Is patriarchy real?

youtube.com/watch?v=dPwkvUfMWS0

Is patriarchy real?

What do you make of Kristi Winters' arguments?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory
youtube.com/watch?v=bg4R0py0K1M
youtube.com/watch?v=j-FVctaW3j0
mises.org/library/karl-marx-religious-eschatologist
thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-religion-of-progress.html
infidels.org/kiosk/article/communism-is-religion-238.html
youtube.com/watch?v=hZg0lNzk_C4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Caste_politics_2
reddit.com/r/communism/comments/4o3d2p/clinton_promises_surge_in_us_spying_after_orlando/
libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell
philosophynow.org/issues/69/Becoming_A_Woman_Simone_de_Beauvoir_on_Female_Embodiment
mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-aborted-baby-because-boy-5143227
archive.is/Khd6M
mediationsjournal.org/articles/patriarchy-and-commodity-society
nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism#Human_prevalence
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

why?

That's why

what is wrong with her?

Crazy cunt

Yes it is.

Patriarchy theory isn't as relevant in countries like Europe and the United States, since second-wave feminism largely facilitated the dismantling of its legal basis. Third-wave feminism has attempted to address the cultural vestiges of patriarchy, but has largely failed due to being distracted by identity politics and other bikeshedding issues. Generally, it's only Marxist and socialist feminists who now address patriarchy and its remnants by tying it to capitalism.

so she is wrong?

Okay, so patriarchy exists in America?

Most likely. If she suddenly has found real evidence, I will find out without having to give her views.

It depends on what you mean by "patriarchy". If we use patriarchy as it is defined here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory

Then yes, patriarchy still exists in the United States. It is no longer explicitly supported by a legal framework which disenfranchises women, but there are nevertheless legal flaws which oppress both men and women, and those flaws could be traced back to the patriarchal nature of Western society.

nah, that sounds like a flawed definition.

If it has no legal authority then it is empty.

Assuming one has free will then there should be no reason why anyone will be forced to follow any "cultural norm".

It looks like feminism is a distraction of marxism.

It was.

into the garbage it goes

Not an argument.

You are completely ignoring how patriarchy can manifest socially and culturally outside of a strictly legal context. Just because patriarchal norms are no longer codified in the legal system, that does not mean they simply no longer exist. That's as asinine a view as saying that homophobia or discrimination against LGBTQI people no longer exist in the United States simply Obergefell v. Hodges effectively instituted marriage equality nationwide.

Doesn't exist.

sam harris pls

...

Who gives a shit about marriage equality? Gays, before they got domesticated by liberals, wanted nothing of that sort, they were against the family as such like all of us communists.

Go back to tumblr.

I think he was just using it as an example. Anyways, marriage should be abolished.

Milo, please

I have zero interest Sam Harris, who I consider to be a reactionary and who should have stayed in neurology.

I guess math don't real, either, since it's "invisible". Are you an anarcho-troglodyte or something?

I wasn't expressing a judgment on marriage equality per se, only using it in an analogy to demonstrate the sheer stupidity of believing that social phenomena only exist if they are legally codified. Sorry that you got triggered, stupid faggot, but I'm not from Tumblr. Resorting to such cliché bogeymen is perhaps one of the single most puerile parts of *chan culture and should die out forthwith.

That's not completely untrue.
It's stupid to use it as an argument against gay marriage though.

That was actually funny.
You can actually prove things about maths without empirical evidence. Remember that evidence&proving bit I mentioned? Come up with some of that for this magical 'patriarchy' thing and try again.

So you can ignore them at will? And this is oppressing me how?

What exactly are you asking for when you ask for "evidence" and "proof" of patriarchy?

They oppress you regardless of your acknowledgment because they nevertheless persist throughout the collective conscious of society and shape how actors therein interact with each other. Although you can personally ignore those norms and conventions, you will nevertheless be affected by them precisely because your compliance to those rules and conventions do not determine your relation to them. Just as one can "ignore" the exploitative nature of productive relations in capitalism and refuse to accept them as true when you work for a wage, so too can you "ignore" patriarchy in society and live as if it didn't exist. Doing so only isolates you from the social reality in which you live, however, and doesn't change the fact that those relations persist regardless of your acceptance thereof.

An unambiguous definition of patriarchy, a description what sort of things we should observe if no such patriarchy existed, a description of what we should observe if such a patriarchy did exists, and then empirical evidence that significantly points to the latter case.
You know, science.

Then regardless of its content society oppresses me. No need to specifically call out le patriarchy then.

Everybody objectively participates in it, tho.

...

Picture related

Cmon now

why are you "ignoring" us? plz responk

Dude. We had that same exact object when I was a kid. Used to store cornflakes in it. Would recommend. 10/10 object

What is wrong with the definition of patriarchy as provided here?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory

A society without patriarchy (or matriarchy or any form of sex-based hierarchy) would be an egalitarian society with respect to gender roles, relations between the sexes, and socially constructed conceptions of gender and sex.

I'm watching the video linked in the original post and thus far, it seems promising. If it is, I'll recommend that.

Patriarchy is a specific manifestation of that oppression as it relates to sex, gender, and social conceptions thereof. Simply stating that "society oppresses me" is not very meaningful nor is it a specific and useful critique. Patriarchy is a specific system which oppresses people in society in specific ways, hence why it is used. It is for that same reason that the class analysis and economic critique of Marxism is more useful than simply saying "society oppresses me".

That's my point. You can ignore it all you want, but you nevertheless participate in it and you are affected by it. This is true for the exploitative nature of productive relations in capitalism, and it is true for the oppressive nature of patriarchy in society.

Congratulations, you get my point. Refer above.

I think that definition is relatively coherent.
Why? The lack of these can come about from places other than patriarchy. Define what would count as egalitarian gender roles.
Why are these a problem for equality? Also, bring evidence that such things are 'socially constructed'.

Seems like we are dealing with a Kyriarchy that isn't based on sex then. Hmm I wonder if peoples, both male and female, relations to the means of production might have anything to do with it.

So it's codified then?

No, it's not. You can't "ignore" being hungry or slaving like you can ignore a bigot.

Is this a different type of our patriarchy?
youtube.com/watch?v=bg4R0py0K1M

Homosexuals and lesbians have had the same rights regarding marriage as anyone else since there was such a thing as marriage.

patriarchy is spook. patriarchy is a spook for the people who accepted (man and woman) but not to the feminist. feminism is her spook. the existence of the patriarchy as spock does not validate the feminist theory.
equally that atheist could destroy the religion but the not the spook the feminist maybe could destroy patriarchy but not the spook the feminist struggle is condened to create a new type of gender roles, gender hierarchy and gender opresion.

Patriarchy is what informs gender roles and relations between the sexes. A society without gender roles or meaningfully distinct relations between the sexes wouldn't be patriarchal.

Egalitarianism would entail the dissolution of gender roles because gender roles are fundamentally unequal social relations between genders. There is no rational reason why the specialization of social activities should follow gender lines, especially when gender is itself socially constructed.

I said that conceptions of gender and sex are socially constructed. I would contend that gender is itself a social construct, though I do not deny that sex appears to have a biological basis. Nevertheless, how we conceive of sex is socially constructed. For example, we conceive of sex as a binary despite the existence of intersex and true hermaphrodites, and how there are biological variations in human sexuality far beyond strictly male and female. There is no material basis for the archaic notion of human sex being a strict binary between males and females, and that is especially true for gender.

These social constructs are a problem for achieving equality because they arbitrarily limit and confine people to conceptual categories which lack material bases. Such social constructs are oftentimes weaponized and used as grounds to oppress, disenfranchise, and ostracize those who do not conform to the socially constructed reality of the collective, as well, because they do not conform to the norms and expectations of that collective. Those sorts of social behaviors are threats to equality precisely because they allow the collective to establish an "other" separated from itself, which can thus be used as grounds to establish an hierarchical or otherwise unequal power relation between the two groups.

Patriarchy is a type of kyriarchy which is specifically related to sex and gender and the socially constructed conceptions thereof. Patriarchy oppresses both men and women because it defines men and women along rigid social norms and punishes those who deviate from those norms. It is nonetheless patriarchal, however, because the conceptual basis for the kyriarchy is that of male superiority and dominance over females. The fact that the kyriarchy is patriarchal is purely a result of most societies historically being patriarchal. If human society was generally matriarchal, there would likely have been a masculist's movement and people would be discussing matriarchy in masculist theory. (No, I don't mean the reactionary antifeminists in the so-called "men's rights movement", who call themselves and "masculists" and whatnot. I'm referring to what the feminist movement might have been in an alternative history wherein matriarchy, not patriarchy, was the norm.)

