At risk of starting a shit fit, what are your concerns about feminism, or, women's rights within leftism...

But here's the thing, liberals think the wage gap is only the result of blatant discrimination, but most of it is due to the sexual division of labor, women taking time away from work to care for their children, and undervaluetion of traditionally female jobs like nursing and teaching. Liberal feminism undermines much of class consciousness among women.

I also think independence isn't actually feasible, in our world everyone is dependent on society to survive to some extent dependent on friends and family. If your goal is to make women only dependent on other women I'd say that's rather silly as well.

All i see of modern feminism is shrill harrpies blaming masculinity for everything even though under the ebil patriarchy they have been able to make all these social gains.
They want to destroy masculinity and manhood then they want to go home to a man who will fuck them deep, but that wont happen because the man now respects her feeewings

Did that factoid come straight out of your ass, or did you pick it up second-hand?

Oh and you know what i love, when a feminist says men should show their feelings more then does shit like this.

Its not leftist and its not about equality. It's a movement aimed simply at obtaining power to allow the domination of those the ideological in group disapproves of. That is unreasonable in my view.

Here's where it gets tricky. It's mostly to make us free from things like, tradionalism in views of women. There's a way our own labor is extracted, be it children, sex. All of this is labor and yet none of it is recognized if it isn't from a company. When it is, the labor is recognized as prostitution.

There's a history of subverting women into people who don't really have much of an actual existence compared to men. True, we don't go to war, or whatever you might say make us weaker.

It's hard to explain, without venturing into the identity politics you don't like, but I think feminism is worth it. There are other ways we suffer under Capitalism than men, traditionally.

That's not what it's about for those of us who actually take the material seriously.

This isn't what I'm suggesting either.

See, all of you have these weird warped ideas about what feminism is. What radical feminism is, in the context of leftism. None of this is true. It's about critique of the ideas that capitalist culture has, of women, that are reflective in its action.

see, there it is, the idpol, the oppression Olympics.
REEEEEE WE SUFFER MORE THAN YOU AND THATS WHY WE SHOULD IGNORE THE ELITE OLIGARCHY DRAINING US OF OUR LIFE BLOOOD YOU TOXIC MAN

No it's not that. I'm not looking to say I'm worse off, I'm saying I'm off in a different way then men are. For more liberal people, it would become, that. But this is not.

None

In a socialist system women will get rewarded for the same amount of labor they do as men, and they will get paid leave when they are pregnant.

That's about it.

Feminism is nothing but a product to be sold like all other identitys.
The only identity you have under capitalism is consumer.
When Hillary wins the media will go on and on about the glass ceiling.

YASSSSSSSSSSSS GIRRRL THE OLIGARCHIES GOT A VAGINA NOW YASSSSS START A WAR WITH IRAN GIRL SLAY THEM YASSSS

I want to fucking stab Hillary Clinton to death. Do you think all of us really are like that, Hillary voting losers who just want a woman in the white house? Fuck that

Marxist Feminism offers the most comprehensive and accurate critiques of gender relations within class society, at least in my personal studies.
People immediately react negatively to the term 'feminism' because it's been co-opted by liberals who fanatically dissect every minor instance of oppression without having any clue how oppression actually works (in the material sense) or what do do about it. It's like an RPG stat system where being male automatically gives you +5 for employability, but there is an adamant refusal to name anyone as active agents in the system that materially benefits some at the expense of others.
tl;dr sjws treat the symptoms of cishet patriarchy as if they were the cure.

Women do go to war. Does anybody have that EDUCATE clip?

But regardless, if that's your view of things then why should we trust you if your goal is just to get women paid for that kind of labor? They won't get paid under market socialism since they aren't creating a commodity and if you were to commodification those things it would just make things worse. Or are you just advocating full communism were it won't matter?

That's sort of the problem with feminism along with leftism and liberalism and tons of other groups is that a single term refers to a variety of people with different views.

Aside from perhaps abortion rights, I don't think there's anything to worry about once exploitative production arrangements are eliminated.

My "goal", isn't women getting paid in any capitalist sense. It's for the destruction of capitalism. With the destruction of Capitalism, we need not rely on men to pay us for our own labor. We exist to be comrades.

Like all of us, more or less Communism.

Unrealistic, but we're here nonetheless.

Ironically, 'identity politics' including feminism are what pushed me over the line from Anarchism to Marxism. The subconscious social conditioning that causes society to reject and oppress women and minorities won't just go away when the revolution is over. The material conditions must be changed (expropriated) and possibly, over time, these prejudices will wither away as a prelude to Full Communism.

Every day you post one of these, at first I was annoyed, now I just find it cute.
I dont concern myself with it
Rights do not exist.
Leftism is a spook.

No but seriously. Im a big ass sinner who likes traditional gender roles, don't know why but I do. I don't really know what else to tell you.

I suppose that if femminism is your thing, then good for you that you stick up for your self-interest. But I'd be inspired to tell you that instead of allowing yourself to be encapsulated by femminism as it is defined today, you define yourself as a person first, and the find yourself as a woman.

There is nothing a conglomerate of contrarians can really tell you about yourself that is worth paying attention to. Everything else is fair game.

Materialist feminist is good shit. Some wonky readings of Capital coming out of Federici and such but Holla Forums is deluded in thinking that there is some pure revolution possible. Capital actualizes itself through the concrete and in its concreteness, it latches onto and shapes historical and novel forms of sex and gender relations. Not being able to mediate between this level of capital and capital in its internal logic is an impoverished revolutionary orientation. This does not mean simply looking at concrete manifestations of asymmetrical gender-relations in capitalist societies and just spouting that "only class matters." Of course class is manifested within such phenomena but to reduce real life to just an "epiphenomenon" of the capital "essence" is to fall prey to the error that complements immediacy.

Anyways, some recs:

liesjournal.net/

endnotes.org.uk/en/endnotes-the-logic-of-gender

p.s. OP, people on the communist left usually refer to it as revolutionary feminism or materialist feminism or marxist feminism. Radical feminism usually draws to mind bad connotations of the 80s TERFy and post-structuralist turn.

I just posted this for the first time. I'm relatively new here, sorry.

As for everything else I pretty much disagree with all of it. But if we put things in terms of self interest, women deserve to have our own, no?

This guy gets it. Definitely stated it better than I could.

Oh great now we have 2 anarco-feminists to feed the ducks for us

Looks like you're the spooked one m8

I'm as hard on the tumblr crowd as anyone here but I'm not opposed to moderately reasonable feminists, let alone the prospect of women's rights.

That said, your definition of moderately reasonable feminist and mine may significantly vary, and "feminism" can mean very different things to different people. So I can't entirely say if I agree with you without talking specifics.

Yeah, Holla Forums seems to think the rev is just killing the capitalists and turning all the factories into co-ops. People fall too easy for the "pure economic" manifestation of capital and fail to recognize that Marx's key insight was that capital was analogous to Hegel's concept, an complex set of relations that determines all instances of the historical social formation to different degrees.

The easiest part of the communist revolution is getting rid of the state and the capitalists. The hard part comes with actually consciously constructing a new society from the impacted, resistant materials that have grown under capital. Cultural revolution will be a necessary complement to the reorganization of material production.

I'm judging based on what I have seen feminists do, over a prolonged length of time.
You're asking me to disbelieve my own eyes. Furthermore, if you really do mean radical feminism, I'm fetching witchwind.
No. This is rather dishonest claim. Capitalist Culture is always de facto synonymous with Men. It is about demonising me.

I'm not interested in discussion either, tbh. You asked, I'm telling. I'll change my opinion when your movement behaves differently for a prolonged period of time and not before.

There are liberals everywhere.

There are liberals everywhere

So be it. Cry.

It won't.

Just saying, that's fallacious as fuck
that's not an argument, that's an excuse to delay serious thought about ideas from an opposing group for as long as possible

Ahem.

I think, a huge part of this is the right of our lives not to be put in perspective or terms for our reproductive capabilities as our destiny. It puts us in the uncomfortable position where settling down into the stereotypical family household, all of this has much to do with Capital.

If you can take it and keep it, its yours, no-one can deny what is plain to see.

I havent read much feminist literature, like I said I don't concern myself with femminism. But I think its possible that these Issues of gender equality and so on are being formulated from a servile position, almost as if they were asking permission to rebel, by the simple act of refering the patriarchy as an oppresor that men are obligated to help overthrow you are effectively legitimizing its ideological power. "I do not believe in the bogeyman but I must cover myself entirely with the sheets in case that he exists".

That is an interesting position, and I hadn't thought of it that way. I think to some degree you do have a point, that some of it has to do with some kind of confession.

Gender roles are a spook. But some spooks look so nice with an apron and a thong you gotta withold busting.

I don't think it's "bad elements". I'm not going to give "serious thought" to Holla Forums tier ideas.

It's really not. Unless you reducibly identify yourself to your gender. It's more about targeting a structural reproduction of certain harmful practices and discourses that coalesce around asymmetrical gender relations.

You should take left-feminism as inviting you to partake in an undoing/redoing of certain things that constrain and permeate individual relations in such a way that though they're actualized through particular people, are not reducible in the sense of responsibility to any one person (even you) in particular.

You only feel attacked because you open yourself to such attack when you've most likely automatically resisted any attempt to discuss the reality of gender as it is.

It's not about you dude. I know it's uncomfortable and can feel like overwhelming negativity needlessly directed at you (and I'm not denying that particular feminists, especially younger ones, can fall into some questionable approaches) but again, it's not about you.

Not only that, by narratively making femminism a moral duty of society at large. You fire up reactionary alarms everywhere, even with people who arent traditionally reactionary like that.

I think that bit about telling men they are responsible for the patriarchy, while technically true, it also rasises the question: Why should femminist then expect men to help overthrow it?

#KillAllMen
Fuck off.

Being a fan of Stirner, because these ideas are spooks just as well as liberal feminism's are. It's about removing said concepts

I feel like feminism has always been bourgeois.

Then you really haven't got a clue.

Liberal feminists with a shallow understanding of theory do this. While men benefit the most materially from patriarchy, everyone - women, men, trans people, whatever - is involved in its perpetuation, which really just boils down to valorizing the social category of 'masculine' and denigrating the social category of 'feminine' (which, of course, can be expressed in varying degrees by people of all genders).
Sjws see this and make the leap from "Gender roles are harmful, but mostly benefit men", to "Every male individual is responsible for the oppression of women". There are a few reasons for this. One is an inability to understand that oppression can exist without actual physical force. Another is deflecting responsibility for evaluating their own patriarchal actions onto an ideological scapegoat.

point me to a time when feminism fixed something that socialism couldn't.

They work best in concert.

Feminism is fine, feminism as a pre-requisite for you to join a Socialist enterprise is ridiculous and now, unfortunately, accepted dogma among the Left.

Yes, but then again, if the patriarchy benefits men, the material incentive to be rid of it is Poof-gone. So you're left with an appeal to morality or whatver. To the moral man, he might agree to it because to him there is nothing greater than being moral. To the amoral man, the cause is a straw dog.

I personally don't feel strongly one way or the other, I like to see people bust their own spooks, but telling them that they gotta get rid of them for X reason is then to simply replace a maxim for another, one spook for the next.

So my idea to Feminists and LGBBQWERTY and so on is to assert themselves. Tell people "you might not like it, but we're here to stay and we are not asking you for permission to simply be whatever we can be. We are not going to rob you or anything, we do not demand your simpathy and we do not care for your approval"

rip trips, you deserved better

You know that materialists regard traditions as functions of the material conditions that a given society finds itself in.

Now that seems like one of many issues with waged labor. Without waged labor, that issue would seem to be resolved or at the very least fundamentally changed. Would you agree?

The biological differences between the sexes will unavoidably result in differentiation. Opportunity to choose should be available to all, but capability will unavoidably come into play.

Feminism nowadays is for rich upperclass white ladies to virtue signal about for pats on the backs, but dont you dare be a rel leftist because that would hurt the ladies bank account

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If we're talking within leftist thought and what passes for leftist activism, I'd say women's(and men's and whatever else) rights seems to be superfluous to the idea of socialism.

Note that this feminist is not talking about patriarchy. At the risk of speaking for him, it would seem that he recognizes the material relationship that Engels defines as patriarchy rather than the nonsensical intersectional world-wide mad deadly communist gangster patriarchy.

You can't have feminism without Patriarchy theory, soft lad.

I'd say its redundant.

I know, I'm the one who brought it up because it seems pivotal. To the point of the discussion I think It's fair to say that I was mostly refering to the second concept, which is more "every-day"

Whereby did you come across this information?

If feminism means you believe in equality of men and women and equal treatment of both, then I am a feminist.
But modern feminism seems to be more concerned with shaming men who have done nothing wrong and perpetuating the myth that women are fragile and need to be protected. I do believe in equality, therefore a woman can get the fuck over it if someone calls her a cunt on twitter.
The more that feminists demand that women be mollycoddled, the more we return to the Victorian era.

I'm interested in what specifically you mean by "done nothing wrong". Though yes I absolutely do agree there's a lot of infantilizing bs in internet liberal feminism.

Most of the major feminist achievements of the 20th century, specifically in the 2nd wave, were brought about and fought for by explicitly left, mostly communist feminists. That's why 2nd wave feminism was actually productive and successfully critical of the ways in which capitalism exploits most people, but with broader repercussions for women. Engels addresses this explicitly, its not a foreign concept.

Mainstream feminism is absolutely a tool of the upper-middle class, but materialist feminism is just as dangerous as ever, but you likely won't ever see it referred to as feminism.

Yes, but which theory? If it is a social structure that is only present in pre-industrial societies, then patriarchy exists, albeit only in certain places. It does not have to be the geneological silliness that bourgeois feminists rail about.

Wait, which time period are you refering to as "second wave?"

So there are sexist men. This is a thing. Men who rape, men who assault, men who demean, men who think that a woman is a bad person for not giving them the sex they are owed.
I accept that. But I know men who call themselves feminists, allies of women, even though I believe in equality, they will chastise me for arguing any of these points with women because as a man I cannot have an opinion.
Don't get me wrong, these people are my friends and I'm not bashing them.
What I'm getting at, is that I know female feminists who have criticised these men for being sexist. Not because they have done anything, but by being straight men who have had relationships end or have flirted with girls before, they consider them pigs.
Heterosexual (and in some cases homosexual) male sexuality is repulsive to them. I'm not even talking about tumblr feminists.
I've had bad experiences with people like this and I don't want to be associated with them.

Second wave feminism came directly after the nascent Western feminist movement which was preoccupied almost exclusively with suffrage, though a number of very radical women (including Emma Goldman arguably) had much higher goals for the movement.

Second wave started in the early-ish 20th century depending on the country (so a number of years after women got the vote in the US is temporally where you'd probably stick it), but it truly sped up in the 1950's and 60's with the civil rights movement. Here women started directing their attention not only to workplace discrimination and hiring ceilings or blocks, but also domestic and sexual violence in the home, a critical analysis of gender roles and specifically the nuclear family, reproductive rights, and education. It's during this time period that Roe v. Wade happens, that a number of nondiscrimination acts get passed, that the epidemic of marital rape and sexual violence begins to enter the public discourse, women are legally allowed to enter a huge number of different professions, etc. Importantly, the biggest figureheads of the second wave were explicitly materialist, though this tends to be forgotten because of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan who were hugely liberal in their work, and radical women tended to get shoehorned as communists instead of feminists.

The third wave began in the early 1990's as the infamous sex wars began to peter out and everything looked fine and legal on paper. Third wave feminism has essentially been a nightmare and very happily gone down the relentlessly neoliberal footpath that was ushered in generally in the West in the 1980's.

