ITT: we hate on and make fun of Anarcha-Feminists

I think it's quite telling that the ancom memes are so far removed from actually criticizing the ideology or proponents that they basically apply to other ideologies wholesale, and more accurately.

I'm like the only one who does this. All the others are actually anarkiddies.

Most I see just seem to spit on communism as a whole for some reason.

Well red flags are the dumbest posters on the board so it's no surprise.

I promise I won't hurt you much.

they hang

him

le big gubermand amirite?

Fuck off, the adults are talking.

...

jej

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101

Try reading a book instead of masturbating to anime you dumb nigger. Here's one for you.

When I say socialism I mean Marxist socialism, dumbfuck.

It's the only belief that is truly beneficial to everyone.

The key here is the conflation of government with the state. I imagine it is written as such for outsiders to understand what is being said better, as government=state is a common mistake. Either that, or the writer and I disagree on semantics.

In any case, replace "government" with "the state" and you've got your definition, hence "statists".

It is without government in the same way communism is without a ruling or working class. There is no divide between who is apart of governing the population and those who are spoken for.

Hi Holla Forums.

I've literally never seen a capitalist femminist or AnCap Femminist. In fact, I'm willing to bet I can find 5 ComFemme youtubes for every 1 AnFemme youtube you embed in this thread.

Are you one of those tards that think liberals are anti-capitalist?

Anarcha-fem is the one of the best posters though.

COME AT ME

All of this feminist bashing is weak.
youtube.com/watch?v=_qAUBLkhoI0

fuck off rebel obesity

While they're probably just mad that so many early Marxists were involved in women's liberation movements, or are millennials who've been taught that feminism can't help little boys, they are correct when they say that there are many who pay it lip-service while still upholding the system as it is (Hillary Clinton comes to mind).

The original intended use of "idpol" is a critique of the practice put in place by special interest groups who would judge other solely on what identity group they could be put in, and the dismissal of opinions or statements made by others deemed less inherently moral than that favored group.

Labeling things such as the suffrage movement as idpol is incorrect. The maker of that video is proving why such things aren't idpol, not that idpol isn't a legitimate criticism of certain practices or modern day "feminism".

there are a few who are anarcho, but upon further discussion I've found no disceranable difference between them and ancoms in terms of ideology, so I don't really see the point

This is why Anarcho-feminism is Redundant, it's absolutely unnecessary, but it exist because of some special snowflakes, that cant get over their spooky identity.

You wanna talk redundancies, but "special snowflake" is the biggest one used today! Every snowflake has a unique topology! Why you gotta hate on snowflakes anyway? They're pretty, and fun to catch on your tongue…

just_girly_things.png

Why live?

that picture is adorable

Ayyy…

The fact that life has no meaning is a reason to live—moreover, the only one.

are an-fems by default into femdom

Attention!
We've got a poster with a red flag who's making shit threads at a very fast rate. Don't respond, sage, hide.

...

Where did I say anything about Luxemburgism?

you didnt but some people unironically write shit like this here

Is that so? I don't think I've ever seen "aaargh!!! why cant i get laid???!!" posted as such.

well ok thats an exaggeration…

...

Ancaps can comrade too, if they don't have shitty capitalist thinking.

Is it just me, or does anarchopac's accent make him sound incredibly pretentious?

I used to think like that but it isnt.

Ye can choose only one silly user.

You are ether with us or with them hanging.

I think he's being sarcastic…

Hopefully.
in both cases Ayncraps and Anfem(idpol) need to hang.
You aren't my mates.

Don't bother anfem-chan, that guy with a pirate is a turboautist

What the fuck?

Why did you just said that to me?

Are you the same person who wrote ?

Yep.

You can't detect irony and use reddit-tier insults, so you're certified turboautist, congratulations

What a movement like feminism should be struggling for is not the idea that there is some distinct identity or ethos of femininity that needs affirmative recognition, so that it’s equal with masculinity. No, the critical recognition in a feminist movement ought to be a struggle against the forms of status inequality that are linked to gender terms. And that leaves it quite open whether this should be revaluing "the feminine" whatever that is.

I should know. They have standard My Little Pony magical conceits draped over them!

No because it's fucking divisive!

This is why radical feminism Destroyed the left.

fuck you.

kys

No government doesn't mean no laws, it means no leaders. Retard.

The radical left was destroyed by more than just a collection of legbeards.

Now post some cats you pessimistic cumcraver.

fucking kek

Checkmate, OP.

Haven't you learned not to feed the trolls, OP?

...

>undertones

No I don't like Anime and I'm not a faggot.

you mentally ill degenerate.

>it was a reference to the series those characters are from, don't worry about it

shitty piratefag confirmed for actually a Holla Forumstard

Is it really? Sounds kinda gay…

...

How can you dislike faggots when you are one ?

Go back to your cuckporn folder you fucking faggot.

If some one here is a Faggot it's most certainly you:

And I am supposed to be the polyp here.

wew lad.

I was. Anfem is to idpol as Ancap is to capitalism.

If they dont have shitty capitalist thinking then they are by definition not ancaps

There are plenty of cases where feminism is tied to class struggle. Moreover, you asserting it doesn't actually make it so.

...

The most prominent womens' organization in anarchist Spain, the Mujeres Libres, angrily refused to be associated with feminism. Emma Goldman famously refused to denounce men as tyrants, unlike the feminists of her day. Prominent women in Bolshevik Russia, such as Alexandra Kollontai, similarly refused. Feminists have claimed these women retroactively but it's just another bourgeois appropriation.

You know, there are plenty of feminists that do this today (like Sonia Verstappen, et al), all who despair about the misapplication of feminist theory and how different waves distorted the prime cause! You know, part of situating oneself within an ideology also allows one to reproach and be critical of it, to separate the chaff from the wheat; o This doesn't mean that Mrs. Goldman didn't speak about woman's issues; many of her own writings would even be considered idpol by your standards "Nowhere is woman treated according to the merit of her work, but rather as a sex. It is therefore almost inevitable that she should pay for her right to exist, to keep a position in whatever line, with sex favors. Thus it is merely a question of degree whether she sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men!… The economic and social inferiority of woman is responsible for prostitution." But you're even forgetting girls like Eleanor Marx, Luise Aston, Clara Zetkin, Dora Montefiore, et al… therwise, how could any movement grow, how could anyone distinguish their meaning from simple platitudes as "that is idpol lmao"?