Perhaps in some abstract sense in the form of norms and conventions, sure.

You can indeed ignore hunger. If you do so, however, and don't eat, you will die. That's because hunger—more specifically, malnourishment—exists and affects you regardless of whether you accept it or acknowledge its existence. The same is true for patriarchy and capitalism.

What do you mean?

Not legally, so they couldn't receive the legal benefits of marriage or be officially recognized as married by the state.

What are you trying to say?

How do you measure homophobia or sexists beliefs in America- at least?

It really seems like your definition of patriarchy is so vague and even unfalsifiable to the point where it doesn't seem to be real and is just a sacred cow for you- much like a religious apologist who makes his god more abstract to avoid becoming an atheist.

I don't know, how do you measure the alienation produced by capitalism?

For years, I rejected patriarchy as real because I didn't understand it and refused to believe it was real. It is far from being a "sacred cow" for me and your attempt at treating my position as religious in nature is as ridiculous and dishonest as those who treat Marxism in a similar way.

the alienation of production by capitalism is an observable phenomenon, but a belief (such as "god is real") is not an observable phenomenon so your analogy is a false one.

I could easily say the same about almost anything, including patriarchy. You will need to be more specific.

Who does this oppressing and defining?

I want to know what you mean when you say patriarchy exist in the United States.

So far it seems that you include in your definition of Patriarchy that a culture divides societal roles for genders.

However it was said, in a comment above, that if Patriarchy has no legal authority- thus no systematic sexism is being legitimized by the state- then it is hard to see how it could have any causal power over anyone who is sufficiently free to act as they please.

What is more, even when the state outlaws certain acts- such as murder- their are still murderers.

If Patriarchy has no legal authority, then, regardless of whether or not there is a culture that divides societal roles by gender, how can patriarchy have any causal power?

It looks like the culture is a correlation- and not a cause- for why women in the United States freely choose to act in a culturally constructed manner.

youtube.com/watch?v=j-FVctaW3j0

chomsky at his worst

more like his best.

he is an agent of the patriarchy now isn't he?

So I finally finished watching the video and actually, it was excellent. I'm genuinely surprised. In any case, I recommend that everyone ITT (especially )
watch the video, since it provides a scientific basis for patriarchy.

Patriarchy as a kyriarchal system does through social actors. In other words, those in positions of power maintain patriarchy as a kyriarchy because the historical conditions of society shaped our culture to be patriarchal, and they are not actively attempting to reshape that culture along non-patriarchal lines. This includes the mass of people, which continues to reproduce the patriarchal norms, standards, and conventions which perpetuates patriarchy as a kyriarchy. Society as a whole defines these norms.

The state also legitimizes patriarchy in certain legal ways, such as sentencing disparities between men and women in civil and criminal courts; unequal treatment in the legal system between men and women, especially with regard to child support and custody; and unequal legal requirements between men and women, most notably that only men in the United States are required to register for the draft.

Even without that legal legitimization of patriarchy, patriarchy nevertheless exists in social reality because social actors continue to uphold and perpetuate patriarchal norms, standards, and conventions. They do so because of the social conditions within which they are raised. Most people do not question these values that were conditioned into them by society, and proceed to condition the next generation in those values precisely because they are uncritically accepted. It doesn't matter if they are "free" to act as they please when their conception of that freedom is limited by the social and material conditions which produced them. "Freedom" is only meaningful insomuch as it is conceived by the agent, and if the agent's conception of freedom is limited and excludes certain options, their activity according to that freedom will likely never choose those options which were excluded.

Patriarchy has causal power in the same way that any values, norms, standards, or conventions—or system thereof—has the ability to cause each successive generation in society to perpetuate them. Just as the material conditions of capitalism causes economic actors therein to reproduce those material conditions, so too do the social conditions of patriarchy cause social actors therein to reproduce those social conditions.

So you are defending cultural determinism?

Also, can you prove that these so-called legal disparities are due to sexism? You are starting to sound like Holla Forums when they say that because Jews are overrepresented in some field they are, therefore, the benefactors of jewish nepotism. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

>God Patriarchy is in everyone, it's omnipresent and omnipotent, it can't change, and I devote a lot of my time to it

you are going to trigger him.

Yes legally, any man and woman could get married at any time and have their contractual union recognized by the state. And now with the legalization of same sex marriage everyone still has the same rights irrelevant of their sexual preference. I remember laughing heartily at all the men saying they would gay marry their bro's if the government were to implement a bachelors tax. Marriage has nothing to do with sex, it is more like a legally binding asset merging contract.

stop misgendering yir

i need to check my muh privilege

>who does patriarchy?
Is patriarchy just another word for 'people'?

the feminist definition of patriarchy is exactly the same that the spook.
patriarchy is a ideal that some people follow but feminism is another ideal that some people follow.
the problem with feminism is that they not break of the ideal world. they create a new one.
they are oppressive to buy or simply different.
some examples:
feminism create a new rules of language
feminist create new ideal gender roles(that roles vary a lot between branch of feminist).
feminist create a system that when something negative occurs to a woman is somewhat implicit attack to all woman and so on.
you can justify this as some sort of is for better like all the spooks you can see ghost in the fact like all the spooks but you can deny that feminism equal that patriarchy is a new way of oppression.(oppression here mean go against the will)

you simply see the ghost in the fact.
the difference between the arbitrary conjunct in statistics does not prove the racial theories.
the inactive to some people to benefit other lives is not the prove of some a following of all the people of the patriarchy

its an incredibly flexible and unfalsifiable chimera

...

the patriarchy is not an impotent abstraction but indeed the tangible presence of penis!

Of course it's real. Any power granted to women is granted by the grace of men.

sexist penis!

sexist penis!

sexist penis!

Go away you penis!

...

I suppose so, but I just consider this a logical extension of the notion that material conditions shape the nature of agents in a socioeconomic system.

I don't know if they are actively sexist insomuch as the social actors who perpetuate it do so intentionally. The legal system is sexist because the society which codified them was itself historically patriarchal, so sexism is just a vestigial stamp on the legal system that we as a society have slowly been cleaning off through the decades (at least, in some parts of the world). Moreover, legal systems are maintained and operated by members of societies which are patriarchal, so their activities therein will naturally bear that trait.

Are you seriously denying that society has not been historically patriarchal? Yes, patriarchy has been severely weakened over the past century or so, primarily thanks to the feminist movement and certain material conditions which facilitated the process, but that doesn't mean we are somehow magically rid of patriarchy. It's obvious that society still generates and promotes sexist views, and large portions of the population have and promote sexist views. The disproportionate representation of men in positions of political, economic, and academic power now may be just be a vestige of when society was actively patriarchal and contemporary society is simply passively patriarchal as a result of millennia of largely patriarchal rule and norms. That is nevertheless patriarchy, even if it is basically dead in some countries and we're just taking a while to clean up its remains.

mises.org/library/karl-marx-religious-eschatologist
thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-religion-of-progress.html
infidels.org/kiosk/article/communism-is-religion-238.html

Your feeble attempt at criticism is neither new nor stimulating. It's a tired old rhetorical trick that is more often used to mischaracterize someone as fanatical and irrationally devoted to a belief than as a legitimate critique of someone's ideological position.

Marriage was nevertheless prohibited between people of the same sex or gender, which is why it was important. Your oblique attempt at saying that gays could enjoy the legal benefits of marriage by marrying someone of the opposite sex is unappreciated, especially when you damn well now what "marriage equality" means.

Society does in general, but that doesn't mean each and every particular person does.

Feminism is literally just the sex-specific wing of the egalitarian movement. You clearly don't understand what feminism is, and you're just trying to construct some rationalization for considering it a "spook" so you can dismiss it.

So is alienation in Marxism.

I would accuse you of being Holla Forums provocateurs, but I've been on Holla Forums long enough to know that extremely reactionary views of feminism is one of the few positions people on Holla Forums generally share in common with Holla Forums. You should still commit suicide, though.

Can I be a feminist without believing in le patriarchy?

Patriarchy is a central component in feminist theory, so a feminist who rejects patriarchy theory isn't really a meaningful position? What would that look like? Just supporting equal rights for women? Maybe in the most vague and tortured of senses, you could call yourself a feminist by that metric, but it wouldn't really be worthwhile to do so due to all the theoretical and historical baggage that feminism has.

