I just realized something, I know absolutely nothing about feminism. Where do I start...

daily reminder to ignore these threads

...

it's time for you to go back

this

isnt non-tumblr feminism an oxymoron?

No. In the same vein that "non-tumblr leftism" isn't an oxymoron.

...

Beauvoir - The Second Sex
Most of it's boring, get a revised edition

Read those books

I don't get making fun of these guys for the reasons most people do. He looks like shit not because he attempted to dress like that, but because he didn't do it right. Even a fat man looks okay if he dresses well. Dressing with a suit at the inappropriate occasion is also silly, but menswear exists for this reason. You can dress with a shirt every day of your life and look good. They key is to wear things that complement your look and not things that you think will magically make you "classy"(god I hate that word now).

Le Livre de la Cité des Dames is the first work of literature where a woman took up the pen in defence of her sex. Within the text she explores themes of women's moral and intellectual instruction, if women should be taught as men are and why some men think women should not be educated, the right for women to choose a religious/monastic or secular life, the sovereignty of women's governance, the delinquency and debauched state of rape, and so on. It's a very beautiful piece of the renaissance and I love her praise of the virgin Mary.

Feminism should not exist, as it divides people more, like nationalism. Sure, women and men have differences, and it'd be good to learn about those differences, but only on the scientific level.

Feminism is advocacy for women. We, as leftists, already believe in equality, therefore we do not need feminism.

Leftism is advocacy for equality. We, as feminists, already believe in women, therefore we do not need equality.

Yeah, that sums up why feminism is poison, alright. You even got the flag and everything.

You're missing the greater irony, but okay.

...

If feminism were sincerely about gender equality it wouldn't be called feminism.

Contrary to what feminists today tend to spewl out of their face holes, feminism started in the 19th century with bourgeois women who wanted to inherit their husband's wealth, NOT with Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique or Margaret Sanger.

So-called third-wave feminism extends the narrative of woman hater oppression by presenting transgendereds as notable victims. As a result, there is now a split between feminism that actually thinks that females are people with vaginas ("TERFs", "essentialist") and feminism that includes non-uterused people ("gender ideology").

>you disagree with my ideology, that means you wear funny hats and dress poorly
NICE NON-ARGUMENT

You mean how even someone who's as fashion-blind as I am can tell that the sleeves are too long, the hat is the wrong color, the pants are too large, and the tie is the wrong color?

...

...

Exactly, fam. His shoes are also visibly dirty and of poor quality. Also, the bottom button on the coat should not be buttoned, and his tie is also tied wrong. There's a myriad of things wrong with him. It's not hard to look good as a man. You just have to follow certain rules, chief among them is the rule that your clothes should fit and be clean. I would kill myself if I was a woman. They have too many different types of clothing. I hate not knowing what to wear.

Oh, and then there's this historical inaccuracy (I wonder if you just read a wikipedia page):

"To bear, to nurse, to rear, to love, and then to lose!"

I wholeheartedly support reading Dworkin. Smart woman and her works directly reveal all feminist apologists here to be the dishonest scum they are.

You can get the books for free here:

radfem.org/dworkin/

Isn't she one of those porn hating feminist though?

Hey there, Andrea Dworkin
I've got to see ya booty twerkin'.

Seriously though, "men are this, women are that" sort of essentialist mentalities pushed by Dworkin are cancerous. Also, her "all sex is rape" thesis isn't radical enough, as it only calls heterosexual PIV sex rape because duh patriarchy and women dind­u nu­ffin. She misunderstands that anyone can rape anyone, male, or female, homo, no homo.

I'm not really into feminism, but I actually like this woman.
She was on Richard Wolff's show recently.
She's one of the few Marxist Feminist I've heard of.

Forgot link

harrietfraad.com/

Dude same. The materialist analysis she gave of how fucked up dating and marriage has become was fascinating to listen to

Yes, she is.

No, it isn't. You're wrong. Just go away.

Nice strawman you got their friend, but I'll bite: the essence of Man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice. The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

there*

We don't need a feminist to tell use this. It's common sense.