...

You remove the critique of capitalism and suddenly it's bourgeois: who would have thought! Feminism is distinct from anarchism and communism for that reason. Should women form their own organizations or associations to advocate for their particular issues? Yes, that's exactly what the Mujeres Libres did – but that didn't make them feminists.

Whatever floats your subideological paper plate, my dude; if you don't like having your foods touch that's your business. However, it is not divorced from historical materialism which announces all those notions of family and the psychosocial form, including the processes of domestic labour and reproduction. Seriously, read someone like Kate Millett who shows how Marxist critique of pedigree can be emended. It's not just some squabble of minor appearances, of interest only to a few nitpicking scholastics. The issue at stake actually involves a theoretical and political battle of great magnitude which has profound implications for he women's liberation movement(s) and for the advancing of social revolution towards humanity! This is the way Marx and Engels, the founders of scientific socialism, viewed the discovery of the matriarchy. While Marx was busy on his own masterpiece, Capital, Lewis H. Morgan's book Ancient Society was brought to him from the US, which both Marx and Engels together made notes for a joint book on these findings. When Marx died, Engels summed up his conclusions in Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State about the unambiguous importance of the matriarchy. For him, this proved the communistic or classless character of precivilized society but also it pinpointed the source of woman's downfall as class society became increasingly bent towards the defence of private property. The very high position of women was one of the most graphic expressions of that communistic community. Thanks to the important socioeconomic role of women, they enjoyed an unsurpassed prestige, authority, and dignity that stands in sharp contrast to the inferior, second-sex status women occupy in a class based economy.

You're an absolute retard. There has never been a matriarchy, ever, and that's not my opinion, that's the conclusion of modern anthropology.

I hate them, sure, but they aren't capitalists.

You can't be against the free market and a capitalist. They are you, but with downs.

That's as much a reflection on you as the existence of down's syndrome is a reflection on me, so don't fret.

Say that to my fucking face, comrade, and not online and see what happen, nerd! What the did you just ing say about me, you male pig? I'll have you know I graduated top of my Women's Studies class, and I've been involved in numerous demonstrations against oppression of womenkind, and I have over 300 signatures on my petition. I am trained in debate tactics and I'm the top speaker in the entire Feminist Frequency. You are nothing to me but just another cis scum. I will reeducate the out of you with feminism the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my ing words. You think you can get away with saying that to me over the Internet? Think again, male oppressor. As we speak I am contacting my public network of activists across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, woman hater. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your worldview. You're ing dead, nerd. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can disprove your biased theories in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with no preparation time. Not only am I extensively trained in rhetorics, but I have access to the entire funding of the Tropes vs Women in Video Games project and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable opinions off the face of the Internet, you rapist. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your ing tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you godessdamn idiot. I will rain empowerment all over womyn and your cisprivilege will drown in it. Your rape culture is over, man.

...

So, are you guys, like, egalitarians or?

Do you still believe in the patriarchal bogyman?

Nice shitpost.

One, just because one isn't a capitalist doesn't automatically make them a socialist.

Two, they're liberals. So yes, they're capitalists.

I don't think they are classical liberals either. Their safe space nanny culture is not only the antithesis of freedom but also a restriction of freedom of association as a consequence, coupled with their blatant authoritarian rhetoric.

And no, not being a capitalist doesn't make you a socialist. Being a socialist makes you a recitalist.

There is a radical ambiguity for the Marxist notion of the "gap" between formal democracy (the rights of man, political freedom, etc.) and the economic reality of exploitation and domination. One can read this gap between the "appearance" of equality-freedom and the social reality of economic, cultural, etc. differences either in the standard "symptomatic" way (the form of universal rights, equality, freedom and democracy is just a necessary, but illusory form of expression of its concrete social content, the universe of exploitation and class domination), or in the much more subversive sense of a tension in which the "appearance" of egaliberte, precisely, is NOT a "mere appearance," but evinces an effectivity of its own, which allows it to set in motion the process of the rearticulation of actual socioeconomic relations by way of their progressive "politicization" (Why shouldn't women also vote? Why shouldn't conditions at the working place also be of public political concern? etc.)

Thank (:

Socialist* Not recitalist

Sorry if I appear a little slow, but it seems to me you are trying to say that their equality is a facade and that you want to induce it more prescriptively rather than generally?

Sorry, I've just never seen someone that needs to say things in such an odd way. Typically if you understand something you can explain it consistently.

Concisely*

Sorry, I'm used to having time to click abort when I see a mistake. Won't happen again.

(­(­("Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality."))­)

sadly your mum was not used to do the same everytime she got pregnant

I disagree. I would argue that intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of a pragmatist. Granted, pragmatists are often marked with a "I can do all of these things better if I do them myself" attitude, although with wisdom comes the death of such a narrow perspective.

I don't know who is worse now Ancaps, Anfems, Nazbols, Nazis,Tankies, Trots or Socdems.

literally tr00lled

I don't consider that an insult, because Hitler did nothing wrong. @:~)

I'm the thing close to that here (I'd wager) and yet I've not said anything like that.

I just wanted to talk to you guys.

come on son

All of these are shit compared to the anarcho-capitalist one. They don't even make sense

Also I really don't see why being aware of gender issues makes you capitalist. An-fems are the least cancerous form of idpol out there

But why is it a removal of this critique? An ideology can be complex thing and although gender issues are usually as a result of class then whats wrong with tracking how this has developed and effects people?

Of course they don't make sense.

Just like how guns are immoral once their pointed at you.

...

Come on, buddy, please.

It's not moral if I don't like it.

You're no longer basing your analysis of the relations between men and women in the context of their relations to production in bourgeois society. If you examine something like gender it cannot ignore bourgeois social relations, otherwise it stays in the idealist space of some kind of essential masculinity being the cause of inequality and injustice, simply because male bodies inhabit the majority of hierarchical positions in bourgeois society.

Where is the morality argument, where is the mention of guns? There is none you fucking Holla Forumstergeist.

You've lost me.

I thought you were responding to my use of the word "immoral".