Even Marxist and socialist feminists accept patriarchy theory and analyze how it intersects with Marxist theory or class, so I personally wouldn't consider someone who rejects patriarchy theory to be a feminist in technical real sense of the word. That would be like a Marxist who rejects dialectical materialism: you aren't really a Marxist, you just agree with some of the things that Marxists also believe.

Oscar.

Nope, David.

Hahahahaha

Do you really subscribe to such beliefs, David?

No, it's not, but nevermind.

For fucks sake, we are communists, and you a supposed anarchist at that. This liberal obsession with human rights as the ultimate provider of freedom and dignity is totally patriarchy.

Uhm, nope and that's a loaded term. Society (and theory) has changed a lot since Marx's time, you know. It's a matter of facts whether a society is patriarchal or not.
this
is patriarchy. Less women going for STEM degrees is not.

Again, rejecting the various claims of 'patriarchy theory' is not the same as rejecting something factual: laws, political power, casts, etc.

What beliefs?

Patriarchy is not a central component in feminist theory according to who? My entire experience with feminist theory has given me the impression that patriarchy, along with a few others (like intersectionality theory), are central or major components therein.

What are you trying to say? I'm just explaining how "feminism" as an ideological identifier entails certain basic tenets that one generally must accept to rightly qualify as one. Only in the most vague and vernacular of senses does "feminist" mean "one who supports equal rights for women", and I generally reject that definition as borderline meaningless.

My every experience and reading has told me otherwise. What, are you a Marxist or socialist feminist who rejects patriarchy theory?

When the reason behind that is a cultural association with STEM fields and masculinity, and gender roles which dissuade women from entering into those fields, then that definitely is patriarchy and the disproportionate representation of men in those fields demonstrates as much. What, are you gonna go with the "lol girls just don't like those fields" excuse?

The obsession with STEM is typically a masculine thing and it's pretty harmful to society at large. In other words women aren't discouraged from entering, men are encouraged to focus on it. IMO it's another instance where women got it better (yes, I'm saying that humanities are superior) but view it as another case of le patriarchy and another instance of pic related, where you believe that the road to emancipation lies not in transcending the division but adopting the stance falsely viewed as superior.

A Marxist can certainly reject 'patriarchy theory' (again, it's a large baggage) and acknowledge the existence of patriarchal societies.

"Disagreement is bigotry!"
Why haven't you flounced as you stated you were going to?

In the politico-philosophical field of emancipatory thought 'feminism' is but one small branch, and those entirely focusing on identity as mediated by patriarchal relationships is but a subset. Wanting to end capitalism while being a bigot against women still has huge "feminist consequences," like it or not, and being a vague feminist not interested in communism has very little.

...

Would you recommend inters.theory?

Patriarchy no longer exist in the normal sense of the word, in teh advanced western countries.

If we mean patriarchy by unequal distribution of wealth among genders, the domination of the female sex to it's isolation only with regards to child rearing and being a housewife. And finally the limit to your sexual freedom.

Then no it simply does not exist.

The feminists however have changed teh notion of patriarchy from just that, to include anyone who disagrees with their OC genders, or who believes that gender and sex roughly correlate.

They are in general the new fanatic puritans.

...

Literally feminist boogeyman.

Women are also discouraged because of "conventional wisdom" such as that girls are not as good at mathematics, or can't be trusted in the "manly" positions that occupy professions in the STEM field. Although you may think the humanities are superior, society in general does not and that has a direct and material impact on the lives and lifestyles of women in society. That limitation on socially acceptable professions for women is hardly an "instance where women got it better".

But feminists generally don't view it as that, at least not those who have a serious background in feminist theory. Their goal precisely is in emancipation through the transcendence of patriarchal norms, not merely a reversal of roles such that society is matriarchal or the stance described in that image.

That's because you're equivocating the term "patriarchy".

Because I decided to give it another shot and just ignore reactionary shitposting retards like you.

I agree, which is why I support the overthrow of capitalism first and foremost. Nevertheless, I have goals beyond merely ending capitalism, for capitalism is not the only hierarchy (or kyriarchy) which exists that I wish to dismantle.

I think bourgeois feminists use intersectionality theory as a means of articulating a complex form of identity politics that seriously distracts from class politics, and thus serves as a theoretical model for identity politics. In that capacity, I strongly oppose it. I do believe that intersectionality theory has revolutionary potential, though. Radical leftists can accept the fact that some demographics experience more oppression than others per intersectionality while still contending that class is the single most influential metric. Radical leftists could then use intersectionality to argue that oppression of the proletariat affects the most people, has the greatest impact on society, and is thus the most exigent form of oppressing needing redress. Through intersectionality theory, we could potentially radicalize even the most idpol-addled bourgeois feminists by convincing them—with their own theories—their need in class struggle.

That's partly why I still continue to study and educate myself on feminist theory and other bourgeois theories, including those which are typically used to engage in idpol: if we can learn to speak their language, understand their views, and identify the revolutionary potential therein, we can use that knowledge to radicalize bourgeois leftists who are already most sympathetic to the values, goals, and ideals that radical leftists hold. Simply whining about idpol and refusing to play on their terms when we're clearly the minority without any serious power only alienates those who are the most sympathetic to our views and who have the most revolutionary potential, and that only guarantees communism's failure.

You don't get it. That's not emancipation proper. The ultimate aim is transcending gender as such.

I'm not the one defending a movement that has declared it wishes to "#killallmen" and dehumanizes half the human population with "male tears" jokes.

The problem with Holla Forums is that they equate the vast body of theoretical work that make up feminism with the tumblr rants of US college students.

Patriarchy is not some global conspiracy of men (whatever either side may believe), it's simply the fundamentally correct assessment that norms within historical and current society that have benefited men to a greater degree than women.

Now, of course this has to be complicated by looking at class (and race), but it should be in no way or form a controversial opinion within the communist movement.

What did you expect? leftypol is basically angry white channers who had just enough self-respect to not go full Holla Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=hZg0lNzk_C4

lol crusty cunt btfo by another woman

Maybe it's you that's confused.

>the fundamentally correct assessment that norms within historical and current society that have benefited men to a greater degree than women.
book very related

also
It's not like in India women get killed by men of upper casts for wanting to pursue politics, nah, it's the norms!

...

And that is the emancipation I seek. For some feminists, their conception of emancipation is not so developed. For many, however, they generally view gender as socially constructed and thus should not have an impact on society in the way it currently is. As much as you may dislike it, even the proliferation of so-called "non-binary genders" is a good development, despite being steeped in idpol. In a way, such events are evidence of a percolating consciousness that gender is borderline meaningless, since people are now individualizing it with a string of labels that basically renders the concept of gender so incalculably complex and convoluted that it's essentially meaningless.

So long as we agitate for gender as a spook among those groups, we very well may be able to collapse the whole notion of gender therein and cause them to develop a more unified form of gender counterculture, namely the total rejection of gender.

Go cry elsewhere, preferably on Holla Forums. #KillAllMen was originally a satirical hashtag that turned ugly, particularly after is was picked up by those who misunderstood the hashtag and then co-opted by false flaggers. You would know that if you bothered to actually read into it rather than autistically assume that it was a literal incitement to genocide half of the global population (and thereby kill off the human species). "Male tears" doesn't dehumanize anyone; it just ridicules woman haters and sexist men. Sorry your fee fees got hurt by some feminist, faggot, but that doesn't excuse your reactionary views.

I honestly don't think it is, but Holla Forums is basically the alt-left and principally comprises LARPers, lifestylists, and cryptoreactionaries. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the communist movement (as far as I'm aware) tends to participate too much in idpol and thus become distracted from class politics. That's just a natural consequence of being a political minority and refusing to have a politically correct party line like Holla Forums does.

She doesn't even have a serious argument. She's just strawmanning and verbally shitposting like an obnoxious fucking idiot.

Violence against women in India is due precisely to norms, particularly those surrounding (and informing) the Indian caste system. Benatar's book basically just details the consequences that patriarchy has on men. It doesn't actually refute patriarchy; rather, it proves the existence of patriarchy.

>everything points to the existence of God patriarchy

holy shit we got a live one here lads

some satire

So you're literally arguing that in order to beat IDPOL we have to join it, and everything you've written is justifying a total ideological capitulation to feminism/intersectionality theory towards that end.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Caste_politics_2

Goddamn people, can you please fucking ignore this person?

