/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14706622]

Is there by chance a reading chart for feminist literature, alternatively what are some basic feminist works and texts one should have read?
I also mean this thread seriously and not as a bait for /pol/tards.

[Anonymous No.14706627]

Please leave.

[Anonymous No.14706629]

Ayy Rand

[Anonymous No.14706632]

>>14706627
Why?

[Anonymous No.14706636]

i hear good things about this moldbug character

[Anonymous No.14706646]

>>14706627
You first. Dudes asking for books, which is way better than the typical "does anyone else feel out of place in society" threads that make up the bulk of this board's content.

Anyway OP read Judith Butler, Audre Lord, and Emma Goldman

[Anonymous No.14706650]

>>14706617
Otto Weininger

Jokes aside, start with "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" by Wollstonecraft., if you are into this shit.

[Anonymous No.14706656]

>>14706622
You can find everything you're looking for in mainstream literature. Go to booksc and get the Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory, or the Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism, or the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Any of them will do for pointing you toward all the bias confirmation you could ever want.

[Anonymous No.14706657]

bell hooks

[Anonymous No.14706669]

Just read non identity shit, LEFTOID LITERATURE BUT WAIT A FEMOID SPIN? Socialism should lead to the same shit feminists want anyway will it not?

[Anonymous No.14706739]

>>14706646
>You first. Dudes asking for books, which is way better than the typical "does anyone else feel out of place in society" threads that make up the bulk of this board's content.
It took me a moment to parse out what you were trying to say due to your outrageously retarded grammar.
How is a feminist literature thread any different than, as you put it, a "does anyone else feel out of place in society" thread? They aren't except that one is for males and one is for females and simps.

[Anonymous No.14706755]

>>14706739
Learn to read and fuck off

[Anonymous No.14706763]

>>14706622
I genuinely enjoyed and appreciated de beauvoir.
If you read feminist theory you're going to realize how little theory most self-described feminists actually consume, and you're going to see how the stated goals of feminism are very very different from the foundational ideals of feminism.
Like the whole grievance of sins past thing is totally haram if you ask de beauvoir, she actually defines patriarchy as a necessary step in history and doesn't begrudge any men for taking part or oppressing wahmens.

[Anonymous No.14706765]

>>14706646
>>14706755
faggot detected

[Anonymous No.14706780]

>>14706765
Gargle my nuts

[Anonymous No.14707267]

okay, i sorted the titles somewhat by wave and included a couple of articles that i think help to contextualize the major works. i recognize i have major blind spots wrt third-wave feminism because i haven't read much more of it than what i listed, which i felt were the most relevant to get a picture of the movement. i am disproportionately familiar with second-wave lit.

first-wave/contemporaries

mary wollstonecraft – a vindication of the rights of woman
simone de beauvoir – the second sex
margaret fuller – woman in the nineteenth century
sojourner truth – ain’t i a woman?
emma goldman – anarchism and other essays
friedrich engels – the origin of the family, private property, and the state
emma goldman – the tragedy of woman’s emancipation
alexandra kollontai – sexual relations and the class struggle (i honestly suggest just grabbing kollontai’s selected works)

second-wave/contemporaries

betty friedan – the feminine mystique
evelyn reed – is biology woman’s destiny?
evelyn reed – a study of the feminine mystique
frances beal – double jeopardy: to be black and female
valerie solanas – scum manifesto (obligatory but take it with much salt)
robin morgan – sisterhood is powerful
germaine greer – the female eunuch
adrienne rich – blood, bread, and poetry
shulamith firestone – the dialectic of sex: the case for feminist revolution
kate millett – sexual politics
jo freeman – the tyranny of structurelessness
andrea dworkin – intercourse
andrea dworkin – on pornography
catharine mackinnon – toward a feminist theory of the state
audre lorde – sister outsider

third-wave

patricia hill-collins – black feminist thought
judith butler – gender trouble
judith butler – bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of sex
bell hooks – feminism is for everybody: passionate politics
jaclyn friedman – yes means yes
bell hooks – ain’t i a woman?
bell hooks – feminist theory: from margin to center

[Anonymous No.14707299]

>>14707267
since this seems like an actual post...
what's the distinction between the "waves"?
it would appear to be the case that many elements of the third wave, for example, were be present in the previous two waves.
the implication being that the most recent "wave" is simply more transparent than the previous.

[Anonymous No.14707420]

>>14707299

i should have included this in my original post—towards the tail end of the first and second list i made i included a reading that blended elements of the previous wave to segue into the next. (also, feminist waves are by definition temporally bound, if that helps) i'll go into what i did for each one because i'm running low on sleep due to upcoming deadlines, so this does appear a bit messy.

wrt first-wave, the defining works are de beauvoir's theory, and fuller's book, since both helped to set the stage for the suffrage movement, which was the first wave of feminism's most defining feature. kollontai and goldman were both critical of first-wave feminism because it was class-exclusive, and sojourner truth was critical of the movement because mainstream suffrage did not extend to black women. i included engels because that treatise helps to contextualize goldman and kollontai.

for the second-wave portion, i include betty friedan despite that she is decidedly not a radical feminist because her feminine mystique helped to catalyze the radical feminist movement—the second wave of feminism was a radical movement for the liberation of women. after robin morgan i included some works from radical lesbian feminists to lead into mackinnon's feminist political theory, because her theory was sort of buttressed by these lesbian feminists. last, i included audre lorde because her work drew heavily on experience as a lesbian woman, but she paved the way for "intersectional" or third-wave feminism, that considers race, class, ability or however. she gets lumped in with second-wave feminists a lot, but because she was critical of the disproportionate representation of middle-class white women in the movement, i consider her more an in-between contemporary bridging the second and third waves.

third-wave feminism is intersectional and (as much as that word has been trotted out to meaninglessness) it is supposed to consider all of the various axes of difference in experience (as i said above, socioeconomic status, race, sexual orientation, whatever else) and is also interested on deconstructing gender in a way the second wave did not—while second-wavers are more interested in abolishing gender conceptually but maintaining sex distinctions, third-wave feminists argue that both sex and gender are in some sense arbitrary, and are also generally sex-positive. disclaimer this may be garbled as fuck but i hope this cleared up what i was trying to do. please ask more questions if you have them!