Eh. I know women like the one's you're describing who tend to just desperately try and secure their social status and holier-than muh privilege by reaming men who engage in (sometimes) harmless behavior. I also know women who hate men and don't interact with them because they've been victims of male violence and cruelty their whole lives.

I think it's more complicated than this. I think frequently women levy glib, unkind things at men who either don't recognize what they're doing or don't see why it's a problem or who are actively trying to do better and of course they react negatively, and I also see men who are casually abusive or woman hateric in a general sense who refuse to acknowledge any even measured criticism of their behavior and just respond to it by insisting that "these feminists are all catty bitches". No one's immune from stupid behavior.

But yes, increasingly I am seeing SJW behavior and rhetoric be deployed in genuinely abusive and sociopathic capacities. I think the "male tears" refrain is fucking annoying and helps no one, and this insistence that "we are not here to teach you go Google it" is literally dangerous. I see why people like yourself are frustrated, and I also see why women like myself are fed up.

Okay, you were talking about the schizophrenic bourgeois post-leftist reality-is-a-penis feminism.

Pure patriarchy only exists in pre-industrial societies, sure, but certainly significant facets of it still are a dominant organizing feature of class society.

The second wave, you mean? There were definitely strains that went totally out of their minds with what you're describing (the vast majority of radical feminist literature, and a lot of lesbian seperatist theory to boot), but the bulk of the movement was definitely not post-left. The former was the most widely known and hotly discussed because it was obviously shocking. Unless that's not what you're referring to?

My frustration is that its so fucking simple.
I was brought up by a single mother who I respect immensely. Even she is uncomfortable with feminists.
As a kid I would say, if asked, that I was feminist because women were always a very positive thing in my life.
The older I've gotten, and despite always being very kind and courteous to men and women, I feel that the more it's an assumption that I'm a threat.
Here's my advice to people - don't be a fuckwit. Be nice to people. Don't assume inferiority of a person based on their gender.
And yet here we are - in current year - dealing with dickhead behaviour on both sides.
At least MRAs are mocked, liberal feminism, at the very least on a superficial level, has been adopted by the mainstream as a good thing while it frequently displays the same childish behaviour as MRA bullshit.

Is it really that hard to realize why women view men as threats though when so many of them have endured abuse or violence at the hands of men in their lives? It's genuinely hard not to instinctively feel a certain way when it's dictated so much of your life. Instead of being upset that women view men as threatening, why don't you spend energy trying to combat the male violence that makes women afraid of men?

Liberal feminism and MRA sure display the same kind of behavior, but the intention is totally different. The former wants superficial equality that we know we largely haven't acheieved yet, whereas the latter is trapped in this freaky neurotic nightmarescape where men are in any material sense oppressed by women, which is just fundamentally stupid.

Not him, but I've endured emotional and physical violence from women my whole life and I don't think that would justify me judging women as a whole in such a way.

No, not really. What social structures that there are in the economic center that resemble the old patriarchy are no longer functions of that defunct system but rather reflections of the current system. There is an oppressive system in place now, but its nature is not patriarchy. It is important to see a system for what it is rather than what it was. Everything is constantly coming into reality and then leaving it, as they say.

But let me put it you like this. Again, remembering that I am NOT an MRA.
A lot of young men feel that they have society teaching them certain ideals on the hand, be chivalrous, be strong, be a "man"
But young women have gone down another road - be independent, don't rely on men, don't let others judge/shame you etc
It's reached an awkward crossroads where these guys feel that they've been lied to. They thought they would meet the love of their lives (not too different to little girls expecting their prince charming), would have a family, a white picket fence, etc. But now they feel useless and in some cases victims - usually through financial means such as alimony, child support, same pay but different expectations such as the draft, etc etc.
I'm not defending the " freaky neurotic nightmarescape", nor do I consider it comparable to violence, but I question you shrugging it off completely.
Also, in my life as a person of working class background, I don't know anyone who has suffered from domestic violence (obviously there has been, but I don't know it, I'm not stupid). I have known women who have been raped and yet I don't know anyone who has been beaten by a husband/boyfriend.

For sure its exclusive nature is not patriarchy, but I didn't say we're in a purely patriarchal set up, rather that patriarchal forms of power and material hierarchy continue to organize late capitalist class society, otherwise the nuclear family household model and the invisibility of domestic labor make no sense.

If a man told me he'd been abused by women his whole life I'd pretty quickly be of the belief that yeah, that reaction makes sense. The difference is that women are in almost every sphere of their lives threatened with male violence - street harassment, to spousal abuse, to stranger and acquaintance sexual violence from childhood until college and beyond, to in more dire circumstances forced or survival prostitution from a young age, to the generally dehumanizing effects of objectification and pornification - whereas almost nowhere except almost exclusively in romantic relationships and, more frequently, as young children at the hands of abusive mothers and female relatives, do men encounter the threat of this violence. Female violence is the anomaly, whereas male violence is not only the rule, its the expected normative backdrop of existence as a woman.

I know many men who feel like victims, and rightly so, but it's a truly reactionary stretch to say it's women's fault. Men feel emasculated and lied to not because women are newly independent, but because the reified pedestal they were once promised through good union jobs with benefits have been completely ripped out from under them, and they feel inadequate, like they're at the end of a shitty not funny joke. And instead of pinning the blame on class hierarchy and the dissolution of capitalism, they are taught instead to blame this very real, very legitimate sense that they've been cheated out of something on women. It's a very smart move by porkie, and it's also a lie.

I'm not shrugging it off completely at all, and this is why I actually feel some weird resonant feeling like sympathy with Trump supporters, because I understand why many men feel like victims. I just think it's so glaringly obvious that it's not women who are responsible for this feeling, and it's lazy not to look more closely.

You probably do, but it's so shameful that very few if any women come forward about it. It's hugely common pretty much regardless of class.

Well we agree then. Like I said I'm not a MRA, one of many reasons being that I don't blame women. Especially that insane shit that they pedal that women should be treated as lesser humans.
Like I said, I don't doubt in any way that I know women who have been beaten. The reason I brought up rape is because it feels like that is a more taboo thing. I've had close friends tell me in very raw moments about it. People choose to trust me and let me know these things, and yet I've never heard of beating.
Makes me wonder if it is a class thing. I mentioned class because the stereotype is the poor family with the abusive dad. Maybe because I'm in an educated circle now days, it's less likely, and I don't have many friends in that environment any more.

the problem with feminisms is that you are making violence into a male thing, shit, i could go outside and get attacked by a pack of wild dogs.
OMYGAW ITS THE PATIARCHYSS FAULT.

.

Guy who posted above you here. Realistically, violence is more common from men. But consider the fact that it means domestic violence is more common among homosexual relationships, and the stark fact that men are also more likely to be victims of violence.
Something no one ever seems to bring up.

Weirdly I'm actually in a thread right now about narcissistic parents and the discrepancy in the behavior of narcissistic father's as a direct result of class location. I absolutely think domestic violence is more explicit and easily identifiable in working class / poor men because strength, grit, dominance, and the various other prototypical trappings of masculinity are glorified, whereas in wealthier, liberal circles they're considered unrefined and mostly unacceptable. In that sense I'd say your spot on, but I'd also argue that abuse (if not out-and-out domestic violence) are just as pervasive in middle and upper class relationships, but moreso in the form of verbal / emotional abuse, and more subtle forms of sexual violence such as coercion or reproductive control.

You don't sound like an MRA, you sound like a man who's become disenfranchised with the inane liberal feminism diatribe who is never allowed to have these discussions with people because the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to go educate yourself, sinner. I genuinely get it. I still think it's fucking reactionary to even remotely pin these things on women as a class.

Violence is by and large a male thing: almost 100 percent of rapes, murders, simple assault and battery, one-on-one as well as mass shootings are committed by men. This doesn't mean men are inherently or fundamentally violent, it means that masculinity as a learned behavior is inextricably wound up with physical violence. Also, bemusingly fucking bad strawman that I won't even touch.

I'd also argue based on my personal experience that educated women have more self respect and are less likely to be attracted to uneducated men that compensate through "glorified masculinity". They know that its dangerous to be around men like that and avoid those kinds of relationships.
And thanks, I agree about MRAs and the reactionary mentality. I keep stressing the point because I feel like arguing about feminism is the equivalent of arguing about religion and getting >tips fedora

Me again

On the topic of violence as a learned trait, I would argue that, I don't know if it is testosterone or what, does lead men to feel the need to lash out in some capacity. Not necessarily violence. Perhaps sport or video games. I don't believe it is learnt, but I do believe that it is a choice on how you use it.
Attacking someone is not a part of your genetic make up, its an idiotic decision.
Maybe this is the same for women, I don't know, I'm not female.

Men are more prone to specific kinds of violence, specifically murder NOT perpetrated by a romantic partner (so generally associated with non-domestic crime of some sort and typically in the public realm), and more specifically as a result of drug or gang related crime. Women are infinitely more likely to be the victims of violence at the hands of romantic partners, family members, or male acquaintances though in what is called "sex-related" crimes (this includes stranger violence in street harassment scenarios, importantly). Likewise women are infinitely more likely to be victims of sexual violence, but concerning child sexual abuse, the gap is much smaller, though a huge number of male children are still subjected to sexual violence.

I think you underestimate the level of violence that can happen to men for no reason. As a tall male, when I have gone out with friends on a friday or saturday night, I've had drunk strangers try to start fights with me for no reason. They see me in a club or walking down the street and try to be "big men" and start shit. I've also known people who've been punched in the back of the head before they even knew someone was there.
Not to mention mutual violence like at sports riots or what not. Yes alcohol, a drug, can be involved, but this isn't some kind of criminal underworld activity.

"Self-respect" is a spook. I know plenty of highly educated liberal men who are extremely dangerous, but its veiled behind a sensitive less masc sensibility. My past three boyfriends have all been outwardly the antithesis of hyper-masculine, and two of the three have serially assaulted me. It's not really that reductive.

Blaming behavior on testosterone is, again, hugely reductive and empirically void. Men lash out because they're not only taught that that's acceptable male behavior, but that they're not really men if they don't. I can guarantee you that women across the board feel the frequent desire to lash out with violence or externalized rage, but it's almost completely socialized out of them very quickly because that's not desirable female behavior, so they learn to internalize or repress it. Have you ever met a very butch lesbian woman who's fully latched on to the major performative features of dominant masculinity? They are very much more prone to outward explosive violence or rage than their heterosexual or femme lesbian counterparts. It's a function of the behavioral pattern, not hormones.

Look, I've got nothing wrong with equality between men and women. That goes the same for every living soul today. I'll happily join causes that call themselves feminists if they're socialist. The same goes for blacks, spics, trannies, whatever. I literally don't care if they're legit socialist.

My issue comes in when feminism, LGBTQ rights, ethnic rights, etc. are so easily adopted by capitalism. My issue comes in when concern for these things trumps class warfare.

If tomorrow Real Equality was given into those causes by capitalism would they still be socialists? Would they say, "Well we got ours. Get yours" be their new watchword?

I have qualms about people putting their identity above class solidarity. That's pretty much it. A good chunk of the feminists I interact with are perfectly fine with capitalism if it gives more women power within the system.

I am fully aware that men are subject to random senseless violence in public, especially at bars and sports games where the need to prove one's masculinity is hyper-elevated. I'm not saying men aren't subject to random violence, but rather that the instances in which they are more highly victimized than women are more specific and tend to correspond to criminal activity or public displays of machismo, whereas for women the threat of violence is pretty much always existent regardless of social context.

I think you and OP (and myself, and all of my socialist feminist friends) are in agreement with pretty much no differences, and I tend to agree with you that the majority of "socialist" feminists today would in fact be perfectly happy if they got workplace equality, but the workplace and the exploitation and wage servitude stuck around. I don't think that's an incorrect feeling, but I think conflating feminism with an internal incorrigible anti-socialism is wrongheaded.

Why do you differentiate between them? Patriarchy is a material hierarchy.

The nuclear family is alread almost dead. It does not make sense in the current situation. The invisibility of domestic labor is a function of the waged labor system. It is based on paychecks now more than gender.

By self respect I meant that they walk away when they see warning signs that guy they are seeing is dangerous. When the veils slips I guess. They are far more selective in their partners.
I'm not talking about sensitive men, a lot of them like masculine guys, I'm talking about them looking for real mutual respect between them, instead of someone who demeans them and makes them feel shitty. Obviously this isn't intrinsically related to violence, but I imagine you can find a trend with the more douchey guys.
As for learnt behavior, perhaps it could be argued that this is more about repressing anger. It's not that you are taught that violence is acceptable, it's that you are taught that as a female you cannot display anger.
When I was younger I would have anxiety attacks that would lead to me going into "fight or flight". I would never be violent but I would scream profanity at whoever pushed me over the edge and leave. For 16 years I was punished for this "behavior" as though I was a problem. This was my instinctive response that saw me frequently being reprimanded even though it was out of my control. One day it just stopped, and I don't know why. Showing anger or imposing yourself isn't necessarily a choice - not that it can't be.

Ok. My point is that it is generally more common. Not systematic, I am fully on board with that fact, but it seems to be accepted as somehow ok. I've never been in a fight in my life, nor do I ever want to be, and yet for a characteristic of mine, I am a target for abuse.
I get it.

Why? Feminism has been detrimental to class struggle before and on numerous occasions.

Because as I and yourself have already said, we're not living under a patriarchal system but a system that still makes extensive use of patriarchal forms of organization and distribution.

As capital demands an ever more flexible labor force that it subjects to increasingly intolerable income and benefit conditions, sure, but this is a fairly recent turn of events, and importantly pretty much exclusive to non-white households who've never had access to significant assets, liquid or otherwise. Marriage still makes sense for at least a good portion of the population. How do you mean "based on paychecks now more than gender"? I'm referring to domestic labor such as cooking, cleaning, raising children etc within the home, not like, paid work as a home aid for old people.

Maybe. I think the issue of partner violence is more complicated than just douchey ultramasc vs. sensitive femmey men, though I wouldn't be surprised to find that correlate. Just in my experience, faggy art het dudes are just as likely to abuse their girlfriends as chads.

And for sure, I think this is also true about anger and violence. Male violence is definitely still pathologized at the same time that it's accepted, which is an enormous problem because it results in the exact treatment you're describing - being treated as a deviant problem, instead of receiving compassionate care and understanding. Unless it's mediated through sports or other typical male activities or done in private, or glorified through any number of media outlets, male violence and aggression aren't super awesome things that we as a rule glorify because we've gotten much more "progressive", and therefore subtle, about it. But the fundamental issues are still absolutely there, they just manifest much more conscientiously

.Such as? I see this a lot on Holla Forums but I never get an example. I know there are some, but I'd like to see which one you cite specifically.

Speak for yourself, niggah.

But that's the implication of what are you saying though. For that to be true, it would mean the female proletariat don't suffer in some ways the male proletariat does, while suffer in some that he does not. That's asinine.

Yeah, I'd agree with you. Feminism isn't across the board able to be twisted towards favoring capitalism. I think its not bad to recognize that women get a shit deal under capitalism, they really do and here I'm not excludibg the fact that everyone gets a shit deal under capitalism. I just don't think one shit deal occludes another shit deal.

I think there are a lot of good feminists out there who really do have class warfare as the definitive advancing line. I know a handful of them and I respect them greatly. I don't think femism is some monolith, I know that within it there is quite a bit if dissent over various matters.

When I think of feminism I recall the myth of the hydra where Hercules had to figure out how to kill a creature that could regrow two heads for every one killed. I think that most non-socialist feminists occupy themselves with decalutaring heads instead of cauteruzing wounds - that is to say I think they're treating symptoms of capitalism instead of attacking the root of the problem itself.