I have feminism thrown at my eyes every fucking place where it has embedded itself into leftism on the internet. At least here at Holla Forums we have moved on from that idea. Please, fucking let this thread and this fucking idpol'er die and move on with our lives.

Orlando shooting?
Patriarchy.
reddit.com/r/communism/comments/4o3d2p/clinton_promises_surge_in_us_spying_after_orlando/

no

>everything points to the existence of God alienation
Refer to .

No, I'm saying that we must educate ourselves about the bourgeois theories and ideas which people use to engage in identity politics (and politics in general), identify the revolutionary potential therein, and use those theories and ideas to convince them of our beliefs using their language. It's using idpol against itself as a tactical means of radicalizing liberals, in part because we lack the power to effectively define the rules of engagement in our current state.

Once we grow stronger as a movement, we can begin to shift toward strict class politics if we want, since we will have enough support that class politics is now an acceptable part of mainstream political discourse, though doing so may alienate some who still struggle thinking outside of idpol. Identity politics is a tool we can use to beat liberals at their own game. By letting only them have it, we are basically refusing to speak the language that most people in contemporary society understand while allowing them to possess a monopoly on dictating the direction that society takes.

In part, yes. Your point?

You're inhibiting communism from becoming realized by preferring to LARP here as the alt-left mirror of Holla Forums. That comic moreover doesn't represent my position because I'm contending that if the three on the right were liberals, we should use the same language they do in order to radicalize them. The woman on the left, however, clearly doesn't speak that language and is more interests in class politics, so we shouldn't try to use idpol to argue for class politics and just appeal to her on a class basis. You, meanwhile, believe that we should just try to radicalize everyone by speaking to them in terms only we and few others understand. That is the equivalent of trying to promote communism by speaking to people in Urdu; your defiance toward idpol will be just as effective.

Right, that's a long way of saying I was correct. Have a read of the attached. Hopefully it will give you pause.

Well, shit, the cripple won't let me post it. Have a link: libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

Communism will never be spread through idpol.

They are completely opposite things, one is universalist while the other relies on the multiplicity of differences.

Idpol is the most useful tool capitalism uses, it doesn't need stable identities to make the one participating capitalism become wholly immanent to it's process. Being a tranny or a lesbian doesn't mean anything for Capitalism which is a mode of controlling the systems of production and the distribution and exchange of capital. Capitalism relies very little on culture in itself, so things like "rape culture" or "patriarchy" without pointing to existing material conditions, is pointless to discuss.

Yeah, those men just killed them for fun, it's not like it happened in a context or anything

That's an existentialist point, that the passage from girlhood to womanhood should be one of embodiment, freedom to grow into a woman.

philosophynow.org/issues/69/Becoming_A_Woman_Simone_de_Beauvoir_on_Female_Embodiment

It does not mean chopping your dick off to become a woman.

There are nevertheless problems with society and culture which need to be addressed, and simply changing the material conditions upon which society rests won't magically rid it of all the cultural baggage it retained from the previous system. By refusing to address those problems, you are basically risking the future of society and the success of communism at achieving total liberation and equality based on a vague belief that capitalism will solve all the world's problems and usher in a new egalitarian utopia.

I'm not advocating for us to embrace idpol, only to use it as a means of spreading our message, refuting the arguments of liberals who are not familiar with understanding social reality outside of idpol, and radicalizing them such that they can appreciate class politics and move away from idpol. The point at which idpol no longer becomes useful and we have gained sufficient support that class politics is mainstream is the point at which we can abandon idpol as an impediment to more fundamental critics.

*that ending capitalism will solve all the world's problems

In the same way that Holla Forums and their jew gassing jokes are satirical. Then you have the gall to suggest I'm the one who belongs on Holla Forums
I was there, watching, as I was busy trolling the shit out of the RadFem2013 gang. You're a lying little shit, as I have found typical for feminists.
Yes it does dehumanize people. It is a literal claim that anything men claim as an issue is a trivial irrelevance as men are unpeople.

Back to tumblr please, you dishonest worm.

Wow, you're just missing the point more and more with each attempt aren't you? I don't really know where to begin if that's your interpretation of the 2nd Sex.

I'd start by suggesting that you actually read it.

No, #KillAllMen was strictly satirical. Holla Forums's Jew gassing jokes are deliberately facetious and underlie a serious belief among Holla Forumsacks. The same is not the case for the #KillAllMen hashtage.

I'm not a feminist. You're just a fucking dumbass child raging against the feminist bogeyman because you have unresolved personal issues. I can guarantee that you watch Sargon and Thunderf00t and other reactionary retards of that kind, since you love feeding your butthurt and enjoy the rage high you get off being triggered.

And I'm the lying little shit?

Kill yourself or come find me and I'll kill you myself.

Yes, it is the case for the #KillAllMen hashtag.

That's why you're espousing the rhetoric ofSRS and Tumblr to the letter, know feminist theory inside out and are defending it tooth and claw?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on

Yes. That is the literal use of "male tears", to disregard anything put forward by men.

That's not returning to tumblr.

Kill yourself, Holla Forums provocateur.

>>>/tumblr/

wew lad

They want to kill men as much as neo nazis want to gas jews

Kill yourself, Holla Forums provocateur.

Holla Forums is the alt-left reflection of alt-right Holla Forums. QED.

You seem triggered. This way to the safe space:
>>>/tumblr/

Kill yourself, /pol provocateur.

Oh boy, I'm sure we can tell the whole world that jokes about gassing jews are all facetious and that we should just let all those pesky neo-nazi's be.

Can you imagine the shitstorm if there had been a #killallblacks, or #killalljews tag? Are you retarded enough to think that this can fly if you merely change the second word to men?

Fuck yourself you tumblr feminist, and get your idpol trash out of Holla Forums. "But guiz, I'm not a feminist!". You're either a pol provacateur, or a redditor who wonders why everyone on leftypol hasn't swallowed feminism. Protip: You're the reason communism is dead in the west.

There is less outrage when it's #KillAllMen because men have a historically muh privileged position of power due to patriarchy. Unlike exterminating a specific (and unnecessary) demographic of people, however, it is patently absurd to advocate the extermination of an entire sex, thereby guaranteeing species extinction. Are you retarded enough to believe feminists actually advocate for something so ridiculous?

Co-opting my terms and acting as immature as your fellow reactionary who has been stalking and harassing me throughout this board? Gee, I wonder who could be behind this post. The projection is both hilarious and pathetic; you can't think outside of memes and stereotypes, yet I'm the reason communism is dead in the west. Your existence is a self-parody and cruel irony.

Kill yourself, Holla Forums provocateur.

No. You need to face up to the fact that your tumblrina views have no credence here, you are not a leftist and that the people on bunkerchan IRC are representative of the board.

Kill yourself, Holla Forums provocateur.

You're fighting with most of the board in the other thread. Do yourself a favour:
>>>/tumblr/

Kill yourself, Holla Forums provocateur. Final response.

I've done nothing, son. Please carry out your latest set of infantile threats to leave. Nothing of value will be lost.
>>>/tumblr/

Ever noticed how every single debate with a feminist ends up with the feminist calling people names and fucking off in a huff, even when they try to pretend to be revolutionaries? Lmao

>#KillAllMen is ok because of patriarchy

I'm not saying that #KillAllMen was "ok". I strongly disapproved of it when it occurred and still do. Nevertheless, to use it as an argument against feminism is ridiculous and requires a set of assumptions which are basically delusional.

1. Not a feminist.
2. When people stop posting substantive responses to me, I will stop giving them substantive replies.
3. If you bothered to scroll up, you would see that I attempted to civilly engage with numerous anons before my stalkers began shouting me out of the thread again.

Would you like to discuss the 80s feminist theory the current movement is based on again and we can see how well you back up that claim of delusion?

KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK. Outright lie.
You started pulling the usual feminist shaming bullshit when disagreed with, as well.

And you say you aren't a feminist?

...

Sure sign of no argument. kys

No, I'm pointing out that the some of the same fucking people I've argued with in previous threads recognized my posting style and began harassing me ITT. For example, is from thread and started the same childish antics and playground bullying tactics here as he did there.

That's not stalking you retard, is this your first day on the internet?

Yes. That's because I'm making an observation. Not arguing.

Accusing me of something for which you have zero evidence whatsoever is not "making an observation". It's libel.

Back to tumblr, you got triggered!

It's like you're literally a child.

