Are you a feminist? Why (not)?

This was back when i was a socdem, so I thought issues of most oppressions as separable, I didn't think about how the issue of the draft targeting males was connected to the issue of women being perceived as incapable. I recognized both of these issues before, but now I think of them as roots of a systemic, cultural issue, in the same way that I now view economic oppressions.

More care in the actions and words I use, mostly. I try to be more cognizant of the whole 'toxic masculinity' thing.

No. I am a communist. Treating people with normal human decency is something that should be normal and doesn't have to be subdivided into infinite amounts of subsets. People who are against womans rights are the exception, not the rule.

I'm for the abolition of gender so I guess. Liberal feminists need to be shot though.

You cannot abolish something that is innate.

Wtf liberal feminism

So you are one you just don't like calling yourself one

Are you afraid Holla Forums will make fun of you?

Yes I am.

ima collectivize that gif

-pure ideology
-lifestyleism, it's like it has become a trend
-praxis so separated from the class structure it's not -even funny
-most of them are submissive and I want a femdom gf

could probably find a couple more

Feminism is a bourgeois misandrist movement so no. I am an egalitarian though.

It's from Living Utopia, a documentary about the Spanish anarchists during the civil war. Posting it with a flag like yours is not a good idea.

Why so sectarian?

no it's not

why so backstabbing traitor?

Grow up, idiot.

u wot m8

Femdom fetishes seem to be quite common this board tbh

...

Should i also call myself lgbtq, black, asian, palistinian, kurdish, aborigininee, maori, native american, slavic, jewish etc etc etc rights?

I dont call myself a feminist because I dont consider myself a feminist. It has ideals it expressed in the past and in the present and been used to promote things I disagree with.

But most of all, out of all the social movements that exist, feminism is the one with the least clear definition that everyone and their grandma has a different one for, and people will actively change the definition to push their agenda, like you are doing right now, to try and include me in your shitty bourgeois movement.

But see what happens when I use the word cunt, hit women if they hit me and tell people I dont give a fuck about forced diversity as it does not bring any additional value, because identity based diversity is spooky as fuck and not at all reflective of skill or usefullness of the attributes. Then suddenly im a patriarch or some other bullshit.

So no, I am not a fucking feminist, stop trying to use these stupid word tricks and kill yourself while you're at it, you useless piece of human garbage.

I like femdom but im not a feminist.

Based on your post you are not a communist either

Look up David Reimer and dr. Money

Or gender dysphoria, which essentually proves male and female brains exist. Differences in behaviour between males and females are observed within their first months.

How so, wordsmith? I support a worldview where everybody is equal, there is no discrimination based on identity or phenotype, there is no private property, classes, money or a state.

But please tell me why I am not a communist because I dont buy into your little personal vendetta.

But you said you are not a feminist?

Underrated post.

You mean, the most bourgeois formation of feminism was the coolest? The voting for white propertied women one?

Christ, what part of his post didn't you read?

It's not like there is universal agreement on what "feminism" is.

...

This is exactly the kind of word magic that I was talking about. You think that if you believe in equality you are automatically a feminist. This is simply not true. Feminism stands for more than just "equal rights". Otherwise you wouldn't need a special word for it. But I see why feminists push this view because it means they can take credit for anything related to equal rights. IE Feminism gave black people rights, even though lots of feminists back in the day of the start of it were racist as fuck. Feminism gave gay and trans people rights, even though it is not related to it and some feminists hate trans people for becoming male.
Thats what I meant when I said "everyone and their grandma had a different definition for it".

I see no reason to actively identify as something that has no clear definition is is filled with cancerous individuals who use it to push for bourgeois agenda's, hinder the liberation of working women by distracting them with the poor female CEO's who get paid too little, or who actively shut down liberation of other proletarian groups because, according to a large subset of feminist theory, "they are the oppressorts simply because of the phenotype", which contradicts anything communism stands for by being racist and saying that class doesn't exist and the rich favour [insert group here] because they are like them. Basically, it is Holla Forums, but with men/white/european/christian/american swapped in for jews.
Now, granted, not all feminism is like that. The bits that are about liberation of the worker woman, equal rights, maternity leave, paternity leave, voting and such, those I like. But a large part of the world says feminism is more than that. Hence, I am not a feminist.