I'm not going to pretend I'm deeply involved with feminist theory, all lve for to go on is personal interaction, but a good chunk of feminists I know are absolutely liberals who just want reformed capitalism. I won't immediately discard someone's opinion of they call themselves feminists, but I'll reserve judgment until they either do or don't rail against capitalism and recognize the degree to which capital dominates life regardless of what's between a person's legs.

That's true for us as well, comrade. "Leftist", for example.

Good. Let's shake hands then. Why must you bring a specific identity to the mix then? Why can't be us, the proletariat and exploited, against them, the exploiting bourgeoisie?

Yeah. This is more or less my experience as well. I think this is due in large part to the fact that good materialist feminism has either been totally ignored in deference to rabidly individualistic idiocy about muh pronouns and muh 700 genders, or just falsely decried as "problematic" and therefore anathema. I deal with this a lot in my liberal arts college and it makes me want to saw my face off.

I think a lot of this is also due in part to feminism now being an almost exclusively internet phenomenon that doesn't give a fuck about movement building or actually achieving any transformative change but making sure everyone is comfortable and pacified, combined with the fact that feminism and, I would honestly say without any hesitation now, SJW bullshit generally is pretty much exclusively about social standing and climbing the ladder of online sycophancy. This results in a climate whereby any and all criticism that goes against the normative soundbyte at the time becomes savagely attacked, no conversation is able to happen, and the hivemind stomps on triumphantly. It's why I've completely cut off contact with 95 percent of the self-declared feminists at my school / broader social circle and just hang out with my fellow socialist feminist policy economy friends.

Also I guess as an asterik, this is why I think muh privilege rhetoric has been the single most destructive thing to enter ostensibly left, and certainly feminist, circles. Class gets reduced to just one "privilege" among a totally equal and non-constitutive constellation of a billion other muh privileges, and its fundamentally idealistic and grounded in absolutely nothing but talk.

That's a copout

Not that poster, but because the specific identity of women experenices exploitation under capitalism differently from men for specific reasons, with ultimately the most important one being that for capital to continue existing and value to continually be produced, labor-power must continually be reproduced outside of firm or workplace through unpaid, domestic work. The reproduction of labor power has historically and still mostly is done /by women/. The needs of capital use different groups of people in intentional and selective ways, and therefore the manners in which men and women experience exploitation also differ.

You shouldn't be and you should bash them.

In society in the economic center there are organizational elements that it shares with the old patriarchy (eg. the primacy of waged labor that we were discussing), but those elements are not inherently patriarchal. Rather they are a function of the current system. This is what I was talking about when I said that it is important to look at what is rather than what was. If you want to change something, it helps to recognize what it is.

Domestic labor is ignored, not because it is "woman's work" as it was in patriarchal societies but rather because it does not produce income. Due to both fear and commodity fetishism, income is prized above work itself. It's all about that green, as the saying goes.

Where in reality is it accepted? An act of violence in any non-sporting event is liable to ruin a man's livelihood.

"Bernie Bros" and "Brocialists" are the most recent example. Or how about the lamentable fall to idpol that the once-mighty IWW experienced? Or the CPUSA backing Clinton? We can go back further to the first wavers turning the turn-of-the-century Western labor movement into teetotalers.

To be fair, the blame for that lies more with Nietzsche's and Foucault's geneology than feminist theory, although most non-marxist feminists (and regrettably some marxist feminists) do utilize it.

Dude. Dude. Are you honestly telling me that in our current industrialized society, in the current year, women are under constant abuse and aggression from all directions? That they should be taught to expect such treatment on a society that isn't subject to an anomic state? Really? In what kind of fucking world do you live in niggah? Because sure as hell ain't Earth.

Factually untrue. Nearly half of the domestic abuse victims are male.

And if you say women are more abused by our society, untrue as well. Men has as much expectation and disillusionment due to them as women do, as exemplified multiple times in this thread.

I think this is a matter of semantics at this point. Capitalism very successfully adopted and integrated patriarchal organizational features - whether or not you still want to refer to them as patriarchal is sort of secondary if the remedy offered is the same from both of us.

Domestic labor is women's work, but not because woman is an ahistorical pre-existing class but because in service of capital the coherent class of "woman" was created / made captive in order to reproduce labor power in the home sphere. It's much easier to keep workers' interests fractured and segmented if you force specific fictive identity groups into specific laboring roles as it becomes naturalized and unquestionable. Of course commodity fetishism is at work here, and that work is done with the help of strictly delineated gender roles concerning who does what labor where for what pay.

Like a different user and I were saying above, it's different by class and nationality. It's more acceptable to be violent and domineering with women and other men if you're a poor or non-white man, whereas this is taboo in public in wealthier liberal circles. Also like I said, as a result of an increasingly "tolerant" "progressive" Western society, male violence is increasingly mediated through acceptable venues such as sports in addition to public social acts of masculinity such as aggression with potential partners, catcalling, sexual dominance that bleeds into non-consensual assault. An act of violence is only liable to ruin a man's livelihood if it's both made public and sufficiently egregious. Look at all of the recent celebrity rape cases that have gotten off with minimal or zero jail time because he was "just a boy in a bad situation". Most DV and rape victims never report for fear of stigma, disbelief, and worse even more extreme violence from their partners. Even public brawling is rarely a reason for a man to lose his job or social standing.

I was actually just on r/socialism to see how bad it was and I'll half agree with you there (it's pretty fucking bad). I hardly think the brocialist handle is completely the fault of "feminism" as specter, and I think you'd be hardpressed to find that the other two examples are the fault of feminism alone rather than the general neoliberal decline into identity politics.

Maybe. I find Foucault useful at times, and I really don't think most third wave feminism is even passingly familiar with either of the authors.

That still doesn't answer the question. Why bring an unneeded ideological subset into the fight, if the end result will be generalized emancipation? It just works to divide the proletariat.

A fairly standard one for half the global population. Today alone I was screamed at, followed down the street, and at one point almost cornered by men on the way to the bookstore a mile away in a not "sketchy" part of town, and maybe an hour ago my friend called me panicking because she was genuinely terrified that her ex-boyfriend who had stalked and threatened her before was going to come to her house about a bullshit fight they'd recently had. You're taught to accept it, and it's just background static that makes you panic and self-monitor constantly. I've been physically assaulted several times just walking from my subway stop to home, every single one of my friends has been assaulted, raped, or both, by partners and acquaintances and strangers alike, numerous times, and I'm frankly surprised when I meet women who don't have at least one story about physical abuse at the hands of some male figure, and you expect to be sexually harassed and threatened at work and school. Fun, right?

Sure. This doesn't paint the entire picture though - of the 1/3 women and 1/4 men who suffer DV, women experience more severe violence (1/5 vs 1/7), many more kinds of DV (1/7 women vs. 1/18 men have been stalked, whereas 1/5 women vs. 1/71 men have been raped by a partner or acquaintance), and overwhelmingly women who experience DV are much more likely to actually die as a result (only 5 percent of intimate partner murder-suicides result in the death of a man, and only 5 percent are perpetrated by women). To this, the difference in types of DV between men and women is striking - women are much more likely to endure physical violence on top of emotional and verbal violence, whereas men endure less physical violence and more of the latter. I'm not saying men don't suffer violence, and women aren't ever violent, but that MOST of the time men are the perpetrators, and MOST of the time women are the victims, and the differences between the types of violence are important, and its counterproductive and delusional to pretend as if there's not any differences.

Expectation and disillusionment aren't material disenfranchisement or abuse, sorry, and any negative repercussions men experience definitely aren't women's fault.

Because it's absurd to suggest that there's zero differences between the way men and women exist within capitalism. Frankly I don't think that the end of wage slavery and private property would still result in a patriarchal looking set up as a lot of socialist feminists do, but it's anti intellectual and lazy to just gloss over the differences.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with socialist feminism or even people that focus on the issues that affect exclusively or predominantly female members of the working class so long as they understand that the abolition of class is ultimately the only means of true emancipation.

Real feminism is using guns and armor to protect a girl's school in the middle east from the Taliban.

Real feminism is educating every single woman on Earth about birth control, and funding organizations that give it away to the poorest of the poor.

Real feminism is teaching women how to make a living themselves so they can afford independence.

First-world "feminism" is a bunch of narcissistic con artists and gossipers making molehills into mountains in order to market themselves.

I just got into a massive fight with a high school gendersnowflake friend tonight about how I'm supposedly a racist sinner for being a Marxist-Leninist because somehow, in some insane way, Marx supports colonialism? Or obscures "marginalized" economic systems? I have no idea, but this was timely and thank you for it.

The best advice you'll get about discussing gender politics here is not to even try. It's reddit-tier, at best. In fact, I've found discussing it at all with politically engaged people of any stripe is an exercise in futility and frustration.

You want to talk gender politics, find some apathetic normies to do it with and you have a chance to get a non-bullshit response.

Do it in places like this and you'll see exactly what you see in this thread - people form up along tribal lines then spend a lot of time talking past each other, willfully misunderstanding other positions, throwing around clever-sounding insults and making up laughably transparent fabricated personal anecdotes to support their tribal position.

It sounds like she's never read a word of marx and is operating entirely on meme-tier hearsay she probably absorbed from her friends.

1st part
No, thank you

No, thank you, part deux. Also, for every count of violence in which women are more likely to to suffer at home, men are more susceptible at other places, like rape of male inmates, so on and so forth, as the many figures in this thread were given to display it. Like I said; suffering olympics? no thank you

I never said it was the women's fault. That links to the second point

2nd part

It's not the women's fault, like I said earlier. It's the capitalist exploitation system's that we were born into, fault. Do you wanna point out the different aspects in which a certain subset of the population suffer under it? Please, by all means, do so. The discussion can only be enriched by detailing the material conditions generated by the capitalist system, but please, don't turn into an identity. It only serves to divide the proletariat.

Empirical data that describes actual real differences in the way violence is materially experienced and deployed =/= suffering Olympics, lol.

This is the point. You can't describe the former without referring to the latter. Is capitalism and class hierarchy to blame for both? Of course. But it doesn't make any sense to describe the different ways different groups experience it and just savagely protest about making them into identities, because that's precisely what they are and that's what capital's continued existence requires.

This is essentially my thought as well.

On the topic of feminism generally, I think most leftypol'ers here would agree with what this dude said before he wrote this post. We don't just want gender equality here at Holla Forums, we want people unburdened by the weight of identities that they bring to the table inherently.

You're a woman? Cool, that doesn't say the least bit about you. You're gay, trans, white, black? Fine, because we are all human here. More importantly, we are all proletarians who need to work together to survive. That means leaving whatever identity you have at the door and working with each other. That is socialist revolution.

So again, I'm with the post I'm quoting. Men suffer very unique downsides under capitalism, why in the fuck don't feminists advocate for "meninism"? I ask this in jest because it's ridiculous and counterproductive. It's like slaves, half of whom were beaten by the master's fists and half of whom were whipped forming different groups to address these two forms of oppression.

"Well we gotta make sure he can't strike us with his hands first!"

"Wait, we have to get rid of the whip, it's the only way!"

How about we just get rid of the fucking master and his status. End capitalism, end the economic power capitalists have over the rest of humanity whether it be female or male or whatever. It's *the only way*, because ending capitalism is literally the only way forward right now for every single group you want to throw at me and point out their unique oppression.

But you're turning it into a suffering olympics. You say "Women suffer more due to this and this and this under these circumstances" and I say "Men suffer from the and just as bad in this other set of circumstances". How is that not a suffering olympic?

Yes, you can describe it without turning it into an identity. You describe the material conditions without rallying for that particular subset of people when the generalized emancipation from the bourgeois would do it just as much.

The first part of your post is useless anecdotes and the second part are just numbers you're asking us to take your word on, hardly "empirical data."

Feminists don't advocate for "meninism" because they are correct in identifying the fact that women suffer more frequently, with more extreme consequences, in a much broader variety of contexts than men do. It makes sense. The inevitable secondary refrain - that "men suffer because of patriarchy too" - also makes sense, and it's in the right direction, but yes, it's wrong fundamentally because it just doesn't even bother to make itself aware of class. I'm arguing that it's ridiculous and fundamentally wrong to suggest that certain kinds of people don't experience capitalist exploitation in specific ways, not that either because of their identity they stand to benefit or not from the eradication of class society, and that this is where the major rift occurs between the camp that regularly points out that gender impacts the way one moves about capitalist society, and the camp that says it's all irrelevant so why discuss it at all to begin with.

An olympics implies competition, which is the polar opposite of what I've been trying to illustrate: that there are just plain and simple differences between how men and women are exploited, and it's important to get to why this is the case.

But you're competing! You just said that women are more abused than men are, that they are worse. My god, how blind can one be.

ok

...

...

Idpol cancer tbh.
The working class has no gender and no race, idpol is stupid counterproductive nonsense, any division of the working class is a bad one.
We don't need Bill Baileys with their special snowflake brands of "socialism+", if there is any kind of "patriarchy" in a society with no class and no private property (protip: there won't be) then we can address that democratically then.

Minism?

I am anti-ID politics but I support Feminism in general. Oppression of women is real in capitalism and I don't see a problem with acknowledging that and fighting it while also trying to destroy the capitalist system as a whole.

You hit the nail on the head, unfortunately.

As things are currently I am concerned how third wave feminist SJW's are a threat to equality and real issues relating to women or men both from their stances and how their stances make a joke out of the real issues.

making me explain the joke/10.

meninism;
1. n., an abbr. of 'men's feminism' of the tumb1r kind. which is to say male supremacy, literately the Patriarchy as landwhales imagine it, created as a response to bad feminism by angry kv neckbirds i.e. us.
2. adj. literally worse than Hitler.

Feminsim
Do you see how slutty this is ?

Beautiful trips

That's just false.40% of one sided domestic violence is done by women

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Patriarchy is nothing more than a semantic trick at this point. It is calling something that is not patriarchy "patriarchy" in order to justify the fiction of patriarchy.

No, it is not. It is the work of whoever happens to be back from work at the moment. It is a concern that is secondary to waged labor. There is a distinct cause and purpose to the invisibility of domestic labor, and that is the primacy of waged labor. The first and second wavers made the mistake of treating waged labor as if it were emancapatory instead of the very relationship that produced the oppression that they were fighting against.

That is simply not true. It may be an ideal, but it is not a practical reality. Now, watch the ideal change as the obliteration of the proletarian nuclear family concludes.

Accepability is a secondary concern, and we will find that it is changing to better match the current reality. The opportunity for men to be violent is severely curtailed. Curiously, women tend to be less limited.

Let us not forget that likely a similar number of them are men. This issue is not as gendered as we are led to believe.

No, it is the fault of canny propaganda artists. Feminists just circulate and progagate it.

The IWW and the CPUSA were not neoliberal before. They were communists. Thier platforms have changed to accommodate feminist and alphabet activism. Neoliberalism was not really a thing when the first wavers hijacked labor. They were still in pre-New Deal liberalism.

He was an innovator, but one must take care to keep in mind the philosophical idealism that underpins his ideology.

Of course not, but they do ignorantly follow an ideology based on their geneological method.

What a steaming pile of shit.

bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/arrests/index.cfm#

If you ever find that the only people who are open to your ideology are the people who know nothing about it and have no well-formed opinions, then what you have is an ideology that can not stand up to scrutiny.

Oh look, it is plebbit cancer pushing this bullshit again: reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4qcxmk/what_does_rsocialism_think_about_leftypol/

And you are irrelevant politically, I´m not gonna stop calling out modern feminism to spare the feelings of the few feminists that aren´t awful.

He forgot to call us reactionaries and edgy and all the other buzzwords that mean "disagrees with my opinions."

It is enough to differentiate between them.

Talk about missing the point.

Don't confuse tumblr with the real world. Most feminists keep to themselves.

I did not miss it. I turned it around on you.

Sweetheart I live in Sweden.

