Feminism Thread #IAmAFeminist

It's a meaningless word. Like "progress" or "reform", it could be accurately applied to nearly any imaginable policy.

Feminism is a movement by which select group of women attempt to seize control of society and subjugate all others to their desires via micromanagement of their life, heavy application of censorship and the use of shaming language. These traits are universal throughout the movement, any feminist denying this is either poorly educated or outright lying; their words never match their actions here.

Feminism has seized control of the entirety of the left and diverted it's purpose from providing economic benefits to all to catering to the whims of a coterie of ideologically homogeneous women. The repeated insistence that everyone on the left must subscribe to this ideology or else, rather than allow other groupings be persuaded as to the merits of a given issue on an ad hoc basis is proof this. This is the reason for repeatedly creating threads like this; we are to be browbeaten into submission.

Further discussion with feminists is pointless. The followers of this ideology are either arguing from a position of bad faith or zealotry. Meaningful discussion is impossible under these circumstances.

Anlgos in a nutshell

>>>Holla Forums

...

Actually I wanted there to be a discussion, since I know there's conflict on the board about this. I am very much not a feminist.

Feminism is only a hindrance to any real movement at worker's emancipation from capital. Most of these questions you're asking (merits, problems) have only one answer: feminism is divisive and places undue focus on things that are by and large solveable by the abolition of private property and capitalist stranglehold on communal resources (like most problems i.e gun violence or the homeless).

Power structures come about because of power vested in institutions other than the community. Capitalism enforces sexism as a result of the heierarchies that rise up due to capitalism. Take away any economic power capitalists have to enforce things like racism and sexism, and they will cease to have any real power. Defeating sexism and racism involve championing solidarity through the only proven metric we have of "identity": class, in other words the relations to the means of production.

Feminism just divides, as I said before. You're not a male, you're a working class person. You're not a female, you're a working class person. We as leftists trade in our given "identities" who's only purpose is to make it easier to sell commodities and divide us politically, and instead become part of something greater while gaining the freedom to be whoever we want to be apart from these given identities that really in the end mean nothing. My opinion of you will not change because you're a woman or you're hispanic, because you're so much more than those identities can ever say about you.

I'm a mixed race Asian who grew up in a group home for a number of years until adulthood. I have way more in common with black inner city youth than I do with other identity groups, but then again so does anyone else who grew up in poverty and count themselves among the lower class. My material conditions say much more about me than my gender or race could ever say. In fact, as I said above they (race, gender) barely say anything of substance about me at all.

However, I'll say this. Wherever there is rape unpunished, leftists should be there. Wherever a Philando Castile is neglected by the NRA because he's the wrong color, we should be there. No one should ever feel undue hardship just because of something as ridiculous as race or gender, and leftists should be there to say something about it. However, it does not mean we separate whole sections of lower class, working class people. We are one, and our problems are one as well. Capitalism. Feminism rejects this.

It started when seamstresses in factories went on strike for equal pay.
Then the bourgie women came, saw these women demanding stuff and said "you know what? I want to be able to be a factory owner, inherit fortune and vote. I mean… Me… The bourgie woman.. Not those filthy peasants! They cannot vote!"
Then WW2 came and women in 'Murica and GB had to work the factories while the men were at war. In USSR they already were..
Then the war ended and some of them were like "Fuck you! Am not going back to being an obidient housewife!"
And then the 60s came and it was all about free love, free to sit on wichever part of the bus you want, free to die on nam for no reason.. and feminism was free to start forgeting what it was about and create a nomenclature whose sole purpose was to get paid for being "great feminist thinkers".

And then the USSR fell.

And now?
Now feminism is a bunch of bourgie women with no actual issues, getting paid to spew ideology and complain about "men are fapping to stuff! I DON'T LIKE THIS!".

Socialism has gender equality in it already. It doesn't need some bourgies focusing on this alon cause they don't want to deal with the fact that class is more important than "gender".

KEK
ok ok… It freed us from protestant ethics, somewhat, I guess…

It brought those same protestant ethics back.
It's mainly a bourgie ideology.

