What's Wrong With Feminism?

I don't get why it has to be called "feminism", seems like either a thinly veiled claim of hegemony over the equal rights discourse or an outright declaration of women's moral superiority, both of which I would oppose.

Also I'm a woman hater for personal reasons.

Bourgeois feminism is reactionary.

Proletarian feminism is revolutionary.

I too like semantic bullshit

Essential reading:

thecharnelhouse.org/2017/08/28/american-thought-from-theoretical-barbarism-to-intellectual-decadence/#more-44572

thenorthstar.info/?p=11299

thenorthstar.info/?p=11411

thenorthstar.info/?p=11425

leninology.co.uk/2011/11/cultural-materialism-and-identity.html?m=1

tl;dr it's inherently reactionary

Nothing except abortion. I don't like that. Everything else with feminism's cool though. Equal pay, girls in STEM and all that…

...

Won't play. Post link to YouTube or some other site.

Feminism is reactionary bullshit.

Keep up the good posts lmao

I guess that's why so many feminists in the early 20th century were also socialists.

Pretty sure that user was replying to a question about intersectionality, or rather aspects of it, being /reactionary/ rather than feminism as a whole, but you're probably shitposting so whatever

amazing webm

Conundrum #1: "Feminism" either means something or it means nothing.

Which is it? If it means nothing in particular, why continue to use a phrase with no linguistic value? Why not switch it out for something more precise like "egalitarianism"? If a concrete meaning can be nailed down for regular use…

Conundrum #2: What does it mean?

Liberation of women? Fighting for women's issues? Liberation of poor women? Demand that oligarch representation accurately reflects the amount of females on the population? The elimination of gender expectations? Simply the belief that women should have the same rights as men? If it's either of the latter two, why continue to even use the term "feminism"?

I dunno, what's wrong with slave abolitionism? Oh, right, all of its goals were met centuries ago, but unlike 1st-world, 3rd-wave feminazis, slave abolitionists moved onto things that still matter after they won.

wew laddieboy

And if the law says they're equal, they must be equal!

A FUCKING FEDORA

There are like 20 million slaves in the world right now.

Feminism is alright but I wished more girls would wear cute skirts and dresses.
Maybe boys too?

of course!
Under Communism, everybody would be required to wear a skirt, preferably a reddish pink

Be the change you want to see in the world.

someone respond to me and call me a moron please; I want to know what exactly I'm wrong about here

Your not wrong. If anything you were too conciliatory to antiracists by ignoring humanity's seemingly inborn tendency towards xenophobia and habit of forming in-group preferences.

They're ugly and a turn off. Find me one hot girl that's an actual femenist.

I see no point in viewing society through the lens of feminism when a Marxist analysis is always superior and more comprehensive.

That sounds very nice, although I think some people would like different colour skirts or wear pants instead if it's cold or maybe just high socks?

I don't own any female clothing and I'm too embarrassed to buy it from the store

OP

I was a leftist male feminist sympathizer for most of my adult life.

I changed my mind when I realized
1 . Modern day (anglo-saxon) feminists put their interests above universal material conditions (that effects everyone) in arguments too often
2. Modern day feminists don't advocate abolishing gender, but reinforcing it by creating an infintie supply of gender roles that refer to the original worn out roles
3. Modern day feminists are openly hostile to debate and open discourse
4. and most of all…
their targets of hate are far too often those men who are the most worst-off economically or mentally (homeless men low on the economic hierarchy (catcalling), socially anxious and autistic men low on the sexual attractiveness hierarchy, low wage male earners etc etc

What is it about a woman as your equal that scares you so much? Do you need a system of oppression to get laid or something?

This. Idpol feminist can gtfo, whereas common sense "under the law everyone is treated equally" is fine.

I feel like a lot of socialist/communist feminists are only so because they think all of their problems lie with capitalism. As if sexual dimorphism will suddenly disappear if everyone became a marxist.