[Anonymous No.14707445]

>>14707420
Which of these, if any, are for transwomen

[Anonymous No.14707474]

>>14706739
>>14706780
Based fagot

[Anonymous No.14707481]

>>14707445

i'm actually not very familiar with transfeminism, desu, but it is definitely third-wave umbrella. definitely butler on discursive limits of sex, and also gender trouble. i would also venture to include whipping girl by julia serano here, but again, i'm not super well-read wrt transfeminist lit so if you have any suggestions that you think define transfeminism, do post them! (third-wave blind spots, you know)

[Anonymous No.14707484]

Fuck women.

[Anonymous No.14707498]

>>14707484
physiologically efficient strike
9.2/10

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14707592]

>>14707267
>Wollstonecraft, de Beauvoir, and Goldman together as first wave
>Solanas’ gag piece a part of second wave

This is not how I learned it. Wollstonecraft goes along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
Second wave is socialist. Goldman never lifted a finger for women's suffrages
All liberal IDpol is third wave

[Anonymous No.14707657]

>>14707420
what made you chops's to include those books? Feminism for everybody is one of the worst books I ever read. It's worst than Welsing's Isis papers which was at least funny, both filled with projections. yes means yes was filled with mostly trash and seemed to be overly broad, and the structure was truly awful.
You ignored woman hating and right wing women by dworkin too. i'm disappointed you didn't include krenshaw's article where she makes up the word intersectional.

[Anonymous No.14707677]

>>14707592

i definitely took some liberties with the "contemporaries" category

>Wollstonecraft goes along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony

yeah, i figured that including wollstonecraft and fuller would sort of point op in the direction of the declaration of sentiments without having to list the multiple suffrage addresses at the time—but i certainly could have and it would have made the list make more sense.

>De Beauvoir as first-wave

Literally not even contemporary, brain-out-ass moment, thank you for pointing that out lol—i should have put her in the tail-end of first wave bc she and like sort of helped set the stage for second wave feminism if anything

>Goldman never lifted a finger for women's suffrages

yeah, i included her because she sought to distance herself from suffrage-only feminism and incorporated feminist theory into anarchism instead—i got into that a bit on my second post. i think i got at the fact that i was trying to include non-conformist segues bc waves are separated by time, y'know? so the anarchist/socialist early feminisms sort of lead into the 1960s second wave feminisms etc

>Second wave is socialist

yes, but also a general rebellion against female domesticity, and the inclusion of solanas was pretty tongue-in-cheek bc it's the most batshit calling of radical feminism i could imagine and it's..well known if nothing else

agreed wrt liberal idpol third-wave categorization. thank you for feedback - it is an extremely-far-from-perfect list

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14707703]

>>14707677
Coo and checked.

[Anonymous No.14707716]

>>14707657

yes means yes was mostly trite buzzfeed feminism stuff i'll agree with you there - and wrt feminism for everybody my idea of what third-wave is admittedly colored my recs - i don't agree with a lot of the sex-positive "consent is sexy" feel-good pop feminism tendencies to begin with so i just…didn't look further. that's on me though. also yes i should've included krenshaw cursing us all with intersectionality such that single people now get referred to as intersectional. additionally dworkin's rw women and woman hating would have made sense there but i didn't want to include all of dworkin. sincerely thanks for the comment though bc as i said, the list is lacking

[Anonymous No.14707727]

>>14706622
Just watch your average capeshit movie

[Anonymous No.14707927]

>>14707716
Sorry I guess my first sentence was hurt by autocorrect. What made you choose it? Was it what you thought was the best or did you use it as a primer of what has happened to cause feminist thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14709313]

bump

[Anonymous No.14709322]

>>14706763
>if you ask de beauvoir, she actually defines patriarchy as a necessary step in history and doesn't begrudge any men for taking part or oppressing wahmens.
Based de Beauvoir. What's her point, then? What does she want?

[Anonymous No.14709340]

>>14706622
Patrica Bidol is good history. She's the one behind the privledge+power quote. andrea dworkin is pretty important as well. peggy mcintosh was pretty influential, she's who got everyone riled up about privilege. irina dunn is good old school feminism.

fair warning, I know all this stuff because my sister went to a private school and came back saying crazy shit so I did some ivory tower anthropology and tried to figure out what the fuck went wrong.

[Anonymous No.14709375]

>>14706627
fpbp

[Anonymous No.14709718]

>>14706763
Actually well-read feminists tend to be based. I see eye to eye with feminism on a lot of issues, but the neoliberal, mainstream feminism is cringeworthy. I genuinely have more respect for diehard radfems who actually read their material as opposed to normies who believe that just expressing support for a vaguely defined notion of gender equality makes them a feminist.

For anyone who’s actually interested in getting into feminism, I’d strongly recommend reading Marxist/Anarchist Feminists as well as Radfems so you can see how Feminism can exist without bending over to appease woke liberalism.

>>14709322
De Beauvoir mostly objects to the idea that women are inferior to men and points out that the concept of “femininity” is something that’s socially constructed rather than biologically innate. Women are biologically designed for procreation, but they are not obligated to be “feminine”.

[Anonymous No.14709734]

>>14709718
Can we even call the liberal version of "WE NEED MORE FEMALE CEO'S" as feminism? The only aspect of it that would benefit most women is reproduction rights, which is already pretty basic in civilised countries.

[Anonymous No.14709769]

[Anonymous No.14709791]

>>14709769
Why would anyone have issues which "check your privilege"? It might be misused often but actually doing it isn't a bad idea and helps class consciousness.

>tfw white hetero cis male
>You live with 40 out of 100 points of privilege.
>You're not privileged at all. You grew up with an intersectional, complicated identity, and life never let you forget it.
Based buzzfeed.

[Anonymous No.14709847]

>>14709734
It isn’t feminism at all. Especially when these CEOs tend spearheaded companies which exploit lower class women not only the the third world, but also locally. A woman obtaining a high ranking position in Amazon’s management would be of no comfort to the woman working on the factory floor for minimum wage.