Your behaviour is grossly at odds with your claims, as has been previously pointed out.
See you in court, faggot.

tumblr

My behavior only conforms to the stereotypical caricature of feminists in your head, which itself has no basis in reality. You're basically the equivalent of a Holla Forumsack arguing that someone is a nigger or Jew because they "behave like one". It's an intellectually bankrupt position that no credible person should entertain.

Do you have any other stupid as fuck statements to make? Or are you done?

Does Patriarchy exist? Yes. As someone who has studied social science it's very apparent. However, it's forms vary from the moderate, tolerant vestigal Patriarchies found in North America and Western Europe to the viciously cruel Patriarchies of Africa and the Near & Far East.

Basically yes, but to say that Patriarchy exists isn't saying much in and of itself.

...

It's like I'm talking to an average memer on Holla Forums or Holla Forums.

Are you being cyberbullied right now?

Thats the most hilarious part about you idpolers, your open and brazen hypocrisy.

So, to iriterate…
>That's why you're espousing the rhetoric of SRS and Tumblr to the letter, know feminist theory inside out and are defending it tooth and claw?
Pic related.

Stating as much automatically causes one to lose all credibility on this board in the same way, ironically, that complaining about antisemitism (or cyberbullying) on Holla Forums does. Regardless of whether many fit the definition of being cyberbullies by definition, that cannot ever be pointed out on a chan, so I'm compelled to say no.

The most hilarious part about you reactionaries, your open and brazen lack of basic critical thinking skills or ability to objectively asses events.

To reiterate, using your bogeyman flavor of the week to strawman people out of the thread is pathetic. Can you get that through your thick fucking skull? Or should I just assume that you are intellectually disabled and should just ignore you?

Goddamn you're voting for Hillary Clinton aren't you?

It's not a strawman. Everyone else in the thread clearly agrees, vacuum. Toddle off back to tumblr or reddit.

...

No, I'm not. Surprise, surprise, you're wrong yet again. None of my positions are ridiculous and you have yet to prove as much. I didn't call everyone who disagrees with me a right-winger. I accused specific people of being reactionaries because they were peddling the same Sargonite/Thunderf00t/alt-right antifeminist drivel that is typical of reactionaries. If I wanted to see that shit, I'd make an "Opinions on feminism?" thread on Holla Forums or Holla Forums.

At this point, you might as well just call me a nigger and blame the Jews.

Back to CTR you insufferable feminist shill

I don't even know what "CTR" means. Again, you are wrong. When will you learn that maybe, just maybe, you mischaracterized me, dumb fuck? Is that so difficult? Or are you so blinded by rage and ideology that it's literally no longer possible for you?

I literally just came into this thread to flame you

Off you go to Tumblr or Reddit, then, vacuum.

Man, you /r/socialism shills really, really want everywhere to be a safe space where people are banned for "sexist slurs" and "muh brocialism". You already got one thread up about feminism, and now you have another one up to what…think you're going to convince the sole place on the internet where identity politics fails to take up feminism? You ain't got no moderators to silence us now.

I'm so glad Holla Forums exists, holy fuck. Everyone here is for minority rights, for women's rights, and for *everyone's rights*. That's the difference between us and you, feminist. We believe everyone is oppressed by capitalism, and everyone deserves liberation.

But please, do keep trying to paint this place as a "MRA", "reactionary" image board.

Your trolling isn't even good. You're just incessantly repeating the same empty shitpost. If you're going to flame me, at least try.

0/10

And yet you continue to reply

I'm trying to tell you to leave. Plebbit has a joke ideology board. Why not go there?

reddit.com/r/socialism

There, that's the place for you.

Whoops, wrong dude before.

reddit.com/r/socialism

That is for you, feminist. That's where you belong.

Or you, just one more brick in the wall, are just one of many people who thinks that men being targeted for murder is much more acceptable than when the same happens to a woman, even though men are by far the majority of the victims of intentional murder throughout pretty much all of history everywhere.

In all seriousness I think you're better off having discussions in r/socialism, it's obvious that this isn't the right environment for you and you participating here will only lead to arguments that ultimately go nowhere and only serve to rile people up.

Man why you gotta ruin the fun?

What is the definition of patriarchy?

It looks like the anarcho-communist's definition of patriarchy includes a culture that prescribes certain behaviors to the sexes.

However, why should anyone accept that definition?

What objective standard to you use to define patriarchy?

Feminism isn't even a real ideology, it's a temper tantrum.

Patriarchy is the inheritance of land and private property to sons.

It begun once we had private property and it had to be inherited, thus polygamy was banned for women.

You are appealing to tradition to argue that because it has been this way for X amount of time, it will be this way today.

Today, inheritance in America is private property that can be given to whoever the owner may please.

Mhm.

And this is why THERE IS NO MORE PATRIARCHY!

It's gone and only capitalism remains.

Why is it that even the tankies here can handle dissent without namecalling and strawmanning people's positions better than you?

Supporting gender equality is fine; it's a pity that instead the feminist movement is overrun with misandrist hypocrites. Maybe if you didn't defend shit like #KillAllMen your ideology wouldn't be a pathetic laughingstock.

I want to contribute to this board and I think it could be a better place. I don't like reddit's posting system and don't like the lack of anonymity there. Maybe it is a better place for me now, but that has more to do with me growing tired of chan culture than anything else. A decade of Holla Forums and Holla Forums on 4chan can do that to a person.

Holla Forums is the place I want to be at, but I'm clearly not welcomed here. As elitist as it sounds (and I'm genuinely not being elitist), I think that reflects more on the board than it does on me.

Why should anybody accept any definition? What objective standard is there for anything?

There are leftist criticisms of feminism, such as that bourgeois feminism focuses too much on identity politics or that intersectionality theory as used by bourgeois feminists is a theoretical model used to reinforce idpol over class politics. Whining about how feminists are evil SJW Tumblrinas who hate all men and want to subjugate them as payment for a patriarchy and historical oppression that never existed (or did but does no longer) is not a leftist criticism. That is fundamentally reactionary.

I'm not defending #KillAllMen, just properly contextualizing it so that retards like you can't misuse it against feminism as if it's a serious criticism.

It would be made better by you going home to reddit.

reddit isn't my "home". What's next? Tumblr? 9GAG? Canv.as? How about some older ones, like GaiaOnline or FunnyJunk? Maybe Newgrounds? I doubt you're old enough to remember using Ebaumsworld as the collective scapegoat for "posts I don't like", but you can pretend and use that, if you want.

u wut m8?

It's really just nationalism for women at this point - and as reactionary as every other form of nationalism. Yeah, feminists were leftist at one point, but so was Mussolini.

Bourgeois feminism has become a right-wing authoritarian movement, and socialist feminism these days seems more interested in defending or contextualizing bourgeois feminism's mistakes than in building alliances across gender lines for universal emancipation through class struggle.

The mealy mouthed excuses in that post are reddit to the letter. Go back there.

But you say yourself, we can spot your posting style a mile off and "stalk" you.

Nigger, you completely failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever to back up your claims of a patriarchy. You had this whole thread to do that and instead, you played around with feminist theory and semantics.

Also, trying to say we have a patriarchy makes you a fucking feminist.

In all seriousness, the fact is the modern "feminist" movement is overly dominated by liberals who subscribe to a female chauvinism that would certainly be labeled woman hater by feminists were the genders reversed.

Yeah Holla Forums of all places should probably be more understanding of the idea of shitty liberals subverting and destroying movements from the inside and twisting them to their own purposes, but you seem to refuse to even acknowledge the basic realities of the situation.

I mean you claim #KillAllMen is not a legitimate criticize, but it's obviously come from somewhere.

Yes, that is a reactionary position because it is a dishonest and baseless attempt at criticizing feminism by asserting that it is the inverse of its core philosophical principles. It's as intellectually bankrupt as those who assert that communism is really about slavery or some other stupid mischaracterization.

If I dropped my flag and changed my posting style, that could change. I just refuse to do so. Nevertheless, you cannot see my post history or identify me by some username. I'm, for all intents and purposes, anonymous. Maybe if I was tripfagging, it would be more reasonable to criticize my position on reddit as inconsistent with my previous statements, but even that wouldn't be entirely fair.

Back to this shit already? Everything I disagree with is not reactionary because I disagree with it. I disagree with it because it is reactionary, and I consider it reactionary because it is a position that is promoted by reactionaries and which is formed as a reaction against a movement that seeks radical social change.

Watch the video in the OP. There's your "proof" for patriarchy. Simply stating I haven't backed up my claims is meaningless. I have refuted and rebutted every serious criticism of my position thus far.