I guess it means if you want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. Men and women are different, they will never be 100% equal. There is no such thing as separate but equal. That's not even a bad or good thing, it just is. I honestly don't understand why people care that much. Who gives a shit if women are in STEM? As long as no one is preventing them from doing so they are free to chose the path they want, and if that path is not the politically correct gender balanced path but instead a stereotypical path, so be it. I hope they're happy with their life. Just because X statistic isn't exactly 50-50 men:women doesn't mean society has some sort of systematic sexism oppressing someone.

sage because this thread will turn into anfem poster ignoring any reasonable post in favor of going around in circles about idpol

Gender is real and it has a biological basis.

rude sage, feminists are retarded.

You can still support feminist ideals and equality without associating with internet idpol garbage and this trend of the American right where feminists are some dumb caricatures who hate men or whatever.

You wouldn't be the first man they serve that nervously claims that the skirt they were just trying on themselves are for their girlfriend.

To suggest that young women are institutionally biased against in favor of men in the USA is delusional, almost every single institution has insane incentives for women to move up. More women graduate from college now, it's not a 50s patriarchy, men are now worse off.

So if feminism cares about equality it needs to take a look at how to elevate men.

...

So if every EXPLICIT sexual oppression has been illegal for decades, I wonder what antifeminism could still be legal? Oh, right, inherent aspects of capitalism that require oppression that can IMPLICITLY be sexually in motivation.

Meaning any possible justification for feminism to exist apart from socialism is ancient history.

What do those slaves have in common with feminism today? Oh, right, they're completely irrelevant outside backward 4th-world hellholes.

nothing
/thread

depends what those feminist ideals are.

What would be an example of one you want me to support?

It isn’t based in reality.

Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

I don't have a problem with the liberation of women or fighting sexual issues. What I do have a problem with is when these things are utterly devoid of a broader social context or class content.

I'm happy to have someone who realizes that women are part of class oppression and that their unpaid home labor helps sustain capitalism. Not comrades with someone who wants to replace the jackboot on our necks with a high heel.

What makes them more likely to choose those roles? It's obviously not just biological, and in a lot of cases it comes down to what Society tells them they should do.

Systemic Sexism does exist, as whatever prejudices the Bourgeoisie hold are the ones that prevent you from finding good work, and they still have a lot.

This is a reaction to sexism. It exists to counter-act the institutional biases.

It isn't just muh human nature to blame for Women making the choices they do.

...

Kilts=/=skirts. But I wouldn’t expect an Anglo to know that.

And that's fine, I support those things where there areactually are institutional biases towards men. Problem is the only two major institutions where that is the case is congress and major CEOs and current policy is doing just fine to increase female leadership in those areas.

As he pointed out you've already won in almost every other area. We've entered post-feminism. I'm fine with you elevating women, but it doesn't need to be militant anymore it just looks dumb.

Look into the Scandinavian Paradox: The freer and more sexually egalitarian (like the Scandi socdem nations) a society is, the more sexually dimorphic its workforce becomes, while more repressive and downtrodden societies tend to have more sexually equal workforces.

the other systemic biases against women are just cultural holdovers, and seriously a woman can get away with degrading a man in casual discourse than a man can a woman, so it's very vestigial holdovers.

fullcommunism is not achieved until the entire population is made up of cyborg catboy traps

that's an interesting post, explain how Scandinavian countries have dimorphic workplaces, genuinely curious

...

In the first world men and women are pretty equal. Also feminists getting angry of “sexists” jokes turns me of to feminism. I really like dark humor. Also a lot of what feminists (in the first world) talk about doesn’t really matter.

...

Feminism only concerns itself with issues that effect landed white women, and special property rights afforded to them through marriage and child support.
They couldn't care les about issues that effect poor women. You never see feminists pushing for the 15 dollar minimum wage, which half of all minimum wage earners are women. Exploitative trade that has all the clothes made by women in sweatshops. Etc

tbh as a cisgender man I would be totally on board if after socialism comes the human species just decided to get rid of the male sex and gender; our aesthetic is just objectively worse

This guy gets it

Yea when women complain of slutshaming I'm like, jesus christ you're complaining about being shamed most of the time by OTHER WOMEN, for the fact that you can sleep with millions of men, almost whenever you want,

meanwhile I've gone my whole life with no woman showing interest in me, and get shamed for that occassionally too

So give me a break, men can play the victimization card too, and when we do we'll have the more convincing arguments now that women's liberation basically acheived it's goals, (give another 30 years or so for women to dominate congress and CEOs just a matter of time, which is fine)

Boys shouldn't wear kilts. They should wear full-on frilly dresses.