I think you need to come out of your cave.

holy fug comr8

It wasn't even my post. But no, you didn't turn it around. The point was about people with entrenched ideology being stubborn. They even cited reddit (bastion of SJWism according to you) as an example.

What the hell is this even supposed to mean? Are you retarded?

/r socialism shills confirmed

Wealthsplaining describes most economics perfectly tho

Ah to be young and naive again…

We are pointing out that "tumblr feminism" isn´t something that is solely confined to tumblr, it bleeds out to the real world.

I for example live in Sweden, the country that prouds itself on having a "feminist foreign policy" while selling arms to Saudi-Arabia. A country where the former party leader of the communist party created a pure idpol party called the "Feminist initiative" that refuses to take a stance on the left/right spectrum and was 1% off from entering parliament in the latest election.

You might live in some shit-hole where this is stuff is irrelevant, but many of us have to deal with this idpol bullshit in our real lives.

Gender politics is toxic, ironically.

It's not asinine, it's just the truth. Men in women are different and are social classes are different. Emancipation from Capital means not ignoring the problem evident in this thread, and facing it full on.

Men and women facing different social AND capitalistic problems is just reality.

I'm well aware that some SJWs do stupid shit in real life, are you aware that there are millions of feminists who don't?

As much as I hear about SJWs in Sweden I don't buy that it's become the matriarchal dystopia you describe it as. But even if that was the case, the rest of the world is not like that.

By the way, I hate ID politics as well but that's not the same as implying that Feminists are inherently bad.

None of that is Marxist feminism and you really shouldn't bring it up as Marxist feminism. It's liberal feminism just like there are fucking liberals. To be honest I'm really fucking mad none of this is going through your skulls.

Do you even fucking read any kind of Communist work? Women's rights and this enterprise have been linked at the hip since the very beginning. Just as liberalism co-opts the struggles and accomplishments we've made.

It is though. If the liberals do something in conflict with leftism, you will side with the liberals. You might make unhappy noises at the liberals about it but you will still close ranks with them against the rest of us. You're trying to claim a distinction that absolutely does not exist in practice.

Nope.

Nope.

Fuck off

If you don't read the work of the radical left itself, you shouldn't be here.

You realize I can just go to reddit to see how utterly full of shit you are?

millions my ass, you have zero impact in modern feminism, just accept that modern feminism is liberal feminism.

I never said that, I´m just saying liberal feminism/tumblr feminism a real force in the world, and you seem to want to deny that.

I cant help you if reality upsets you, that is something you have to deal with it.

But seriously, that post wasn´t in reference too Marxist feminism, So I dont see what makes you so upset.

So you want to go on liberal fucking reddit to prove there are liberals in feminism, when I'm telling you liberal feminists exist en masse. What are you even trying to say.

Likewise, I cannot help you if you get involved with collectivism that's always had a history with fighting for women's since day one.

It gets me upset because by painting feminism as an entirely liberal affair, which for the most part today it unfortunately is, you paint the more radical aspects of us with the same brush. As evidenced in this thread, people are confused as to what material feminism is.

It's bullshit because it puts us further into the position of having to walk on eggshells to get our own point across, removing women from a social movement that has largely accompanied them every step of the way.

I'm saying you are a lying turd.

Everyone on reddit is a liberal. Do not cherry pick from reddit.

KEK

Why are you involved with collectivism if you haven't even read enough to get the picture it's heavily involved with women's rights and always has been

I already admitted that some liberal feminists have a negative impact on the world. My point is that the majority don't.

washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/poll/

6 in 10 American women and 3 in 10 men call themselves Feminist. There are millions in America alone. Since you don't even understand the most basic facts about Feminism I'm not going to bother discussing this with you any more.

I'd rather not deny comrades like that. I'd rather not fight against them either. I'd rather just educate them how and why Marxism and Feminism has always overlapped.

Except for the Holla Forumsyps that wander in here, we are all for gender equality, we just dont like how the idpol divides us.

Who said anything about removing women? Why are conflating women and feminism?

I´m in severe emotional distraught

PS. That poll is loose enough that I would have been categorized as a feminist if I took it, try to suppress your triggering.

No, it doesn't. Feminism has nothing to do with Gender Equality.

Because women and feminism go hand in hand in collectivist struggle.

I'm not trying to use "idpol to devide us", or whatever, I'm trying to start a conversation about it. Which of course, is going to have its problems. But this is more just about trying to show people who don't know what feminism is within Marxism, what it is. So at least if you're criticizing it, you critique the right aspects of it that might need critique.

For example, this guy.

He's saying that gender equality has been a part of the collectivist cause since the beginning. While this is true, more often than not, it's been feminism. Since the 19th century.

This is just sad. Look up any poll you want the results are always the same - a huge proportion of men and women call themselves feminist. Easily into the millions. Are you just incapable of admitting when you're wrong?

And a huge portion of them are liberals who still don't want women's emancipation from Capital in any significant way.

I suppose so. But is that a good excuse to dismiss feminism as a whole?

I'm not dismissing feminism I'm the OP.

What's your point then? That we need to reform Feminism? I can agree to that.

If you don't like that aspect of collectivism go fucking home.

Nice Charlie and the Chocolate Factory metaphor. It's deep.

Currently reading The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir. Getting to the end of it.

On one hand it is a really good read, many enlightening statements, facts, opinions. Good to read something that I had no or different opinion on. Of course the book is rather dated now and many things have changed.

But still it left in me impression of a horror story that left me grateful for being a man. Like how the hell were all these women compliant with suppressing themselves and devoting themselves to husbands that do not fully appreciate such devotion.

It is also good that the author references herself and references already said statements, because it makes reading it really coherent and the message sinks in.

The message, marriage, and by extension society, sucks for men and women because few greedy men created rules that benefited them and their positions as men within the families. TL;DR: Shit's broken, fix it.

Definitely would recommend for others to read it too.

Next on my list is Engels' Origin of Family, Private property and the state.

We need to have a clear goal what feminism is in its relation to Capitalism, and what needs to significantly change. What isn't a minor change adopting us better into it.

You seem to have missed the part of "collectivism" where other members of the collective are under no compulsion to agree with you. You seem to think shouting and stamping your feet loudly is going to make us fall into line with your desires. No.

If you define feminsim = gender equality, then the vast majority of at least the western world would be feminist (me included), but we both know that is not all feminism is and it´s disingenuous to claim so.

Just like men and MRA go hand in hand in collectivist struggle?

A conversation is fine, but that means you have to be open to criticism.

To a certain extent yes, feminist are way to eager to appropriate some victories they had a very minor part of though (like universal suffrage)

Likewise you seemed to have missed it.

If you think that's what any of dialectical feminism is, then you aren't cut out to comment on the nuance, complexity, and subtlety of the problems collectivism sets out to fix. Not the disagreement itself.

See, it wasn't a minor part. From women in textile mills being mistreated in the Industrial Revolution to fighting for our rights to vote, to fighting for our ability to be treated equal in all ways, communist activism has worked to strengthen ourselves.

And as of now, liberal feminism has won out.

From Emma Goldman, to Rosa Luxemburg to Mother Jones, etc., we've all had significant roles in this, contributing. And critiquing. I don't feel like ignoring the accomplishments and thought these women have to offer to us, because it is true.

I think that the problem that many here have is that, while both men and women experience our reality differently, both the cause of their problems and the solution to it are exactly the same. Why is a distinct feminism a necessary part of the movement when it appears to be both divisive and redundant?

You've already been shown to be dishonest. There's a huge amount of disagreement for an majority of posters on the board. You're still here stamping your feet though, because you can't accept we're not going to swallow this stuff like reddit did.

You don't need us to describe as "feminists" to accomplish your goals. You could just present issues on a case by case basis. The reason you want to force this label on everyone is because you want to assert the primacy of your ideology and establish power over others.

Irrelevant bullshit PC culture idpol. Not even economics matter as much as the State and its powerstructure.

I never tried to make any sweeping claims about feminism. That's been my whole point. You can't make any sweeping claims about it because it encompasses so many people and they all have slightly different beliefs and agendas. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. But the primary principle of it, the desire for equality, is good.

So it is a meaningless buzzword.

Because since the fertile crescent, women have been treated unfairly, to say the fucking least. These ideas are just excused as "human nature", and that's fucking bullshit. we need to critique the parts of our society that looks to diminish us into being fucked in inseminated into being factories for children as our destiny.

We need to look at the ways our own work, our own labor, be it in the "household", or anywhere else, we need to see why it happens, and ultimately find ways of fixing it.

Because there are uncomfortable parts of our world that might make others angry at our seeming anger ta them, but regardless none of this is going to get fixed by ignoring it and letting it go on.

If we are to fight for the equality of all people of all creeds under the banner of the collective, the other half of the human race must also admit its ill treatment.

Because Capital has always, and will always, take advantage of the culture we live in to degrade our own struggles. The life of a girl, of a woman, should not be spending puberty coming to terms that men stare at you, grown men. That you'll be submissive to them, and pregnant. And have your family push you into that. It fucks you up dealing with that as a minor.

It shapes your perception of things to come into being more willing to fight, and it always has since the 19th century.

The issues between sexes shouldn't be ignored for liberal peace and liberal harmony, they should be brought to the forefront as well in order to change the world to a better place for both of us.

ITT: Literal tumblr-tier SJWism

Fuck off. This has been part of it since the beginning. Marx and Engels commented on it thoroughly, Lenin spoke of it, everyone fought for it before anyone else in capitalist society has. And there's a strong fucking reason why capital wants women's complacency.

And men have been treated as disposable body-bags since the fertile crescent, does that mean we need a meninist movement?

Suffering olympics, again.

Nowhere have I said war isn't an issue men have faced, nor have I said my own struggle out weighs yours. They are a difference of struggle. You are the one saying your own far out weighs ours.

Is socialism a meaningless buzzword? They have roughly the same amount of ambiguity.

No, it's not. You just can't fucking read for shit and need to always make this suffering olympics. Not us. If you can't admit to yourself that our struggles are largely different, and you are the average, we have no future besides liberal disregarding of our elements of class struggle.

Issues are not more or less, they are different shades.

I said no such thing,I´m just asking if we need a movement to handle the unique way women have suffered thanks to their gender role, do we also need a moment to handle the way men have suffered thanks to there gender role?

That had more to do with the Triangle Fire and all of Manhattan watching people burn to death on the top floor of a building than it did about activism.

They did that, and good on them for it. Democracy is an essential feature of worker enancipation. Too bad the immediate result was prohibition. And too bad that liberal democracy is s sham.

No doubt many of our feminists did so, and, again, good on them for it. Now capitalism is a little less awful than it was.

Pick one.

I don't know. I don't think so. Largely, I think the biggest element of your own sex's struggle was war. Or, the draft, of any war. That's gone.

I think the problem is our own problems are specialized and specific and seem like whining to any man, but they're not, they're deep seated psychological ones. I think men's issues are more generalized, which is not to say more or less, it is to say, they are more directly involved with the struggle of labor and classes. While our problems, though more and more within the realm of labor, are also cultural.

That isn't suffering olympics that's just stating facts. Nobody is saying men don't suffer, or that you suffer more or less than women, just that the suffering of the sexes are different under capital, because the sexes are different. I don't know why I have to explain this 20 times.

For the longest time in human history we existed only to be inseminated and we only existed as objects of sexual pleasure or gratification, trophies. The elements of this binding still exist today in their own ways, like it or not. And we have to overcome them.

Yes, it is suffering olympics and I don't think you're as so stupid as to not see that.
Let's take your statement:

Who were they treated unfairly by? There's a clear implication as to who was responsible for the unfair treatment and it's not bees, bears or manatees who are the guilty party, is it? That is suffering olympics.

You keep pulling a motte and bailey. You claim it's not about suffering olympics then immediately proceed to make suffering olympics claims such as the above.

Men still make up 99% of the military worldwide, Many states still have drafts for men. In addition to that…

-men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths
-men are the majority of suicides
-men make up the majority of the homeless
-men are failing all throughout the education system
-men are the biggest victims of rape in the US
-men are far more likely to be homicide victims
-men have sorter lifespan then women worldwide
-men face massive discrimination in the legal system.

So by your logic, wouldn´t MRA be a natural part of the collectivized struggle for men?

You just said that in this post!

We are not dealing with pre-feudal slave societies. We are dealing with modern capitalism. It does no good to fight dead people's battles.

That is not a real threat. Women are not being treated like baby factories in the economic center; they are being treated like wage slaves. This does happen in the pre-industrial periphery, but that is due to high birth rates serving as a survival mechanism, not a function of ideology.

We already have a way to fix it: collective ownership and worker control of the means of production. We do not need to find new ways, just implement the one that we know will work.

Yes, we know. The problem and the solution are the same for both men and women. Again, feminism seems redundant.

So is every element of your struggle.

No it fucking isn't, that's stating the issues women have. Have you even commented on the fucking literature and work and effort of the past? How could you read fucking any of it without bitching about "suffering olypmics" as some vague generalized term. In any of this, from anarchist to leninist to any of the struggles for class consciousness.

You couldn't have. So you haven't read it. You only the shallowest understanding of it, it seems.

Men were yes. Just as men make their own sex suffer through war, as stated. We've gone through our own share of abuse disguised.

Bullshit.

Yes, and never did I say that wasn't part of emancipation from fucking Capital! Any of it wasn't! What aren't you getting what I'm saying? This is so frustrating making me out to be the evil fucking person when I'm for the rights of all of us.

Here's another statistic, one in five women in the United States have been molested in their lives, and don't tell anyone about it. You've met women in that position, for all you know it could have been your own mother. It gets worse elsewhere. This isn't mentioning domestic abuse

No, it wasn't.

We need to fix the problems that still exist because it does not guarentee the issues between sexes culturally are gone. In order for this to fully work, all issues must be on the table.

It isn't redundant because our own forms of labor aren't recognized or dealt with. I'm not saying that we existed as we did in the past, thank fucking god. I'm saying that the echoes of that exist culturally within Capital.

And like you said that is collective ownership and worker control of the means of production. But in order to get there, we also must speak on how Capital effects us as well, in its own way. It is still different, though today, largely similar.

This makes it somewhat easier, but again, denying it only makes it worse.

Part of this was meant for

Yes it is.

Crack open the fucking work itself then come back to properly respond instead of fucking avoiding it.

It's like a nazi coming here calling themselves a nazi but saying they don't want any of the extreme hitler-y stuff, they just want "reasonable, leftist nati0nal socialism".

I think most people here support women's rights just as much as they support the rights of every other human on the planet. We want nothing to do with the labels and rhetoric of tumblr though. To allow a serious "feminist" movement to exist on leftypol would be to invite hordes of extremists from both tumblr and Holla Forums. If you want "feminism" without bigotry, just call it egalitarianism and be done with it.

I´m not making you out to be evil, I'm just asking if MRA is natural part of the collectivized struggle for men? If the genders face unique oppression shouldn´t we then have two (or more depending on how many genders you accept) movements to cover all bases then?

Comparing that and feminism is completly unfair.

I don't want to be associated with their liberal rhetoric either.

I'd say, you're more than partly right. But that doesn't make it fair, I'd rather talk about it under different terms than feminism. I just want us to quit fighting over it. Like I'm whenever I talk of Emma Ihrer or anyone else.

Feminism is not bigotry, it's the right to our own maturation and maternity, and what being a woman is. Not the right of any capital, labor, not the right of fucking anyone except for ours. It's combating the cultural elements within our world that make us reliant on liberal acceptance, and it's always been about that. We are going back towards fighting for liberal acceptance, and it's bullshit.

I think collectivist idea is in a way, a men's rights movement. But that's me. If you think you can argue your case, I myself don't see a problem with it. If you can make it fit with everything, denial of it would be liberal.