IMO, woke “feminism” is just an extension of the idea of the American Dream and the neoliberal ideal— That being to sell this false idea that anyone can become wealthy and successful and using this idea as an opiate for the workers who are being worked to death. It can destroy families too, since women often end up having to choose between their career and their children as a result of living costs constantly rising.

I’m surprised that anti-liberal feminism isn’t more vocal, especially since many people these days are becoming disillusioned with liberalism.

>>14709791
I agree that it’s an alright idea in principle (Intersectionality is basically common sense), but too often the concept of privilege is used to shut down constructive criticism of progressive ideologies. One of the best examples I can think of with this is how any feminist criticisms of trans ideology are often shut down by claiming that these critics have cis privilege or they called TERFs. That’s a problem considering that trans ideology is far from perfect and has a lot of internal contradictions and issues.

[Anonymous No.14709875]

>>14706622
try Damaris Mashams, Occasional Thoughts from the late 1700's, regarding the instruction of virtue and literacy for young women as the highest importance, and why men should marry brains and character instead of for money.

[Anonymous No.14709885]

>>14709847
>I’m surprised that anti-liberal feminism isn’t more vocal, especially since many people these days are becoming disillusioned with liberalism.
that shouldn't be surprising, the public forum is kept at the IQ of a child and real conversation is not allowed.

[Anonymous No.14709904]

I hate women

[Anonymous No.14709923]

Feminism is a joke why waste your time with it

[Anonymous No.14709935]

>>14706622
Lysistrata, the ancient Greek play.

[Anonymous No.14709936]

>>14709847
>It isn’t feminism at all. Especially when these CEOs
they're only into 'diversity' because no self-respecting white person will do the stupid things they want CEOs and managers to do; so they have to scour millions and millions of people to find that combination of low IQ, greedy desire for money to buy baubles and toy cars and be somehow foreign. You'd think it'd be easy to find psychopaths but no, it's very hard, because if they hire someone too intelligent they'll be displaced themselves. So they have to find low IQ, greedy, materialistic, non-english as a first language, poor reading skills AND preferably mental disorders to be absolutely sure that the hired CEO is happy to continue doing exactly what was done that caused the company to fall into recession without ever questioning anything or even really noticing what's happening around them.

It turns out to be fantastically difficult to find people like this and keep them from learning things once in the job that would make them become inclined to do something about the problems and shortcomings they can't help but observe.


so uh.. there's the problem lol

of course the people who just might fit the bill with a small percentage of chance are being groomed as we speak
> trans ideology

[Anonymous No.14709937]

>>14709885
Dunno, I saw criticism against the liberals hjiacking feminism even on pretty liberal sites like Guardian, and on social media or youtube you can find basically anything. Of course it's usually not given as much attention as YASSS, QUEEN, GIRL BOSS but nothing that goes too far against the capitalism dogma ever is.

>>14709847
>That’s a problem considering that trans ideology is far from perfect
Is there even THE one? From having a few peeks into it, the amount of different views is just overwhelming going from pretty reasonable to "you're a transphobe if you don't want to bang a tranny".

The main contradiction I notice is probably the whole "feminine - masculine" mess and accepting gender roles in a performative sense while being against them … which seems more of pragmatism than contradiction.

[Anonymous No.14709938]

The Original Fannie Farmer 1896 Cookbook.

[Anonymous No.14709946]

>>14709937
What "capitalist" dogma? If you haven't noticed but most Feminism is interlinked with Marxism, it was planned that way from the very beginning. The end-game is to formally annihilate identity to make a large biomass of endless production and consumption. It has nothing to do with notions of capitalism, a system that only really ever existed in one mans theories to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14709959]

>>14709946
>If you haven't noticed but most Feminism is interlinked with Marxism
Actual feminism is. The mainstream version that is usually in the news or pandered in the movies doesn't have much to do with Marxism and focuses on rich white women who want an even bigger piece of the pie.

>to make a large biomass of endless production and consumption
Sounds like something capitalists would love.

[Anonymous No.14709973]

Why do modern females hate having children so much even though things like paid child leave and reproductive rights exist in order to cater to them doing so with a main point of you can work and take care of kids so theyre not sacrificing as much. Socialism and communism also had bad birth rates a few years down the line too, not to mention contemporary yuropoors

[Anonymous No.14709981]

>>14709959
There is no "mainstream" version of Feminism. What you are referring to is more or less a similar strategy attempting to be implemented less radically. In both cases the end result will be more or less equal. The removal of identity in replacement with biomass producers and consumers. The "mainstream version" you believe exists is, as I just mentioned, the same exact process of Marxism (and its subfields like Feminism) only being implemented in a less radical way (however the elites still back and support the Marxist efforts anyway). It's an obvious strategy because the average person finds the actual theory completely revolting, thus it must be pushed and implemented in a more subtle way.

I have no doubt in my mind that within 50 years most people will exist only as biomass producers and consumers we're already headed on that conveyor belt. Only certain identities are protected and promoted in the mainstream media, while others are openly attacked (e.g. you hit two great key words of "rich" and "white"). Fighting a war on many fronts isn't wise, they've learned to concentrate their efforts piecemeal and thus slowly devour the whole existence of the I.

[Anonymous No.14709984]

>>14709923
>Feminism is a joke why waste your time with it
>>14709937
>Dunno, I saw criticism against the liberals hjiacking feminism even on pretty liberal sites like Guardian, and on social media or youtube you can find basically anything. Of course it's usually not given as much attention as YASSS, QUEEN, GIRL BOSS but nothing that goes too far against the capitalism dogma ever is.
well it's stuck, isn't it, there are real things feminists could be doing - like going overseas or protesting against all the things women in foreign countries suffer with, but they can't/won't because they're afraid of being told they're racist ... so it just traps them in a feedback loop where they end up attacking their own societies for problems most men (my gen anyway) were already raised being told about and understood not to do at age 5.

or attacking "all men" when really they're talking about a tiny minority of ghetto blacks within blacks.

it's all bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14709988]

>>14709959
Also, you have to come to the understanding that entire framework of what is defined as "Capitalism" was created by the same individual who created the framework of what is defined as "Communism". You'll get it eventually, maybe.