If feminists cared about poor women they'd be in the trenches with us on issues like the 15 dollar minimum wage, environmental issues, labor issues like NAFTA and supporting unions like National Farmers Workers, all issues that directly effect women.
They hypocritically raise awareness about breast cancer then let millions of women be exposed to carcinogenic pollution realeased by porky.

Who says they aren't? Again, not all feminists are liberals.

Even in those cases where women aren't institutionally represented well, modern American culture does just fine elevating women institutionally.

See graph, women in congress since the beginning of second wave feminism. A good trend, and there isn't much butting up against it. It's not like women are in a losing game here lol.

If you want to talk about vestigial cultural biases see

I'm pretty involved in all those issues and feminism is pretty prominent in burgerland, seen tons on sexism and the wage gap but nothing on the 15 dollar minimum wage.

...

I could see that. As a guy I’d MUCH rather be a peasant farmer then work in retail. Even if it means lower wages and more working hours.

Here in central europe leftism amd feminism has allways been connected.

...

*living with less money. Peasant farmers don’t technically get wages because they ell what they don’t consume.

Most SuccDems are feminist tho

When did I generalize those groups as anti-feminists? I'm talking about this board in particular, where I've seen a lot of this.
Read: Points out feminism isn't this monolithic bogeym*n

modern 'feminism' is not about 'equality', 'misandry', 'empowering women' or any other buzzwords for that matter. It's about making women into objects useful to capital. ie. empowered wonder woman CEOs, confident consumers. first rule of postmodernity: you are an object not a subject. Most leftists still act as if we lived in mid century bourgeois society, tthat everything would be better if people were just allowed to get rid from the shackles of bourgeois patriarchal oppression 'express their true selves' in the market. A women's place is not in the home, but in the office, kicking ass and making do$h. Have you been asleep since 1968 dude? We can do it! but what does IT mean? FunFact: the original we can do it poster was created as war propaganda.

It's commonly acknowledged. Here's a deeper look:
nordicparadox.se/

And here's a breezier look at the issue (especially episode 1):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

...

Capital corrupts everything but that doesn't mean women aren't disadvantaged still.

...

Feminists agree with this and aren't in favor of eliminating gender, just strengthening it by creating more roles tangential to the existing roles

If feminists were actually in favor of eliminating gender roles and expectin men to act like breadwinners and such, I'd be all for that

but instead feminists see male breadwinners as a way to move poor women up economically in the USA I think… I could be wrong… I hope I'm wrong

I too, like literal non-arguments

Ah, because it's our fault that liberals will be liberals, we have a shared responsibility with that group we hate

what does it mean to be 'disadvantaged' if our whole society is a giant human hamsterwheel leading only towards total annihilation?

...

oh stop, simply believing in equality for women doesn't make you a feminist. By that definition every single person on this board is a feminist, and therefore you have no reason to argue with.

I mean they identify as feminist. They're engaged in feminism to the extent that people on this board are not.

Postindustrial society is restarted. Most service sector “labor” is not labor. Nothing is produced, noting is created, nothing is repaired, none are helped. It’s just a waist designed to give Porky.

I don't have an anfem gf to read books with and buttfuck while she's tied to a toilet.

The old snowflake defense, okay, what have feminists or feminists groups have done to help poor women on issues like labor, environmental pollution or police brutality, affordable housing etc. see plenty of leftist groups doing something about it but never feminists groups.