No, it really isn't. Both are utterly cancerous to the left.
It's clear you're more wedded to the word "feminism" than you are to any ideals of equality. Call it egalitarianism or fuck off.

Typical feminist response: "Disagreement is ignorance". Back to plebbit, now.

This is why you abolish capitalism first so you could see whats left, how would you fix any issue that you don't know will be there after capitalism?

This a problem and women face, men keeping it themselves because it is seen as weak to tell anyone about it.

So are you saying this is culturally a thing, like rape culture?

Qualitatively changing the mode of production does guarantee that those specific issues will be gone. Culture is determined by material conditions, not some moot geneological social formula. New ones may arise. Now, if you want to try to engineer socialism in such a way that gender dynamics are a certain way I can see the value in doing so. Do you have some ideas for how that might be accomplished?

…by capitalism, which we are killing. The solution to feminist problems seems to be not specifically feminist.

People need to see that capital does affect them. Once they do, the nature of that relationship is made apparant.

Wow.

Feminism has done more for the left than you hope to realize. The comparison isn't great, you could have done without it.

I've said before and I say again, Reddit's UI is atrocious and even if I could I'd never fucking go there because the UI gives me a migraine

This isn't a guarentee it. It should be brought to the table within the abolition of Capital so there isn't anything left going in that could jeopardize everything we've worked for, in that hypothetical scenario. In fact, ignoring it might make it worse, because once we're there, criticism of a state in that way would be shut out for a long time.

No not like "rape culture" or any other liberal fucking term like that. I'm saying that women have culturally been the weaker sex and in order for us to thrive we must be allowed strength. Many of our aspects are reliance and ownership between men and women, and much of it is subtle. But it is there, in how capital works. It's always encouraged it.

The right to our own self determination by the elimination of the cultural ideas capital pushes. For most of all, that children are our destiny as is motherhood. Capital wants that position for women, for many reasons. Consumerist, liberal, complacent. I'm not doing that great of a job, but this is the last bit of hurdle to over come socially.

...

epic

"Rights" are a poor goal to strive for, because they are always had by the permission of a central authority. What should be your goal is opportunity. Opportunity can be secured by establishing an economic system in which an individual is able to chose between different activities. Opportunities provide agency where rights merely grant permissions.

That is already changing in capitalism. Birth rates in the economic center are plummeting, and they are doing so because there is no economic incentive to have children there. It looks like capital has already given you what you want. If you are concerned for the periphery, so am I, but once again the issue is an economic one. Procreation is essential to survival there.

None of this constitutes a change to the nature of socialism. It is still just a critique of capitalism.

Indeed, and that's my point. It's criticizing Capital so we can both meet at, well, whatever ideal we're striving for as collectivists.

Honestly, I don't really know what to think of feminism today, or idpol in general.

I've always seen equality, which I guess is what we strive for, to be about removing the lines and taboos dividing people. In an equal society, no one gives a fuck if you're a man or a woman, black or white, or cis or trans; it's the person that matters. Are there differences between men and women? Absolutely. Just as there are differences between weak and strong, dumb and smart, ugly and pretty. All those traits define us in some way, some more than others, but they're just that: traits. There's not some massive divide between men and women that means they should be treated in some fundamentally different way.

And the way I see it, that's what a lot of idpol today does. It splits people up, puts them in little boxes, and treats them in different ways based on some random fucking circumstance of their birth. It doesn't remove the boxes, it just makes new ones, or shifts them around a little.

We're all treated shit in this system, one way or another, and treating one arbitrary group or another differently won't change anything.

We are striving for the elimination of capitalism. At least I hope that we are. I worry that you are striving for rights and changes to cultural dynamics.

Criticism of capitalism is all well and good, but I am still not seeing how the feminist critique is not redundant. The nature of the problems that feminists decry and the solutions to them are still the same as those posited by not specifically feminist socialists. What does feminist ideology offer to socialism beyond critique of a shared enemy? Does it have any policy recommendations or prescriptions?

I'm fighting for in the larger sense what we all are, in the smaller sense the things that capital encourages women to be, so that the left over of what Capital encourages us to be, doesn't follow through. It becomes harder to deal with then.

Because capitalism always will encourage women to be in a consumerist pipe dream of the nuclear family. Our giving birth is the ultimate accomplishment of our lives, instead of our own freedom to create our own accomplishment. This is all cultural and not individual, but culture influences individuals, and we see that even the most resiliant woman and man eventually gives into this model of how things should be.

Am I saying the destruction of the nuclear family? No, but it's just one part of how capital takes the past and secularizes it, and the consequences of having capital encourage something culturally, that string should be fought.

So ultimately in the end men and women are equal and one sex isn't subservient to another. It's complicated, I'm selling it short. But Capitalism does have material interest in keeping the past status quo, it always has.

This we can work with. Now, what are you worried will live beyond capitalism?

Not after it is dead.

What it encourages for consumerist sake, such as how women work into the nuclear family, we take for granted as normal. Social conditioning from consumerism of late capital, that becomes the most trouble to deal with going forward. We love certain things because fighting against them is harder than giving into them.

Couldn't agree more. Most idpol, if not actively prejudiced, is at the very least enabling prejudice by highlighting and reinforcing the arbitrary lines which divide humans.

The mere idea wastes a young womans life. There are some women who believe in "feminism" and what they mean is equality and so on. Feminism as it is mainstream is a tumblresque parody of classic liberalism in that it pushes for more government to "give people freedoms" which can not be reconciled and is thus untenable.

Leftism as a whole is under attack and IDPOL garbage is the tool used to undermine a free and cooperative human existence.

lmao
Good, it's well worth the waste.

And so on

lol

Do you realize what you're saying is bullshit or are you just ignorant to the fact you're an ill read psued trip.

Considering you're a trip attention whore and your trip is "nationalist" I think it's fine for me to ignore your opinions.

Hear, hear. Very true.

hear hear very true

you showed just as much knowledge about the no true scotsman fallacy as the people who say socialists advocate for killing 400 gorillion and having a welfare state.
there's a difference between demonstrating someone is x and saying someone said they're x.

In a way i'm sorry about how some people seem to get triggered by any mention of feminism (though justifiably so), but i disagree with you, it's not that we (or i at least) want to remove women from the movement, it's about removing any mention of gender whatsoever, including feminism, there's a reason why neither Marx nor Engels were feminists.

BTW, it's hard to take marxist feminism seriously when they're known for great campaigns such as "International Wages for Housework Campaign", because wages is exactly what marxists want, right?

Neither do i, but i also don't feel like seeing their accomplishments as those of women but as those of people, their genders are irrelevant to me.

The ruling class makes people suffer through war today, Bush has more in common with Maggie Thatcher than he does with me. It's amazing how you can say rulers who happen to be men do such a thing as men instead of doing it as rulers (otherwise you would have said rulers or at the very least male rulers), of course there's the fact that more men are in power but that's irrelevant because women in power don't act differently as a group, whilst working class men inherently do act differently and much more like working class women, the problem isn't even this anyway, the problem is the existence of individuals in power at all and that is what marxists strive against. Intersectionality is cancer btw.
This post is a retarded mess that instead of fixing i will just drop and run away, god save anonymity.

In a way, making the difference between the rights of sexes isn't really putting anything forwards, it's the same liberal shit we've been dealing with since the beginning. It's easier just to not question the ways Capitalism effects culture and so our daily lives. Regardless it does and ignoring it is liberalism.

I'd have more respect for feminists if they'd acknowledged tfeminism has been infested with liberals

It has. I've said that throughout the thread. Capitalism becomes unstoppable seemingly so it's just easier to accommodate it. That's not what I believe it is. We didn't get this far by liberally working with Capital.

You aren't addressing what i said, i'm curious about why you think feminism as a distinct ideology is relevant to communism.

In my view communism itself already addresses any gender-based oppression.

"The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments
of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion
that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of
women as mere instruments of production."
Communism inherently advocates equality of the sexes, adding feminism with all its baggage is usually unnecessary and counterproductive, it takes away focus from the class struggle and gets in the way of class consciousness.

It does, but in order to get there, we must wrangle it to begin with. We don't get there by snapping our fingers, we discuss how the twin sexes are affected by capitalism, culturally, socially; we have to engage with it otherwise nothing gets done and you have future problem. When culture borrowed over from Capitalism can't mesh with Communism.

If you don't believe that the population group there are radicals, that's up to you and I think you're just pulling an NTS over the validity of their politics. One of the regulars over at r/anarchism is known of Holla Forums for their involvement in an anti-fash demo and is a fanatical idpol pusher.

Anyone claiming this is "liberals" doing this is flat out and very blatantly lying.

So you've never read Marx.
No.
Very true, as is the reverse.
I have a lot of sympathy for women who have been dealt a shit hand in their interpersonal relationships, but contouring the intellectual foundations of our movement around this consciousness is neither acceptable nor beneficial.

Cassius wants to talk cashing checks? Violence among anabolic steroid users is strongly correlated with the steroid's androgenic efficacy. Strength of tribalist attitudes is correlated with free testosterone. Boys are more violent and aggressive in early puberty than prepubescence. This rapid shift is not one you can explain by "socialization," an invisible unquantifiable force which is everywhere and explains everything (sound familiar?) which most of us have come to realize for the handwaving anti-materialist apologia it is. The attack is on the process of science itself.

This. Non-materialist feminism is completely silent on how these muh privileges came into being in the first place and treats them as though they were fundamental postulates of reality born of some vacuum. In that framework, it's entirely reasonable to expect muh privilege to add, if not linearly (whole is the sum of its parts,) then monotonically (being a member of a second oppressed group should never make you *less* oppressed on the whole than being a member of just the first,) The "intersection" of these muh privileges is an attempt to handwave away the fact that these assumptions do not bear out (consider the lesbian vs gay experiences in the Nazi state, for instance) and the gross internal inconsistency of these ideologies.

Finally, a material condition! Had my doubts about reading the rest of this thread, but this is a good sign. Though
Why?
Why?
It's not a question of IF these phenomena are induced by more fundamental ones but HOW. A satisfactory theory must trace them all the way down.

We don't need feminism in communist society for all the material tools of oppression well disrepair

It is that simple , now kill this IDpol shit

I don't think anything about r/anarchism, i'm just kind of skeptical about people crying NTS about ideology, more often than not it's complete bullshit. You have a point but you didn't bother with making it before.

I remember an anarcho-punk forum where most people were for gun control; a liberal r/anarchism wouldn't really surprise me, it's reddit after all.

We don't need it in communist society, you're right.

As I said, if you want don't accept the validity of their politics, that's up to you.

Yep. Right on.

All they're doing at this point is encouraging female tribalism, and supporting half-baked movements because of intersectionality which is turning feminism into a mockery of itself. You're empowering outright racialists to use the feminist movement to take out what they see as their tribal competitor (white people) to go for outright racial aggression, and they don't give a shit about justice on any level. They don't want to end the system; they just want the system tilted more in their favor. They just want to play the tribal game, and they'll just be more of the same when they get on top.

So what could you do instead?

1. Discourage and deconstruct genderism and racialism spooks.

2. Don't have any 'enemies'. What the fuck have feminists been doing? Singling out 'White males'? You're racializing and genderizing these people, shoving them away from being individuals into being spook slaves because you're making them feel like a singled out threat. And you're making the other half of idiots think that 'white males', not social constructs but actual people, are the genuine cause of all the problems in the world, and they're going out on a racial war on 'whites' and a gender war on 'men' due to a lack of judgment and an overabundance of emotion.

You don't have any enemies. Everyone is an individual. There's only spooks out there. And seriously, why are people even bothering to spread subtle ideas like this half baked? You're literally just making everyone into racialists and genderists, and birthing the old problems anew, worse than before.

And there are people out there that since you've got this narrative of 'being an oppressed person of color' they won't read or embrace ideas that they would like as individuals because of that bias that third wave feminists have implanted in them. That's oppression of them as individuals. You are oppressing people from being themselves. They can't read Kant or Hegel because Kant and Hegel were 'white males', and they feel like they have to adopt some form of tribal mysticism because it's associated with whatever arbitrary racial social construct they've had pushed on them since birth.

It just gets more and more oppressive and ridiculous as time goes on. It's like how feminists are acting like 'women' is a person and 'men' is a person, and there is a problem because of the disparity in pay between these two people, but since we have laws against gender pay discrimination no actual *individual* will be discriminated against because of their gender unless the company has a death wish to get sued.

But damn, if that spook of 'women' is making less than that spook of 'men'.. Well, we just can't have that! Because spooks are real, more real than actual people! Who gives a shit that no actual person is being specifically discriminated against, because they've got the full protection of the law on their side! Who gives a shit that these are just arbitrary fetishes for grouping people, we've got to protect these spooks, even if it means discriminating against and oppressing real actual people to achieve spooky equality.

If anything is a spook, it's probably individualism. It's one of Stirner's failings to embrace it without thinking.

As opposed to collectivism?

Yes. To say we are islands free of any kind of influence on one another is absurdity, even Stirner doesn't agree. Yet, Stirner constantly appeals to the very individual he knows can easily fall for any kind of spook. Not for any group, highly organized, but in lone individuals instead. So where exactly does he get the need for the individual person to be free of spooks? No one can do that alone. It's more emotionally appealing to see the individual as the strength to shed ideas than the group who propagates them, but I'd argue both are true. The group can spread ideologies just as easily as individuals can fall for them while thinking they are free. What then is individuality in that context, but not a spook, if it's based upon nothing but emotional reasoning?

There's more to it than just adherence to either individualism or group thought.

Amen, brother.

Maybe out of his personal empathy towards others, but the core of Stirner's philosophical body don't really seem to deal with society at large.

Oh yes I see what you mean now. Absolute individualism is likely impossible, or at least reasonably undesirable for most. To become completely hung up on the thought of being uniquely oneself at whatever the cost, is akin to sacrificing to a spook, essentially loosing onself tying to gain self-ownership. It's a fine line to walk without falling into contradiction.

That made me chuckle.

That wasn't a debate on collectivism vs. individualism. That wasn't the context of what I was talking about in the slightest. This isn't a dialectical discussion on the synthesis between the contrast of the individual and the necessary interactions we have in the world.

This is what I was pointing out in succinct language:
Ideas don't suffer. Only actual genuine people do.

It isn't the debate itself, but most of your argument stems from it. I was pointing out why it was wrong. Seeking individual worry and not actual larger commonality of self interest, to even Stirner himself, is self defeating. Because simply, Stirner would be praising women for expressing a kind of self interest. There are "spooks" at working appealing to the traditional role of things outside of that self interest.

The waters between what is group and what is individual become muddy here, and it shows that one cannot simply only ascribe to Stirner's logic of spooks, it becomes to contradictory when applied to greater situations. Not to devalue Stirner's work in his time at all, however.

Stop stop stop stop. Women.

Women.

Women is not a person. Women isn't a universal grouping of anything. We don't have the 'people with green eyes' groups running around celebrating their solidarity. 'Women' is just as arbitrary. It's just as ridiculous; the difference is that you've been socialized into thinking that it is somehow not crazy. That is a fetish.

I am talking about the larger commonality of self interest. I'm talking about literally everyone.

That's what I mean, 'You don't have any enemies. It's all just spooks.' You're not standing up for people; you're standing up for a spook. I took the dialectic to a higher level and you're in tribalism land, and I'm moving on to communism.

Come with me, the people up here are nice. Everybody is friends.

And here you are generalizing women as a whole anyways regardless of your condemnation of me for doing it as such. By claiming it is all self interest.

"Self interest" and "woman" as generalizations are just symbols equal to one another. If we are to abstract yourself, ourselves, from them, we reach a level where words hardly apply.

Why worry about that? It is already dying, and capitalism is not even gone yet. There has to be more than this. We need examples.