I agree with patriarchy theory as so obvious that it should be a given. That doesn't mean I'm a feminist. Likewise, I agree with some of Marx's analyses and theories, but I'm not a Marxist. Stop playing idpol, dumb faggot. I thought you hated that.

Except that isn't a fact and I see no reason why that is a remotely accurate characterization for the feminist movement? A minority of particularly unhinged feminists? Perhaps, but not the entire movement.

I agree that the feminist, as an initially radical movement, was subverted by liberals (with the help of the CIA) and co-opted for their own bourgeois movement. What I don't agree with is that feminist theory as a whole should be treated as a theoretically vacuous discipline and that feminists should be summarily dismissed as rabid misandrists hellbent on ruining every man's life. I prefer to radicalize them and grow the communist movement, not help the movement shoot itself in the foot for the umpteenth time out of spite for feminists while simultaneously to throwing a tantrum about radical leftism being politically irrelevant in contemporary society.

#KillAllMen, like I said, came as a satire started by some dumb assholes who thought it would make for a profound point or whatever. It was an extremely stupid idea and a complete blunder that backfired and hurt the feminist movement. That's where it came from, and knowing that doesn't meaningfully aid in assessing feminism.

I assure you I'm making this criticism honestly and sincerely, and if it's the inverse of feminism's philosophical principles, then it's because of nothing more than a betrayal of said principles by the overwhelming majority of feminists today.

Communism is an emancipatory ideology, but that hasn't prevented dictatorship or forced labor in its name.

The gender supremacist tendency in present-day feminism isn't something you can wish away, any more than I can wish away tankies - and spamming "reactionary" at anyone who criticizes said tendency (even if they're in agreement with gender equality!) sure as hell won't help.

See, thing is I don't. I knew from pretty much the first day that it was a false flag from Holla Forums . But the thing is you make a difference in distinction in your post suggesting that you would take #KillAllMen and #KillAllWomen differently, and that you feel that #KillAllWomen would be a more serious threat because women are oppressed.

I saw actual feminists tweeting this with my own eyes. One of the women was a Dutch lesbian I'd had discussions with about the sex trafficking trade across Europe. If you want to believe this is a false flag, so be it, but it's not true.

patriarchy doesn't exist anymore

it's the bourgeoisie m80

What evidence do you have that feminism has betrayed is core principles and is now a form of gender supremacism? I am asking for evidence of a general, movement-wide change, not particular isolated instances of certain crazy people who identify as feminists.

This is basically similar to Christina Hoff Sommers' criticism of contemporary feminism and she's a so-called second-wave "equity feminism" and works at the American Enterprise Institute as the token feminist mouthpiece.

I wouldn't treat them differently. I would reject both on equal grounds. I merely explained why there wasn't as much reaction and popular outrage to #KillAllMen as might have occurred if it were targeting another demographic. Work on your reading comprehension.

It WAS a false flag. 8/pol/ was crowing about how funny they found it. However, it also revealed that there were a fair few people unironically picking it up.

You're still trying to argue that men are somehow protected from violence though by their presumed "power", which is blatantly false because men are targeted for violence plenty.

Holy crap that idpoler still posting. After that embarrassing temper tantrum the other day. You'd think he'd stop embarrassing himself at this point.

I feel like you're misunderstanding my point

I'm not arguing for the complete dismissal of feminism/feminist theory, but at the very least the predominant trend (or whatever you want to call it) in feminist circles seems to be interest group politics for women, to just push for whatever is seen as best for them without any sort of critical understanding or concern for the effects.

I mean do you really think the feminist support for Hillary Clinton is about gender equality?

Honestly I'm not even sure what you're arguing for. What exactly do you think that the problems facing feminism are then if all the criticisms leveled in this thread are "reactionary"?

Is there anything but crazy people, in the western world, in current year?
Is it not only nomenklatura that uses ideology for profit?

It was pretty obvious Zeus exists too, I mean, how else could there be lightening?

1. Men are inherently better equipped in a Capitalist system because they are less emotionally attached to people or their kids as are women. It's called Evolution. Not only that, but their high levels of testosterone makes them eager to wear themselves out to the fucking bone either Mechanically in order to make profit, what fields take mechanical skill? STEM. If Women are the sex more happier to give up careers in order to raise children, even by just a LITTLE bit, then the reality of women being disadvantaged will never go away under a Capitalist system.

2. There is no Patriarchy, there is only Capitalism. Women are not being dissuaded from STEM jobs, it's a shitty field for the most part already and women like to raise kids and pursue a more balanced social life style with a career that doesn't revolve around doing math problems all day. Men want to do that too but they can't because those jobs pay fuck all.

3. Children are not dogs that we can pretend nobody has to look over, they have to be looked after every step of the way until they reach a certain age. Women are better equipped to do that biologically, get the fuck over it. They have tits and constant empathy, we fucking don't.

4. The STEM field is not something women should be jealous to get into. If the the STEM field made no fucking money, we would be fine with men taking it. The factor here is life choices. STEM jobs are objectively shittier than other jobs for the most part but men take them because they pay more and they are much higher skilled, having to look after a kid will cripple you significantly. Therefore, this is another case of a Capitalist problem that encourages giving up your passions in order to turn a profit.

So bitching about a Patriarchy makes you look insanely retarded when the problem is Capitalist. There is no secret conspiracy to oppress women, you're retarded.

It wasn't "a fair few". I told you, I saw this.
Let's say I'm wrong and 8/pol/ did start this. I saw sufficient numbers of accounts I knew were real live feminists unironically tweeting that hashtag that all the trolls have done is illuminate pre-existing attitudes with the feminist community.

They are consistently targeted by violence less than men based on their sex and gender. General violence statistics aren't very useful because not all of them are significantly influenced by patriarchy.

Men are protected from violence due to their historically muh privileged position. That's why their threats against men as a demographic aren't typically taken seriously, and moreover aren't typically backed up with actions. A threat like #KillAllMen, even if sincere, is as serious as me or you threatening to kill each other: it's an impotent expression of rage from someone powerless in actually acting on those threats due to their material and social conditions.

I generally agree with that. What I'm arguing is that we shouldn't alienate feminists by holding such reactionary views of them (other views, not the one you just presented) and acting extremely hostilely toward them, that parts of feminist theory are both useful and have revolutionary potential, and that it's counterproductive to have such an irrational opposition to idpol in all forms because of the political conditions we face and the need for the communist movement to grow.

I didn't make this thread, dumb fuck.

Pure reactionary ideology. Take it to Holla Forums.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is basically using the gendered equivalent of racial "science". The patriarchy is not mutually exclusive with capitalism. They are coordinating and intersecting systems of oppression.

1.

So, am I a psychopath? Cause they are the ones best equipped for Capitalism.

2.
Yes, there is only capitalism, but the rest of your arguments are shit. I for one don't care as much about money.. .. oh wait.. I'm a class con prol…

3.
Again "men are psychopaths". KEK. Also, this is why you have state kindergardens.

4.
Only 'Murica has it.

How to become reddit in one easy argument!

Sorry faggot, but men have been consider the "disposable" gender in most civilizations across time. That is in and of itself a form of gender-targeted violence. Are you going to disagree that it has been the "duty" of men to protect the "women and children"? That men are not expected to sacrifice themselves and systematically pushed into this by demanding men to serve in the army to protect the "Weaker" gender?

Ye, the "women and children" propaganda worked for aions. It's actualy "protect the king's lands".

And then WW1 came and people started saying … "why am I doing this?"
And then WW2 had to go full Ideology again.
And then Vietnam and Afganistan (for US and USSR) brought us back to "WHY?".

And now, only spooked people believe in "tradition" and "honor".

So, it's not as much about men and women as it is about power structures.

Christ, sure is spooky around here.

I suppose I would be alright with that. I agree that Holla Forums often does not have the best response to dealing with identity politics.

Dude, just stop replying to all the obvious bait.

Seriously just got to r/socialism/ already. You're absolute cancer of the worst kind.

Wait a minute, you are that same faggot from before. God, that explains everything.

Drop the flag.

flag. drop.

Basically, women have no agency whatsoever. No woman has ever killed a man. Women have no ability to effect events in our society.

Bullshit.

It's not about "men vs women", it's about if people act on threats they make when they get angry like "I'm gonna kill you" or "I hope you die".