What does "engaged in feminism" mean exactly?

because i don't like women.
i don't actively dislike women, but i'm not learning a new set of social norms for a group of people who dislike me even more than normal men, let alone a group that both has a tendency to dislike me, and a (rational but false) tendency to believe i'm probably interested in going out with them.
(there are some odd categorization errors here, since nice teachers etc aren't grouped in, but functionally speaking the less i recognize the abstract social entity of a woman the better.)

t. Autismio 5000

Reactionaries fuck off.

I'm attempting to start a housing cooperative and sueing a debt collector for deceptive practices along with training a Native American woman in IT.
Whoops I blew up your narrative, can't generalize about this board anymore just like you demand we can't generalize about feminists because a handful are socialist and some activists identity as feminists.

Most of those leftist groups are feminist though? They just don't use the banner of feminist when working with issues that don't apply explicitly to women.

Working to analyse and improve women's place in society, I'd say.

nigga I have news for you…

Most of the people on this board idenofty as leftist as leftists have done more for women then feminists have.
What have explicitly feminist groups done, because there's oddles of them. They also fight progressive legislation like legalizing prostitution which fucks over women tremendously.

Why can't you be more specific then that? What specific program or goal do you want us to support? Please try not to reference some vague concept but get particular.

Capitalism has always been first and foremost a people managing system. the 'STEM' industry is a new system of cybernetic governance that aims to replace the state , hence it needs to shape its own objects. the new feminist women is really a dark managerial version of the new soviet man.

I am generalizing when it comes to this board, I admit. Your generalizations don't really touch on whether feminism is need or not, though, it's just critique of liberal feminism, which I agree with.

Feminism is an inherently vague concept, I'm afraid. I want the people on this board to acknowledge women aren't equal to men in current society.

...

There really is. They're all the same in this day and age.

We all acknowledge that. Most are saying women are better off, some are saying men are better off

And there ARE specific goals in feminist: the right to vote, the right to manage finances, the right to have an abortion, improving the make-up of this or that industry

Just tell us what you want us to support specifically please, and we'll help if it makes sense

Socialist activism already does that

Depends on what's meant by "equal"
It's more that we don't think feminist goals will be achieved without addressing material and economic inequality, and since there's an extremely popular and mainstream version of feminism that denies this, we come off as "brosialists", even if we aren't

ouchie pouchy

Nah, you're a liberal feminist and rolled into the board with your foolish virtual signaling "why do you hate women guise?" which is exactly what you intended to imply by accusing this board of being anti feminist.
And excuse me, but what the fuck are you doing for women. Like a typical libfeminist the answer is nothing.

...

The problem is bourgeois feminism: the struggle for "women's rights"–whatever the fuck those are.

I am for communist feminism: the recognition of the unique forms of oppression faced by women, and the struggle for their liberation from said oppression.

As I said in a previous thread about feminism, please abstain from discussing feminism unless until you have read The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Engels, and Women, Race, and Class by Angela Davis.

Can feminists can't be bothered to come up with tangible goals anymore? I'm starting to agree with the post-feminists.

...

You didn't answer my question.

the obsession with this endless process of 'deconstructing' vague, undefinable 'systemic issues' effectively makes leftists and feminists into tools for the cybernetic managers of society. The process of deconstruction manufactures new liberated objects for capital. Getting women into the STEM surveillance industrial complex despite their actual interests of inclinations becomes a normative goal, thus enshrining the tech industry not only as good, but as the objective standard of goodness and human advancement.

It's an Ad-Hom. I don't matter.

descriptive versus prescriptive language use.
can't tell if i hate these ambiguities or love them.

Asking how your praxis helps women is an ad hominem attack? Can you just look up what that word means please.

It was my assumption you were talking about me personally

I don't think anyone, for or against feminism, has actually mentioned a particular, contemporary, material issue that a feminist stance would tend to cause one to gravitate towards a particular position, which makes the question meaningless, other than giving a generic "no" if it's purely about the introduction of new rules for individual relationships. Can someone give me an example of such an issue?

Feminism is extremely vague. In the west I don’t know what it’s goals are. They very depending on who you ask.

As for gender roles I support traditional gender roles where in a monogamous couple one person works and one person cooks, cleans, and looks after the kids, but I think each individual couple should chose who stays at home and who works.

