Is this retarded, or am I?

Biology determines one's "biological class"
"Radical feminism" constantly reifies this class structure by the assertion of the essential separation of males and females
the end goal of radical feminism is "women's liberation"

Then how exactly can women be "liberated" in this way? Like, my understanding is that the aim of radical socialists is to eliminate the class system entirely, right? The only way out of the cycle of class warfare is to abolish class, which communism is eminently capable of doing. It's a social construct maintained by the social mechanisms that defend and perpetuate privatized relations toward the means of production. How exactly do radfems hope to liberate women from biological sex? It doesn't really seem like they do, because they're committed endlessly to women this and women that, women only this and women only that, and the central tenet of this description is the opposition of womankind to mankind and their inherent patriarchy and oppression.

So if they're not out to destroy the class system that they're oppressed by, then doesn't that just render them into a privilege-seeking "special interest group?" If it's a class system, doesn't that mean that there are inherent conflicts between these "classes?" If biological class cannot be undone, then doesn't that extend this class conflict indefinitely? Wouldn't that resign the sexes to endless power-struggles over class domination between males and females? If the sexes are doomed to eternal conflict, then doesn't that make this vein of radical feminism/"radical feminism" about establishing female primacy in biological class relations instead of any kind of actually radical or revolutionary or liberatory change?

Other urls found in this thread:

50% 50%, female oppression is systemic, not biological.

imo a lot of feminism de facto comes down to being an interest group because 'the patriarchy' is never defined concretely and it's also never defined concretely at what point equality will have been reached. That way, feminism becomes endless pushing of perceived female interests against a perceived oppressive structure with no clear end in sight. (I'm not sure whether this is very bad per se. Nothing much wrong with being an interest group).

But yeah radical feminism is often a form of gender essentialism which believes women are essentially better. The radical feminists I met usually disliked men, whether from a perspective of nature or nurture. If you ever see a male radical feminist, I predict he will be a tortured and self-hating soul. If all of our society would be like that, it would hardly bring us mental peace imo.



Radical feminism is interesting. Imo that's it. Radfem theory is mostly garbage, built on guided prejudices and pseudo-Marxist jargon.

But they are, otherwise unspecified philosophy isn't philosophy, dipshit.
Oh yeah, being real with you the Patriarchy, at least in the west has been abolished, feminism has other demons to tackle though.

The second kind of does.
Vaguely, and that said it doesn't really contradict the poster that dictionary poster was replying to. Patriarchy would have to be loosely defined in order for the second definition to apply to the US.

t. retard

t.retard who tries acting smart
Imagine if Marx had vaguely said there was a system causing unhappiness but never specified it.

The actual black panthers were better at Marxism than, like, Valerie Solanas or the redstockings ever were afaik. I could be wrong there, though, to be honest.

That said, I just use the black power flag because black fists are cool.

Doesn't matter, black power groups still are only a group abiding by identity and discriminate against all others only for their rights, instead of wanting to unify for a better world for all groups.

I know of 1 male rad fem, Derrick Jensen. He seems to have it together. Honestly, I don't find myself disagreeing with much of rad fem thought, except the whole political lesbian angle. I think that when it comes to these women, they're right about society not responding adequately to rape, as the city I live in has an enormous back catalog of untested rape kits. They're right about men being more aggressive than women and committing more crime. (Does anyone know of a mammalian species in which females are more aggressive than males?) I think rad fems have been terribly ineffective at changing society so that women have access to birth control and abortions. They point to matrilineal societies, but how many of them have children with their last names? If we compared we would probably find that Spanish speaking countries are more matrilineal than your average rad fem. In the end, rad fems seem more like a female victim support group than a political movement.

t. retard that can't even act smart

Blacks understand they need institutions to advocate for themselves. If you want blacks to stop doing identity politics, you have to actually change the treatment they experience and invite them into your union/group. Go to them.

Nowadays, maybe.

The original black panthers, circa '70s? No.

I was gonna upload that Fred Hampton quote, but my uploading speed is currently 0.01mbps.

Spotted hyenas iirc, I think their females tend to be larger and more aggressive, but I'm not a zoologist.

Don't lionesses and tigresses also hunt more?

t. Double retard.

Then how exactly can you demonize other groups including whites doing the same?

Malcolm X and George Rockwell were gay lovers.

I think you may be onto something with the hyenas. Females have tons of testosterone and a psuedo-penis.

I would clarify my question as being about non-survival-related aggression. Female tigers and lions have to hunt for their children. Males might kill juveniles to mate with females, or fight with other males for mating rights.

But I do.
Why don't you instead of posting generic "Le nger llo" pics, they make good buddies for shooting.

Fred Hampton tried to go to the people, and the police/fbi assassinated him. So yeah, if they were nicer to black people we might achieve something together.