No one said you did. I'm literally just criticising Dworkin.

...

Nah. I just copypasta'd Marx, you mong.

Not an argument

I quote:

The rest of your post is just you spouting shit. Just go away, I'm not interested.

I'm not the first person to call her out on being an essentialist, and I won't be the last.

Enjoy being wrong. Now go away.

Why are you posting Boogie? What did he do to you?

That explains it.

That guy who told you to read Dworkin was right. Read some primary material by the early feminists. If you want to go way back you can even start with their precursors at the Frankfurt School.

If you want to know where feminism is now, go to Jezebel or something. I'm not sure if it's still up since Gawker got leg-dropped on but that's a pretty representative nest of modern feminism. You could also try tumblr…

Okay, yes, she has said "it is not true that there are two sexes which are discrete and opposite," but her partner, Catharine MacKinnon, in much of her activism does have this particular strain of bioligcal determination. Perhaps I really am just accusing her by hearsay and association…

Please just go away.

But I'm bored ;\

Why do you want her to go away? She's well read and posts lewd stuff, that's a good combination.

I've only actually skimmed Dworkin. Most of what I know about her is second-hand. Should take what I say with grain of salt…

The fact you've skimmed a book makes you better read than half this board.

Pornography is rape on film.

Who is that grill in the second picture and where can I find porno of her

Laci Green and I don't know if there is any.

wut

Actually, it's about workers owning the means of production.

Actually, it started with workers wanting equal pay, and then bourgie bitches started wanting to own property and claimed the movement. Sounds familiar?

you can fap to her boobs, in the videos where she has lost weight, if you want.

say it with me now

NOT

That's not very nice…

Was making joke.

Sounds like "anarcho"capitalism.

It's true though.

...

It actually has though.

...

What a shock, I don't want to waste time arguing with a psychotic cultist and am therefore not presenting arguments. Bloody clever, you.

...

...

...

...

The progressists (including communism of course) played a central part in accelerating this division process.

Just go gay and get that shit out of your life altogether.

Feynman said something like this as well. He called it cargo cult science.

That's his wife. She's on his show a lot.

ponies-against-degeneracy.tumblr.com/

Fuck it, just nuke this shit planet.

Yes and the posters suggesting otherwise are tumblrinas.

w2c shirt?

You don't.
You turn to anyone who says they are a Feminist and DO AS YOUR TOLD!
Unless you mean Based Mom's Feminism, if you mean her brand, then look her up on Youtube.

Sexual pleasure, am I right?

pri.org/stories/2015-11-20/whos-afraid-simone-de-beauvoir-how-national-exam-had-millions-brazilians-talking

fuck off Holla Forums

Is this Chomsky lowkey admitting to being scientifically illiterate?

also
wew

...

2nd wave feminism was more collectivist, and the theorists were usually anarchists or socialists, but it was pretty much wiped out by 3rd wave feminism of the 80s/90s onward, which was all about identity politics. 2nd wave feminism was gender critical, 3rd wave is all caught up in transgender politics. This is why 2nd wavers like Germaine Greer have been no-platformed and abused by 3rd wave/idpol/SJW feminists, because 2nd wavers don't think trans women are biologically female, etc.

Remindet that all sex that that is not purely for reproductive purposes is violence, for both parts

Well, they're not. But it doesn't matter. But biologically, they are not. If they go to donate blood they'll have to tick "male", sorry.

Reminder you are a faggot.

Meh, it wasn't that bad, I blamed US Imperialism for promoting hedonist lifestyles.
Also a lot of people are functionally illiterate so pretty much any coherent argument will get you at least a 7.

Are we seriously banning AnFems now? God, 6 months ago this board was pretty much officially Feminist but now it looks like we're made of the "Reasoner" youtube crowd, the heck.

I think this is supposed to be from women's/feminists' perspective. It's pretty dumb nonetheless.

Can someone who's more knowledgeable explain something to me?

I always read about how radical feminism rejects men's standards of equality, that they're not pushing for women to be equal to men. What exactly does this mean? What are they promoting then, if not equality?