I'm not a Nazi. You could say that I am a tribalist. This is the only flag that is even close to having a connection to tribalism.

Even though I find your ideology disagreeable, you shitpost like a champ.

...

This thread is p pathetic. Anarcha-Feminism is an uncommon enough tendency that anyone who chooses to identify as one is most likely going to be just as legit an anarchist as any other self-identified anarchist. Probably more so, in fact, since they've narrowed down their interests within the scope of hierarchy that anarchism critiques.

That being said, there's literally no reason why an anfem necessarily isn't or can't be a "real" anarchist or a communist. This post-GG paranoia about ess jay doubleyoos co-opting literally everything they touch is absolutely pathetic - especially given how readily Holla Forums has let Holla Forums creep in. And really it comes from Holla Forums just being unwilling to consider the real factors why the Left is totally irrelevant right now. I guess it's just a lot easier to internalize reactionary narratives about the Left being comprised of liberals, while simultaneously trying to deny that the Left actually is liberals because we're supposedly the one true "leftist" community/org/whatever in existence.

Wanting to believe that everyone except Holla Forums is an ess jay doubleyoo makes no sense to me, because believing that this pathetic shitshow of a board is the best hope the Left has is drastically more abysmal than just being willing to listen to people talk about things that may make you uncomfortable if you've never been oppressed on the axis of an identity foisted on you by society.

Social Justice is the biggest shield of capitalism, and only traditional values of masculinity and femininity will shatter it.

gb2>>/pol.

Show me how pregnancy isn't the destiny of women.

Do you think we have the memories of goldfish?

We were there when you cunts took over occupy.
We were there when you took over nearly every student union in America.
We were there when you dismissed any semblance of actual socialist action as "class reductionism".

Fuck. Off.
Your kind aren't welcome here, and with good reason.

You literally stole that pic and greentext combo from twitter. Why? It adds nothing to your post.

why are we conflating anarchofeminism with any kind of feminism? why are we still pretending that catgirl poster isn't one of the best we have? why are we so concerned with not looking like essjays? why are we so concerned with how we look to people who will forever despise and misunderstand us either way?

seriously? muhdritional balues spook only sustains whatever system it works within

Yeah but hey man feminism was like important historically or something.

Imageboards only warrant a slap on the wrist for plagiarism.

No.

We're on Holla Forums. It shouldn't be surprising.

Stop before I fall in love.

No idea. It doesn't matter if we call liberals and SJWs faggots, the rest of Holla Forums will hate us and scream cuck at us because we don't want to kill all niggers and kikes.

Catposter is easily the best poster for fun threads. I miss the dyke anfem too, she was funny and I could talk to her about bdsm and eating pussy. Whorefriend was all right too, probably read more than 90% of this board and she had nice titties.

...

Post **books*

books

smh Kat are you trying to pretend that the middle pic is u

Clearly these are just random photos of books user.

Holy fucking hell how do you pass so well

I pass as white american actually.

Kat pls get back in #anarcho

Not Kat, I'm escort user.

smh thought you were the catposter anfem. RIP feelings

Nope. I'm the Lefty lumpenprole.

More. I just fucked some braindead girl I met on tinder and need to wash the taste out of my mouth.

I just fucked some 50 year old businessman so I know the feeling.

catposter's name is a blank.

There's a good chance she was like his daughter. She talked about how her dad was a great businessman and how she wanted to be like him. I got her to say yes to anal and destroyed her ass out of spite. I hope she never call me back.

More books if you got em, need a bigger reading list.

Sounds kinda mean spirited.

She said she wanted it rough and I aim to please. I choked her for a bit but she clearly wasn't used to it so I backed off. Nothing worse than a vanilla bitch who wants to try sadism with a random dude.

You got more books? I enjoyed The Devil's Chessboard.

This one, if its contents were widely understood, would be Capitalism's silver bullet.

Vanilla bitches are boring.

I intend to read it.

Yeah. I get a lot that just got out of a LTR and are shit at dirty talk but try it anyway. Fucking cringe inducing.

Would populate tribe with.

I like anarcha-feminists but anarcha-feminist flag posters are basically just doing it as a form of saying "i'm a girl and i like boy stuff like politics too xdddd but don't hit on me, silly boys", their posts are never related to their flag/ideology

How'd you get her to bang? Aside from aesthetics?

Honestly, even tho I like Kat and femmyanon, this is true. I wish that the anfem posters would step up more often and BTFO the retards on this board who have never read any anarcha-feminist or Marxist feminist theory.

But then again it would most likely be wasted effort, and I certainly get that, otherwise I'd spend more time trying to explain to people what post-left anarchy and anarcho-nihilism actually are instead of just being a shitposting nuisance ;^)

I'm built like pic related, got a decent face, dress well, and my dick is like a circumcised Manuel Ferrara. You can maybe pull it off with less and being able to talk to grills is essential, but aesthetics plays a big role.

Complete and utter shit. What are they going to do, establish a dictatorship of the gendertariat and wait for gender to fade away whenever it does? Anfems are better than Marxfems in every way.

All you had to do was read theory.

YOU ONLY HAD TO READ THEORY AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SHIT YOU'VE CLEARLY NOT READ

Why would I read Marxist-Snowflakist theory of any stripe when it's just shitting on other revisions of Marx? Especially considering the DoP is bound to fail because it institutes a new hierarchy that quickly assumes the same self-perpetuating behaviors as the old.

As the person who created that image, I can say OP is entirely correct.

If you can't stand the heat, get back in the kitchen.

I'm so jaded at this point in regards to people who call themselves feminist online at this point that I have to ask, are "an fems" the ones that want everyone to fuck off and feel guilty for even looking at a female, other than complete sociopaths that treat them like subs (which is exactly the scenario they setup)? And are marxist feminists the ones that actually understand the idea of the concept of a patriarchy (in the non SJW style) and how it applies gender roles to both genders, and that the liberation of it would not be the idea of setting one gender up on a pedestal but removing societal expectations of either, and letting people be whatever they want?

Sorry. But that's the point I'm at, right now. I used to not care, and sympathise with people who said they were feminist, but at this point if someone calls themselves that - I'll immediately wonder in my head… "what kind of feminist exactly…"

Honestly I feel you but also I think that it's worth it to at least understand Marxian economics. Marxist feminism is pretty much just that + analysis of how capitalism has historically exacerbated divisions between the sexes and created categories of gender and sexuality.