I live in the project outskirts dipshit, I'm in NY, you're probably some liberal bourgeoisie out in whiter than cum middle america.

capitalism has replaced the patriarch, notice how liberal feminism has been reduced to singing the praises of the sovereign consumer lifestyle and encouraging women to try their hand at soul sucking managerial carreers.

The difference between white and black advocacy is that blacks are in a disadvantageous position and they're trying to achieve equality. Whites are in an advantageous position and they're trying to keep blacks from material wealth. Blacks comprise 12-15% of the population and have .5% of the wealth. An equal and fair system would give blacks wealth equal to their representation within the population. I want blacks to have 12%. I don't want them to have more/less than their population dictates. Both class and identity will have their own politics, but those politics must be materialist.

why are you so afraid of blacks? have you ever met a black person before? when was the last time you went outside, user?

That is retarded.
You are retarded.


I'm talking about politics. If you want violence to end, you have treat people right. Fred Hampton was fighting for fair treatment. You want to keep escalating until the Nazi masturbation fantasy becomes a new genocide. I want to improve the lives of people until they no longer do violence to others.

capitalism is by definition unfair and nonsensical, under communism, 'wealth' as you understand it would not exist. There's no use for black billionaires and CEOs, because they will merely become part of the same absurd system. It's not a question of 'representation' but of control over one's own life and the means of making a living.

I keep getting banned beacuse you can't have non-kosher opinions here but i say this because i grew up going to a high school where inner city black kids were bussed into our high school specifically because of people like you who say it's "all environmental - change the environment and they'll follow". They literally acted like animals, rioted, stabbed each other, robbed people. It was incredible to see. We were super nice to them and all they did was chimp and act like violent retards. I know all too well.

That's a good way to attack it, but wealth doesn't disappear just because you re-frame it using jargon from your favorite theory. The goal is to create material equality between people, however you think about it.

Idpol for female porkies

That's the thing. The city didn't actually change their environment. They didn't make sure that their parents were making enough money to support them after school and on the weekends. They didn't provide for their human needs in a way that was sufficient. You can't ameliorate poverty by sending someone to the right school. They're thrust back into poverty after they leave, so their behavior doesn't change.

It's interesting my real-life experiences with the impoverished black community is so nightmarish you think it's not real. I wish it was fake, I really do
the point it, the other user said you need to invite them to your parties and be nicer to them to get them to civilize themselves. My point is, I did have these kids at my and my friend's parties and they were mostly terrible, starting fights and stealing shit. Call it environmental or economic but it takes more than being nice to them.

This is exactly what I've been trying to get through to you. Society did one thing, when it should have done several things. Going to a rich school doesn't erase the poverty experienced at home. I've had poor white kids steal from my house and then try to pay my brother off with a couple dollars when he saw them.

The US should have sent all the Africans back to their homeland after slavery was abolished tbh. That would have bypassed a lot of issues for both parties.

You're too simply to understand the complex systems which aggregate society.

^This was meant for:

Women still get raped in industrialized nations. They still need reproductive healthcare and contraceptives. Their political failures don't negate the problems that women face in society.

Are you Milo Yiannopoulos?

Yes, but then then that all loops back to the points made in . I don't think it's unfair to claim that their is a biological aspect to "women oppression" as they define it. I have a strong biological drive to stuff my dick into a woman. That drive isn't too fussed about how I achieve its goal, unlike society. It's gotten easier to manage as I've gotten older, but I can understand the more stupid of my fellow men, with poor impulse control might do things they later regret to satisfy it. I can also understand why those men will little regard for others might similarly do things society detests to satisfy that urge.

Malcolm X wasn't a black panther, and he resented the Nation of Islam's sympathy for George Lincoln Rockwell, and disavowed it openly as soon as he converted to Sunni Islam. Also, the Nation of Islam is a completely different issue.

I've walked at night through them. The uptown here has a lot of black people. The downtown has a lot of black homeless (as well as a fair few white homeless) and drug use. One of them is vastly less safe than the other.

Nope. I'm actually still relevant to a few people.

nice vague personal anecdote, but that's not what the research says. If you look at homicide rates per 100k, the worst offenders (by far) are the poorest blacks (117 per 100k). Their rate of homicide is 100x higher than whites for the same income bracket. Now lets look at the highest income bracket: wealthy blacks commit homicides at a rate of about 10 per 100k. The same income bracket for whites is only 3 per 100k. In fact, the wealthiest black people are still at least 2.5x more likely to commit a homicide than any income group of whites.


also from the same paper, homicide rates among white Americans does not differ across income brackets. A poor white person is not more likely to commit a homicide than a rich white person, and both groups are between 3-100x less likely to commit a homicide than any black american. Just so you have some data to chew on, other than your feelings walking around a neighborhood.