[Anonymous No.14709990]

>>14709959
Bruh they both love it. You think production and consumption wont increase retardely after uplifting the poor so everyone is ideally at about the average middle class standard?

[Anonymous No.14709992]

>>14709973
Low birth rates doesn't have much to do with the system but economical wellbeing and education. There isn't much of benefit in pumping kids out when you're doing well and know about protection.

>you can work and take care of kids so theyre not sacrificing as much
Nigga what? It's still a fucking drain to have basically two jobs, with one being an almost full-time -non-stop one for almost two decades.

[Anonymous No.14709996]

>>14709984
It's because most people fundamentally realize there is a limit to the in-group you can have, in addition there is really little gain in promoting "feminism" abroad. Feminist ideology, being influenced by Marxism, realized where Trotsky failed (e.g. the concept of the "mass revolution internationally" was fundamentally rejected by the average person) and thus focus more on smaller scale battles. In order to bring about this change they must first conquer the established Western doctrines, overcome these concepts, and then they can begin to look at expansionism.

[Anonymous No.14709998]

>>14709981
>removal of identity
why would they remove it when it's their main currency?

if you want to stop society progressing, you find the intelligent people and then flood them with a mass of gibbering cretins so that no reasonable conversation can be had, and if they complain or try to leave you use irrational turnabouts and identity politics to shame them: tell the broke working class they're wealthy white capitalists with privilege.

it appears to have been very effective at shutting down society.

[Anonymous No.14710005]

>>14709992
Well I can never get the story straight since there are claims in the opposite direction that lack of economic stability is the main reason people dont but they would otherwise

[Anonymous No.14710007]

>>14709996
or it's just become a feedback loop to divide men and women and mute their combined efforts for actual conquest of the established doctrines.

[Anonymous No.14710008]

>>14709998
Feminism is a bridge towards Marxism. If you start to pick through Feminist literature this becomes highly prevalent. Even that so called "Emma Goldman" an "Anarchist" joined the Bolshevik Revolution (in the beginning of course). Other Feminist heroes, such as Rosa Luxemburg, were openly Marxist in persuasion. Feminism is just a way to radicalize a large element of society, thus undermining the social fabric, and then using that as a means to successfully defeat the concept of identity in order to construct a fully Marxist vision of life.

I noted in that post that there are indeed current forms of accepted "identities" to be attacked, shamed, and defeated. This will happen incrementally (e.g. eventually after the "rich white male", they will move onto something different. It's already happening).

[Anonymous No.14710009]

>>14709984
>like going overseas or protesting against all the things women in foreign countries suffer with
How do you expect it to work? Why the fuck would some dictator like the Saudi prince give a flying fuck about protestors? Trying to affect situation in countries where they actually have any chance of success seems far more reasonably. The only way one can deal with dictators is by going for their money ... which would also affect they monies of the people taking a stand, so it's rarely done.

>where they end up attacking their own societies for problems most men (my gen anyway) were already raised being told about and understood not to do at age 5.
And clearly it's still not enough, just a lot better than before.

[Anonymous No.14710010]

>>14710007
Somewhat, but combining the efforts of the sexes would require the sexes to fundamentally understand and accept their differences, limitations, and points of variance. Feminists, of course, reject that concept entirely.

[Anonymous No.14710017]

Are there pessimistic feminist writers too?

[Anonymous No.14710023]

>>14709998
BTW this concept of "accepted identities" vs. "non-accepted identities" was implemented by the Bolshevik's as they solely eradicated, one-by-one, the various cultures, peoples, beliefs, statuses, etc etc. "Kulak" itself was more or less the same thing as the "rich white male" meme we have today. Just having a single element of the whole "identity" (e.g. just being white and male) is enough to associate you with the identity that needs to be destroyed.

[Anonymous No.14710025]

>>14710009
What exactly is "enough"?

[Anonymous No.14710028]

>>14710025
The eradication of the identity itself.

[Anonymous No.14710035]

>>14706622
that symbol looks like a fist going into a bunghole lol

[Anonymous No.14710041]

>>14710028
What "female" sounds psychotic lol.

[Anonymous No.14710059]

>>14710025
Muh equality. While the obvious barriers are mostly gone as far as I can tell, there is still a ridiculous amount of stereotyping going on, and people being pushed in certain roles due their gender.

Dealing with male entitlement and expectation might help with the amount of sexual harassment and assaults too, although it'd be interesting to see how much of it is down to physical superiority.

>>14710028
Where did you get that one from? If anything there is a push for more identities; just look at all the sexualities going on. "N-no, I'm not bi, I don't care about the gender of my partner but their personality!"

[Anonymous No.14710062]

>>14709984
>like going overseas or protesting against all the things women in foreign countries suffer with
Is this shit for real? I hate feminist but this is /pol/tard tier argument. I came back after like 4-5 years just to check what’s up on /lit/, but it has turned into complete gutter. Looks like all good posters have been replaced by people from /pol/. I’m fucking glad I stopped posting before this board went completely downhill. Never coming back ever again.

[Anonymous No.14710070]

>>14710059
>If anything there is a push for more identities; just look at all the sexualities going on.
And then you underline the fact that it is a total absurdity which undermines the actual biological identities. Creating a meaningless biomass of identities is what leads to the destruction of identity. It's a transition phase, a temporary political motivation to reach the end goal.

[Anonymous No.14710078]

>>14710070
>Creating a meaningless biomass of identities is what leads to the destruction of identity.
But how? It only makes shit more complex, it just separates people based on even more arbitrary shit.

[Anonymous No.14710080]

>>14710009
>Trying to affect situation in countries where they actually have any chance of success seems far more reasonably.
no way, if we saw western women actually going to these places and getting roughed up by locals there would be fucking hell to pay for it. that's so obvious. look at little Greta Thurnberg and the attention on her.

>And clearly it's still not enough, just a lot better than before.
hmm.. i.. don't think you understand what's happening with men - assuming you're a woman - if we've been drilled into us from an early age to be decent, and we are, and we're still treated like braindead animals and the drilling never stops - as if we're just bad and "don't understand" - then anybody will go deaf to the lessons and rebel against it: that's 1000% where the vitriol comes from.

