of woman as mother.

It makes it a pointless discussion, only industrialised countries can move through the stages for concepts like labour of reproduction to not be a laughable discussion. They are not even wage slaves they are actual slave economies, to talk about the womans labour would be ridiculous to them when they are all scrounging for survival.

Ultimately the capitalist receives the profit from the labour of a single mother, since capitalism is dependent on a workforce (i.e a new generation of workers).

Why is it laughable? Or how? You haven't given me anything but emotional answers that aren't materially based.

I didn't ask who it belongs to ffs, that is obvious, who pays is the question, who pays FOR the single mother by choices labour.

People tend to support reactionary politics all the time. What else is new?

Who pays for the collective labor of socialism? This is a really simple answer.

UBI is good because I'm a NEET but paying for the labor of pregnancy is off the table because you have birth control and dads exist, so it's not labor.

No you are avoiding it. Reproduction is not the same as Labour power, the woman is NOT expolited for her childbirth, she has no partner and chooses to become a mother. If we are to say children are commodities now at a market that is insane.

Well, that's a really stupid an non-materialist opinion.

Why not?

First you have to establish why childbirth isn't labor for you to make this argument. You have not. You have just said "It isn't".

And? What does that have anything to do with what I'm saying

Are you suggesting that reproduction exist outside the sphere of capitalism?

Is there nothing better to discuss?

idea: send both feminists and annoying thirsty betas to an island full of guns and make them battle to the death.

the winners will be sent to colonise the sun. the losers are already dead.

Because you cannot sell your childbirth labour as a commodity on a market. and you can't fit it into Socialist model of labour other than ,'it's more people so thus is a good for the society', that is a capitalistic way of framing childbirths based on growth.

I am saying it is not labour because we cannot establish even who is to pay for the production of the woman?

That's the most annoying video I've ever watched. Congratulations dude.

send all betas to Swedish socdem beta paradise and feminists to chad island aka I don't know what is chad island?

It's not an island

Yes, although capitalism has influenced childbirth by not exploiting female and child labour so as to fill the factories later as the child mortality rate in England was sky high. Thus was born the family wage.

You very well can.

That's not what I'm arguing at all, nor is that even a good argument in general and we're both in agreement on this.

"Who's paying for it", does not make it labor, indeed there is a lot of money that goes into pregnancy already, my argument is almost a reality reflected.

The child will grow up to be an adult who can sell their labour on the market.

pre-recession feminists: I dunno S&M doesn't seem too feminist let's dig into this

post-recession feminists: OMFG I CAN'T AFFORD ANYTHING I NEED A BILLIONAIRE CHAD 50 SHADES OF GREY TO BE MY MASTER I'LL EVEN BE YOUR SLAVE I'LL DO ANYTHING OH GOD I'M SO NERVOUS AND A FINANCIAL WRECK

And if he was aborted it would make no difference as the cost of the healthcare, upbringing of the single mother to the economy would be a certain and the possibility of him selling labour is not. If the child is not to be exploited for labour then there is really no benefit to having him there or not, it's capitalism that needs the constant birthrate.

The discussion of cost doesn't separate the fact of its biological force as any act of labor is.

If you're not volcel you won't even get a tourist visa for SocSwed 2070. Fact.

thanks fam, she has gotten into more detail about patriarchy before but I like when she talks about the in-egalitarianism or absurdity of the things the alt-right complains about from a LEFTIST and class reductionist perspective,

stuff we've been saying on leftypol for years, but very few men, and basically no women were saying

I have another good bit from her on this subject but from a different angle on another interview, I'm just having trouble finding it

I'm not defending anyone. Liberal feminism is trash. Right wing anti-feminism is trash. Socialist anti-feminism is trash. Most socialist feminism is trash. I just want us to read books so that our discussions will stop being trash.

Might it be her interview with /ourguy/ (Doug)?

I think so, she did like 3 interviews with him, it's the part where she complains about leftist women saying like "na-na-na-boo-boo" to leftist men for basically being infantilzed by the recession, she goes on into a few good areas

...

I like Beauvoir, Greer and Paglia

200 posts in and no one has mentioned pedophiles? Child lovers are public enemy #1 for both feminists and post 90s-LGBT. They've actually memed religious traditionalists into hating child lovers despite the fact that child marriage and pederasty are traditions that predate not just written history, but humanity itself.

you forgot your flag

they don't have the severely autistic, just the mildly to moderately autistic. Severe autism is needing a carer to help shower and only drinking from a sippy cup they've had since they were 4.

I don't see too much hate towards the autists that are just geeky and mildly into children's stuff, or guys who have empathy problems

But more hate towards the autistic men who aren't or can't learn normal social cues and so act unusually confrontational/friendly/childish towards women. They seem to be on the more extreme end of the spectrum, just before being TOTALLY infantilized.

But then again I could be totally wrong.