Me getting dogpiled on in this thread is just further evidence of our gangbang society

Systemic patriarchy
Rape culture
Microaggressions
Triggers

I'm absolutely convinced you are just here to troll.
I've never heard "gangbang society" before

This place is all men who disagree with you, of course you are going to feel helpless and overwhelmed

I am talking about you personally. You you were told socialists activists have and continue to do lots for women you said it didn't apply to this board because no one here is involved in activism, then you found out that wasn't true either.
So I'm asking you, since you say the accomplishments of socialists with regards to women's liberation aren't shared with the socialist supporters on this board
What do you do for women
I gureentee it's all activism that helps petite bourgeois women.

;)

...

I agree with the guy that says the male sex (not just gender) is totally disposable

supposed to be green

not particular
I'm honestly not really educated on this. It is material in the same way lynchings are material and not purely social, but I'm not exactly sure what can be done about it outside of the social realm that wouldn't grossly undermine the law. Have any particular information about it, or are you just shitposting?
not material
I understand that PTSD is actually a thing and causing bouts of it is material, but I'm not sure it's common enough to mandate the introduction of many more social rules in order to account for the few places where it exists. I think people should be more open and explicit about what their boundaries are and others should be accommodating of them, but I don't think it's necessary to call myself a feminist to advocate as such.

everyone is disposable, though.

I said that in the same sort of sense in that I think mind uploading would be neat. Both are very far from happening but probably possible since we are ultimately material and if they are once we get them I'm a transhumanist so I'd say go for it.

...

...

All you talk in is buzzwords and vague references, nowhere in the thread have you advocated for an actual position besides eliminating males

How is anyone here supposed to sympathize with you like you want us to in the OP?

And I don't care if you think you're being ironic, given chans are now post-ironic, sarcasm hints more at actual desires

Feminism has a shit-ton of different beliefs that you can associate with it. (ie. Sex negative or sex positive)

This is a troll post but I genuinely agree with OP

Captcha: arksjw

Kill yourself.

Kill yourself.

Thank you for asking a productive question instead of chimping out over liberal buzzwords like the rest of the faggots in this thread.

Under capitalism, it is almost impossible for working class women to raise children without marrying someone who can support them economically. This is because the bourgeoisie relies on the unpaid labor of women raise the next generation of workers. Communist feminists seek to abolish the modern family, and establish systems of communal childcare.

why? nooo

This is utterly wrong, I was a latch key kid and both my parents worked while I was in day care, and plenty of single mothers and fathers do the same.

P-please respond.

Disappointed but not surprised.

...

Because feminists, like a lot of actual modern day leftists, don't understand that you have to appeal to someone's self-interests to convince someone

I'm using the GOP flag because I have a special snowflake ideology that blends together socialism with classical republicanism. I don't actually support the GOP.

I've got news for you, it doesn't.

'feminism' and 'equality', like 'democracy' and 'freedom' are words that have been tergiversated beyond all meaning. they tell you nothing about what a person actually believes.

Nah, your a typical historical cherry picking conservative.

If feminism just means you believe in equality and nothing else then the word is basically meaningless

The material aspect isn't the supposed "problem", but the solutions.
Since it's been criminalized in favor of liberal capitalism for decades, it's a justification to ignore capitalism in favor of jousting at windmills
Like homicide, it is an extremely rare crime (especially in the academic fields where feminazis screech loudest, where it verges on nonexistant).

Also, feminazis have been attempting to enlarge the definition of "rape" into molestation, harassment, regret, inebriation (even mutual!), and pornography. Worse yet, feminazis have attacked principles such as innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof, preponderance of evidence, and right to confront one's accuser. Basically, it's fodder for witch hunts and totalitarianism.
But the censorship and mandatory brainwashing sessions prescribed for them are.
Not if you think it aligns with their version of it. PSD triggers, in the legitimate sense known to psychologists, are things ASSOCIATED with the trauma, so just talking about rape often won't trigger a rape victim's trauma, but the smell of the shampoo the rapist used, or the color of the carpet in the room they were raped, would trigger them. In other words, feminazi trigger theory is pseudoscience.