>>14710009
>just a lot better than before.
yeah it is, because the vast majority of first world men keep themselves decent. but you can't teach people higher language concepts when you have to teach remedial english for having flooded the towns with foreigners from stone age cultures, so that works against it as well.

if we're being honest about the thing.

>>14710023
yeah it's primitive thinking; to destroy people to change society into utopia.

[Anonymous No.14710085]

>>14710062
>Is this shit for real? I hate feminist but this is /pol/tard tier argument. I came back after like 4-5 years just to check what’s up on /lit/, but it has turned into complete gutter. Looks like all good posters have been replaced by people from /pol/. I’m fucking glad I stopped posting before this board went completely downhill. Never coming back ever again.
HAHAHAHA OMG HELLO agitator

I said something that makes sense that people do all the time, and you reply with that "wah wah im taking muh money somewere else". Yeah, i hope you get shot.

[Anonymous No.14710093]

Actual real recommendations:
Simone de Beauvoir
Julia Kristeva
Luce Irigaray
Hélène Cixous

[Anonymous No.14710095]

>>14710078
Does it really "divide" people? All of those people with all those ridiculous and absurd notions of sexual identity are unified into a single mass with the objective to overthrow the pre-existing conceptions of sexuality. They're open about this. But like all "Vanguardists" they are just a tool, a bridge that is built to reach the otherside. The thing is most people don't buy into those open-ended concepts of gender, sexuality, etc and probably never will because its a total affront to nature. However, these people are the ones that need to be conquered and put into the complete "out-group" (e.g. you know the usual labels you get for opposing trans, etc) that needs to be eradicated. You get dehumanized.

But all revolutions end eventually and are pulled into bearing once the primary objectives are completed. For now, the eradication of the natural identities are needed to formally eradicate identity. Think of this nihilistic Absurdism as the Vanguard that is waging the war against Identity. They need to be fanatical if they're going to win. I hope I explained myself clearly enough.

[Anonymous No.14710113]

>>14706622
Unironically 50 Shades of Grey.
It'll teach you that all women want to be treated like worthless whores and raped regularly.

[Anonymous No.14710115]

>>14710095
>All of those people with all those ridiculous and absurd notions of sexual identity are unified into a single mass with the objective to overthrow the pre-existing conceptions of sexuality. They're open about this.
to achieve what?

they're not talking about economic reality or anything that matters to people so they're no longer talking about anything of any use, and are talking about something that's such a turn off to the rest of the world and ordinary people that all they've accomplished is to make the left look insane.. they may be talking on media but they've just provoked most people to the hard right, it shows in the polls if it wasn't obvious enough that workers rights have vanished.

lol i saw elizabeth warren a while ago coming out, last year, basically insulting half the voting public by using a cliche forget the 'male' line. she's really smart.

[Anonymous No.14710121]

Just so we're clear
Feminism as an actual philosophical movement is socialism combined with pseudo-anthropology because this is what I'm getting from all these lists

[Anonymous No.14710128]

>>14710115
You're absolutely correct in your observation that there is a current push to try and shift tactics. The other poster here was trying to explain that "mainstream Feminism" wasn't "Marxist". This isn't true, it's just that they know they need to rethink their tactics and strategy because it is likely they pushed too hard. But that isn't saying they haven't gained any successes either. There is a lot of trans now, and Gen Z is hit hard by this non-Identity propaganda from birth. Thus they've been born with very nihilistic value systems without any real knowledge of a pre-nihilistic value system (they only know about this through the generations they condemn, like "Boomers", who for all their misgivings at least had some conceptions of foundation). Okay but maybe I am getting a bit off-topic. My main point is that this is a Culture War, and thus it's imperative to be conscious to the enemies shifting tactics and strategies. Don't mistake yourself into believing that Elizabeth Warren, to use one simple example (and the one you provided) is somehow acting "conservative". These guys read that book by Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals" as a kind of quasi-bible next to Marx.

[Anonymous No.14710130]

>>14710009
>>14710080
>that's 1000% where the vitriol comes from
and apathy.

people on tv and media act as if it's 1950 and these lessons are somehow new to us and we've not heard it before. it's bizarre how out of touch these people are, and have no clue why their ratings tank and nobody buys the products they try to advertise.

[Anonymous No.14710133]

>>14710121
Correct.

[Anonymous No.14710135]

>>14710080
The problem potential western protesters would face in countries like Saudi Arabia is that western governments are in bed with countries like Saudi Arabia, and would turn a blind eye to them being attacked if it was politically convenient. I’m reminded of that recent case in which a girl got gang raped in Cyprus by a bunch of Israelis. Other than low key protests by various women, we didn’t hear much about that case and it’s unlikely anything will come of it since Israel and Cyprus are so closely tied politically.

If anything, I think that’s more evidence that governments only care about feminist issues if it serves their own purposes. Actual feminism doesn’t seem to be making any progress that isn’t just furthering a neoliberal agenda.

[Anonymous No.14710141]

>>14710080
>there would be fucking hell to pay for it.
We don't give too many shits about them being harassed and raped at home; seems unlikely there would be too much backlash when something happened to activists.
>look at little Greta Thurnberg and the attention on her
Hardly relevant to the conversation since she is just some kid saying "listen to science", usually in places where the majority already more or less agrees instead of trying to affect the culture of totally different places.
> assuming you're a woman
Well, stop assuming shit then.
>we've been drilled into us from an early age to be decent,
Which often boils down to "nice guy" shit when men treat women like princesses instead of equals.
>we're still treated like braindead animals
How? Where? At best there is the "oh, he's just a guy" when it comes to sharing chores and the men is allowed to be the kid at home or excusing harassment with "boys will be boys".

>>14710095
Well, I only took a few peeks into it and there seem to be tons of internal conflicts. Most obvious one would be probably asexuals or bi people, the former are rarely included into the whole LGBTABCD+++ and the latter accused of just being on one side. Not like it's too surprising, even stepping away from the whole sexuality shit, just look how many internal conflicts there are among Marxists who actually have some academical basis instead of tumblr posts. Leftists beefing with other leftist has tons of historical precedents as well.