If we are to go into the grittier detail you will no doubt get angry at me for bringing up, the statistics of being taken against our will and subject to dehumanizing violence and abuse.

Which I should say, is not in the West alone. I mean worldwide, very much so.

We already engaged it. Hell, Engels engaged it. We recognize the problem. We even have a solution. We are beyond the point where engaging it is in any way useful.

Right now I am considerably more irritated by the fact that feminism as you present it is entirely redundant than I would be by some liberal international organization's statistics. For the love of god, give us an example of something that might become a problem with socialism.

No. I am not. I don't see women as a group of anything. How did that 'people with green eyes' example run past you?

You can group people any way you want to. When game master pen and pencil rpgs coming up with social constructs is literally something you play around with like a god.
That shit is all a fool's game.

'I am talking about the larger commonality of self interest.' - I used your own words to ironically point out I'm talking about something bigger, which encompasses everyone…

I'm not generalizing anything to women; I can't. I don't group people that way. I think 'women' is a bullshit idea.

That's what not buying into idpol means.

Even class consciousness is just a tool to bring around a necessary revolution… After that it's done; it's gone; you get rid of it. Everybody is just people.

Early 21st-century feminism is too often about empowering the police state and allowing the state to encroach on civil liberties, that's why don't support feminism.

You're not mine either.

I think there is a difference to be made between men and women. For example, let's say outside of anatomy. One has been subject to rape more, domestic abuse more, violence more, and has been subjugated throughout history compared to men.

This isn't identity politics this is looking at what capital brings and encourages through its various means.

In order to bring that about, ignoring the plight of the women of the world is pointless. We do it together to end this all or it doesn't happen.

When mothers are safe feminism, and all of us, win. People are people.

youtu.be/T3wcxHiorJ4

So quit fucking dividing us. Feminism is the splitter here.

⊥

Post your dong.

Feminism is the only thing that has kept collectivism sane from ignoring how women suffer throughout the world, otside the west for the most part, but definitely within it.

Until we find a way to deal with the inherited violence Capitalism brings and does nothing of, any kind of attempt at collectivism is giving women a promise that this all still occurs, but we're equal now.

I don't see that as acceptable. The safety of everyone is my primary concern, if the ideal communism is to be brought, feminism would have to be part of it.

Let's bring more uncomfortable situations. Between September 2001 and June 2012, nearly 6,500 American troops were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; during that same period, more than 11,700 women died in acts of domestic violence and spousal crimes of passion.

This is however, in the United States alone.

Ok.
Now:
How many Afgans and Iraqis were killed? How many of them civilians?
Ho many people were killed in traffic accidents, in the US alone?
How many men dies of "spousal crimes of passion"? Why is "domestic violence" on the same category as "I killed my wife cause I cought her in bed with my best friend, my name is Lee Everet from TT's walking dead"?

Am not saying this doesn't happen, or that this is not a problem.

Am saying that 11000 is not a big number FOR THE US and that 6500 is not a big number FOR A WAR.

I dissagree with Stalin.
A single death is statistic.
A million deaths is a tragedy.

Yes, those 11000 were single deaths.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/535488.stm

And I'm not saying women's death from this is greater than all deaths, I'm saying it's indicative of a problem. Just as all you linked are also problems.

Problems we have to face to make this world better.

These statistics are of the United States alone.

82% of all juvenile victims are female. 90% of adult rape victims are female.

Females ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

Women ages 18-24 who are college students are 3 times more likely than women in general to experience sexual violence. Females of the same age who are not enrolled in college are 4 times more likely.

In order for this all to work, these systemic problems must be confronted and helped in order to achieve what both of us want out of collectivism. We have to fix what's broken in order to live in a society that is at all fixed and worth fighting for.

One feminist says something. Ok. Thanks.

Ye, ok. That's normal. Not gettting raped. The fact that it's females. Though, the question of how many are reported is also a parameter.
However, if 9 out of 10 animals who died of an illness in a farm are cows, but only 20 out of 200 cows died.. … .eer.. that's not a big number… it's not an epidemic…

And because the well has been poisoned I could answer "what is sexual assault?".
But I'll not and I'll say "teens are more probably gonna get involved in unfortunate situations". YOU DON'T SAY!!!

Ye,
A) "sexual violence"
B) this "statistic" has become a meme.

To fix a problem:
A) A problem has to exist.
B) You need to know how big the problem is. You don't cut a leg, for a toe with gangrene. You cut AT MOST part of the foot.
C) Fix the source of the problem, lack of sex ed, vicimization of sex, male and female youngsters having false ideas and expectations, and not just "teach men not to rape" and other BS.

All these FIRST OF ALL demand for the removal of the Nomenklature in the feminist "community (?)".

As long as there are people who's sole purpose in life is to create "this is why I need feminism", feminism will be becoming more and more a joke.

Regardless of liberal's existing being influenced by them or what they create towards actual study of this, for the express purpose of marxism, shouldn't be seen as the same. As always in leftism, there are those true to its philosophies and there are liberals.

The main difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism lies in the different goals of the two ideologies. Liberal feminists aim to make life more comfortable for oppressed individuals within the confines of the present system with little emphasis on doing much to dismantle the current power structure, while radical feminists seek to tear the whole system out and rebuild in a non-oppressive model so that social subjugation ceases to exist entirely.

Yes, you see, thing is, same as with socialism and so on, liberals have become "radicals" and radicals are not heard any more.

You could even say that "Radicals" of today don't realy care as much for change as for their "Ideology".

And this is the Nomenklatura.

Unfortunately so.

The implication is that men are horrible monsters. Yes, systemic problem is just a thinly veiled substitute for men and the internet is plastered with your argument made in that far more honest fashion. The women who created this argument also solved the problem: they became separatists.

Nope.

Yes, let's just ignore the fact it's happening because the essence of the matter is women are raped more and that makes us all uncomfortable.

I don't want separatism, I want unity.

And my problem is, that while we will rent our clothes when liberals are presented as "socialists", in feminism you don't see much countering happening. You rather see a "sisterhood" forming.

Ideas as they used to be, radical, do not exist as much. And I do not know why, but I can attribute it to the rise of liberal feminism, but also the rise of counter to feminism not seen in a long great while. Now we are afraid mostly, to speak up about how they feel on the internet. It's seen as a waste of time, as everyone fights and nobody wins.

I'm being a bit more open minded, since we're all comrades here.

This is mostly for two reasons. One, women tend to do that, especially when the loud vocalizations of the internet are not to speak up about how you feel. By limiting that, it is also encouraged that women speak together on these issues instead of going out and speaking with people who would yell at them for it until both are exhausted. For us, it's almost an irrational hatred.

You women miss all the fun! The passion of cursing at eachother for matter you have no control over! The strugling toghether!

Also, add to that the americanocentrism about "race" and "ID pol", that's used to divide and conquer.

Another outright lie. Who are we supposed to think is doing all this raping? Hamsters? Dolphins?

Rape is just a specific form of interpersonal violence. The only reason the numbers end up the way they do is because of quirks in our biology. You simply want to use this as a rhetorical bludgeon. My experiences of coerced sexual activity and other forms of violence have led me to conclude that coerced sexual activity is by far the least unpleasant and feminist are again lying when they make a big deal about it.

"Unity"? The right to absolute power over me is "Unity"?

How about this? We kill the capitalism.

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all.

Men, yet I do not call you a monster, and I trust you that you aren't. Just as you trust I am not a murderer. I never make any claim towards this that you are, as an individual person, evil.

You know I always say, better to kill someone than leave them psychologically scarred crying every night alone feeling hatred towards every fold of skin on our bodies, post traumatic stress.

Blame it on good ol' human nature mothers become broken.

About the need of us to change the way this world works, yes.

94% of women who are raped experience post-truamatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the two weeks following the rape.

30% of women report PTSD symptoms 9 months after the rape.

33% of women who are raped contemplate suicide

13% of women who are raped attempt suicide.

Approximately 70% of rape or sexual assault victims experience moderate to severe distress, a larger percentage than for any other violent crime.

That is exactly correct.

Moreover about blame; it is vain to apportion praise and blame. The truth is that if the vicious circle is so hard to break, it is because the two sexes are each the victim at once of the other and of itself. Between two adversaries confronting each other in their pure liberty, an agreement could be easily reached: the more so as the war profits neither. But the complexity of the whole affair derives from the fact that each camp is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; woman is pursuing a dream of submission, man a dream of identification. Want of authenticity does not pay: each blames the other for the unhappiness he or she has incurred in yielding to the temptations of the easy way; what man and woman loathe in each other is the shattering frustration of each one's own bad faith and baseness.

...

youtu.be/BlL2W2F3nlA

>reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4qcxmk/what_does_rsocialism_think_about_leftypol/
A few gems:

Saved

Just to say again, I don't come from reddit or tumblr, I can't distance myself from them enough. I used to have a tumblr, but that's gone now. Reddit is a liberal nightmare with a bad UI, tumblr is a liberal nightmare with bad people.

...

Cool I'm an American lesbian too.

eh feminism is ok, just not a fan of obnoxious sjws

Yes, you did.

Empty hyperbole.

So become a separatist. If things were so dangerous, you would do that.

No shit. I didn't say it wasn't traumatic.

No I did not. Stating facts does not call you a monster.

Hardly

I refuse. Separation instead of common goal of collectivism makes this work harder, for a multitude of reasons anyone with a thinking mind could figure.

You're right, you just said that it wasn't as traumatic as "women make it out to be"? My point wasn't even about trauma, it's about the fact that this problem exists at all.

We should get together some time and grind gashes.

To get this train back on the tracks, you are worried that rape will survive the transition to socialism. It probably will. What is your prescription for the problem?

inb4recognize it, wrangle with it, or talk it out

Arguably, educating our youth more heavily in the matter at a younger age. One need not look over at a class mate who's a girl, one that is their friend, and realize the monstrous consequences the world we live in has for her and everyone like her growing into it. Emotion, in education, is key to stopping the curb of violence against women. Anything can be taught to make a change, to have that one part of the mind say, when someone might, "No, I can't go through with this, this is wrong, she's a human like me, I can't". One emotional connection is all it needs, to make greater peace in the relation between sexes.

I don't see a way we can't figure this out without starting at youth.

Haha holy fuck you cannot be serious

All sorts of ideology can be introduced and kept from childhood. You underestimate it largely, and seeing as how you posted that image you saved as "naziprop", I am suspicious of your motives in argument here.

I am a feminist myself. I try to promote it when I can.

Did I just read "teach men not to rape"?

I you wrote "sex ed" sure. "Look kids. If the person you like, doesn't want to have sex with you, there is nothing wrong with it, or you or them".

Le "Violence against women" has become a meme and there is a reason for it.

If you correctly identify "Made To Penetrate" as rape, these statistics achieve parity.
And unironically treating the "1 in 5" paper as authoritative and correct in its policy-level response?
You are either *severely* misled or disingenuously misrepresenting the objective facts to push your ideology. Which is it?

How has it became a meme? Because you weren't grown properly?

Disingenuously misrepresenting the objective facts to push my disgusting feminist ideology obviously.

Yes, you did. I have already detailed why.

Yes, it is. Rape is not equivalent to being killed.

Anyone with a thinking mind would realize the impossibility of removing violence from the world.

Yeah, people have the agency to violence to one another. That's not going away any time soon and I wouldn't want to live in a society which removed that much freedom from me.

No. Because there was once a boy. He cried wolf all the time. In the end he was put in a mental institution.

And I already detailed why you're wrong. If you take it as an insult when none was intended, I have no fault in your own comparing yourself to a violent criminal.

I'd rather be killed.

So let's just not try at all. We've been trying for so long is the only reason the world exists as vaguely secular today.

Your bitchiness and arrogance to dismiss the work of your feminist comrades throughout the 20th century who contributed to everything about this you take for granted is amount to ignorance of the subject you came here to post about.

So let's just do nothing, and give them all excuse to roll in their graves.

Shut the fuck up.

Something something Holla Forums posters

You quite clearly wanted to infer that all men are violent criminals. Deny this all you like, I do not believe a word.

No you wouldn't. Don't make silly claims.

The only way to give you what you want would be a hellish nightmare of a world that resembled the setting of "I have no mouth and I must scream".

First of all, I'm quite sad that people aren't putting more scrutiny on this shit. This, my friends, is identity politics at its best. This is the oppression Olympics you claim not to be peddling, yet here you are peddling it.

Second, I would say that if a portion of the feminist camp is wanting to overthrow capitalism as their prescribed solution to their issues I will back them and work with them at every opportunity. What I don't support is the divvying up of the working class into different camps, and this is why I asked you before why you don't then support "meninism". Why, because you view them as not having been as oppressed as you? All of the male homeless, suicides, war deaths, depression afflicted men under capitalism? They don't get their own movement because you and other feminists judge that men don't suffer as much as women? And who gets to decide that? The answer here being someone who has never lived the life of a man in our society. Your methodology makes absolutely no fucking sense if you can't support a men's portion of the movement alongside a women's movement. This is coming from someone who wants no specific identity for people besides their relation to the means of production: class.

It's 2016. This isn't turn of the century America or England in which women are locked away in cupboards waiting for their husbands to return to their home and beat them. Women are in positions of power in society, and in fact I would argue that in many situations (many of them being unspoken social situations) women have power that men don't.

Anyone else reading this, I urge you that if someone says "let us destroy the capitalist class and return the means of production to the workers" that you work with them. Unlike our friends over at leddit, I urge solidarity with anyone whose goals are to abolish class. However, I also urge you to have some fucking caution and realize that feminism and identity politics alongside it are the cancers killing the left. Identity politics and alienation of people, whether they be females or white males will not win us this war.

What this person is prescribing:

Is the same shit leading to alienation of the white lower class in America. It is leading to alienation and the creation of toxic, focused anti-women communities like /r/theredpill. It is the same thing that is enabling Trump, the only person speaking to the downtrodden whites of America (who I bet that the feminist above would also recommend not get a voice for themselves) to win the upcoming America election for president. I say this as a multiracial Asian/White who knows what it means to shed identity (mostly because mixed race individuals never develop real feelings of racial solidarity) in favor of class. I say this as someone who doesn't want a men's right's movement, or a black rights movement, or an Asian rights movement, or a women's right's movement. All of these specific issues need to be addressed by changing our collective relation to the means of production and overthrowing capitalism.

Caution, Holla Forums. Every fucking few days these /r/socialism shills try to inject some form of identity politics into this community, and every few days people take the goddamn bait. Feminism is identity politics. Does it means we can't look at capitalism from a women's point of view? No. Does it means Holla Forums doesn't think women's issues are real? No. Does it means Holla Forums thinks that we shouldn't address women's issues? No. Does it means class is the only uniting factor strong enough to bring this movement to the fore? Yes!

No I did not.

I fucking will.

Considering, yes I would.

Then quit posting here and go back to your politically illiterate budies who haven't read anything on Holla Forums, because I could easily make a thread there and engage in people as stupid and worthless and pointless as I've spent here with you debating this, nonsensically.

Without you ever bringing up a thoughtful point, just how you were offended at statistics and claiming I a witch.

Given your image, you'd say that you respect the common soldier for his battle against against enemies, his suffering, how he put his life on the line, and how he may suffer from post traumatic stress.

And yet, women who have escaped forced prostitution, human trafficking across the globe, always, have a higher rate of suffering, chance for death, and most of all, post traumatic stress higher than any soldier coming back from war. Even outside the west, in terms of soldier's.

Because these women were kidnapped and forced into this position. Of being objects to be inseminated, who have to carry children they must love with their hearts into the world, they never asked for. At a young age.

Yet you do not suffer their plight as much as you do for men, who at this point in time, have the ability to go to war without a draft. Or men when they did.