Sure!
Take all the feminist nomenklature, send it to a gulag for a year and then ask them "do you care more about "cultural apropriation" than the proletariat now?"

Good post. In particular, their focus on internal ideology rather than external actions (or the means to even attempt them!) betrays their true goal: Modern 1st-world feminists don't care about people's lives, only about blind, unquestioning allegiance to their cult.

This is why NEETcuck gamergays will be among the first to be gulag'd

lmao, good luck with that

OK, so people with opposing positions have made actual arguments in these posts.

Would you show the people you disagree with the respect of doing the same? If they're wrong, surely you can show them why.

...

It is.

Look, say you were in Ireland back when the English were busily dismantling your nobility, suppressing your Gælic tongue, stealing your land to settle, stealing your food to export, selling you into slavery overseas, outright exterminating, etc. Would resistance against them be economic, political, religious, cultural, etc? Yeah, but it would also undeniably be nationalist in nature.

Similarly, whatever other qualifications may apply, feminism is inherently sexist identitarianism. Now, there's nothing wrong with sexism in one direction on an issue if things are unfair (which they haven't meaningfully been for decades), but denying feminism/masculism's nature is just absurd.

Is it sexism to fix a problem that only one sex has, or has disproportionately to another sex? That doesn't sound like sexism to me. I thought sexism was bias in favor of or against one sex, like how racism is bias in favor of or against one or more races. Are you saying there's "nothing wrong with" that "in one direction on an issue if things are unfair"?

Sure.
I try to.

But in the end they call me sexist cis white male.

I was replying primarily to this post and linked your post as an example of something with actual substance.

Well… My argument still stands.
We have countless times tried to. And in the end the OP of the time chooses to pick a fight with pol shitposters rather than have an actual conversation.

Even if you see beyond your ideology, it's not sure that the other person will also.

This is very true. That's why I tried to make the OP as unbiased as possible and make posts to encourage people to make real arguments. I always try to give a group the BOTD to lay out what they believe and feminists (along with the rest of the SJW family) have been more reticent to do so than any other I can recall. In my experience they fall back on name calling more than Holla Forums.

I really would like to hear the reasons why people support feminism (in whatever form) on this board. I haven't heard it yet beyond "you're sexist if you don't".

Pls no

Absolutely, 110%, because the world is zero-sum. Depending on circumstances, temporary sexism/racism/etc in a certain direction can be justified. Thing is, circumstance ARE mostly fair today, so idpol is no longer useful.

I don't care about it, I don't need "isms" and theories of "isms" to want or acknowledge some basic decency towards women. I've had so many positive female figures in my life, to me it seems like an automatic position.
Feelgood, virtue signaling bullshit to get the female vote/attention.
Nothing that truly hurts Capital, except maybe paid maternity leaves.
Capitalistic Idpol.
Lol no, just get rid of the system dude.

So then, if the system is unfair to one sex, then not fixing the problem isn't sexism?

Feminism is a group of frameworks producing discourses that (a) posit woman as the speaking/knowing subject, (b) critique the role of women within society, and (c) propose strategies and tactics to change said role.

Bringing to surface issues concerning women that were largely ignored beforehand

Same problems as with any social movement asserting to possess the One True Framework™ and thus the only movement capable of producing Truth: they become openly hostile to any other frameworks and there's no chance at any meaningful discussion, much less social change

You would report this entire board for what does not exist.

The problem is sexist, actively maintaining or worsening it is of course sexist, the movement needed to solve it is also sexist, and passively allowing the problem to continue may be sexism as well depending on the level of conscious awareness. Only the neutral end-state of approximate fairness after the problem has been solved is essentially free of sexism.

I would add that its primary problem is an unwillingness to admit victory, instead of just scribbling down yet more minutiæ as excuses to keep stumbling onward.

Like fuck that post had any substance, listen I'm perfectly happy to have a constructive conversation with a feminist, particularly a Marxist feminist, even though I disagree with them, But lets not pretend that more than one in ten of them are actually willing to sit down and have a reasonable discussion with someone opposed to their views.

Dialectical feminists are the only ones who do this, and they usually have no justification whatsoever for it. I agree. It's only them. Just look at the people willing to argue and debate on this board that can come up with reasoned, thought out, well rationalized and well read, argument in favor.