There was nothing scientific about what happened there. There is nothing we can learn from that situation except the importance to keep predators out of psychology. People with every belief to prove about gender have used this case to argue their point. Originally (even after the suicide) it was generally believed that gender retraining worked, and Dr. Money had proved gender was purely a social construct. What that man did was nothing but sexual abuse, and I'm not even talking about trying to raise a boy as a girl. He forced the twins to engage in sex acts with each other, the mutilated boy playing the role of the "woman."

Attempting to draw scientific conclusions from this savagery warrants gulag.

And what modern, systemic sexisms are you referring to user?

Feminism is cancer, so no, i'm not a feminist

#killallmen go fuck yourself

And here it is, the fallacy that equallity is the same as feminism. Good job repeating the lie, it's a shame it doesn't fit with normal people's experiences. If you believe in equallity you don't support feminism

Yes, but I don't use the label often. I find that many younger women have a negative impression of feminism, mainly because they see themselves as already liberated, and feminism as an oppressive force. I think this somewhat correct from a western perspective, but on a global scale feminism is as relevant as ever.
Not to say there aren't still feminist battles to be had in the west, especially concerning wages in traditional female occupations, gender roles among immigrants and minorities, and the sex industry. I'm not principally against prostitution, but human trafficking and sex-slaves is a wide spread problem even in the most progressive parts of the world.
I see why people would want to distance themselves from the label, but I think it still holds a value, and I don't want to abandon it or hand it over to the left. In the same way lot of people think Obamas a socialist, or that Hillary is left side, but I'm not going to stop calling myself a socialist because of that.

I'm an egalitarian left-nationalist.

FUCK IDPOL

If gender was indeed a social construct then David Reimer would have had no problem living as a girl. Instead as a young child he displayed masculine traits and wanted to play with his twin brothers choice.

If gender was a social construct why transgender people exist? If those roles are just made up why would anyone go through the hassle of changing genders?

Feminist are the worst anti communists in history because they grown inside of worker movements like a tumur until the the workers can't do anything for their own good

We must fight and exterminate feminists and idpol before we can take on capitalism

I support women's right but believe that rights are offset by responsibility as well as consequence for exercising them inappropriately (the government may not be able to censor your speech but don't expect the internet to let you get away with saying something stupid)

I further believe that feminism has no business being intersectional. Feminists have no responsibility associated with the label to address race problems nor have they responsibility to concern themselves with men's problems (or rather their perceived problems)

Dropped, transgenders dont exist, transsexuals exist.

Sex is having a ding or a dong, gender is the social roles. Fuck the social roles, I loved to play with dolls, more so than my sister, but I also loved to play sports, videogames and other "man" things.

Sage for shit thread

Literally a meme ya boy dr. Money came up with

Gender is a set of behaviours, which are not precisely defined.

The fact that you played with dools as a boy doesnt change the fact that you are a man

The guy wanted to have a dong, not a dingy, and wanted to do stuff he wanted. You "dr money" forced him to be someone he didnt want to be and on top of that traumatized him by making him have sex with his brother and molest him.

Huh, it's almost as if Holla Forums hasn't read Marx but instead gets all their arguments from the internet.