[Anonymous No.14710149]

>>14710141
>Leftists beefing with other leftist has tons of historical precedents as well.
Also correct, and I never claimed these people were even near organized. My point was to underline and highlight their general strategy. But of course, implementation is always more complicated than "theory" (which is something they've never really ever been able to figure out).

[Anonymous No.14710161]

>>14710128
yeah i know about cultural marxism, i don't really buy it though; it's more the case, i think, that business hasn't been responsive to adapting along the principles of New Deal and Ford: it makes sense keep workers well paid and happy, whereas they've refused to do this for unknown reasons (maybe they can't afford it) so everybody is angry and broke and looking for any ideology or political utopianism that seems to explain things...

and 'capitalism' has just figured out how to exploit the language of radical thinkers to trap the workers into self-destructive behaviors so they don't protest or arm themselves when their rights and paychecks are taken away.

it's not at all 'left wing' pushing any of this at all; we're still dropping bombs on people and still leaving the world in squalor after all.

[Anonymous No.14710210]

>>14710141
>Well, stop assuming shit then.
are you trying to end the conversation by saying shit like that?

shaking my head

>How? Where? At best there is the "oh, he's just a guy" when it comes to sharing chores and the men is allowed to be the kid at home or excusing harassment with "boys will be boys".
so you obviously are a woman if you think that.

the pressure and doublestandards and being told to "shut up" when we listen to the problems in the world and talk about it that men live under is in-fucking-sane, i know men in the double digits now who've killed themselves and i'm not even 30.

The reason you see men regressing to infants and shutting down into videogames is because they were ostracized when they spoke out about all the things going on the in the world, i.e. they developed a conscience and good ethics and they got torn up for it.

>Which often boils down to "nice guy" shit
lol

>>14710135
>Other than low key protests by various women, we didn’t hear much
You're thinking like a tv audience member. It doesn't fucking matter whether anybody writes about it or not or whether it's on prime time or not. If real people go out and do shit like that the authorities pay attention and realize they can't just get away with - whatever it is.

White women would be outraged if they saw white women like them getting beat up by police in the third world, fuck, that's how women GOT the vote in the first place - white women standing up for other white women.

crass, but true.

[Anonymous No.14710326]

>>14710210
>are you trying to end the conversation by saying shit like that?
Shit like assuming the gender of others when it has to bearing to the discussion? Neither your or my gender are relevant when it comes to analysing the situation for men. Going with "b-but you wouldn't understand" is something the identity obsessed folk loves to use after all, when a lot of the stuff can be found by viewing available data.

>so you obviously are a woman if you think that.
Right, everyone disagreeing with your version of how life for males is, clearly isn't another male. Any other explanation isn't possible. Y u want me to post a pic of my penis, man.

>the pressure and doublestandards and being told to "shut up" when we listen to the problems in the world and talk about it that men live under is in-fucking-sane
Go on, expand on it. Can't do much with vague generalities. I don't live in Murica so maybe things are super different there but Yurop is far more progressive either way, and I just never felt even a hint of downsides of being a male. There are obvious things like "lol, men can't be victims of domestic violence/raped" or divorce settlements being preferential to women but in normal day to day life? Zero. Zilsh. Nothing.

>The reason you see men regressing to infants and shutting down into videogames
A minority does either way. Probably due other reasons too.

>fuck, that's how women GOT the vote in the first place - white women standing up for other white women
Not him but IN A PLACE WHERE THEY LIVED and hence had a much bigger influence. They could talk to men in charge. Protest in a way which affects the powerful and so on. What are outraged white women in Murica going to do about white women in Saudi Arabia getting stoned outside of writing articles and blogs? Why would some dictator give a damn about it when Murica still buys his oil and sells him weapons?

[Anonymous No.14710427]

>>14710326
>Shit like assuming the gender of others when it has to bearing to the discussion? Neither your or my gender are relevant
ACTUALLY IS RELEVANT LOVE
because yo'u're talking garbage as if you know what men go through, I just told you at least 10 men i've known and grown up with have ended their life and you don't even bat an eye.

>Right, everyone disagreeing with your version of how life for males is, clearly isn't another male. Any other explanation isn't possible.
well ecause what you said is so unreal about the experiences of men in the real world that it couldn't have come from a man or a grown adult with any experience of the real world. The way you just rattled off that the worst men go through is "boys will be boys" was a dead giveaway.

>Go on, expand on it.
> vague generalities
...
expand on it? Are you mentally sick? I JUST TOLD YOU TEN OFMY FRIENDS ARE DEAD

THEY GET FUCKIGN SHUT DOWN, BABIFIED, OSTRACIZED, NSULTED, CALLED GAY, CALLED HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTER, CALLED SCHIZO, CALLED AUTISTIC

THAT'S WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS to people when they "wake up" in this society and address the various things going on. Nobody wants to hear it and turn on them.


Whatever. You're probably on a serotonin buzz to fully process what i'm saying to you. Water off a ducks back.

And I'm not in fucking America either, so i have an IQ above 25 to be able to feel the pain of all of this quite nicely and process who is responsible for it.

> Zero. Zilsh. Nothing.
well idk where you are then. Probably you just don't know any better or don't recognize what's going on with people around you when noises come out of their mouths and their faces move in unusual shapes.

lack of emotional and social awareness.

but that doesn't surprise me if you're a danish or german eurotrash, you guys are like the englsh but even more mentally broken - far more progressive is right lol

>Not him but IN A PLACE WHERE THEY LIVED and hence had a much bigger influence. They could talk to men in charge. Protest in a way which affects the powerful and so on. What are outraged white women in Murica going to do about white women in Saudi Arabia getting stoned outside of writing articles and blogs? Why would some dictator give a damn about it when Murica still buys his oil and sells him weapons?
you really don't recognize that women being outraged has changed our societies from A to Z, you don't think our societies react whena lot of women become angry? That's all we EVER DO!

pfft idk where oy're coming from on this,
if you're a feminist you'be on board with stopping FGM in backward shithole places
if your're anti-feminist you'd be on board wiht sending them out there to get fucked up

i don't get you pal. you ain't thinkin' like a man.