The claim is that women don't do that. It's bullshit. I've met loads of women who can and will kick the shit out of men. They're not difficult to find. Women kill men all the time. There are no shortage of news stories about such events. The claim women are powerless is utterly ludicious.

ludicrous

It is about men vs women. He claimed that women making violent statements about men is harmless because men are protected from violence somehow because of their historical muh privilege. Apparently the patriarchy envelopes men in a force field againsts violence. Does the patriarchy also prevent women from being able to use weapons?
People regardless of gender don't usually go through with online death threats. It's a ridiculous notion to try and justify an open display of bigotry.

This thread is a fucking masterpiece in Holla Forums rational reasoning and should be stickied.

In fact it has debunked most bullshit claims made by feminists today, better than Sargon of Cuckhad and Thunder-sperglord ever will.

No, again, you idiot, it's about if "I'm going to kill you" translates to actually going at and killing someone, or even, actually, wanting someone dead. Are you dense. I know women kill men.

Yes, and the post claims women don't do this and I say they do, you utter, utter mongoloid.

...

Who needs something as crude as death squads?
mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-aborted-baby-because-boy-5143227

Well, people abort females in the Middle East, China, India, etc. in a massive, not-comparable scale.

In what way are men protected from the threat of violence?

That's certainly true.

What's your alternative? To sit in that virtual ivory tower and throw shit at anyone who comes by because you're more interested in communism the fantasy than achieving communism the reality? If your goal is to ensure the radical left remains dead, then you are doing a fine job.

Men haven't been considered "disposable" at all. The fact that they historically fought in wars and served on the front lines was a product of patriarchy because it was patriarchal norms which promoted the hypermasculine notion of men being the sole protectors of the family, community, and society. Only in modern contexts, under the luxury of a crumbling patriarchal infrastructure, can you deign to profess that men are treated as "disposable" because you no longer live in a society wherein male sacrifice for family and country is an uncritically accepted norm.

If you don't like the fact that men have historically been treated as the "stronger" sex, and thus the sex who must fight in wars and lay down their lives for family and country, then blame patriarchy. It was the patriarchal structure which developed those norms. Just as it was patriarchy which ensured that the "superior sex" served in positions of power in times of peace, it was those very norms and values which caused those in power to choose the "superior sex" to defend the country in times of war. When you live in a system wherein a particular sex is given all the responsibilities of society precisely because it is viewed as the "superior sex", that will naturally entail both positive and negative consequences. If you believe this is sexist and unjust, then fight patriarchy, not the feminists who want to dismantle it.

kys

>false, they are explanations, not excuses
Commit suicide, strawmanning faggot. The cancer here is you and it's LARPing NRx pseudo-leftists like you who guaranteed this board's death.

Not at all. Are you literally incapable of rationally assessing the meaning of my words? Or are you so blinded by that ideologically-driven tantrum you're experiencing that you cannot, under any circumstance, interpret my statements in a way which doesn't fit into your patently distorted caricature of me?

You're worse than Sargon and Thunderf00t. Literally any gradeschool drivel and fallacy-ridden arguments constitute "rational reasoning" for you because you are more interested in choosing a side and cheerleading for that side than engaging in independent thought. That's the sort of shit that I expect from Holla Forums, and it's apparently becoming commonplace here.

I never said that women don't kill men, only that a threat against men as a demographic is not taken as seriously as a threat against women as a demographic for a number of reasons, including the fact that there are numerous historical accounts of mass femicide in history but virtually none of attempts at mass murdering men.

Use your fucking brain for once, you goddamn retard.

Threats of violence against men as a demographic aren't generally taken seriously. Because they aren't taken seriously, nobody actually acts on the violence. Although there are some misandrists in this world, they are so utterly rejected by the majority of society that they lack any serious voice therein. woman haters, meanwhile, are not treated as a fringe group and still possess a voice in public affairs, up to and including positions of power. With that popular presence, advocacy of violence—or even condoning violence—against women is not only taken more seriously, but is more prevalent and threats of violence against women are usually acted upon. The same is not true for men, in part because men have held a historically muh privileged position of power as a demographic and this has shaped society to treat such threats as impotent outcries of the embittered and irrational.

In a more political context, you can see this same trend with how radical leftists are treated, especially anarchists. Compare that to how liberals are treated and you can see how threats of violence against the historically muh privileged position are considered non-serious whereas threats of violence against the historically oppressed position is taken seriously to the point of action.

Got you covered fam

Kek. I'm not even white. I'm half black and half middle eastern. I'm like the alt right's perfect nightmare. You are just the worst. Do you honestly think anyone here is going to believe that violence against women isn't taken seriously in the modern western world? You expect us to believe that misandry is taken seriously? You expect us to believe that women hating is a socially acceptable position to hold in modern day society? What a crock of shit. Drop the flag and get the fuck off our board jackass. No one's buying the nonsense you're selling.

Whoops forgot the archived link archive.is/Khd6M

This is entirely analogistic, much like the rest of what you've managed to write.

...

...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaAAAaaaaAAaaaAAaaAAAaaaaaaaaAAaaaAAaaaaaaAAaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAA

yes it is

1) Gender, beyond grammar, is a neologism invented by a pederastic pseudoscientist in the 1970s, from quack studies using child rape that resulted in the death of his child subjects.
2) Sexual equality, on the other hand, is also unjust to sexes that are inherently different
3) Sexual FAIRNESS is

>I would contend that gender is itself a social construct, though I do not deny that sex appears to have a biological basis. Nevertheless, how we conceive of sex is socially constructed. For example, we conceive of sex as a binary despite the existence of intersex and true hermaphrodites, and how there are biological variations in human sexuality far beyond strictly male and female. There is no material basis for the archaic notion of human sex being a strict binary between males and females, and that is especially true for gender.
Alright, you just went off the deep end. Leaving aside the fact that your argument is akin to "some people are born with extra limbs, so the concept of left and right handedness isn't valid!", there's the little fact that:
TRUE HERMAPHRODITISM DOES NOT OCCUR IN HUMANS
All of humanity falls into one of three classes:
1) Fertile female
2) Fertile male
3) Sterile mutant

More dishonest shite from you, you root vegetable

This is Holla Forums incarnate. So many of these feminists want to come here and think we're all white males who hold positions similar to what they call "MRA's". Unfortunately, we are a diverse bunch who simply believe everyone deserve reprieve from oppression.

Unlike the aforementioned feminist who wants to sit here and say patriarchy somehow exists in the western world, and wants to play oppression Olympics.

male dominance is real. So yeah, patriarchy exists.

yall better read some Roswitha Scholz

mediationsjournal.org/articles/patriarchy-and-commodity-society

It feels kind of surreal to have two exact opposite brand of idpol hate us for two completely different and mutually exclusive reasons.

It's like they don't even have a conscious participation in their political meandering. Everything they talk about is just a metaphysical representation for their personal anxieties.

I say this because there is no possible way Tumblr or Holla Forums actually gives a shit about other people.

...

The more they hate us and try to convert us, the stronger we become.

huh? that second post is a follow up to my first post.

like, the article I posted supports what I claimed.

most of leftypol were once fascists in Holla Forums and that explains their position on womens rights and this thread

Oh. I thought that you were posting Scholz as a joke at your previous post's expense about patriarcy being real. Poe's Law applies too well to feminist theory.

let's not forget le chan culture xD and the large influx of gamergate spergs who think it was genuinely about ethics in gaming journalism.

chan culture etc has very limited influence in politics
it's actually the opposite
so i just ignore them
leftypol has the ability to make something different and become a mass center of alternative information exchange and a place for international organisation with a wide audience, so i won't give it up yet

Holla Forums seriously needs to read more or go back to Holla Forums where they obviously came from.

“Society is fundamentally used in the service of class divisions,” says
Marx; however, according to von Junz, it is not so much
society that is fundamentally used in the service of class divisions, but
rather the economy, and eventually the fatal flaw, of society. Therefore, the
subject is interpolated into a predeconstructive nationalism that includes art
as a totality. Foucault suggests the use of subpatriarchialist conceptual
theory to deconstruct the status quo.

Thus, Lyotard promotes the use of submodernist semiotic theory to modify
sexual identity. In Neverwhere, Gaiman deconstructs predeconstructive
nationalism; in Death: The Time of Your Life, although, he affirms the
capitalist paradigm of expression.

It could be said that if postcultural sublimation holds, we have to choose
between the capitalist paradigm of expression and the semantic paradigm of
reality. The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is a self-referential
paradox.