You're being sarcastic right? I had a whole post written out to argue with you, but first I wanted to make sure you were being sarcastic,

Bud, this post is "that post". It has plenty of claims you could offer a counterclaim to. Did you think I was referring to this post as the one with substance?

If there's context beyond what you posted in a quote chain, I'm unwilling to look through it.

Yeah I did, is it you or me that's got confused? I don't know myself because I've been drinking.

1. it's a potshot at Hillary
2. you sound the dumb conservatives on social media who say things like "wanna see sexism? Move to Saudi Arabia!"

Except that's not happening, at least not in the west, where most feminists are. And in either case, if an egalitarian movement already exists, it would be stupid to turn it into identity politics.

you sound really well-read in theory

It's you. This post (Me) was replying to this post (feminist) simply calling people names. The other posts I linked in this post were to posts made by other people arguing against feminism.

This post made the same mistake you did, so I definitely should have made this post clearer, like put (feminist) after the main reply line.

THIS PLEASES TZEENTCH!

I think O'Brien summed it up best. Historical masculine superiority even within equal lower class, is a set of social relations grounded in the process of reproduction. All attempts to suggest that universal man will share his historic triumphs with women are as ideologically absurd as the canons of chivalry: they are absurd because women are not imperfect men with an inferior capacity for abstract thought and concrete action, nor is the oppression of women a sort of cultural by-product which illustrates the versatility of class hegemony.

Oh okay, I thought you were the feminist, I was wondering why those posts didn't seem very pro feminist.

Not into 40k but I went and read the wiki article on Tzeentch. I still don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I kind of think that's the point…?

Polite sage for offtopic.

All socialism should be feminist.

Feminism without socialism is pretty shit, but can still improve conditions for women.

Primarily a problem of definition.

All socialism is inherently feminist, the problem is leftypol takes it at face value when third wave Tumblriniggers call their regressive idpol "feminism" and basically cede the entire egalitarian position to them.

What makes something regressive, and where does identity cease? I keep seeing this argument but specifics are never worked upon.

The part that the woman can play in the revolutionary process is of extraordinary importance. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive to a fault.

I'll let speak for themselves, but where I have seen it used it seems to mean a movement away from equality/egalitarianism toward a less equal state of affairs. That is to say, people use "regressive idpol" to say that certain groups are trying to take us to a system where a particular group is still on top, it's just a different group than used to be there.

The problem is how simplistic this is. Throughout the past we've fought for women's rights, and they were never progressed in any radical capacity by appeasing capital or people, willingly or unwillingly, defending it by suggesting women just calm down and quit being divisive. In other words, limiting the capacity for radical thought of what women are in Capitalism by bringing up identity, to clamp down on what they see as identity.

Egalitarianism is liberal in application, because understanding of it is more appeasement than conflict, especially class. In practice. You can debate this if you want, but it's entirely true.

You have to disregard the feelings and emotions of others when creating theory, when applying theory, because the fight itself matters more for more class conciousness.

I would argue people who refuse to see their own set of identity politics, see themselves as neutral blank slates, and demand feminists in any dialectical, marxist, radical capacity; just shut up and quit being divisive; are actually far more divisive.

I think you're missing the point of that post. It isn't saying women don't have a role in revolution, so much as the identity of woman doesn't have a role. That poster explicitly ties women in with men as being proles with a part to play. If your interpretation is that s/he thinks women don't have a role to play, then by the same logic neither do men which would mean there's no revolution because there's nobody to fight it except I guess children and whatever the term is for people who aren't male or female.

Please do, that sounds interesting.

My point was that it does. Because people here already have an idea of what women are separate from themselves, while pushing that truly isn't and could never be the case.

I'm still unsure if you're being sarcastic in that post.

People here are already arguing a kind of identity politics born from defense of their own political ideology, which is not identity. They focus on the non-identity aspects of it, and so, obviously, must be free of identity.

This is not the case, there are multiple ways people are put into a state of their own identity they must defend, from whatever identity.