[Anonymous No.14710448]

ed.
>>14710427
>>14710326
wow that turned into an essay.

sorry, the memories of the last guys suicide are pretty raw.

also, ed.
include the trauma stats on how virtually all drug related, criminality, etc, comes from trauma inflicted in youth,

so you simply saying you've not seen anything going on is bogus, you're actually not paying attention to people around you to realize causes and effects,or being aware of the data, duh.

[Anonymous No.14710467]

>>14710448
At least try to type like a man, there's a lot of males on 4chan, you should have caught onto it

[Anonymous No.14710504]

>>14710467
ok basement boy.

[Anonymous No.14710505]

>>14710504
Am I a basement boy if the majority of my friends are female but I never get any pussy?

[Anonymous No.14710514]

>>14706646
>jew
>nigger
>jew
Why does this keep happening, bros?

[Anonymous No.14710523]

>>14706622
I enjoy reading the works of Woolf and Le Guin.

[Anonymous No.14710538]

>>14710505
yes, hello big sister.

[Anonymous No.14710567]

>>14710538
What?

[Anonymous No.14710599]

Teaching women to read and write was a mistake

[Anonymous No.14710627]

>>14710514
it's not evidence of a grand conspiracy, unless the conspiracy was to sensibly take over publishing houses and to promote conforming voices, who happen to emerge most frequently from the conforming tribes. to be honest, the only mistake made was that the eternal wasp didn't see the logical consequences of this development. but they didn't see their extinction and usurpation when they bought into contraception, either.

[Anonymous No.14710777]

>>14709992
>There isn't much of benefit in pumping kids out when you're doing well and know about protection.
t. consumer drone

[Anonymous No.14710811]

>>14710427
>I just told you at least 10 men i've known and grown up with have ended their life and you don't even bat an eye.
Which sucks, but how does it connect to the topic we discuss? Some of it is down to biological factors (like being more impulsive), a lot of it down to ZE PATRIARCHY which paints men who ask for help as unmanly and so on.
Your original statement was:
>if we've been drilled into us from an early age to be decent, and we are, and we're still treated like braindead animals and the drilling never stops - as if we're just bad and "don't understand" - then anybody will go deaf to the lessons and rebel against it: that's 1000% where the vitriol comes from.
I just don't get how it connects with the stuff you went on to mention.
>THEY GET FUCKIGN SHUT DOWN, BABIFIED, OSTRACIZED, NSULTED, CALLED GAY, CALLED HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTER, CALLED SCHIZO, CALLED AUTISTIC
And most of it is coming from other men based on a value system created by men. So why would there be vitriol towards anyone else?
>THAT'S WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS to people when they "wake up" in this society and address the various things going on.
Care to connect THIS statement with the previous stuff?
>lack of emotional and social awareness.
So much against your assumption that I was a female. Or are you doing the same shit you complained about and calling me autistic simply because I never experienced the shit you experienced? Would be quite hypocritical.
>don't recognize what's going on with people around you when noises come out of their mouths and their faces move in unusual shapes
Well, I do recognise that none of them seriously complained about being a men outside of that one time when a guy was jelly at a chick who got a free burger. Hell, even if we include buddies whining online, the worst there was would be the usual "tfw no gf :(". Hardly the epitome of horror or any real issues.
>you don't think our societies react whena lot of women become angry
Given the ridiculous sexual harassment and rape rates? I don't see anyone giving a fuck. Unless not enough women are bitching about it ... and going from local issues to global problem is unlikely to motivate more to join.
>i don't get you pal. you ain't thinkin' like a man.
I'm all for it ... if I saw a way of it being effective. All of the outrage will be useless without actions and the amount of women that needs to complain to introduce sanctions against sexist hellholes just doesn't seem in the cards. Might as well go for the smaller fish and clean up at home first.
>include the trauma stats on how virtually all drug related, criminality, etc, comes from trauma inflicted in youth
Life isn't great for a lot of people, a lot of people are men; a lot of men are getting fucked by the patriarchy, so much is obvious. Where is
>when they "wake up" in this society and address the various things going on. Nobody wants to hear it and turn on them.
Coming from.

[Anonymous No.14710818]

>>14710777
Fuck off, I rarely buy shit outside of food/necessities.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14710832]

>>14710035
It’s a vag hole tho

[Anonymous No.14710840]

>>14710448
>>14710427
That’s a lot of suicides. Where do you even live? I’ve never known this many people who have killed themselves.

The issue of men talking about their feelings is a complicated one because in many cases it’s still ostracised since there’s such huge pressure to “be a man”. This observation is nothing new of course, but I can’t help but feel like something is missing. Personally, I feel that the sense of isolation from the world is exacerbated by the hyperreal nature of many internet communities. It creates a generation of men who don’t know how to function during face to face human contact.

[Anonymous No.14710884]

>>14710840
Blaming it on the webz seems too simple. The people who don't know how to act face to face usually don't even know how to act somewhat normal online either, see incels.

At least for me the Internetz was a great way to get back to socialising after quitting on it due bullying; it's way easier and one can experiment a lot more too, finding out what works and doesn't work, finding different kinds of people, and then use the knowledge offline. And sure, the switch is still quite a shock but having a basis to build on is still super helpful.

[Anonymous No.14710927]

>>14710884
That benefit definitely exists, but it’s communities like the incel community that are the problem. Communities can influence the mindset of their participants in their day to day life and these communities and their social norms can differ radically from the norms which exist in the real world. I wouldn’t agree that incels are bad at online interaction— They’re just only good at interacting with other incels. But it’s not just incels, other communities can warp your perception of reality too if you don’t actually participate in reality to help balance that perspective out.

[Anonymous No.14710975]

>>14710927
>They’re just only good at interacting with other incels.
Which sounds pretty bad, or at least very "maladjusted" for me. People who are good at online interaction would at least be able to get along with majority of people online which is already so much easier than even getting along with someone like you offline.

With the toxic communities we still have an egg and hen situation IMO. Seem like it takes a very troubled person to even consider joining shit like that, far beyond your average loner or weirdo. Though yeah, once they do escape sounds pretty hard since it will taint their complete perception and disengage into a sort of parallel reality.