“Society is part of the dialectic of sexuality,” says Sontag; however,
according to Cameron, it is not so much society that is
part of the dialectic of sexuality, but rather the failure, and some would say
the fatal flaw, of society. In a sense, if subpatriarchialist conceptual theory
holds, we have to choose between Baudrillardist hyperreality and
neoconceptualist constructive theory. The subject is interpolated into a
subpatriarchialist conceptual theory that includes consciousness as a reality.

It could be said that Marx’s model of the capitalist paradigm of expression
suggests that the task of the participant is significant form. The main theme
of Scuglia’s analysis of Derridaist reading is the common
ground between class and society.

This is b8.

Suuuuure we are. Sure.

Look at the picture. See the identity, the part of agency removed, the mysogynist patriarchy controls, the rape thoughts broadcasting radio, the eyesight leer-o-vision, the patriarchal earphone radio, the gendered brainwash radio, the latest new identity reforming to contain all patriarchy controls even in marginalized identities of othered subaltern females. Invisible patriarchy controls: the intersectional radio directional antenna loop! Read some theory for yourself.

There is no escape from this problematic mysogynist hate speech using all of the deadly mysogynist patriarchy controls! In 1965, CIS mysogynist sinners triggered me oppressively, othered me in intersectional power dynamics from California Berkley University. Since then I hide in forced wage-gapped marginalization alone, isolated in this low deadly male-dominated society.

The brazen, deadly mysogynists and problematic reactionaries offend me with poison hate speech from image board posts and even Facebook, deadly Holocausts even in my home, with porn, even memes and jokes, even deadly touch image macros or shocking greentexts, even hurtful body-shaming pictures of unrealistically proportioned video game heroines, or even bloody rapist bullying to shut me up forever with a sneak undetectable permaban, even with marxist parroting puppet brocialists, in class-reductionist communist parties for writing these unfalsifiable truthful posts.

No, dear, it's satire.

There are black Nazis. There are no bounds to the alt-right's stupidity.

I stated the exact opposite. Learn to read, bumbling retard.

I stated the opposite to that, as well. Misandry isn't taken seriously precisely because it is a fringe position that doesn't pose a serious threat to men as a demographic.

In the majority of human civilization, yes. In some parts of Europe and the United States, maybe not so much.

Your point?

What a tragedy!

1. Literally what are you talking about.
2. "Sexual equality" is too ambiguous. If you mean equality between the sexes, then all that entails is equal treatment between the sexes, which is essentially fairness per 3.

Unlike abnormal limb quantity, which is a rare mutation, there is a range of sexual categories under which humans fall: nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

True hermaphroditism does occur in humans: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism#Human_prevalence

Apparently, the only argument you retards could possible muster is flagrant strawmanning. It's pathetic. End your life.

No, I'm proposing that we learn the language and ideology of liberals so that we can better refute and persuade them. You are essentially promoting as the best way to achieve communism is for radical leftists to isolate themselves from those most sympathetic to their beliefs and goals, refuse to engage with those people, and refuse to learn anything about their perspectives because they should not attempt to engage them no matter what (even to try and persuade them). That is a guaranteed way of ensuring communism never, under any circumstance, happens. I have already explained my position in this regard. At this point, it's a failure on your part to not scroll up and fucking read.

Basically this.

It's satire? But it looks like it's taken exactly from the postmodern essay generator. Juvenal, may he rest in peace, would be more precise and much harsher a critic than this dusty post.

The irony is that you've said more about yourself in 3 paragraphs than your lifetime will show how lonely and vain existence is in toto.

It is true that the best laughs always come at the expense of people who do not understand why they are being laughed at.

Sure, but I haven't even really been posting ITT. I would contend that better laughs come at the expense of the self's aggrandizement to infinity; only when you truly accept that you die can you truly live.

100% feminist confirmed.

That's a load of absolute crap. We had a thread about this a couple of days ago. Most people here have never even posted on Holla Forums or have ever been members of the alt right. Most people here are from boards like /lit/, /mu/, and /g/.

Just fuck off. I already told you no one is buying your shit idpoler.
>>>/Reddit/
>>>/Tumblr/

The best comedy is made out of tragedy, you faggots.
Only idiots are entertained purely in the expense of others.

Remember the catgrill comic our propaganda minister made? It's the tragedy of the current situation that makes it funny.
Comedy is the only way to escape the futility of life, and so on.

I had to use the flag this once.. I shall now return to previous mode

...

That you should stop wasting your own time and others.

this
misogynists are unable to talk to people because they hold their opinions like a religion
this thread is proof of that

That's almost what I'm saying, but there is no "true" escape from the vanity of life.

Well there is one.
But it's best to let it come by itself.

Death

Kys

Get the fuck off our board you dumb asshole

1/10 try again

Hang yourself.

Why do you think I'm wasting my time and the time of others?

Feminist patriarchy is as real as Marxist alienation. If you argue against one, those arguments apply to the other. They are functionally similar ideas which are equally as capable of being dismissed as the equivalent of conspiracy theory.

KEK

how do i engels guyse?

He's not using patriarchy the same way Engels used it. The patriarchy was a tangible material force. A type of social organization that doesn't really exist under neoliberalism anymore.The Ancom poster is basically using the term is an omnipresent boogyman. Listen to this webm

This. The patriarchy that Engels described was a material relationship that no longer exists in the industrialized world. The "patriarchy" that the faggot who refuses to drop the flag describes is intersectional bullshit that never existed anywhere except in the imaginations of wannabe victims. It is yet another term that has been appropriated by liberals and stripped of its meaning, like "libertarian" and "politically correct."

yes the patriarchy exists
next topic pls

Women aren't excluded from power in the modern west world. Men and women have the same legal rights and opportunities. The fact that men make up the majority of powerful positions doesn't prove that we live in patriarchy anymore then the number of Jews in power proves that the Zionist conspiracy theory is real. Women can own and inherit property, hold down jobs and have children outside of marriage without any legal penalties. Fathers also no longer have legal authority over the wives and adult children. We don't live in a patriarchal society even by the narrow definition that you used.

Oh in addition to what I said here , Women also control the majority of spending power, live longer, earn the majority of college degrees, and receive lighter sentences for the same crimes then men do.

Ok mate

Patriarchy is a form of social organization. One that no longer exist in the west for a number of reasons some of which I mentioned in my earlier post. We don't live in a patriarchy. Women are not excluded from power anymore then the average man is. I never once in my post stated that patriarchies don't exist. No one in this thread has said that patriarchies don't exist. We're saying that we don't live in a patriarchy and we have not lived in patriarchy in a long time. Of course everyone's already said this stuff earlier in the thread but like the other guy you'll continue to ignore any evidence that contradicts the existence of your patriarchy boogyman.

...

Alienation is the immaterial social consequence of exploitation and a division of productive relations, not the latter itself.

I'm staying for now, faggot. Deal with it.

Refer to and for my responses to that post. Referring back to a low-quality shitpost from before doesn't reinforce the points it may have attempted to make, especially when I already responded to it.

The same is true for Marxism in general. If you are going to treat patriarchy and feminist theory as just another conspiracy theory, I have no problem treating Marxism in the same capacity, since both are roughly as rigorous, scientific, and substantiated by empirical evidence.

The vestigial influence of that material form of patriarchy still lingers, just as the vestiges of many traditions and institutions from feudalism and before still lingers in capitalism. Just because patriarchy is no longer a material force in the same capacity as it once was, that doesn't mean we aren't wholly rid of its influence and self-reproducing social conditions.

Cry more, you're really contributing to this thread as a foremost intellectual herein.

I guess racism, sexism, genderism, and classism simply don't exist because they aren't legally codified!

What a laughably bankrupt excuse of an argument.

this

Fuck off. I'm not giving you a seriously reply after you called me a black nazi for disagreeing with you. All you do is repeat the same unsupported boogyman nonsense over and over again anyway like a broken record. Even after people have already addressed all the moronic talking points you continue to repeat over and over again. You're the worst poster this board has ever had.
>>>/reddit/
>>>/out/
>>>/suicide/

I didn't call you a black Nazi. I just pointed out that whatever spooky racial identity you have is irrelevant to the fact that you are promoting reactionary views. Sorry you can't handle criticism.

So you don't have an argument, and you think this board is stupid enough to believe that nonsense rather than scrolling up to see that you're wrong. You may be right, since it appears that reactionary shills like you are becoming the norm, but that is hardly something to be proud of.

Feel free to take your own advice.

>>>Holla Forums
>>>/out/
>>>/suicide/