Oh, if only. Even dual-income can barely tread water, no homemakers for us proles since the neolib/neocon coup of the 1970s.

Agreed, "equality" and "egalitarianism" aren't perfect fits for my opinion on idpol issues, since different groups have slightly different needs and wants. "Fairness" is probably the best term, in keeping with "equal opportunity vs. equal outcomes".

Then what feminist praxis do you prescribe to. You talk like a liberal with your divisive brosocialist talk then cry when people accuse you of being a liberal,

Please answer these questions fem user.

No it doesn't, it's just that liberal feminism is so disgusting that feminists try to coop all activism that helps women, growing numbers of activists and women are rejecting the label because they don't live in lawyer land, word are defined how they are used not by some self proclaimed authority on the subject.

the question is not about game being 'fair' or not, but whether we should be playing the game at all.

or you could not have children
that's always good.

(Checked)
I'd rather not have my nuts chopped off, so yes, I would like to keep playing.

I have no issue with the advocation of the struggle for women's rights around the world in the periphery of class struggle. Places like Asia and the Middle East need to have these issues addressed with any socialist movement that arises there in order to elevate it into the public consciousness of the region. On the other hand, it is a materialist solution that will no doubt change the way people will view society and the role of the individual. So in a socialist perspective the divisive nature of reactionary social relations due to the material conditions is destroyed, allowing for a more egalitarian outlook.

This picture OP posted is ironically a very appropriate allegory for modern feminism. The cat character in the shown is a highly exploitative and manipulative, conning the naive female character into hurting people while believing she isn't fighting evil.

...

Not very materialist of you, user

Feminism is so diverse that it doesn't really mean anything.

The feminists with the biggest online presence are fairly mean young women whose praxis is little more than a flame war with virgins. That entire movement is not substantially different from trolling, and is probably less noble over all than contemporary Nazism.

Liberal "make women CEOs and programmers" feminism does nothing for the vast majority of people.

Gender/pronoun experimentation is little more than self absorption and the drive to feel special.

There is intelligent feminist theory, it's just that the most prevalent strains of feminism are ineffectual or straight up harmful.

Let me start off by saying that I do acknowledge female specific exploitation, that I do believe it should be inhibited immediately, and eventually ended. Let me add to that by saying that I acknowledge exploitation of just about any and every segment of the population that can has been arbitrarily divided into it's own little niche, no matter how large or small, and yes, men and whites included.

I divide feminism into 3 camps. Bourgeois feminism, liberal feminism, and socialist feminism.

Bourg fem being the ruling class "supporting" feminism with hashtags, ads, commodities, etc. Fueling the fire and widening the divide between women and men. They might not even know they're doing it, but it's what happens whether they'd like it to or not.
Verdict; absolute shit. burn it and bury it.

Lib fem, as I see it, is the genuine desire to see female exploitation cease, but without the will to alter the material conditions that allow for it in the first place. Lib fems are incredibly susceptible to drinking bourg fem kool-aid, buying kellogs cereal because the commercials supported stronk wymyn. They also tend to get hung up on language policing and how women are depicted in creative works.
Verdict; The tendency toward idpol, is garbage. Feminist consumerism is pure ideology, into the dust bin.

Socialist feminists want to do what is possible to reduce exploitation now, but do recognize that the foundation of society must change for it to be fully realized.
Some people who claim to be socialist feminists still buy into the lib fem idpol, a few even still being directly influenced by bourg fems. This simply means, however that they are (perhaps) socialists (to some extent at least) whose understanding of female emancipation does not fall inline with what they claim to be their political views, many who are like this, imo, are not genuinely socialist in any real capacity.