Silvia Federici and Mariarosa Dalla Costa (really the Autonomists in general) are p based Marxists. Would be down for a revolution with Autonomists.

wow nice soggy knees shitIord

anfems aren't sjws. we have a few really quality anfem posters. not sure why we're trying so hard to shame them off the board considering theyre a large minority anyway

I have read Marx and do have some understanding of Marxian economics. I'm of a similar opinion to Marxism as I am to Lovecraft's mythos in that the source material is worth a read but any attempts to expand on it aren't fit to wipe my ass with.

As to Marxfeminism in particular, I don't see a reason I should take my already full reading list and add material that anfems already say. Especially when I disagree fundamentally with Marxism.

Anfems are pretty cool and probably the most fuckable grills on the board. Satanchan would sacrifice you to Atlantean gods and catgrill drawfag has a bf.

Thanks for proving you're an SJW with no real interest in anarchism, n1x.

Yes, they are.

If only…

Maybe I'll read those someday, but my reading list was already big and whorefriend just made it bigger so it will be a long while.

At any rate I'm already for gender abolition as it's a natural result of anarchy and all those would do is give me another reason to hate hierarchy and capitalism.

Whatever our economics or whatever, can we all agree that women need to be controlled? Otherwise shit like this happens.

Well anarcho-feminism sounds redundant as the goals of feminism would be achived inmediatly if there is no state. At least is not self-contradictory as fucking ancaps.

No, and that's painfully reductionist thinking but common among Leftists.

what happens?

Hey man, I just had a test and afterwards spitroasted a blonde qt with my nigger friend. I'm sure glad she chose to fuck a couple of hot guys instead of being forced to marry a pathetic faggot like yourself.

Hey there I was enjoying your books, you have no right to dismiss me as a reductionist just like that.
I even agree with your prehistoric matriarchy thingie, but isnt that further proof that the opression of women is directly tied to the material fact of property and inheritance? You kill the root you kill the plant.

Not really. If oppression occurs along multiple axes and you flatten one of those axes, you still have dimensions of oppression. If in your efforts to flatten that axis of oppression you remove safeguards to reduce oppression along other dimensions, then you may increase net oppression for a portion of the population and fail to reduce it substantially for many.

Dubs confirms, how long did it take you to get to that level and what did you do concerning lifts vs plys? Sorry for going all /fit/.

The problem with feminism is that originally it was made up of women from a bourgeois background, and that its second wave was recuperated by the CIA

Houellebecq would like to have a word with you
here:
8ch.net/leftypol/res/945704.html

Where those axes come from? Do we agree that cultural opression needs some form of material anchor to perpetuate itself? Because if not all we are doing is just abstract theorizing.
And even so, how would you deal with that being an anarchist? You have no centralized state or structure to change that cultural waste or the material causes of it. So you would need some kind of transitional state to apply the policies you need for that change. Methinks you should become a regular commie and that your label has no specific weight on its own. But its ok, I guess having a soviet of anarcho-feminists will pressure the party into fixing that issue, so we all win in the end.

So how do we address oppression outside of material terms? Honestly curious and not trying to be adversial.

About 6 months to lose weight and about 6 to pack on 20ish pounds of muscle in a beginner routine. I mostly lift and have mostly been doing a maintenance routine to avoid getting too big. Cardio helps with fucking too, I do long runs to help build endurance.

Behavior.

No, but it contributes to some forms of it.

A reductionist false dichotomy again.

Culture does not require state actors to alter it. In fact counterculture is often a response to state intervention. Education is often a bigger factor.

It's a question of a gestalt trait resulting from the net consequences of many small behaviors and some large that serves to entrench not only class but also discrimination along race and sex. Removing materialist artifacts from the equation serves a most clear purpose to reduce only one axis of oppression.

...

...

OK, but if those currently oppressing upon that axis (the bourgeoisie) were also those oppressing upon the axis of sex and race, wouldn't that mean that oppression based upon sex and race would be weakened? To go further would removing the material basis for power discrepancy effectively kill any power behind oppression and render it into irrational dislike?

If not what can we, as an assortment of Cletuses, Jamals, and Fernados do about it?

They are not the ones oppressing most often upon the axis of sex and race. In fact an entire school of bourgeois thought seeks to prevent such discrimination as a means of justifying its own existence.

Rope for lynching is cheap. Rape requires only an attitude of tolerance for it, not financing.

Accept and help to perpetuate a, likely slow, change in general attitude within culture.

My understanding of what you are trying to say is that base (material cause) and superstructure (metaphysical cause) need to be changed simultaneously. This is true, but where does it lead? Houellebecq criticized liberation in this way, that when everything is permitted, but when nothing is possible, it is meaningless;

I've seen MRAs throw around this quote in one form or another right an left. You do realize that in most Marxist theory the "communalization of women" means that women no longer bind along a family unit and have the freedom to have sex with who they prefer, yes?

Then it's the culture itself that encourages opression?

I don't tolerate rape and as much as I'd like to lynch the bourgeoisie I've never had the muh privilege. But how can I as one guy who would never rape someone prevent another individual I've never raped from killing someone? I don't think a change in cultural norms or economic conditions is going to abolish rape or murder completely.

How though? Teach any potential offspring I might have not to be faggots while beating up nazis and other reactionaries?

Gosh, why you make that extra jump into idealism! And you do it right at the end of a correct logical reasoning, it is infuriating.

But ok, lets do this: I concede all your points. I dont care about the scientific material basis of communism that much. The question now is: Why a different label? After all you like the rest of us struggle for a classeless society, and agree that in some way shape or form the collectivization of the MoP would benefit your cause. The only different practical step I see from your ideology is that when we are at that point you will do counter-cultural acts to fight women opression. Im assuming you will make some graffiti, maybe organize some anarcho-feminist bands to make a gig against opression, and so on and so forth. You will be the watch(wo)men of that cause and see that no axis of opression against women remains alive after the material cause of opression is gone. And im cool with that, ill go to your gig and get wasted. But why the need of a different label? why you need to belive there is this magical floating culture thingie that demands a specific brand of left to purge it?