The class conflict they truly want to focus on is not focused on because it is more entertaining, or tempting, what have you, to fight, to deny, and to be upset at what someone is saying.

And this is hardly new to the radical left.

Feminism: A flawed approach to gender equality that is about focusing only on women and assuming they always are worse off than men and that the patriarchy is an omnipresent evil.

A lot of people that call themselves feminists mistakenly speak of feminism in ideals not the reality of what it actually is. The people against feminism are mostly the realists and are egalitarian, at least in the west.

There is historical context to say, that lower class, working class, impovershed women, across the world, throughout history; wherever capital may be.

Are treated malignantly compared to their masculine counter parts.

It is a separate set of issues that men face that are distinct, and sometimes comparable, yet sometimes not, to women.

Define "realist" and "egalitarian" as if you are fighting beyond sense of identity into some kind of fantastical neutrality, totally void of socialization. I mean it's ridiculous. Especially define "realist".

OK, but I think the idea here is that people shouldn't have that distinct idea of what women are. I don't disagree that people do, and that it's usually a very ingrained, subconscious thing. My contention is that if people had that kind of thing correctly pointed out to them, they would try to stop if they really did want equality. Operative word being "correctly" because psychoanalysis over the internet is prone to be wrong and come off as presumptive and judgy.

Can you give an example?

Could you elaborate please? I'm not sure what class conflict you mean is ignored. Are you saying that men/women constitute a class divide?

Prove focusing only on women helps more than equally focusing on everyone that is effected.. You cant.

I'm not talking philosophical realist i just mean seeing things for what they rally are as in what feminists actually do. Feminism does have an overlap with egalitarianism but there are certain things that feminists do that just are not equal at all. As for egalitarian, just the normal meaning of the word, that different genders or races or whatever should all be equal.

Socialization, cultural context. Everything of this is magnified and extended upon the lower class, men and women.

No. I'm saying that the social circumstance and contexts and conditions of women of the working class are ignored as identity politics, and it is ignored usually by bringing up ignored identity politics.

Because simplifying issues to "it either helps everyone or no one", helps no one. If you unwilling to engage in the complex reasons social issues occur in Capital, you are throwing up your hands and forfeiting your right to call yourself anything radical.

This humanism, that we must altogether be strong, ignores the contexts from which problems, complex, deep seated, socialized, emerge. And how that all relates to Capital, labor. Across the world.

You seem to be only focusing on liberal first world feminism.

I know what you meant. That's why I asked you to say it yourself.

You can't fight for equality by compromise, you have to disregard the feelings of others, their sentiment towards the way things are, in order to progress.

You do not get the equality of the sexes by arguing for all to meet in consensus always, we will not always. Criticism, debate, argumentation, none of this is divisive. What is divisive is shutting up these issues because "feminism is inherently divisive". That's a crock of shit.

It's as divisive as any aspect of collectivism.

That's what I want too, but it's not going to happen as easy as a hand shake and a global agreement. We have to look at the material conditions of women around the globe and argue for how to fix this problem before we can even claim we speak for the entirety of the working people of the world. The working women of the world are still at a disadvantage. Not in the liberal metropolitan west.

That's more of an explanation. Do you have a specific example of how, say, a man would be "put into a state of [his] own identity [he] must defend from whatever identity."? I'm trying to imagine such a scenario but I'm not sure what you mean.

Isn't the point that these are conditions that affect everyone in the working class? How does socialism fail to address ways that capitalism hurts working class women?

What exactly do you mean by this? I just plain don't understand this part of the sentence.

Most of it involves entitlement in a sense. Though, most people are taught that this is the way things are and must be, shutting women out of culture and it's advancement entirely. Again, mostly outside the first world.

When someone conflicts your world view, it becomes a conflict of what you were told you are, you focus on yourself rather than the collective.

socialism is not an unmoving unchanging obelisk of freedom. It can and cannot give women everywhere at all times a chance, particularly in other cultures. Meshing cultures can exacerbate this issue. Not that the west particularly loves or cares of us beyond appeasement in the position of where we belong in Capital. I suppose in that regard we're "equal" in the first world but we must fight against this liberalism for true freedom for both sexes in greater class struggle.