Lol, wut? Are these cunts serious? This is a totally conservative idea. It's shared by virtually all nationalists: women's "role" to reproduce. Isn't "female liberation" supposed to get rid of all arbitrary rules instead of naturalizing them like the right wing does?
Lol, wut? Is this the shitty "portray our weakness as strength tactic?" Having to bear a child is a huge bummer in many women's life. Only pregnancy takes almost a year out of your whole life, then there's child bearing (=work), and the pain and nuisance around giving birth. It's a huge biological and social misadvantage.

Aren't all female mammals (with rare exception) the bearer of children? I don't get how you're imposing political conservatism on reproductive biology.

You are intentionally missing the point. No woman has the "role" to bear children. Women can decide if they want to. Crucial difference.

From a biological perspective, reproducing children who reproduce, etc. is your only role. Depends on how you think of things

I never said that.
Extremely poor black people in communities with large amounts of drugs are more dangerous than working class/white collar ones in better conditions.

You aren't even responding to anything I actually said, so how the research contradicts me is a mystery.

Actually, this is by neighborhood.
higher homicide rates in later years, but the rise in homicides in these neighborhoods was much smaller than the proportionate increase in the richer black neighborhoods. Murder rates in the 75th to 90th income percentile
more than quadrupled for blacks; rates for the highest 10 percent of blacks more than doubled.

over the course of a decade. Even the most dangerous neighborhoods for whites experienced homicide rates of only about
10 per 100,000, about one-fourth the median homicide rate

The paper itself is about homicide rates. That's amount of murder that occurs, not amount of murderers living in a given place.


Acquaint yourself with the basics of the ideology.

Radfems are also anti-porn. Historically, many were anti-gay, and many still resent gay s&m (and s&m in general, but that's at least a little understandable once you know about the aforementioned position on porn), and really a very large group of them are anti-trans. People around here tend to hate horseshoe theory afaik, but radfems fit it pretty well.

and yey ye are a sodomite if ye spell thy seed ought elsewheres but the holy vagination receptacle, that ye might produce a offspring, amen



And now you are intentionally missing the context of this discussion. We are talking about politics, social issues, not biology. If anything makes us human is that we can overcome the forces of nature, including our own biological determinations.

If you view politics, society through the lenses of biology you'll get a rather bleak view that misses all the crucial aspects of our human lives. According to the "role" nature bestowed on children born with a genetic disease, or people who get sick there's only one: to die. We've been denying them this role for hundreds of years.

So, no. It's not a matter of "how you think of things," rather what you intentionally chose to leave out of the picture.

Their framework is a mess. There's nothing to be overcome in "biological class" like in the model of Marx's social class. The female sex can't abolish itself and through it the whole biological sexual distinction as the proletariat can.

both lol

Those are homocides experienced across black and white neighborhoods you dumb shit. Poor blacks are being victimized at those rates.

You're either a fucking retard or a liar. He's saying that there wasn't a correlation between murder rates in poor white neighborhoods and rich white neighborhoods. It doesn't have anything to do with who is committing what crime, but who is being victimized by crime.

You fucking Holla Forumsshit retards always do this. You cherry pick information–when you're not misrepresenting it outright.

Homicide victimization for black people rose in part because their population rose, you fucking illiterate.

Why are you guys such fucking bootlickers?

t. racist liberal who thinks of black people as a group with no overlap with workers, and so thinks you must go out of your way to invite blacks to have them in your union at all.

t. person who can't imagine anything else than capitalism, and thinks about wealth as money, and since money can be apportioned in all sorts of ways, thinks it is meaningful to say that an individual owns X % of
t. racist liberal who thinks of black people as a group with no overlap with workers, and so thinks you must go out of your way to invite blacks to have them in your union at all.

t. person who can't imagine anything else than capitalism, and thinks about wealth as money, and since money can be apportioned in all sorts of ways, thinks it is meaningful to say that an individual owns X % of the wealth even though socialism is about the production for use and the means of production and infrastructure will be held in common
the wealth even though socialism is about the production for use and the means of production and infrastructure will be held in common

No, I'm talking about all stuff. Material prosperity. Housing, land, food. I'm thinking of the distribution of all things. Soon production will be overseen by machines, and humans will no longer have to work. You're stuck in the capitalist mindset, which you're projecting onto me.

No, you don't.

And here is how I know this: You can't split up physical things like that.