It is sarcastic greentext but he does has a point.

So it is engraved in our nature? It comes from the sky? Is not the responsability of the state? You strenghten the state with your position comrade, liberating it from the burden of rape in our society.

Oh and the sage is not because of you, its just because the thread was started with thin-veiled Holla Forums intentions. You added some intellectual talk to it.

In everything not connected with sex woman is a man. Everything man and women have in common belongs to the species, and everything which distinguishes them belongs to the sex. In the union of sexes each contributes equally to the common aim, but not in the same way. From this there arises attack and defense, the audacity of one sex and the timidity of the other, and finally the modesty and shame with which nature armed the weak in order to enslave the strong.

From the horse's mouth, as quoted from Erich Fromm's The Nature of Man: marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch04.htm

Apparently, there IS a Marxist Concept of Human Nature :^)

Read Christine de Pizan tbh.

It is rather sad that you just gave up on the thread.

I didn't start this thread. And I just got here tbh.

But you ruled it with iron tits

If metal mammies are your fetish, I guess.

Also by Vietnamese philosopher Trân Duc Thao, in the middle of studying materialistically how consciousness was brought about, along with jealousy and other things. As soon as it was discovered that men were necessary to reproduction, they wanted their own investment as members of the tribe in the process.

continued

The problem is that of personal taste and attractiveness. If we were living together as man and wife with children, I would necessarily be disturbed if I discovered that I had invested a good amount of my labor and time into what I have discovered is another man's genetic posterity. It means two things:

1. You gave your intimate emotional support to another man when I might have needed that at the time.

2. Even If I did let you do that, the fact that this (the kid that isn't my kid that you had and led me to believe was mine) happened shows that you are not to be trusted and have little to no regard for my health, sanity or labor. In this instance, you see me as a means of support to be tricked.

Fuck, the fact that you are defending communalization of relationships while commodity fetishism (not merely things to buy, but provision of a full lifestyle package), the very thing that Marx says destroys healthy relationships and puts unnecessary stress on families, still has not been defeated/rendered moot by zero-marginal-cost post-scarcity shows me you don't have a sense of priority at all. I don't know how you view or engage in your sexual relationships, but that is the priority here.

Psychologically, people must be invested in their lives and towards their own personal growth, as selfish as that may be. You can say that people are not property, but that presupposes that they are in full control of their faculties and possessions, ultimately being in fully informed control of their life paths, and that no one is responsible for them. If we become parents, we become responsible for our children and it is our human obligation to ourselves and them. If we become workers, right now we answer to a boss, and it is our responsibility to answer to his regimentation so long as we don't have access to our own means of production. We have to gain access to those first, and as long as we cannot say farewell to markets we have no business liberalizing our sexual relationships where women like you become emotional class-collaborators. I have been an industrial worker, scientist, teacher, tutor, student, unemployed NEET; this gives me enough first-hand experience both of industrial and affective labor to know its destructive capacity, and sex that is turned into a commodity is pure poison. Sex in general is nothing constructive unless we can deal with its consequences.

Pardon my autism, but I cannot let this go.

...

Disgusting.

...

feminism, or even worse, anfem

low quality bait

Fucking lol

ok.

...

Tell yourself whatever faggot, I'm going out tonight and judging by my track record will be fucking a qt while you stay home and dream of a state issued wife.

…knowledge is fluid and socially constructed

youtube.com/watch?v=9c9THwinNYg

At least do a webm faggot.

...

So have the joos made you watch your daily hour of cuck porn yet?

Wew lad that's an optimistic outlook you have on yourself.

Why make fun of anfems? They're cool.

What sets anarcho feminism apart from anarchism when anarchism is inherently feminist?

No they aren't.

But making fun of them gives them power. So, I agree. IGNORE THEM!

No. I know that if I direct sufficient energy into your skull you will be harmed and will most likely fall down. This is extremely old knowledge that in all probability pre-dates civilization. The terms used to express this knowledge and its relation to other, later discoveries have certainly evolved with human society. The knowledge itself is fixed thing, outside society.

ok? that example is just qualitatively observable common sense. it has nothing to do with physical formulas i.e. subjectively measured systems interpreted in specific ways thanks to a few minds who came upon certain realizations about how matter and gravity work. how we have chosen to interpret reality is not objective, as what we consider objectivity is in constant flux and is therefore just dogmatic subjectivity.

No. Same as above example of bludgeoning about the head holds for all other the other knowledge you're trying to claim otherwise about. If it was all really just "dogmatic subjectivity" the flawed (and, yes, any good scientist knows and admits these models are flawed) models provided would not be predictive in any context, rather than the limited contexts they operate under and you would be able to produce an angel from your anus.

subjective systems ≠ random nonsense

That's subjective.

No. Do you want to admit your full of shit now?

yeah it is

..what? which sect of xtianity involves shitting out angels?

also i wasn't really referring to the anus angel thing either, just the implication that a system being subjective means it can't be predictive

What a load of nonsensical garbage. It sounds like you have absolutely no idea what a scientific model is or how the scientific method works. If you ever taken a fucking calculus class or basic astronomy class you'd know how full of shit you are. Researchers are well aware of the gaps in their knowledge and the limits of their models. You're kind of thinking is reactionary is fuck and no leftist has any business thinking that all truth is subjective. It goes against everything marxism and socialism is about.

Then we're back to your cancerous retardation confusing the terms used to express knowledge with the knowledge itself.

Yep. Social constructionists are a bunch of fucking mongoloids.

Yeah and their way of thinking is right wing to the core. It's basically conservatism in a progressive costume. Marxism is founded on the belief on an objective truth about the way human society has functioned since the dawn of civilization. It's based on historical knowledge.

..that dichotomy is exactly what i'm talking about

if there's some inherent understanding of how society is supposed to function inherent in some physical formula or method we've come upon than surely by now we would have globally grown past capitalism.

i'd even say that the methodology of science itself is somewhat reactionary since it's often used to just to justify everything that happens, not to actually come to anything

i'm not even saying that objectivity doesn't exist or whatever, i'm just sick of people holding on to their defensive definitions of objectivity when what we see as objective is constantly being changed and further reduced.

the limitations capitalism poses for science are directly responsible for this defensive objectivism imo

good. i never really implied otherwise.