This isn't identity politics, this is human decency to see a problem and demand action it be fixed. If you can't fucking figure that, then you don't deserve to be here. If you can't figure that my own lust for whatever sorts of justice I want, without saying I'm comparing my own struggles to theirs, if you can't get any of this. You shouldn't be posting here.

As long as human trafficking at least exists, there is reason for me to fight. And yet none of you respect the amount of suffering that still goes on when women are treated as capital itself. Product. None of this is ever brought up.

Best post in the whole thread. Thanks user.

No. Go back to reddit with all the other idpol pushers.

I just want to annoy you. It's been obvious for ages that you're not interested in anything other than sermonizing for your idpol. You don't belong here.

It's twitter, don't undersell me.

You're just angry you don't have the stage to sermonize your own tired class politik in its most shallow unanalyzed state.

This is the very crux of the issue with basing our political activities on collective consciousness and whatever today's radical subjectivism happens to be rather than the fundamental stable elements of our objective situation. Non-materialist feminism is inherently diversionary and genuinely materialist feminism is just called "Marxism."

Look, if you really want to reconcile our positions I can recommend North's latest book on postmodernism for a thorough analysis of the philosophical divergence of popular petit-bourgeois radical thought (say, intersectionality) from historical materialism. It should help you clarify which side of the divide you stand on, perhaps most clearly to you.
Though I suspect you're just here from [YOU'RE GOLDEN] to disorient, discourage, confuse and convert.

Yes I must have an ulterior motive because I'm a woman trying to reconcile why you hate the fight for our rights that's always been part of class struggle. You on the other hand, or any man here, must never have any ulterior motive or agenda to what they do. Not at all.

Reminds me, I should probably check to see if bugbrennan and crew need more taunting.

Nah, I'm post-left anarchist as it happens…

Cool, we're otherwise similar

Holy fucking hell, the idpol persecution complex is real.

I didn't pay attention if you announced your gender while I was skimming the thread for your arguments. There are a lot of men who believe exactly what you do and I honestly neither knew nor cared which you were.

We literally have daily raids from Holla Forums. They're almost all men. Here. Arguing and shitposting. With an ulterior motive.
You literally just confirmed my suspicions you're not a regular on this board.

How are you not protecting your own identity, when you make it known as such?

Why throwin radical feminism, which has always been a natural growing part of collectivism, in front of the bus; when clearer more tumblr and forced examples exist.

It's intellectually disingenuous to make it seem that it is not there, when it always has been. You're either not well read or intentionally misconstruing.

This does not prove anything. There are many ulterior motives among the left, or the right, or what have you. I know of Holla Forums hut they're too stupid to be subtle. When they try, they are obvious.

But beyond this, I wasn't being serious, I was making a joke. Care to relax?

So why do you give a shit what we think?

I wanted to engage with you about feminism and maybe answer some questions about it since doubtless people will misconstrue the point. There are people still missing the point and being aggressive but otherwise, I did the best I could. Could have done better.

Yes, it does. It proves that
is an objectively incorrect representation of my views.
I haven't made my identity known.
Advocating the abolition of class rule and worker ownership of the means of production is "throwing radical feminism under the bus"? Are you conceding that idpol is incompatible with historical materialism, or…

As an autistic person, I find this ableist. Check your neurotypical muh privilege.

I think you did well. I disagree with the core of what you're saying, but you articulated yourself well enough and at the very least I see you as a legit leftist with some idpol tendencies I'm not really a fan of. Some anons in the thread had a very aggressive kneejerk reaction as is typical of Holla Forums.

No, that feminism of a kind must be applicable to help the woman of the world be free of their own vile kinds of labor at the hands of others who kidnapped them, to the very cultural parts that bound us to begin with we've been slowly shaking off.

In order to be both equal we must change the way the world is, and from there we must work with what is different between sexes. What can we do better in order to get that goal, if it should ever become viable. Preparedness is virtue.

Thank you.

You dont just discuss an issue once and tick it off the checkbox. More discourse contributes to people's understanding of the issues at hand, that's the point. It's not about point scoring.
Not every individual has the same interpretation of these issues and many dont see certain issues in the first place. Ideology exists in many forms.
Feminist issues/ gender issues continue to be a problem and I think it if you try to discuss gender roles - especially transgenderism - on any place on the internet and many places outside of it; you will see clear evidence of this.

You have been hanging out with liberals for too long.

As in "prop"aganda.

No, you discuss it, determine a solution ("kill capitalism"), and then check it off. Done and done.

You've been hanging around liberals too long as well to deny the power of indoctrination.

The solution is discourse. For as much as you criticize me, you've yet to give a substantial answer to any single problem I bring up.

Nonsense, the solution is guns. Lots of them. Give everyone ten guns and watch as no-one complains about being raped.

The solution is not discourse; it is eliminating capitalism. Discourse… For fuck's sake. Talking about a problem that we already recognize and have a solution for is not advancing any cause.

What problem? Human trafficking? Hey, do you think eliminating capitalism will fix that? Rape? Eliminating poverty and mass incarceration will do more to curtail it than a grade school anti-rape class will. What else is there? What is not fixed or at least severely diminished by the elimination of capitalism?

You're actually right, I do respect the common soldier. I was one. I don't know what it is about my post makes you think that I don't oppose human trafficking. I especially don't like how you think a story about human trafficking negates anything I said in my post, or any of my criticism's of feminism.

Here we are Holla Forums. Step right up, and get your identity politics here! Today we have someone telling me that it is actually an ability, a muh privilege to be able to go to war! Not at all showing any empathy for the fact that being a wartime casualty of the physical and or mental kind most likely makes you a man, not at all showing any empathy for something someone else goes through that they haven't. This is my problem with feminism, and all identity politics as it manifests itself on leddit and on Holla Forums. You think I'm saying that we shouldn't fight against human trafficking.

Because like any feminist would say, you believe I HAVE to be a feminist to fight for women's issues. See, you instantly thought that somehow I'm against human trafficking and women's issues. Where in the fuck did you get this idea? I shouldn't be posting here? Fuck yourself, you shouldn't be posting here you proletariat dividing fuck.

Again, this emotional appeal. Where in the fuck did I say I don't fight against human trafficking? Because I believe that capitalism, the underlying structure that enables human trafficking to occur today should be the obvious conclusion?

Like, I don't get it. You didn't respond to shit I said about dividing the proletariat, you just threw out an emotional appeal to people thinking you can get them to believe I said I don't fight against disgusting atrocities of capitalism like human trafficking. You're representing feminism fairly well. The "you're with us or against us!" challenge, the emotional appeal in the face of logic, and a deflection from the weaknesses of your own argument.

Again, Holla Forums, I urge you to reject this proletariat dividing shit. Man, women, purple, yellow, orange you are defined by your relation to the means of production. Together we will beat this, but only together and focusing on the common enemy: capitalism. You can't plead with them to stop human trafficking, you can't plead with them to stop being racist. Take away their economic mastery over us and we win, but only together. Don't let this idpol shit divide us.

In this day? Words are guns, if you aren't well with them, you get nowhere.

Liberal as you make it, guns are at a later point in our strategy, words come first. You go nowhere if you have an army of none.

I've been telling you this entire time in order to reach this point where these issues do not become a problem, we employ means to destroy them to reach Communism.

Feminism has always been part of this, without a kind of Feminism, Communism becomes an impossible pipe dream for half the human race.

This isn't identity politics. Is this a joke?

Compared to your forefathers you are weak and not even under threat and penalty of draft, quit acting up.

*jerk off motion indicating you're pulling the same identity politics on your own masculinity "I have to go suffer the non-existent draft"*

I find it impossible to fight for our rights in any other substantial way. There is a reason I am this cynical, and people incapable of reading or understanding like you are high on that list.

I am not proletariat dividing, you are for not seeing them as the proletariat

True, I didn't take your entire response with merit mostly because it's what I've already gone over before.

I do not believe I am deviding anyone by speaking up for the women of the world, I am in fact, trying to strengthen and multiply than divide.

The only division here seems to be from over reaction on the internet to my beliefs as controversial, when all I am doing is speaking for the rights of mothers in the world we both want.

… No. Are you on some sort of drug trip?

It's a metaphor. Words have replaced guns in much ideological strife. Words have the same measure as guns did, and we must adapt to that or we will never see success in our struggle. Once our words have enough weight, than we use guns.

You don't really know the game of this, of people on the internet. The power of words is of immeasurable importance is my point.

Grunt or pogue?
Which country?
When did you EAS?
Been in combat?
How do you account for the violence of Political Islam? Entirely a direct result of material conditions? Ideology buttressed by these conditions and class forces (or reaction to class forces) to where it outcompeted its rivals?
Were you a leftist before or after you joined? Did others know, and if so what did they say?

Would you take the seat next to mine when I fly to Iraq en route to Rojava?

This is your brain on idpol and post-modernism

Power flows from the barrel of a word?
No.

Do you think Lenin attracted his numbers from using guns alone? Let alone Mao?

Fuck should I even bring the Symbionese?

You're fooling yourselves, they generated enough people to then use guns.

We are first and foremost looking to establish an irresistible front to the people to become free, not a small cult with guns.

If we're at all serious bot "guns", in this. We look like villains if we are not sympathetic.

How this is controversial in the slightest, I've yet to discover, but the idea of it being above your heads makes me worry about the intelligence of this place.

This is why I usually laugh at leddit when they are so easily rustled in their safe space. You expect me to believe that words are somehow the equivalent of guns when it comes to change? Good lord.

Protip: Revolution has never meant sitting in Starbucks re-tweeting tired feminist tropes.

No it isn't. You think that having the ability to go to war is a positive for men? You don't see how war is a traumatizing event that only men seem to be forced to fight? This isn't a joke, this is you not having a single clue as to how someone who identifies as a man might be oppressed uniquely under capitalism. Because to feminists that idea is somehow outlandish.

I'm weak? I'm the motherfucker that had to sell my soul for three years so I could escape the group home system. I'm one of the millions of reasons people aren't drafted in this country. Even more so, I was apart of combat arms which was overwhelmingly male. So yeah, I think I have a bit of authority to speak on this particular subject. You quit acting up, you fake socialist.

Also, peek this Holla Forums. Apparently I'm pulling identity politics, but coming up with a whole -ism for your gender somehow isn't identity politics? Get fucked leddit, you can't even stay consistent with yourself. I'm not a fan of movements for any particular identity, but you the feminist don't seem to get that you're making one of two assertions to stay consistent:

1. Every oppressed group deserves an -ism to be heard.
2. No oppressed group deserves an -ism to be heard.
3. Only some oppressed groups deserve an -ism to be heard.

Here at Holla Forums we with number two, and that communism speaks for all of us. Female problems are my problem as a male, black problems are my problem as a Asian/White person, and that Bangladeshi pain is my pain. We are all one community of workers within our relations to the means of production.

But you seem to subscribe to number three, so fuck yourself. What kind of communist doesn't stand in solidarity with every, single, worker that is oppressed under capitalism even if they're white or male? Because they're great great grandfathers might have had some kind of muh privilege they no longer exercise or are responsible for? Fuck Off Fake Socialist.

Yeah, real original. I can't read, and "please pity my cynicism, its why I can't work with you."

You are literally dividing proletarians right now peddling your idpol.

Good, so fuck right off then. The reason people keep attacking your weak ass points is because you don't defend them at all. Like you did with me, you just throw out anecdotes and attempt to shame people by making it seem like they somehow support human trafficking.

This board is for dialectic materialism. Things like people's relations to the fucking means of production. Things like capitalism's fall will be the only thing to bring about any sort of real change. Things like proving. Your. Point. So fuck right off idpoler, and for fuck's sake you lemmings in here recognize this bullshit for what it is.

cont…

US Army Cavalry Scout. We ETS, we don't EAS. No combat, couple roadside bombs my whole trip downrange.

Oh boy. It has a lot to do with material conditions, IMO. It also has a lot to do with Western Imperialism and the backwards ass arbitrary borders they drew up when they withdrew from the area. How the fuck are you going to leave people worse off generally than when you found them, lump them up without any attention (much like Africa was) to their culture or history and then blame them when they generally go to shit?

I also think its a revolution with false consciousness. A lot of these revolutionaries lament Western imperialism, and a lot of them (who are educated, I might add) recognize in spite of the capitalist hold on media that the West acts pretty draconian when it comes to its interests.

I discovered the works of Marx in college when I read "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts". What he said in there changed my life and how I look at the possibilities for human society, and then Capital gave me a solid understanding of why economics enforces the very culture we pass around. I was pretty liberal in the Army though, and plenty of others like me were Bill Maher style liberals.

Unfortunately people here depend on me, otherwise I would've done it a while ago.

What is it with getting this confused?

Are you really this stupid that you call me reddit for givig you a simple fucking principle we're all fighting for?

No but you seem to be fighting for your own identity off of your serving intentionally for the west.

Good job fighting the good fight for volunteering your services for nothing.

You did America proud, and you are everything it works to represent.

The more you talk about war outside the draft the more you become immeasurably unsympathetic.

This subject, war, is not the subject we speak of.

Quit trying to distance yourself from what I'm saying.

Don't call me a fake socialist when you fought for the very fucking people you now want to get rid of, and you'll live off your lot better than the rest of us because of it. Sold your damn soul.

And that's what I'm saying?

No I can't work with you because you're not bringing up anything in relation to these problems, you bring up no books you've read on the subject in the past 100+ years in relation to collectivism.

You don't know shit and I can't work with it unless you do.

No, you are by going out of your way to get angry I even dared to mention other people who get more shell shock than the fucking American troops.

The last people who exist in slavery, of the worst kind.

Oh I didn't defend them? What are you doing to defend your points? Going off about your jarhead sacrifice for all of us lowly civilians when we're talking about something entirely fucking different.

I didn't fucking say anything of the sort. Nowhere did I say you encouraged human trafficking.

And all of it seems to have gone over your head.

What is wage slavery, femanon? You don't think people who enlist also are prodded by eternal branding stick called poverty and hunger? Yeah, I did it because I was a young group home kid with no parents who wanted to escape selling drugs. I'm not ashamed, I didn't kill anyone and we built a school and handed out medical care.

Better yet, I've become a communist. I welcome all veterans who find my conclusions to turn their energies and expertise towards the revolution. You should be doing the same, you fucking idiot. We need all the help we can get.

And it seems you really don't have shit to say when it comes to actually defending your points. All you do is throw back weak ass responses to things besides the actual point we are trying to make.

1. Every oppressed group deserves an -ism to be heard.
2. No oppressed group deserves an -ism to be heard.
3. Only some oppressed groups deserve an -ism to be heard.

You are number three. You literally say shit like women are more oppressed than men, and that is why they deserve a special say and a special name that we all have to adopt.

We at Holla Forums are number two, with the caveat that communism represents us all in our struggle against capitalism. Go ahead and tell me why number two is true. PROTIP: that's identity politics.

I feel bad for mocking you for that now. That was a dick move I'm sorry.

I'm frusterated.

Yeah I fucked up being angry and mocking you for that.

I'm not suggesting only oppressed people be heard. I'm saying there's a place for the needs of women. I'm saying there are oppressed people, and they need to be heard, not there are oppressed people and they only need to be heard.

You're confusing my point.

Feminism is just a word and there is no reason to be so strongly against it. If you've ideological reason to be against it fine, but all I see is you misconstruing what exactly it is I'm saying, or using more liberal feminists as a guide to how all of us are.

I could use a guide to you for how liberal men work but I don't because you're obviously not a fucking liberal.

She's just proved you right, Cavalry user.

By saying I care about people here, and other people, I've clearly exposed myself as a vile bitch.

Look, let me set something straight. You don't need to apologize, its a Cambodian smoke signals enthusiasts board. You didn't hurt my feelings. Although personally, I appreciate that you can apologize. It takes a big person to do that.