Have you ever cut into a pie or cake. Think about that, and then apply is to the distribution of materials. You take it and you give it to people who need it. Have you heard of the people breaking into residences to give the homeless shelter? Think about that, but a government mandated program. Again, distributing material things based on need. Black people are poor and need stuff to not be poor, so we should work towards that goal. And not just black poor, all poor. And to do that the poor (working class/proletariat) should work together. And while doing that, we should look at the discrimination that powerful people target at blacks, and ameliorate that as well. Both class consciousness and identity politics.

"Is this retarded"

You're retarded for thinking that using this word doesn't make you look like an edgy man child. It does.

What if all child birth was done In Vitro? It is really the only distinction between man women of any practical concern.

Say that to third-world women shitlord

We'll just cut up a nuclear power plant and the rail system like with cakes, so every individual got the same share.

I would normally call this a disingenuous sleight of hand, but I think you're actually more stupid than you are malicious. One class holds privilege over another. Women seeking to organize as women and cut out women-only spaces doesn't constitute "privilege seeking."

t. retard

No shit, fuckface, that's one of the main functions of a class system. Without undoing the class system you're not going to be undoing the system of social privilege, either. How do you think they're going to "cut out women-only spaces" you dumb fucker? Just ask nicely? If you can't escape the system or dismantle the system then that leaves working within the system, and if it's a system that functions with one "biological class" dominating the other then that means it's either dominate or be dominated.

This retardfem "biological class" nonsense creates a scenario of endless conflict as one sex tries to control the other. It gets even worse as this obsession with "women-only spaces" does nothing to actually undo or damage this theoretical class system they've constructed, reifying their idiotic "biological class" and perpetuating this stupid conflict. It's as stupid as trying to make "white-only spaces" to combat "racial class," you fucking retard.

I just noticed their (intentional, I presume) double entendre:

We could make power a human right and fund it through taxation.


Woah. Is this the power of ideology?

Communism isn't capitalism with red paint.

No, it's a capitalist-management system.


Does sex positive radical feminism exist? If not, it's kind of shitty that these obese cat ladies hijacked the phrase for themselves.

"Radical feminism" is neither "radical" nor "feminism", it's just transphobes larping

Since "sex positive" is a weasel word that stands for the commodification of sex in the form of pornography, prostitution, etc, then no: it's not possible to be "sex positive" and radfem at the same time.

It's liberal as fuck to slander somebody opposed to these capitalist institutions as prudish, ugly, and somehow afraid of sex itself, but 80% of /leftpol/ is red liberals at this point, so it's to be expected.

Look! Here's another liberal now!

Also telling how the thread about transgenderism was anchored in a second, while the incels of this board are given a free pass to dunk on actual feminism.

when the central tenet of your ideology is founded on a falsehood, it's time to rethink your life

good post


did you just assume my gender?

How do you propose ending prostitution and pornography? If you think individual actions will contribute to ending it then you're a liberal. If through flexing the arm of the police state (like the """"feminists""" in OP's link proudly admitted) then you're reactionary scum.

Both prostitution and pornography have existed long before capitalism and will continue to exist long after capitalism is abolished. They are not exclusively capitalist institutions any more than farming or pottery are.

The accusation of prudishness doesnt come from opposing these things but from the resentful and pathetic attitudes most rad fems have towards half the world's population. They are like an old female version of r 9 k

Fascinating. Tell me more.

Tell me more about how people will fuck those they don't want to when only socially necessary labor (farming and pottery) is required.
The only scenario where prostitution continues under communism is one in which the planning authority recognizes it as essential and conscripts women into revolutionary joy divisions.
If that's your idea of "communism" then you aren't my comrade. Keep your sick fantasies to yourself.

Must be human nature :^)

Spurious statement. People wanting to fuck is not a binary yes/no, it depends on attendant factors. What status does my partner have? Am I getting anything out of fucking him or her? How horny am I today? And so on. To say that all prostitution is somehow fucking against your will is clearly wrong - often, it is wanting to fuck, but for money. It only becomes involuntary if there is either actual coercion by pimps etc., or if there is literally no other job you could be doing and you would starve or end up on the street if you didn't prostitute yourself. If there is another job you could be doing, you are literally choosing to fuck other people for money in stead of working for it at a regular job, ergo you do want to fuck them - for money.

do you even realize what you're saying? I think you were trying to get a specific point across but your reading comprehension failed you.

That's the norm, user.

What planet do you live on?

Maybe you are both right, but do you have proof? Statistics on the education, job prospects, country of origin, etc. of prostitutes in Germany for example, where the trade is highly regulated and which is thus a good proxy for what non-rad feminism supports. Or of prostitution in Nevada, which is in a similar situation. You can't just go, I find it icky so I will assume and believe all the worst about it.

98% of the left doesn't consider TERFs to be comrades

There is no need for Radical Feminism, in its current form its resurrected puritanism from the 30s

Gender politics only makes people angry. It does nothing else.