You seem to be completely scientifically literate. You don't understand what a model is . You don't understand how the scientific method works. You don't understand how formulas are derived and what they represent or what they're used for.

Just because some lies beyond or current understanding of a subject doesn't mean that an objective truth isn't out there. This idea here is why your beliefs are inherently conservative and reactionary.

You implied that scientific models are just taken is fact and considered pure objective knowledge. When they are not, Models are simply constructs able to easily predict a natural phenomenon with a degree of accuracy. They are constantly improved and expanded upon and their limits are well known. Researchers known their models are "made up" because they don't have access to the objective truth. Calculus was based off a number that Issac Newton made up and has no way of existing the real world.

..sure but that kinda involves a lot of assumption doesn't it?

i'm saying that treating models as fact and pure objective knowledge is harmful.

my original point was just that knowledge is based on the culture around you & isn't inherent. our awareness of the universe is constantly changing.

i guess my problem isn't so much defining objectivity. it's defining knowledge

knowledge is a social structure. 3,000 years ago knowledge was largely considered the awareness of god and what he wanted/didn't want from you. this is really no further from some ideological objective Truth considering no one understands what that Truth is. it's just a vague concept, but it's what carries us forward. how it's interpreted and what finding it would imply though is completely dependent on cultural factors. i guess that's what i'm saying

I want it so bad. She can call me brocialist and I'll call her "le ebil ess jay doubleyooo" and we'll have angry sex on the regular.

Shit taste my dude

No. Knowledge does not require society.

at least you tried dawg

the definition of knowledge and how we seek it is defined by the culture around you. the meaning of knowledge outside of society is completely conceptual since knowledge has always been a structural force for societies

No. If I drop you on a desert island, knowledge does not stop being knowledge.

wtf a single person's circumstance doesn't redefine knowledge. i'm talking about cultures here

Oh fuck off. You just claimed that knowledge is defined by culture and cannot exist independently of it. You're a sophist.

knowledge can exist independently of culture, my point is knowledge has no consistent definition. ffs until around the 1600s knowledge was basically just another word for common sense. it meant how intuitive you were at living. the reductionist idea is a somewhat recent invention. it is constantly changing and ebbing and flowing through ideology like everything else. what it could mean to an isolated individual is hypothetical and irrelevant.

while you are here funposting there are anfems fighting isis…

No, we've already discussed this. Furthermore this is not relevant.

what makes our understanding of knowledge what it is now is cultural and societal evolution. the label IS the thing itself.

Let me use a bludgeon on your skull, then. You should be able to change the labels to prevent me from harming you.

There is femini in the name. That is like asking anarcho-BLM to not fall in the race trap.

ok you keep insisting that knowledge is inherently reductionism, and then going back to this weird violent qualitative cause-and-effect analogy. i don't understand. the meaning the understanding of skull-bludgeoning has is completely dependent on external cultural factors. i doubt anyone who understands that getting hit in the head really hard will kill you would be considered knowledgeable in our society.

you're acting like i'm saying that knowledge has no definition, i'm just saying that it has an ever-changing definition

What the fuck are you even trying to say here? Grasping that hitting someone in the head will kill them depends on "external cultural factors"? Are you retarded? This is a piece of knowledge that in all probability predates language and you're wobbling on about labels and culture.

You're a sophist. Social constructionism is bullshit.

You do not need to be "knowledgeable" to possess knowledge. Somehow even you have managed to obtain the knowledge to operate a keyboard and type in English.

its almost like its actually a great entry point to make people see whats behind racism or the patriarcy…

user you're supposed to consider everything i'm saying together before picking individual sentences and then intentionally misunderstanding what i'm saying here just so you can keep namecalling. surely you don't really think yourself or think that i think that avoiding head-bludgeoning is a learned behavior. this is exactly my point. it isn't knowledge, at that level it's pure unconscious instinct. if you think this inherent survivalist wisdom is knowledge then what was all that defensive reductionist spiel you gave me earlier? you're only further proving to me that the definition of knowledge is fluid

No. That would be you. Nowhere have I referred to avoiding head bludgeoning and your attempt to claim I did is a tacit admission that you know you are wrong.
I have consider your so-called claims. They are obvious and easily demonstrated bullshit. You are a sophist. Good day.

wtf avoiding head bludgeoning implies understanding it in the first place. there are some things that don't need to be taught. you can define that as knowledge but don't get upset when someone says knowledge is fluid considering you're flip-flopping on your own definitions you made of it earlier in the thread. is knowledge inherent wisdom or is it adherence to scientific methodology?

tbh I like our anfems. They're ideology is less /idpol/ than the majority of people here (lookin at nazbol and all the canIbecommunistwhilestillbeingsociallyconservative.meme )

...

I think the feminists on the same level is the Conservatives. One isn't less shit then the other. It's just two different kinds of awful. I have no interest in living in the societies either one want.

nah. I mean liberal feminism sure, but actual socialist feminism is pretty based

Actual socialist feminism isn't called feminism.

Is basically the equivalent of National Bolshevism to me just replace race with gender. Socialist feminism is redundant. Socialism is about equal rights and access for everyone and democracy at all levels of society.

I was very careful not to define what "knowledge" is. Go away, sophist.

...

such as?

How to trigger feminist liberals like n1x and chums: Suggest not everyone is ever going to be pansexual and much of the population has a preference as to whom they're going to have sex with.

Proof: >>>/anarcho/11447

Moral: don't try to change society. What a crock of shit. With that reasoning any further advance is a net negative.
Anfems confirmed for liberals.

wew

Democratic confederalism is more than generic "anfem" garbage. One gets dicked for a living by the bourgeoisie, the other fights reactionaries.

Upvoting you're downvote. :)

Not feminist but I'm currently thinking about sex and shit. My results:

Sexuality is a social construct that mixes up biological sex with gender role.

Biological sex is simply what reproductive function a human can serve, be it the male or female one. But men are not attracted to the human with ovaries but the feminine human. Heterosexuality is attraction to the feminine gender role. That's why heterosexual men don't like masculine females like pic related and also why we have the whole "are traps gay" debate.