I am a feminist because there has been no revolution without women's liberation; women's struggle is a material struggle. Even the American revolution, which some naïve feminists proclaim as solidifying the "patriarchal" norm in the US, saw women moving out of former gender roles to protect the nation's economy and nurture all its children while their fathers were away to fight in the continental army (often alongside women too). Now though, communist feminism is (considered) pretty dead and and buried by all those who are still talking about it (including neo-conservatives, vulgar "Marxists," and liberal feminists). Nevertheless, the certainty of the the fear of its rebirth is very present discursively, the spectral shadow manages to give chills and reconceptualize the understanding of negativity and death of a movement

This post is my only other post ITT. I don't think gender is (purely) a social construct, but please STOP using the Dr. Money case as proof of anything. It's stupid to draw sweeping conclusions based on a case study in the first place, but it's obscene to try and draw any conclusion from a situation where nothing scientific was conducted and someone acting in official capacity abused a couple of kids.

STOP

This is some "my god can beat up your god" levels of power fantasy.

Except that's not what it means at all, nor does it not include other feminists with it as fearing real insurgency.

ie death of =/= lack
A corpse is still present in this world.

I think you have to agree with at least the premise of feminism that women and men should be equal to really call yourself a communist/socialist/anarchist. Also gender construction is historically deeply embedded in capitalism and used by capitalism to perpetuate itself. Whilst capitalism has been able to respond to feminism in a way that sustains itself, it has nonetheless brought us closer to our goal.

What is important to remember, of course, is that the sexes once equal should be made conscious of their identical place within the capitalist system - that is, of their shared class consciousness.

That's not the premise of feminism. The premise is that women and men are not equal.

Egalitarian. So you can call me feminist if the situation fits. Like most people here, I'm opposed to liberal feminism.

an obviously facetious joke to trigger reactionary men. keep proving me right

this was a good post kinda getting at what i'm talking about
"""egalatarians""" just want to lazily claim to be good guys whilst silencing protest against injustice because pointing out systemic injustices is always somehow contorted into a personal attack (verbatim reactionary behavior btw) by these supposed fighters for equality

you're hardly any different from /r9k/ or Holla Forums

Feminism is a movement of bourgie women and their useful idiots to bludgeon anyone they don't like for more power. It is Holla Forums for vulva owners. It is not a left wing group. Anyone who calls themselves a feminist is not left wing.

Right, I've taken your bait. Fuck off happy, now.

Yes as marxist. But as marx himself once said "if these people are Marxists then i myself am not a marxist"

I consider myself one, but I don't even use this term anymore.

In a space of like six to seven years, describing yourself as a feminist went from an indicator that you're not a complete scumbag to an indicator that you're one of the most annoying elements in our society.

No because it's divisive.

The nuclear family is bourgeois to the core, it's main purpose being the reduction of women to free laborers of reproduction. Further it serves as the atomic management unit of private property and the means by which children are most effectively indoctrinated into capitalist ideology. Yes, I am a feminist, because sex needs to be deconstructed, because there can not be true liberation as long as the production of children is privatized and we let bourgeois pseudoscience decide what a human body may or may not be depending on arbitrarily defined signifiers. To sum it up memely: Sex/gender is a spook.

Ayy I support >>>/gulag/ for Tumblrinas.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Pure Ideology.

Ayy.

Facts are unbiased.
you fucking twat.

its the patrician choice

*dibs bedora* : DDD
One's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined, for historical truth changes over time, and reflects only the present consensus (if that). Facts are like fish in the Ocean of which we may only happen to catch a few, barely an indication of what is below the surface. It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is of course, untrue. The facts speak only when an historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context. The historians is necessarily selective. The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a pre-posterous fallacy.

tl;dr get out you filthy empiricist

Why do you then claim that their are fish in the ocean, yourself? That is an empirically derived piece of information.

Is the date 1960?
No?
Why should I then be a feminist?

One could say "why are you a Leninist then, if the date isn't 1917?
Simple.
The meaning of Leninism hasn't change. (Even Marxism - Leninism isn't Leninism).
The meaning of Feminism has. And that is why I cannot be one.

Yeah. It's a joke in the same way Holla Forums jokes about killing Jews and lynching blacks. You really aren't helping your case dismissing misandry is a concept and defending anti-male bigots.

Dude, the definition of communism as a whole has changed to pussy sjws. You can't use this as an argument, I mean you could technically… but you look retarded doing so.