Origin of the Family and Second Sex

Uhhhhh

I'll make an attempt based on my interactions with different kinds of feminists (guess what, different kinds exist despite libtards acting as if all feminists are one united front):

Modern feminism aka liberal feminism is about getting more women among the bourgeoisie.

Contemporary redstockings feminists generally only see men as supporting characters or the villain. They generally don't desire equality but rather want to force their own standards on others. History has been dominated by men and redstockings want to turn that around, not even it out.

There is nothing wrong with second-wave feminism. They were correct about trans.

What's wrong with Dworkin? Is it because she's a radfem?

No one said otherwise. Was this reply meant for anyone?

For lazy folk like me who didn't read the thread.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat:_The_Jews,_Israel,_and_Women's_Liberation

Did you sleep through your history lessons or something? Its not even grounded in theoratical books, its reinvented every time.

also
Fukken cool

Wasn't Dworkin a CIA stooge?

...

It wouldn't be surprising in the slightest if she was. She was one of the pioneers of anti-Marxist feminism.

Holy shit, look at all these actually reactionary "socialists"
Why is it so hard to understand that the name "feminism" has stayed due to its history, not because "kill all men"? Identifying as a feminist doesn't stop you from being socialist either

Let me put it in a way we all can relate to: think of it as a sidequest in a non scaling RPG. It's a great idea to do them and it's beneficial, just don't let it make you forget about the BBEG

Nice filter. I don't post here often enough

Simone De Beauvoir. You don't really need to understand feminism though, beyond the simple principle that women and men should have equal opportunities.

Yeah, no.

...

black women are fucking awfull

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think feminist divorced sex from gender. Sex should be if you have a penis or vagina with uterus and ovaries but gender should be something psychologial. Am I wrong?

It's not, and quit projecting ideology onto me. You're the ones that refuse to look at biology. Beauvoir has an excuse as they did not know of such things in here time. You do not.

Yeah, but who gives a shit what they think? They never base any of their "theory" on actual fucking evidence and research. It's cargo cult science. Gender is the social actions as a direct result of your sex. You can act manly as a woman, but that doesn't make you a man, or change your gender. The same with a man.

what does
mean?
newlefrypolfag here

this
anyone who thinks there is no biological basis in male and female gender can go fuck off to tumblr

lel
You're the ones who cherrypick evidence when it suits your position and dismiss it when it doesn't.
scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

:^)

Anyone who thinks there is no biolgical basis in black and white IQs can go fuck off back to reddit!

This isn't the same. And even if that was true (and it's not), making policy based on race is inherently racist.

It's the exact same form of reductionism and if you can't see it then you're just as ideological as you pretend not to be.

So you're trying to convince me that men and women didn't evolve different and that having a penis and testicles does not make me a man and it's all made up or """socially""" constructed? Look buddy, once in the future we could make man give birth, maybe this "reductionism" would make no sense anymore but for the time being it does.

I don't disagree that transgender people have mental imbalances, but that doesn't change what they are, and never will.

Except we have evidence that it isn't due to biology. It's the same bullshit cargo cult science on the other end. However, we can agree that a white man will never become transblack. Race is a social construct defined by skin color and heritage, we'd be better off ignoring it, just like gender.

Saying that women and men evolved differently is an argument for the social construct, you know.

And we also have evidence that gender isn't due to biology either.

Gender roles are "social constructs" and can be changed, we can live in patriarchy or matriarchy or whatever but the fact remains that there are two genders male and female just like there is in nature with the exception of hermaprhodites and transgender people. Stop going against science, please.
Biggest reason why feminism are not taken seriously is because they ignore biological basis of sex.

Yeah, we totally decided on arbitrary characteristics who is a man and who is a woman. Again, though, why does it matter? The whole point of equality is to ignore these things except in cases where being a man or woman is massively disadvantageous, like women in the infantry. Other than that, there is no need to care about it. Only idpol faggots care.

lol going against science

You do when you see someone fully clothed and can't get a blood test.