This puts all humans into a bisexual category, although the category has at that point already lost all meaning. This does not mean that everyone has to fuck everything, just that sexuality is more of a collection of preferences and not a clear cut 4 category thing. I think SJWs sometimes call it a spectrum, I agree with that.

Sounds like someone has a cuck fetish
Only joking, I'm not really Holla Forums

If they are, they are fucking terrible at it. What kind of a social movement panders to a niche market, whilst castigating the lowest common denominator, thinking that this will produce sustainable profit?

Nah.

Except you can still reproduce with Buck Angel and cannot with traps. Reproduction over evolutionary generations produced sexual dimorphism, because evolutionary psychology is what drives a 'evolutionary fit' means of reproduction. The two are obviously entwined which has produced what you are interpreting as sexuality being a social construct.
But it wasn't intrinsically produced socially, it was produced as a blend of that, much like when we consider the chicken and egg scenario.

I'm hoping our attitudes to this whole 'self awareness of sexuality' will eventually even out to a degree of accepting what has come before to produce us, without thinking that it is inherently evil or deserves to be subverted in non-sensical manners 'just because I'm special for being aware of it, making my interpretation the most logical one'.

You want to fuck what you like, well that's fine, you're just an evolutionary snapshot of a whole process at work. But the way a lot of this sexual theory is discussed and reacted to appears to me, if you'd pardon my laboured metaphor, to be like arriving at the conclusion that walking on two legs is a social construct and I need to surgically correct myself to walk on 4, justifying it all the way in vague philosophising that's shackled to my own, individual, subjective interpretation. But attempting to produce a universally applicable theory out of that.

Tl;Dr, there's obviously no right or wrong answer. But that would then behoove you to be consistent on what you consider to be 'wrong' from what has previously come about. There isn't anything wrong, just what's worked so far.

Yes.

Hello new DJ name

is leninist feminist gf okay?

Quads dictate yes.

It depends, if shes down with being dominated and abused then the answer is yes. If shes into femdom the answer is no because Leninists are shit at being in charge of anything.

delete this

No because you know it's true. Leninists are a joke that stopped being funny almost a century ago.

Unlike anarchism which is definitely a legitimate and relevant ideology.

Not really. At this point every leftist ideology is irrelevant and stuck in the last century.

I could go for that, fam

>8ch.net/leftypol/res/945704.html

A word with me, about what?
Zizek using a thousand words to say something barely insightful, or some commentary on sex (as in the act itself) as the 'divider amongst all'? (and some political injects of Al Qaeda v2 (IS) and thoughts surrounding it?) What?

Some stupid sophomoric commentary on the virtualization of the brain, where the material completely copies the blueprint of another being and a 'soul' emerges, leading to ridiculous debate about 'who is the true one'? What?

I can draw out a thousand points from those essays, none of which I can see relate at all to me, nor what I was rambingly writing.

Houllebecq might want to have a word with me, but he - and Zizek, are people I'd mostly ignore as sideshow commentators. I don't really give a fuck about either of them, and they take on the form of cotton candy rather than the iron and stone that they seem to be cited as.

What is described in the initial quote of that post, is not related to modern society. Nor "societies like ours", just like the traditional societies of the past were never anything more than the written recounts of the borgy of the day, when most people couldn't read and write to begin with. There's been no massive change in how sexual relations have occurred, only in how the upper class have had to deal with it (and to them it's been rather cyclical, back and forth).

For the regular plebs, it's always been a mess, and no body really ever gave a damn.

tl;dr: what's your point?

There's certainly a lot of social programming that goes into sexuality, but putting all humans into the "bisexual" category is insanely retarded and I guessing you're the bisexual you can't stop projecting your own functionality onto others. Just because the biological components are somewhat mutable and inconsistent isn't an excuse to ignore these factors, such as by posting an image of someone with strongly modified secondary sexual characteristics and shouting woman.

i think they're just saying there's a lot of external factors that go into sexuality besides penis/vagina

I'm reading the same old tired argument of "everyone is bisexual really".

well with heterosexuality being the dominant culture, it makes sense that some aspects of it would be learned

i wish i was bisexual tbh

The very existence of people with shoe fetishes renders that a self evident statement. Still, there's a reason furry porn has the physical features it does.

The point I'm making is that though we pretend we are against the continuation of commodity fetishism because of its social consequences, there is a continuation of the desire towards the consequences, and the Capitalist relations governing their production and distribution have to be dealt with prior to any changes in the social superstructure. This also means sexual relations.

For example, Industrial Capitalist massive overproduction of commodities for sale causes their cheaper "trickling down" to the rest of us, but it requires capitalist exploitation. We want the commodities, and Capitalism has psychologically instilled into the population at large that commodities are the way towards a higher standard of living and thus happiness. This doesn't stop at commodities, but extends to forms-of-life (lifestyles in Tiqqunist parlance), abilities, talents and avenues of personal gain (the old "it takes money to make money") plus the appropriate social relations.

I just saw a picture of myself when I was a skinnyfat fuck in college 4-5 years ago. Pardon the /r9k/ but I was a khv at the time. I was a loner who fapped almost every day. I had no job that I could say I got on my own merit. Fast forward to now I have had 3 gfs. None of which want to talk to me and vice versa. I have had 4-5 different jobs, all precarious contract work. I was laid off before I could qualify for health insurance through my company. I am still quite skinnyfat and my depression fucks with my drive to exercise and I barely can get myself up, so I try to nofap from time to time and it seems to help (I did nofap and noporn for 3 weeks over the summer and I felt more drive than I had in years). I realized I need to improve myself somehow but didn't know what to invest my effort. Weights? Personality tricks? Working(!) towards a better job, something that is an intence biopolitical disciplinary tactic? Should I leave the country and go to another country (in this case Poland) to pick up girls due to sharing a common culture and religion?

I was able to rise above this when I realized that this was all instilled in me through expectations from others, that were in turn instilled by them by the Spectacle. I was surrounded by Young-Girls.

libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf

These are the willing agents of the Spectacle, conscious or not. They are the ones that psychologically discipline the rest of the population into following the dictates of the spectacle. They may be either men or women. Their job is to make sure that alternative forms of life that contradict the logic of Capitalist commodity fetishism that is at the heart of the Spectale and are fecund and reproducible DO NOT EXIST, or at least die on the vine.