Feminism has many branches, almost as many as leftism as a whole. More distinguishable and clearcut than some lameduck "Marxist-Leninist vs Maoist vs Social Democrat vs Liberal Socialist vs Anarchist vs…"

The three major feminism(s) are liberal feminism which is all about that inclusive shit like save the tranny-whales or whatever and actually has very little to do with women. Also choking a bitch out is progressive.

Radical Feminism which is that stereotype of the hardened librarian lady who hates fun but secretly wants a man to pound her snatch.

And radical lesbians who shame radfems and libfems as not being pure enough and literally hate men like some deranged reverse mgtow.

And despite the amount of crazy, rad-fems and rad-lesbians are STILL more revolutionary in practice than half of the cucks here calling themselves communists and socialists.

Empiricism is not wrong per se but it is insufficient when we are observing and describing: it will make you overlook phenomena of the nexus between impressions precisely in cases wherein substantial unity and causal dependency are derived.

This is incoherent.

Kek . Yeah maybe if you consider the practices of skin-heads of white supremacists "revolutionary" too.

The illiterate accuses others incoherency precisely at the point when they have no argument.

Courtier's reply.

My main problem with modern feminism is not that it is too radical, rather it's not radical enough: it doesn't seek to change society or question why things are, it simply reacts and acts as simply an interest group for women, which if that's what they want to do, then fine, but don't then pretend to be an entire ideological framework.

But I didn't accuse you of incoherency. In fact, you lack anything to be coherent about at all except arrogance. What is really worrying is when an author talks of "incoherence" but neither defines it nor provides adequate contextual clues as to what he means by it, and thus functions as nothing more than a term of abuse.

who is this ?

Gulags exist for feminists

Women in North America are not oppressed, so no, I see no need to be a feminist. Plus, I can't buy into this No True Scotsman feminism where a very small fraction of people say "I believe in equal rights for men and women and women should empower each other and that's all feminism is." It's nonsense. Mainstream feminism, including much of academia, consists of things like rape culture theory, patriarchy theory, and cultural Marxism (oh, and a bizarre affinity for Islam), none of which are sensible or consistent with reality.

Obviously this is incorrect. What you probably mean is that they are not more oppressed than men.

Opinion discarded.

>I'm going to keep waffling so as to distract from the fact that I did not have an argument originally and posted incoherent nonsense, a la Lacan, to gloss over the fact.
Tesco Value Vasectomy for you.

...

...

If you actually read that book you would know that it attempts to refute the charge against certain theorists like Habermas as cultural Marxists.

None of that is posting any argument purported to exist in as plain English.

YOU KNOW THE DRILL GUYS

If by oppressed, you mean that everyone ultimately exists in a political system designed not by or for any of us, then sure. What I essentially mean is that there is not any special monopoly women have on oppression, and indeed, they have many constructs being skewed in their favour lately, as in the case of wages being raised to close an earnings gap, the divorce and abortive systems being almost entirely pro-women, and funding for many female services like crisis shelters and cancer research dwarfing any similar male services.

That is a tacit admission that cultural marxism exists.

>if I don't understand what someone means, really it just means that they're incoherent and not that I'm too stupid to do any more than superficial reading

Not really. It's an admission that the claim of "cultural Marxism" exists as nothing more than propaganda.

...

No. Even if the movement itself was perfectly egalitarian it would still be a gender-biased name.
Also most feminists are still very reactionary and bigoted. They have a fixed list of acceptable "oppressed identities" and they adamantly refuse to even consider the possibility that any other kinds of oppression could exist. For example, you're unlikely to ever meet a feminist willing to acknowledge that non-offending pedophiles are oppressed.

Feminism is to equality what groups like Less Wrong are to knowledge.

You don't find it bizarre that, in women's studies courses, women are being taught that they are an oppressed class, and men are the oppressors? You don't find it odd that gender demographics are being classified as "social groups" at all?