Gender is assigned to you in a society. It is not fully determined by sex, and behavior related to it is not biologically determined in most cases. You'll notice women in some African country aren't like the women from Canada, FYI.

Now ease stop holding science as the ultimate master of truth like a moronic positivist.

I compared us to other mamals and primates, not fungus.

there is nothing wrong in being a positivist

Oh, so I guess if I go blackface, then I'm black because you can't get a blood test. Dipshit.

When it comes to building utilitarian models about the real world that reflect reality, science is not only the best way, it's the only way.

Science can not answer for things that develop historically like gender. Again, just because someone is born a male doesn't mean they'll be a man. This is the thing, "man" and "women " are culturally developed categories for people. For obvious reasons they are not universal to all, and thus aren't completely determined by sex. If they were, there would literally be no difference across people.

Historical materialism, faggot.

No, you made the most vague appeal anyone could make in an argument: "muh nature"

Technically you would be black since when you paint a house it also becomes that colour.

...

Except you're objectively wrong about how that developed. We see this in the animal kingdom. It's part of nature.

That's exactly what that means.

No, it's just a synonym for your sex.

Too bad you can't list those "obvious" reasons.

Except that's what you're arguing, and this does not follow from the given that sex and gender are the same thing.

Not the person you're replying to but
we also see animals in their kingdoms operating from the idea that gender presentation can change regardless of sex
voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/22/7-gender-bending-animals/

So, no.

rules of feminism:
1. women are people
repeat above rules until you can remember them.

This is all natural in the animal kingdom. The animals and fish are not taking hormones and chemicals to alter their bodies or going to the surgeon to change their sex. Males are born with a penis, females are born with a vagina. Sometimes but rarely a person is born with both, in which case the DNA will tell the sex of the person, either XX or XY. Humans cannot change gender, they can only pay a surgeon to make fake sex organs, there is nothing natural about it. Secular humanism is rotting this nation and the brains of many. Repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ.

You'll note that none of those are close relatives of humans. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species, and while I agree with you that gender roles can be overcome and ignored, gender is a static quality of an individual, just like your skin color. Yes, you can tan, you can bleach your skin, or you can go blackface, but that does not change what you actually are. There is also no need to care that much about it.

When I was young, I wanted to have lighter skin, just like my gramps, and siblings, but my dad has dark skin tone and that's where I got it from. I wanted to have blue eyes like my brother, but I do not. That's okay, I learned to ignore these things, because in the end, they are not important. Your gender is not important either. If you, as a man, want to dress up like a woman, then it's fine, or if you want to have surgery, then go ahead, but don't try to tell me that you aren't still a man and that you've magically changed. You have not, and while I'll call you by what you want to be called if I can, do not get offended if I, or others, don't care to associate with you for long term, or if you aren't considered a potential sexual partner (if that's what you're into and don't just want to be pretty).

You might be illiterate fam.

These

Reading this thread, it seems like you keep backpeddaling to that idea that it's not the specific animal's, to which you were referring, ability to be able to alter your, to have mixed, whatever gender after any counterexample is given to your "it's not natural" argument. Seems pretty dishonest. And your constant insistence that gender doesn't exist outside of biological elements doesn't really go beyond constant insistence ad nauseam. In regards to:
The Male and Female categories don’t vary around the world, sure. A Female baby born in the US will have the same biology as a Female baby born in Saudi Arabia. However, because of the differences in culture and the expectations, restrictions and opportunities those different cultures have for Females, those two Female babies will grow up with different interests, skills and abilities as well as different views of the world and themselves as Women.

No, I'm making fun of you.

My argument isn't that being trans "is not natural", it's that it does not change what you are. Unlike the other species of animals that can literally change their biology, humans do not have that ability. Stop being obtuse.

That's the only way it can exist. Anything else is simply something you're making up in your mind.

What a coincidence, amirite?

And yet they're both still women. Are you retarded? I don't care what they think of themselves, in a world where their gender does not limit what they can and can't do (socialism), their gender is strictly based on biology, because that's what it is when you boil it down and undo the spooks floating above this basic fact.