The spectacle within each person forces the other to conform to the material reality as defined by the Ruling Spectacle controlled by Capital. There are desires to be fulfilled by our respective drives, and it is the object of each Young-Girl to steer as many Blooms, which are the fully alienated individuals, towards themselves, to give a taste of inclusion and thus to steer the drives towards the Spectacle, making it the only source of inclusion.

continued

This is not a mere excuse for me to rationalize my failure at life. I am a failure at life because of my inability to conform to the Spectacle, to the commodity fetishism. Every time someone calls you a loser or a failure or a creep, it is because of the spectacle within them trying to get you to discipline yourself by alienating you from a micro-society that could have been created between you two AGAINST THE RULING SPECTACLE.

That is why all the social revolutions first were attacked but later were recuperated by Capital through the Spectacle. Hippies, feminists, GLBT, blacks, ecological and animal movements, so long as they did not disturb the socioeconomic relations of Capital, are tolerated by the Spectacle and even rejuvenate it (First as Tragedy then as Farce). When GIGN and the police descended on Tarnac and destroyed the free community there and arrested Julien Coupat, they did it not because of some simple terrorism or sabotage, but because they were a community that was able to sustain itself AND provide a real theory on how to do it and escape both the logic of the Spectacle. They rejected it and sustained themselves to the point where they were able to use the means at their disposal to create a zone of opacity outside the Spectacle, reject its totality and fight back against it.

Pics related are what we must do to fight back against it. We must build a material reality that allows people to escape the logic foisted on us by the Spectacle and create a nucleus of enjoyment that attracts people to our revolutionary cause. Truly good sex is mutual enjoyment, and being able to provide that outside of the Spectacle is what destroys commodity fetishism.

Enjoy more:

n55.dk/MANUALS/URBANFREEHABITAT/urbanfreehabitat.html

n55.dk

As much as I like early Marx (beautiful writing and romantic stuff), you ought to be a bit critical of his claims regarding human nature. There are, despite how hard it is to see when you immerse yourself, some fundamental holes grounding his conception.

Anyway, I haven't read all your posts in this thread yet, but I agree wholeheartedly with the observation that leftists wish to overcome commodity fetishism yet are trapped trying to satisfy the desires which mass commodity production has instilled.

Hegel himself noted that the idea of "comfort" that the British in his days had, which required ever more expanding "needs" for more comfort through commodities and services, were false ones that in no way had any necessary grounding in our human nature.

The turning back of this Pandora's box, however, seems impossible without mass catastrophe and a turn away from the immediately material for the spiritual and psychological.

wtf im not saying sexuality (mostly) isn't based on human form, that's my whole point. it's all about masculine/feminine forms and the fantasies we project onto them, not just genitals.

I guess I kind of get your point? Except my initial rambling comment about pretty much the internet phenomena and 'upper tier abstraction' of 'feminists' and the bedfellows they have (snakeoil salesmen, scammers, and idpollers), really had nothing to do with real life interactions.

I have never been called a creep, by anyone. Females (though it might as well be males, that's not the point) in my immediate circumstance, have been very both left leaning and feminism tuned (in the appropriate usage of the term - egalitarian), with some exceptions - those that desire more traditional roles (pretty much a 50/50 between the males and female that I know, majority though are all pretty much 'who gives a fuck'). None of them call themselves feminists, but are specifically cause oriented (same as me, I don't identify myself as a feminist, but refer to whatever the fuck is going on, specifically, and have a stance based on that).

What you're describing sounds like the typical spectacle of capitalism, I don't disagree, but I don't think it has much do with males or females. Or even sex. There's straight females I know that have gone through several boyfriends, work pretty much the majority of their waking life, and are a complete mess in regards to all their interpersonal relations.

The nofap thing you're referring to seems to be some strange (I guess you're an American?) individual diversion from the lack of things like public healthcare, and proper labor security. That really seems to be the case most of the time.

The less overall security in a society, the more people get caught up in themselves. This isn't meant as an insult. I get r9k. I'm not myself, one, but I get it. It's just to me, I see no difference between males no females of those I know. Everyone is equally messed up, full of shit, or great. Usually what separates people is how fucked they are by things outside of their control, and usually whatever it is has them go 110% into themselves…

Which creates crazy shit, to be blunt about it, like "nofap", which is some bizarre perverse mix of previous ultra religious 'it's all your fault' and modern day capitalist - 'it's all your fault'.

I can assure you, whatever difference you feel from fapping, or not fapping, is all placebo, and a fake buddha on your back carrying the logo of the koch brothers and Mitt Romney telling you how all your life problems are somehow within your own domain of control, when they're not.

There's no such thing as "young girls" in the sense you're referencing it. There's young people. I do get what you're saying, but believe me, it's not gender dependant, at all.

By the way, if you want another placebo that has at least some more merit than the "no fap" bullshit: make a smoothie with one avocado, a table spoon of linseed, an orange and half a lemon (or a whole lemon), and a glass of water.

Later in the day, eat a head of broccoli.

There you go. You'll be on a high, the entire day, feeling crazy energized… no moralizing "omg I can't fap" required.

Be sure to crush the linseed, if you wanna try this: if your mixer (if you have one) won't crush them, use a coffee grinder, or just the back of a knife's handle or spoon or whatever… whole linseeds won't digest, and you won't get their nutrients and the effect of them unless you smash them open.

you've probably explained this loads of times so tbh you should just be able to paste it by now but how come you're an escort?

Why do you think sexuality is based on the human form? There's a biological substrate to sexual desire that underlies the socialization that social constructionists like deny exists.

yeah no shit. that doesn't mean it's only based on potential for childbirth or whatever biological substrate you're getting at. there's clear sexual archetypes and defined preferences enabled by culture since all sexual desire is based on fantasy and is easily commodified. pretending this don't real is only proving how powerful culture's hold is. go jack off to that guy's pic since sexuality is so pragmatic according to you

I'm glad I shut women out of my life.

You can rave on about how everything is "archetypes" "enabled by culture" all you want, simply looking at hip to waist ratios of women held up as fantasy figures across history. Like it not, social programming only deals with the window dressing for most individuals, the core targets are set by biology.