Insulting my intelligence is not stating your argument in plain English. If you had an argument, the best way to insult my intelligence would be to state it plainly. You aren't doing so and are desperately attempting to deflect because you do not have an argument and are talking shit.

Reply with anything other than an argument in plain English to explain why empiricism is wrong if you wish to assert your agreement with the claim that the poster who made is a pretentious shit-spouting tit who deserves to be buggered with a rusty knife.

...

Again, more proof that you didn't actually do more than superficial reading into what I said.
Funny that you accuse others of attempting to deflect in lieu of argument only to "talk shit" as it were ("incoherent," "waffling," "Lacanese," "Courtier," et c).

Marx was not the first person to talk about "oppression" nor shall he be the last.

No it hasn't. The world isn't the US and the US is not the leader in how communism is viewed by communists.
Feminism, however, is led by the US feminists.

And that is the only good thing to have come out of the 80s.

Right. Spread them asscheeks and prepare for my tetanus blade.

No, feminism is for girls.

Relevance? He was the first to formalize it in modern mainstream consciousness, so much so that sales for the Communist Manifesto reached a new peak in 2015.

Have you actually read any of the books you're posting? Merely having something as name does not amount to endorsement.

Right, keep being a retard.

How is that a good thing? They've basically exported their puritanical and conservative views to feminists across the world and into mainstream western culture and politics.

Enjoy your diseased, bleeding anus.

Enjoy sending stupid threats over imageboards to deflect from not having an argument.

Stop being such a pussy.

Well, am not a feminist. Why should I care? It's not my Ideology being messed up.

😂👌

I stated my argument several posts back. You chose to support the claim the deserved to be buggered with a rusty knife. You, presumably, are that poster. We've gone from there, son.

...

Careful, Trump might grab him.

I presume that's your "stabbed in the pooper" face.

I presume this is your lack of argument post.

Neither I'm I for basically the same reason you said in your first post. It still effects us in variety of ways. They can influence media and policy decisions across the world to better fit their reactionary American Calvinist world view.

Who is this beautiful woman?

Also yes I consider myself one. Whenever I'm asked I give a few bullet-points disclaimers though, given the current climate surrounding the word.

yeah this'll be good for your hanson vs predator alibi

Anyone who spreads this shit is a fdck brocialist LARPer and should stay the fuck away from communism

==SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO== nful of ideology

Yeah I guess
Women are materially disadvantaged compared to men (on a global scale especially, but to a certain extent in '1st world' countries). A lot of it has to to with the marginalization of domestic labor and subsequent ostracization of those who are more likely to participate in it (i.e. women, due to their primarily occupying the social role of 'feminine')
I'm a Marxist feminist though, so I believe if the material conditions that reinforce ideology are destroyed, then women's liberation is a natural consequence.
Libfems who whine about there not being enough female CEOs and put 'classism' on the same level as sexism and racism (as if class isn't a tool by which sexism and racism are reinforced) annoy the shit out of me.

Depends on the type of feminism. Hollywood/ "let's get a woman in the whitehouse"- type feminism is a joke and needs to be laughed at. Feminism should not be focussed on individual women and should not be so closely associated with these living embodiments of the spectacle at the expense of all other women and their liberation. Feminism should be about the everyday struggles of every woman, especially working class women.

All socialism if feminist. All worthwhile feminism is socialist.

In the strictest sense yes, though I will never take on that name. If asked if I'm a Feminist or a Men's Rights Activist, I prefer to answer, "I'm an Anarchist." I just don't want to associate myself with either movement anymore.

Kristen Stewart

Spoken like a true feminist.
So factually incorrect that it can't possibly be an honest mistake.

Yes, SWERF and TERF are my comrades.

Transgenderism is bourgeois idealism and sex work (emphasis on work) is never a choice not matter how much you get paid an hour.

Why would whoring yourself out never be a choice? Unless you believe work in general is never a choice.