The way I see it, there are too many issues for it to be either worthwhile or meaningful for me to say that I am, for example, a pro trans lgbt supporting anti-racist feminist, etc socialist. Not only is it horribly unwieldy, but it also conjures into peoples' minds an obsession with idpol, that makes me sound like a moron. Finally, sexism and racism are simply two among many ways that class exploitation is divided. Communism, one aim of which is to end class division, will put an end to sexism et al. Both exploitation and harassment that are derived either systemically or because of ignorance. The only ways somebody would become sexist would be if they have some kind of idiot-asshole gene, or so many women they've interacted with have it, and coloured their opinion.

The problem with internationalist (as I've observed at least) is that it supposes that they deny a common source of the bigotry other than "straight white cis men", which is quite frankly some seriously retarded bullshit.

tl;dr

Finally, as all these forms of oppression are primarily extensions of class exploitation, I feel comfortable that while I don't consider myself an anti-feminist or anti-anti-racist (how absurd), being a communist puts me in a position in which I sympathize with their plight, but see a totally different means of attaining that goal.

THIS

also this

this

ok so what I've been able to gather is that in Scandinavian countries the public sector is heavily gender equal, including their parliaments, the US is catching up but is waayyy behind.

It is only in the private sector, or the freer markets that there isn't much gender equality.

So yes, Scandinavian countries are more gender equal, but they have had the best success in the public sphere but not the private sphere.

This does strongly suggest that it takes a lot of state effort to get women to take on traditionally male roles. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it is considered bad by the person who wrote the book you linked.

Right and in the US it is the opposite, the private sectors seems to have quite a bit of gender equality, but not in political roles

The only technique that actually seems to yield results in an otherwise accommodating and liberating societies like Scandinavia, where the perpetual threat of destitution has been staved off, is quotas, which force employers to specifically fill their ranks with people who may not be particularly inclined toward that specific occupation.

That seems like a bad thing to me.

Does the male to female ratio in jobs even matter.

Here's one: the a priori assumption in all feminism is that women are oppressed by men and that assumption is utterly unfalsifiable. Women could be shitting on solid gold toilets and feminist theory would still state that women are oppressed because they have to wipe their own arses.

Literally every term can be nitpicked this way. Definitions are defined by usage and fuzzy conceptions that people hold.

Literally all of these things are concomitant with one another. Feminism, like socialism, is not single-issue.

Because women have unique problems facing them? These divisions existed before they were called out.

I support feminism with the caveat that we shouldn't celebrate individual women becoming CEOs and such or Margaret Thatcher types, obviously. That doesn't change the fact that, in the right form, it's really no roadblock to socialism, just like LGBT rights and anti-racism.

At the lower levels, yes.

And they're less accepted in trades, and get paid less than men as soon as they graduate - with no experience.

This sounds totally batshit to me. Tech startups are some of the biggest moneymakers today and it's a very male-dominated circle.

...

Trades pay less the collage degrees. As for less pay it’s because women are more likely to major in soft sciences like Women studies and art while men are more likely ot major in STEM.

VERY VERY VERY few people are employed in tech startups. The male-dominated jobs that employ the most people such as manufacturing and farming have been offshored, automated, or given to immigrants at VERY low wages.

I like how a thread about feminism got derailed into fetish posters.

lol
what is this from ?

feminism is just female nationalism
aka more shit I'm not obligated to care about.

STOP USING INTERNET EXPLORER FUCKING COMPUTER ILLITERATE FAGGOT

it's all about those $$$ startup jobs baby. but remember, feminism isn't bourgeois

It's not nice to talk about the United States that way.

Are you seriously measuring the success of feminism in the private sector as the degree to which women have, in the private sector, adopted male gender roles? Why are you idealizing male gender roles? Is that very feministic? Is it because male gender roles are the ones that are respected and considered powerful? If that's the case, then why is the problem the fact that women don't have male gender roles and not the fact that female gender roles are not as respected as male ones? It'd be great if gender roles weren't as strict, sure, but are you going to try to make them less strict by universalizing the male gender role's definition of success?

Please pick a definition and stick with it. No other ideology besides, say, fascism, is this confused about what it actually means to people.

feminism always has been and will be a bourgeois concept that wants to ignore the root causes for inequality in favor of campaigning for a change in management, No one can be liberated before working class.