I'm more knowledgeable on the hate or disregard or lack of connection with socially anxious men

This always gets me. For all the talk of "toxic masculinity", a lot of Feminism attacks men for not being masculine enough, the whole "masculinity so fragile" and "male tears" shit literally just attacks men for being sensitive or showing vulnerability. Also, a lot of Feminist rhetoric online is basically just just attacking men for not being "providers", for not being more chivalrous, more stoic, but it's just encoded in Feminist jargon, but it's literally just hostility for men who aren't Chads. All I'm saying is this all seems highly counterintuitive given what most Feminists claim to believe.

hard to see why feminists would have a problem with /r9k/

The "masculinity so fragile" thing isn't about attacking men for being sensitive or showing vulnerability, it's about attacking ridiculous shit like some men's need to justify enjoying "feminine" things by dressing it up in manly rhetoric or masculinizing it. For example, those hand grenade bath bombs.

If anything it shows how silly it is for some men to fall into gender bullshit traps and how helpful it can be to just say "fuck it." Like just buy the fucking bubble bath formula and and pumpkin spice latte dude, it won't "cancel out" the gym routine you just finished.

But I don't like bubble baths or pumpkin lattes you deranged faggot.

Then you missing out fam, more for me then in all my glorious faggotry.

If I dont like it what am I missing out on. Make sense you donut hole puncher.

It's used in both ways. One two punch.

This is now a feminist hate thread. Fuck those fat cunts.

Holla Forums is not about ignoring or denying issues faced by women and oppressed minorities. It is about the liberation of all forms of being. Never forget that, don't let the noobs, trolls and redditors make you believe anything different.

I agree with you. I wish we could have discussions about shit like this without it becoming cancerous idpol vs idiotic anti-idpol.
I think it's pretty obvious that being a woman/gay/trans sucks in general. Our society is sick with spooks and prejudices, denying that is willful ignorance.

There's an undercurrent in some strains of feminism of anti-black racism, which grew out of segregationist ideology in the US. Don't forget that a lot of early feminism was an angry reaction to black men getting the vote before women.

Then it's attacking Chads for not wanting to marry the womb that's been on the carousel and is past prime.

They hate poor women, especially when they demand material support on issues that impact them like the fight for a 15 dollar minimum wage. A huge plurality of minimum wage earners are women.

Most socdems I know in real life are spineless careerist neolibs. Which is somehow worse than being just a regular old rosa-killer

This is pathetic. You're re sad because not all girls want to suck retarded, socially anxious, needy cock… This isn't about feminists. This is about how u fit all the criteria of those demented categories and how u can't get a gf.

It's a shame this board will in some ways never transcend Holla Forums's genesis in Gamergate.

Who even gives a shit anymore? Stop being an autistic faggot and start caring about real issues

This.

This.

Kek.

It is retarded to lump all of those together.

Being gay or transgender can make childhood excruciatingly painful. Once you are an adult, most homosexuals can move to progressive places and live fairly enjoyable lives. A lot of extreme conservatives may hate them, but plenty of people go practically without extreme conservative interaction thanks to ideological bias and self selection.

But really, all of that shit is different for different people. If you are shy and unambitious, you are probably better off being a woman. If you want to be a CEO, you are probably better off being a man. If you hate casual sex, being a gay man can be alienating. If you like it, being a gay man can be fun.

It is true that women are made to feel differently than men, and can feel like a second sex, but in the scheme of things that's a small part of being happy or unhappy. Most women hardly give a shit about feminism. Plenty of homosexuals and lesbians are glad they are homosexual or lesbian.

Transgender people have it the worst among all those groups by a huge margin, but even their experiences are so variable that it's unfair to generalize.

It isn't a big deal. Those western liberal feminists are just spoiled and lack the experience of true hardship.
If they worked in any type of cooperative they would either understand true equality, or fail to understand and die of heartache/disappointment. Because women don't get special rights, they get the same although adjusted for obvious factors like pregnancy protection/provision, and taking into consideration their reduced strength for physical labor.

I don't believe in feminism, only Socialism.

The worst in feminism is that is the best way to divide the working class on the basis of our gender. Feminism is bourgeoise idea which polluted socialist thought.

marxists.org/archive/draper/1976/women/4-luxemburg.html
Rosa Luxemburg wasn't feminist with a reason, so am I. We don't need to have feminist identity to demand equal rights and free abortion.

I am not sure but it has been asserted that every single human alive today has twice as many female ancestor as male.

...

Modern feminism is definitely bourgeois and primary concerns itself with property rights for women, mostly revolving around marriage and child support.
It's funny how many leftists know about capitalism but still emotionally internalize the capitalist logic that life is a zero sum game and reflexively assume denigrate men that day they are struggling to meet important life goals like finding a partner.
I feel like this problem is self correcting itself though. As the pool of attractive petite bourgeois women fried attractive, bourgeois men are demanding that not only their partners be attractive but petite bourgeois as well.
Women are increasingly not able to translate their sexuality into upward mobility and their suicide rate and other mental health indicators are sharply rising as a result. It will be funny to see these women and white knights confront the material reality that marginalised men live with now.
I guess you could call it revenge of the nerds.

*reflexively denigrate men that day they are struggling to meet important life goals like finding a partner.

*As the pool of attractive petite bourgeois women grows,

Can you imagine considering yourself a leftist and thinking of homeless and disabled people as demented and fundamentally unlovable?