By bringing up learned being, not thought of as actually being, one fights for that learned idea of who they are, what this is. It becomes an identity issue, without it being called that. Known or not known by people practicing it.

We don't need the pink pill when the C L A S S pill is here

So stop your idpol

OK, but again, do you have an example where this happens? I understand the description, but I'm trying to imagine this happening in some kind of specific scenario.

Well, a transition to socialism would alleviate much of the conditions that cause these problems. It wouldn't automatically change the culture to fix everything, but it would be a bigger single step than anything else. As for other cultures, there's not much to do about them without being imperialists other than to provide an example and support to a people's revolution.

OK, this makes sense in concept. Do you have any examples of it happening in practice? Can you point to even just a theoretical example to illustrate the point?

You're right, it would be. Good thing it isn't being shut up isn't it?

Checked!

Suffocated between first world liberalist feminism that doesn't give a damn about the sexual subjugation of women, girls, mothers in the third. And liberal men in the first.

Feminism as a term has become so nebulous that it's effectively useless. What constitutes "equal rights for women" is incredibly arbitrary and subject to personal biases.

Literally everything is arbitrary and subject to personal biases, you fucking dweeb

How the fuck is feminism of any kind being shut up?

Same way Christianity is being "persecuted" in the US

I support feminism when it seeks the emancipation of the proletariat, and oppose it when it seeks the preservation of bourgeois power.

So I'm hostile to the overwhelming majority of feminists. The ones who embrace ideas like "ban porn", "white muh privilege", "brocialists", "Hillary Clinton for president", "gamergate is a right-wing movement based around harassing women" and "all politics are identity politics". Actual efforts to free women from Capital are another matter.

Or, you know..
Pol is being shut up cause they are not allowed to organize lynches.

Real talk

How many of these "discuss:" threads do we think are slide threads?

Answer: All of them

I don't believe in forum sliding in the first place, especially on a board as slow as Holla Forums.

One can certainly try to shitpost damaging information off a board but I've literally never seen it work; people actually interested in said topics just make new threads should the old one die.

That said, polite sage is the right way to deal with shit threads; no need to bump them.

Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Let's deconstruct that:
1. "The advocacy of women's rights" - Meaning it is not concerned with mens rights, it only advocates womens rights.
2. "On the grounds of [sic] equality" - Meaning it's just done ostensibly for equality, equality is just an excuse, not the real reason.
3. "Political, social and economic" - Notice it avoids legal, which was long ago achieved, and legal is the only sphere concerned with rights.
4. "Equality to men" - Notice how this assumes from the outset that women aren't equal to men? It neatly removes an end statement in societies where that's not true.

tl;dr feminism achieved equal rights a long time ago. 100 years from now when men are literally enslaved, feminists will still seek more rights for women because feminism has no "goal achieved" setting. because it's just a well camouflaged supremacy movement.

feminism is absolutely necessary if youre going to call yourself a leftist. if youre a leftist, youre a feminist, theres no other way around it.

It's not a conspiracy. Go back to pol.

It's a bunch of bourgie teens listening to a nomenklature, that without said teens and funds and so on wouldn't be able to live a luxurious life and so on.

Con-artistry? SURE!
Conspiracy to "enslave men"? KEK!

That was mostly hyperbole, I don't think the kind of women that subscribe to feminism could enslave anyone.

Either way you missed the meat of that post.

I would say I support Marxist Feminism, though I am staunchly anti-sjw, Their petty bickering only divides the proletariat and distracts them from class struggle which is what created gender issuses.

It's sad though, I'm too Brocialist to be an SJW but I'm too SJW to be a Brocialist please pray for me.

"Wanna experience real capitalist oppression? Move to China where they shoot you for striking!"

That kind of argument is on tier with third-worldism and the most horrendous bougie ideology. Women, as a whole, are trapped in worse jobs, stuck with more labour (both wage and domestic work), are subjected to drastically higher levels of domestic violence, and are rendered more vulnerable by capitalist economic disruption. Marx got it a bit wrong when he thought that we'd all be equally repressed under capitalism. The fact is that as a whole, non-bourgeois women are pretty alienated.