But I am sticking to my criticism's here. You've said above we do not need "meninism" because men are more oppressed. I am not actually arguing for meninism, but trying to make the point that if you support feminism due to women needing a voice then why do men not get a specialized voice in your view?

I have to step back and say no, you are not just saying there's a place for the needs of women. Up above you've literally said women are more oppressed than men. That is not "just saying there's a place for the needs of women". That's saying that your interest group is more important than another interest group, and I cannot agree with that. It divides people, like I said.

I am not at all confused, if only because you backtrack a lot and don't keep a consistent story.

Socialism is just a word, but somehow that single word is killing leftism due to the tarnished image it carries. Again, I'm not misconstruing anything. I'm going off of what you're saying.

I've again, boiled down my argument to three possible choices here.

1. Every oppressed group deserves an -ism to be heard.
2. No oppressed group deserves an -ism to be heard.
3. Only some oppressed groups deserve an -ism to be heard.

Everything you suggest thus far, like women are more oppressed than men due to x, y and z suggest that you believe in option number three. And that divides people, and fuzzes the notion that everyone is oppressed under capitalism in some way. In turn, it fuzzes the obvious solution to our collective problems which is again, overthrowing capitalism.

So, I don't know what else I can say. Feminism divides people, and we need to roll every goddamn -ism we can find into socialism. We have to get them to see that their problems come from a single progenitor, capitalism. We have to get them to see that their class is the thing they share with 99% of other humans on this planet. When they walk through the socialist door, they are leaving all of their identities behind and only bringing themselves and their class.

I'm not saying that women are more oppressed than men.

I am saying women suffer in different ways.

Women are victims of rape more and violent crime more, and men are suffered to suicide more easily.

I'm not making any claim to who suffers more and I never did.

That said women have always suffered a great deal that has gone on unacknowledged until recent time, and that's only been through action from collectivist thinkers who were women and who were feminists. Demanding things changed even if it was controversial

I know we do, but we can't ignore the fact women suffer in large amounts in order to get this done. For fucks sakes look at the middle east right now. Sexual slavery and human trafficking is back on a level we've never seen in decades and decades.

And in the west, we suffer less. I make no claim we do.

I'm making no value judgement based on what I know. All I know is that I yearn for a time where I could discuss this without being labeled as divisive when that's the exact opposite of what I want. I don't want these issues to be uncomfortable for everyone.

Wrong on both counts you fugging idiot :DDD

Unless you're talking about outside the United States, in which case you'd still be wrong about at least the latter claim, maybe not the former.

Cite me a source

No, I have better things to do than do your fucking homework.

Define "woman" for me.

I'll take the National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and the Department of Justice on its word over "No, I have better things to do than do your fucking homework."

...

You're a radfem, aren't you?

I love that feminism threads get the most attention from leftypol. RIFK at all the revisionists ITT, and how little thought is put into their posts before they start to meme about bourgeoisness, domination, and the first world; guess Holla Forums and Holla Forums were mistakes for this reason because you can only ever get approximated obloquies at named entities from an anonymous source, only however their biases are applauded for being shared rather than true. If you want to find real thorough discourses on feminism you're best to look elsewhere (like books) than argue with these 'tards, just as the priceless treasure too frequently hides at the bottom of well, needs some courage to dive for it, especially as he that does so will be likely to incur more scorn for the mud and water into which he has ventured to plunge, than thanks for the jewel he procures; as like in manner, she who undertakes the cleansing of a careless bachelor's apartment will be liable to more abuse for the dust she raises than commendation for the clearance she effects.

Not really. Sort of. Transitioned trans women, or passing trans women, face more crime than we do, and that should be the topic.

I'm just, not the biggest fan of people who make all sorts of nightmarish levels of idpol.

Nice bait you fuck

Men more likely to victims of homicide
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

Oh, there's this:
saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
Prison rapes aren't included in general statistics, FBI definition of rape only counts penetration, that wouldn't include tying down a man and him being forced to penetrate.

Oh wow you're using
those
2011 findings

at some point in their lives

T., … Stevens, M. R. (2011).
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 summary report.
Retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual
Orientation. Retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control:cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf

>Breiding, M. J., Chen J., & Black, M. C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States — 2010.Retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf

Oh, this is counting women who were buzzed when they had sex as rape, right? Simply epib :DDD

Your source

Wow look it's a survey

Also fuck off with that, taking advantage of someone drunk is rape

And your source also takes that into account

The number of times my ex-wife must have raped me…

There's a difference between wife and your consent and

random stranger without consent without a condom that could very well have an std

What's it like on Planet Stupid?

I was paralytic.

see

I really have no problem with feminism that is not anti man in nature.

Feminism has no place in leftism because it is IDPOL
"muh vagina makes me a special class with different interests than the man working beside me" is exactly the type of shit the employer would like to smear on anyone trying to organize

so in other words, without ad hominem on me, you have no rebuttal

We don't want to replace the owning class. We want to abolish it.
So you can not even understand this, and thus you have these incoherent beliefs. A wage gap does NOT exist because there is actually a 2% margin showing women earning more when exact same skillsets and experience are compared. Comparing a 20 year life partition of a 15-35 male to a 15-35 female is insanity, most women will by choice or accident have at least 1 kid in that timespan. Many women will experience intermittent periods of PMS that may cloud their days from working in certain types of labor. That does not mean they should be paid for never showing up any more than the men are entitled to get paid for vacation and sick days. Some employers offer maternity leave, let them do that and leave the state out of it. Until we abolish the class divide this type of off the mark focus will only deepen it. Making the state force all companies to provide maternity leave simple decreases the average income of everyone and shifts the tax burden on those who take less leave. It does not actually pay workers more on average it simply shifts who gets which money. The boards and the CEOs still get their dividends and they still did little but steal and abuse.

Feminist movement is a good PSYOP that has developed rapidly since the rise of advanced PSYOPS. Since the 70s it has gained a life of its own and it shows. It certainly does not help workers, neither all workers nor a specific gendered subset of workers.

You have no idea what kind of movement you signed up for did you

Are you statue poster?

no

1) You are deliberately conflating "the rights of women and girls", a concept, with feminism, an ideology. It doesn't matter how much you do this, no-one here is going to accept that.
2) That entire quote looks awfully chivalrous. It could be construed as benevolent sexism…

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

False, there are more rapes in male prisons in the US then outside of prison, This also doesn´t take into account that the legal definition of rape in the US is penetrative sex, so by legal definition a women cant rape a man in the US (unless she brings a strap-on along with her).

Wow amazing response femnigger. I'm glad you really took the time to dissect his arguments.

Good post

see

It counts non penetrative. It's still less. We're talking outside of prison. You don't give a shit about people in prison so don't feign faux sympathy

Equally amazing response proving that marxism and feminism don't go hand in hand like bread in butter and you haven't read shit and might as well come from reddit or Holla Forums

bad post

Marxism is about equality for all humans.
Feminism is about "Empowering Women".
The two have nothing in common. Only gullible retards think otherwise.

Yes
Yes
No and only gullible retards think otherwise

...

Why are you posting a guy who masturbated to bestiality

Cite a sauce.

This whole thread is one big smhfamalamtbh. I’m amazed you’ve stuck around this long.

In any case, not everyone on leftypol is some ex-polyp who gets triggered at the sight of the word “feminism.” There are those of us who recognize the crucial difference between bourgeois identity politics and the need to struggle for women’s equality (and who aren’t afraid to call this feminism).

Most of these class-only-how-dare-you-acknowledge-anything-else anons seem to possess an understanding of “feminism” learned straight from the Internet. And I doubt many of them have any real-world experience in activism or advocacy with flesh-and-blood leftists. But anyone who’s shed an ounce of sweat in the struggle, locally or internationally, will find these pol-tier snowflakes laughable.

If you can't name the quotes you shouldn't be here

Indeed. I find it frustrating regardless liberal feminism is such a stereotype to prevent any kind of discourse around it at all.

Lolno

Half of these quotes were from self identified feminists/marxists from the 19th to 20th century.

Two aren't.

Shall I dig up some of Bakunin's anti-semitic remarks and assert that leftism means gassing jews?

There's more commonality between collectivism and feminism than antisemitism and collectivism.

This is irrelevant

L O L
O
L

ITT butthurt dudes triggered literally over a linguistic choice (“feminism” v. “women’s rights”) and/or the recognition that there are problems in the world not applicable to them. In reality, this is the most insidious form of identity politics—the mirror image of the oppression Olympics.

Reminder that the left is powerless because so many of its votaries are clueless autists more concerned with shutting women up than with nuance or solidarity.

Bonus reminder that the left is powerless because so many of its votaries shape their views according, or in opposition, to YouTube vids and shitty memes.

You miss the point, probably intentionally. Who whole purpose of conflating "womens rights" with "feminism" is an attempt to compel other to abide by that ideology. It is an attempt to seize power and divert others into doing the bidding of feminism at the cost of all other activities.

I have seen the cost of this in my own locality. The activist milleu is dominated by feminists. The "leftist" activity in the area prioritizes "inclusion" and "diversity" over any serious attempt to challenge capital. They are then surprised that the masses show more interest in reactionaries who at least have the sense to offer them bread rather than sermons.

Furthermore, the very fact that feminists feel compelled to barrack leftist men into their movement is simply shows their failure. We are the oppressors. The liberation of women should be their crowning glory. You shouldn't need to sully that achievement demand the help of oppressors to reach it.

s/demand/by demanding

Then you have only your shitty local leftists to blame.

As a cishetmale active in the struggle both locally (U.S.) and internationally (Africa/Middle East/Europe), I’ve had no trouble butting heads with feminists or working in solidarity with them. In fact, my most recent gig was specifically a women’s issues project in Palestine, and it was the local feminist organizations that approached me for help with leadership. You’ll find that outside of snowflake burgerland, leftists of all stripes (including feminists) don’t care for the bourgeois bullshit.

Don’t get me wrong—I believe wholeheartedly that identity politics is very often (perhaps more often than not) liberal rubbish, if not downright reactionary. But that bathwater ought to be drained and flushed, not thrown out with the baby.

>imblying we need every random user to stand up for women's rights and equal opportunity

I don't jet around the world. I'm poor. You may have noticed I'm not exactly eloquent. My activism focuses on other poor people. I try, with my contacts, to come up with ways to keep them fed. Housed. Alive. To kick back at a hostile state. I've begun to wonder how much longer I'm going to have a roof over my head. Some of the guys I talk to are sick. I worry about them.

Truthfully, no-one cares about us. The overwhelming majority of the "left", such as it is in English speaking countries, occasionally pays lip service to our predicament then goes back to talking about safe spaces, Rated PG Parental Guidances, Rojava, Zapatistas, checking their muh privilege.

Combine that with the obnoxious stuff belted out on twitter, repeatedly, and I've seen various pieces of this shit from feminists wearing every single kind badge. I know who the reactionary scum are.

Yeah, you. For thinking that I'm a reactionary for trying to explain any of this shit

How bout you recommend a book that lays out your arguments coherently, because you retreat into platitudes whenever someone asks you to clarify on matters of substance, direction, foundations and tone. We'll read that, you read North's book and we'll both meet back here in two weeks to debrief and discuss.

Deal?

Start with Simone de Beauvoir

Most of us have never even posted on Holla Forums you dumb asshole. You're probably that faggot from reddit that's always going on about Holla Forums tier anti-feminst arguments or whatever. It's dishonest bullshit. Stop trying to push this silent majority bullshit. Everyone knows it's a well known tactic with you dickwads. No one's buying it. It only works when you have ban happy mods on your side like on r/socialism or neogaf.

Kill it with fire.
Yeah, nah. Feminism is and always has been a short-sighted movement of bourgeois women with no concept of working women's struggles or working men's struggles. It's based on some of the worst of leftist theory and inherently demonizes men as the "kings" of a "feudal" domestic situation with women as "peasants." This metaphor is only superficially relevant, and it serves only to divide the working class against itself along the lines of sex. Addressing problems specific to women, men, blacks, whites, latinos, children, the elderly, etc. is not the same thing as an ideology that paints group A as victims of group B rather than as victims of society. The latter is just going to divide people against each other when they should be allying to change to new relations of production.
tl;dr
Identity politics is cancer.

Absolutely mandatory. People's specific needs must be considered. Scapegoating another group for one group's problems is spooky tribal nonsense that should get people sent to reeducation camps the moment it's spotted.

Stop projecting you piece of shit human being. Do you not realize how many people are in prison for drug offenses or have overkill sentences due to shit like automatic life without parole in some states? Do you not care that the US prison system is based around profit and designed to keep as many people behind bars as possible? Do you actually think that people who have committed crimes are less than human and deserve less empathy than other people?

Well then you ain't no fuckin' Marxist.

Well if you and your fellow travelers are not from pol, you surely give them a run for their money. Literally pol-tier “oh no feminists r so oppressive 2 me” strawmanning. Seriously, comrade snowflakes, learn some theory, join the struggle or sit down and quit crying about Jezebel clickbait.

Seeing how we have screen caps of some Reddit jackasses posting the same bullshit about "Holla Forums tier anti-feminists arguments" and calling us ex-pollacks It's really not .a meme unlike the baseless moronic accusations you faggots make about us being ex-polloacks. No one is buying it and you don't have your authoritative mods to force your idpol garbage down our throats. Now fuck off to whatever shithole you came from you disgusting twat.

The collective consciousness is the political arena for our activity. Reactionary shitrags like Jezebel and Buzzfeed, damaging public policy based on outright incorrect statistics (Russlynn Ali) and a climate outwardly hostile to both enlightment values and the very ability to have open conversations in friendship and mutual respect -itself- all present existential threats to scientific socialism.

You need to disavow an extraordinary amount of what happens within your rank-and-file and make plain the theoretical basis on which you do so if you want to be taken seriously. You can't just keep dancing around it. You can't take a page from Holla Forums's book and bank on deflecting questions/misgivings long enough for the other person to be drawn in and cease to ask them. That is what is truly Holla Forums tier. Most visitors think the stuff about Jews is ironic meta-satire, until they grow to genuinely believe it without any further rational basis.

Chief among these is indeed the contradiction between r/socialism's ban-happy mods who do everything in their power to shut down and prevent open discussion and exchange of ideas, and our incredibly permissive ones.

Anybody who wants to try and engage with feminist (or other idpolers) watch this shit:
youtube.com/watch?v=aqOZcG3pjYM
The most important bit starts at 5:05

The guy who made this vid isn't that bright and I think he's a reactionary, but he makes a crucial point.

Are you really that lazy that you have to make lame (and I mean this with its full denotation) arguments, grasp not even low-hanging fruit, but their rotten corpses on the terrace below, and then cannot even Google the simplest of things? There's plenty of good feminists out there, plenty! There's not one book, no Bible, that just lays out everything for you, fatty.
Though, I recommend you start with Mary Wollstonecraft.

Really, I was just telling you to read North and examine more closely whatever divergence from the classical theory you may or may not have.

I offered to read a crucial work you suggest in return to be polite and show I'm not out to one-sidedly "educate" but to engage in good faith.
I'm sure. But it seems there are at least as many who took pages from Marcuse, Adorno and friends, or the earlier German idealists. This is your opportunity to curate the theory and present your own position. I doubt you would be impressed or happy if I dismissed you based on a critique of Dworkin, for instance.

I'm 6'0 and 156 lb. Been trying to gain mass for months to perform better at work (shipping and logistics) but having mixed success. I admit my cardio isn't great and my legs could use some work. I'm also gay so the insult as usually posed to imply "your feelings of sexual and interpersonal entitlement towards women color your views" objectively does not apply.
Unless you ascribe to certain psychological """theories""" i guess

Later. I'm not in the best setting to post too seriously right now, though you should always take what I say with a grain of salt.