The less we pay attention to stupid shit like gender roles, the faster we can move forward. Socialists already believe in equality for all. Your only limiting factor now is your biology. This bullshit focus on muh gender and muh trans is retarded. In socialism, it does not matter, and I expect a transwoman to do things a man is expected to do, such as be in the infantry when there is a war and a draft. I do not expect actual women to do this because their biology is a limiting factor and this can in fact harm them to degrees that do not happen to transwomen, you know, because even after cutting your dick off, you still retain bigger lungs, thicker bones, higher endurance under stress, and slower bleed-out times. This is a rare case, though, and in 99% of the time, nobody gives a shit. The only ones who might give a shit are those that are trying to get a wife and end up dating a transwoman, then it might be an issue for certain individuals.

That's a poor way to do it. Not everyone that disagrees with your delusions is an evangelical christian.

#NotAllObjectivists XD

Except I'm not an Ayn Rand disciple.

...

Also, if that's all you took from it then there'sno use talking to someone as retarded, and obtuse as you are.

...

Where did I say that? We do not have to force anything.

I never said conscription was to be based off gender. I said certain roles are not suited to women, the infantry, at least currently, is one of them, but I expect a transwoman to do it if need be. Women can do other things, like being pilots, or working on ships, or even artillery, or other things that don't have a high operational tempo.

Even then, I think certain ways of using female infantry could be found, defending FOBs, or providing security could certainly be done, and we could always just say fuck it if we are on a last-ditch effort. We may get high casualties, but at that point it won't matter.

...

Conscription is state force. In your example it's to make transwomen equal to men in serving. Moreover, I can't believe you have no dissonance about saying ignore gender roles, then saying gender is synonymous with sex, then saying that gender is important for determining your role in wartime.

I hope you realise that I just said almost exactly what they just said to me and used the same two pejoratives.

I'm not an anarchist, so I see nothing wrong with this. Conscription is a last-resort thing anyway.

Except transwomen are physically equal to men. All you would have to do is take them off hormone therapy and make them fight. They might be slightly weaker, but at that point, everyone being conscripted isn't going to be the model soldier. They'll still be stronger than females.

Because gender roles are certain actions that we thing are "a man's thing" or "a woman's thing". Being a man is just what you are, that's gender, which is the same as sex. Being trans just means you are of a sex but had surgery or just like to dress up.

It's important for a few occupational specialties. 99% of military roles are unisex even now. The only reason it's important is because of biological factors. If you argue that transwomen are women, then fine, women can serve in the infantry, as long as they were born male.

...

It seems you are consumed by ideology. Have a nice day.

No, you are. Ideology holds contradictory niceties just as you're doing. Read Zizek you stupid cunt.

Also, you know the context. And it's pretty fair considering how retarded it is anyway.

Okay dipshit. Let's boil it down

Yes, things like wearing a dress, doing "girly things".

Yes, it's the same.

True, it's based on biology.

Never said that. I said we do not have to force equality. If we treat people equal, then they are equal. The only caveat I gave was things that were biologically limited. You decided to ignore that part.

Except I never said that.

One more thing, dipshit, having thicker bones, bigger lungs and hear, and other shit is not a part of gender roles, this is part of humans being a sexually dimorphic species. Yes, almost all men are stronger than almost all women.

Now that we're done, have a good fucking day, you ideologically-driven buffoon.

So a social construct.

Except in cases where things do not conform to your reductive ideology.
Moreover, you keep on contradicting yourself here. If gender does not limit what you can or can't do in socialism, and, for you, gender is sex, then you cannot even limit biologically what someone can or cannot do. You cannot even have the sort of gendered conscription you want.

Except you did, cunt. When transwomen don;t identify as men you had to identify them for them so that you could sort them with state power.

...

The one on the left is called a hakama and is split down the middle, like pants, and the one on the left is a kilt, not a dress. Source: weeb as fuck

what are pants really but two skinny dresses for your legs

In socialism, we will all transition to boiler suits, fancy, fabulous boiler suits.

nope. read definition of gender