Next time you go to the shop, I hope you know you're literally raping the cashier.

I used to be but not anymore.

No, because what did Margaret Thatcher do for the proletariat male or female? What is the bloody point of a sisterhood across class lines?

In capitalism it is never a choice.

No true feminist is a capitalist.

No

Let me list

Don't forget:

this x100

Daily reminder you can't be a socialist/communist/anarchist without being a feminist.

...

...

I can agree to this

...

...

By definition, yes. In popular politics, no.

Feminism is deeply rooted in so much leftist thought, it surprises like half you guys wouldn't ever call yourselves a feminist. I understand that liberal feminism girlpower stuff is meaningless, but I don't really think you can be, for example, an anarchist without wanting to liberate people of their gender roles. It's also important to note feminism isn't just liberating to women, it's liberating to men too in many ways. Men shouldn't have to provide everything for women, men shouldn't be forced to constantly have to prove how masculine they are… Whether you people like it or not, identities like gender, race, sexuality, ect. are extremely limiting to us and there can't be true liberation until you aren't pressured by society to be certain ways and do certain things simply for being born the way you are.

...

No feminism is the anti-vaxx of political theory.

Anyone who does not have his head up his cartesian self knows that the way to do that is through an economic revolution, not by demanding rights from the bourgeois powers that be.

That is an argument against being a socialist/communist/anarchist

I don't think that's what feminism is about

Wow. I agree with you leftcom. Truly these are the end times.

>>>/reddit/

Fuck off back to whatever idpol ridden shithole you came from. This brocialist board and it always has been.

It's what it's always been in practice. So yes thats exactly what feminism is. It's a garbage ideology.

come on this is gradeschool logic

Misogyny is not the same is the idea of patriarchy as institution or systematic sexism which no longer really exists in the western world. You seem to be extremely ignorant.

if hatred of women exists then why wouldn't it exist in institutions or systems? capitalism can only benefit from systematically dividing the proletariat like this. you're doing that rightist reactionary thing where you take pointing out problems in a system as some kind of personal attack.

I want to improve where I live and the affairs of those who live in that region.
I fail to see how that's idpol.
Like my "National Identity" and "My Country Is Great, Everyone Else's Sucks"?
No. That's RIGHT-nationalism. Retard.

Sexism against men exist. Does that mean we live in a matriarchy? No. Men do not benefit from any kind of instinctual sexism directed towards women and we certainly do not live in patriarchy. Men and women in the west have the same civil liberalities. A women is free to own property, inherit property, hold positions of power in the public and private sphere and can survive and function without being married or attached to a male guardian. You seem to be holding the liberal definition of a "patriarchy" instead of the material definition of one. We don't live in one.

It is idpol when you seek the betterment of your own arbitrarily defined collection of people at the expense of others. That is politics based on identity.

Fighting for the elimination of unequal treatment of a group of people based on nationaility is not idpol nor is it reactionary. How is it idpol when the national division is imposed upon the people? Would you say national liberation is idpol as well?

Feminism was an economic disaster. Prior to women in the workplace there was hardly any accounts of sexual harassment, work tensions, people could have a job for life and that was common.

If women were forced out of the workplace this would guarantee a 100% male work rate. Now why is this inherently good? Why intentionally make it a male dominated field over a mixed?

Because men don't bleed out their vaginas.
Because men don't get pregnant.
Because men are not innately competitive for attention and validation unless for a very specified reason.

This makes them more productive, more dependable, and if women were out of the workplace it would also naturally raise wages as it becomes a worker-side demand market once again. Men would also be more satisfied at their jobs not being emasculated by a woman holding the same position with less merit, or at least more likely having a wife to come home too and bang.

Anarcho-capitalist everyone.

I bet you can't decouple Authoritarianism from Socialism either.
There's no reason why a region can't do well for itself without having to hurt some other region.
Many times species thrive in relative isolation.

...

All forms of feminism are bourgeois

What exactly do you think you're accomplishing posting this crap?