This may sound a bit IdPol, but women do have specific issues within a broader class analysis in the West. A Socialist economic structure would to a great degree address that, but at the same time yelling "haha triggered" or "you're not oppressed" at working-class women who are getting the shorter end of the stick in our society isn't productive. Just like Obama did for African-Americans, we need Hillary to win for working-class women to realize that having a bourgeois woman in power isn't going to change their situation. Hillary will break the back of the bourgeoisie feminists. From there, their only resort will be an honest class analysis.

In short, I think that feminism cannot exist as a sole project. We need to bring down the whole capitalist system for real progress in the women's front.

Being a secretary is worse than being a coal miner.

Although the secretary gets paid less, I'm sure she is paid a higher fraction of the value of her labor over the miner.

You're an SJW, feminism is classist, stop posting and leave.

I want this on a tshirt tbh

Indeed

My point was that feminism at its best, back when it was truly a necessary movement (which it no longer is), was still idpol. Like sez, it's a double-edged sword.

Ye gads, this reminds me of the moment when I realized feminism really is cancer. For most of my life, I blithely assumed that "anarcho-feminism" simply referred to feminists who were also anarchists. Years later, I stumbled on dens of actual anfems who ascribed to themselves a heterodox abomination wherein sexual dimorphism is effectively the original sin of authoritarianism, patriarchy is the Platonic ideal by which all hierarchy is formed, and all hierarchical exploitation is in truth a mere derivative of rape. This often dovetails with the usual gaia-cultism where perfect peaceful matriarchal societies of nomadic moon worshippers in sync with nature were overthrown by evil patriarchal agrarians who destroyed everything with their penises of evil.

ANFEMS ARE LITERALLY XENU-TIER SPOOKY

Tzeentch references just mean "tricksy and absurdly elaborate schemes"

The typical application of "regressive" (I hate that word) to feminists, particularly 3rd-wavers, is a great deal stronger than that. It's not just that they want to put a certain group on top, but that orthodox feminism today, in terms of its institutional leadership, accepted literature, and full-time activists, is filled with people who are insanely, cartoonishly hateful toward vast swathes of people. Men, feminine women, heterosexuals, families, cultural reflections of such, biological and historical facts… Even the battle over transexuals being male invaders or sufficiently mortified of sin to qualify as genuine women is so fresh that the wounds on both sides still haven't scabbed over.

These are KKK-grade fanatics that have wormed their way into mainstream acceptance through ignorance and intimidation.

The point isn't to pretend we're all the same all the time, like some anti-Marxist caricature, it's for neutrality and objectivity to serve as an ideal to uphold when dealing with others in society. You know, fairness, not equality. Think of Holla Forums itself, asserting your identity to any extent is ONLY EXCUSABLE when YOUR IDENTITY IS RELEVANT to matters at hand, and then only the aspects of your identity that are relevant.

Inside each of us is a tiny 8/pol/lack, who gets butthurt at posts against board consensus. Instead of fora as a ruthless arena of conversation where gladiators face every and any foe in debate and shitposting, it wants a nazi torture chamber in which one single idea is pounded into the flesh of every poster with masochistic glee. Do not listen to it.

You're probably trolling with the Obama/Hillary comment, but your first para is a real line of thought some Maoshits honestly believe: What makes feminism different from classism is that there are specific laws which oppress the lower class, there are essentially none that oppress women, very few that oppress blacks, and laws can easily be changed. All of the laws changed to make this true today would've had to be changed even if capitalism were overthrown. In contrast, the issues (and "issues") 3rd-wave feminists and BLM-type blacktivists yell about are immaterial in nature, would require inhumanely horrifying regimes of oppression to specifically resolve, and would have all material effects resolved by overthrowing capitalism anyway, rendering efforts on such topics completely redundant and futile.

I never said that. If you prioritize women just for being women or because you think it effects them more you are imposing a hierarchy of importance with them at the top while disregarding other people.

No one said anything about compromises. Stop making strawman arguments.

Idpol is disgusting and i refuse to take part in it.
In the words of Engels, they are turning smut into theory.

Capped and saved