[Anonymous No.14711007]

Is Margaret Atwood considered feminist?

I've only read The Handmaids Tale and The Year Of The Flood, but I enjoyed both.

[Anonymous No.14711016]

>>14707267
An actual theory post in a subject the pathetic incels on this forum are deeply contrarian to??
Is this for real? Am I dreaming?

Anon you give me faith to keep coming back to this braindead shithole.

[Anonymous No.14711111]

>>14710811
>>14710840
i...... will give this a good reply later

hopefully this thread is contentious enough to stay bumped for 12 hours :D

>>14710840
>That’s a lot of suicides. Where do you even live? I’ve never known this many people who have killed themselves.
this includes off-the-rail kids i knew in my teens and friends who went off to the military and some others. most were very successful, well above norm career-wise.

i include an internet friend in that, but if i counted all the internet people who've done the same.. hell.. double or triple it.

[Anonymous No.14711143]

>>14710811
>how does it connect to the topic
because the assumption was that men jut don't care about these subjects, i explain, no we do care and we get treated as if we're the cause for it when we're the ones who are actually not like that at all, that causes men to shut down.

like this,
>>14710927
>other communities can warp your perception of reality too if you don’t actually participate in reality to help balance that perspective out.
the internet just sends us against each other,lashing out bcause we can't physically grab the people responsible and kick their heads in. we've all been fucked over and divided against each other, especially women against men.

[Anonymous No.14711158]

>>14711007
>Is Margaret Atwood considered feminist
Yes. She’s actually a good feminist since she actually criticised the practical implications of MeToo. I think she’s just okay as a fiction writer though.

Excluding Woolf, who might just be the GOAT feminist fiction writer, some feminist writers I really like are Angela Carter and Kate Chopin. If you want good feminist poetry, I’d recommend Carol Ann Duffy as well.

[Anonymous No.14711286]

>>14711143
>because the assumption was that men jut don't care about these subjects
Which doesn't seem that wrong and is pretty human, most people usually only care about stuff directly related to them or at least to someone they know. When it comes to feminism specifically a lot people take the "but I'm colourblind" approach from racism; not actively doing obviously shitty stuff but not doing much to improve matters. It's not even gendered since most females don't do shit to advance the cause either.

[Anonymous No.14711417]

Any site to download books? Need "gender matters :truths and consequences"

[Anonymous No.14711462]

"The Ethical Slut"
Anything by Marion young

[Anonymous No.14711481]

>>14711286
Most people, male and female, don’t know what feminism actually is. You could write an entire thesis attempting to define what the term “feminism” actually means since there are so many different variants and such. Most people agree with the principle of gender equality, but they don’t care about semantics and individual political issues. This is where the “I’m all for gender equality, but I’m not a feminist” mindset you see in a lot of men comes from. Women meanwhile are more willing to adopt the label of “feminist” because they buy into the liberal claim that “feminism=gender equality”.

There’s also the issue of so-called “male feminists” and whether or not they can actually be feminists. Putting aside the radfem claim that men cannot be feminists, there’s also the question of how many men genuinely support and practice the fundamental tenants of feminism vs. how many men are merely pretending to be feminists just to get pussy.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that feminism is nowhere near as influential on western civilisation as some people think it is. Most genuine feminists are just a bunch of autistically dedicated campaigners who try to push their ideals without them really having much in the way of unity as a group— Hence why progress towards gender equality has been so slow.

[Anonymous No.14711557]

>>14711481
>Hence why progress towards gender equality has been so slow.
In terms of "something so simple as treating genders equality still will take at least two more generations in the first world" sure but compared to ending racism or any other cultural advancement, the progress seems a lot better, just harder to cap due how ingrained it is and how physical and reproductive differences will always remain and affect it.

[Anonymous No.14711740]

>>14711557
If womb and sperm transplants become a thing, physical differences might become less of a determining factor. Not to mention that if equality is achieved in the first world, attention will turn much harder towards achieving gender equality in the third world, which is an even more difficult obstacle given that feminism has made even less progress in those countries.

[Anonymous No.14711748]

Why is equality a good thing again?

[Anonymous No.14711959]

>>14711158

in the same vein as these, if you have not already read it, i really enjoyed all passion spent by vita sackville-west

[Anonymous No.14712713]

>>14711748
The basic theory is to create a situation where everyone starts from an equal starting point, where upon any future inequalities will be due to merit rather than social circumstances.

[Anonymous No.14712765]

Abdullah Ocalan is either a terrorist leader or left-wing revolutionary political prisoner depending on who you ask, but his writings about Jineology, a Kurdish-based take on third-wave feminism, is pretty interesting.

[Anonymous No.14712870]

>>14706622

[Anonymous No.14713509]

>>14712713
Except that the techniques required to determine inequality preclude the possibility of patterns of intrinsic merit.

[Anonymous No.14713556]

>>14706622
Look into Beauvoir and Judith Butler. Then go on to radical feminism.

[Anonymous No.14713655]

>>14713556
>Beauvoir, Butler, then radical feminism

Wouldn’t it make more sense to go in sequential order (that being Beauvoir, radfems, then Butler)? Also, can Butler really be called feminist when she categorises herself as being a queer theorist? The connection between LGBTQ stuff and Feminism is kind of loose, especially if you’re using second wave feminism as your basis.

[Anonymous No.14713695]

>>14713655
I was just regurgitating names I've heard. I'm no expert. I am a fan of rad feminism though.

[Anonymous No.14713786]

>>14713695
>I’m a fan of rad feminism
Cool. What do you like about it? I always thought it paid too much attention to gender in isolation rather than factoring in other social aspects like class, although I admire it being much more hardcore than liberal feminism. Are there any favourites you’d recommend beyond the usual suspects like Germaine Greer?

[Anonymous No.14714018]

>>14712713
Again, why is the equal starting point desirable? If we say that men and women should start from the same place, and the same thing applies to different races too, then what stops us from extending it to different species?

Why shouldn't a chicken or a monkey have an equal starting point as humans? Is that even possible? Or this distinction is arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.14714087]

Cont. >>14714018

By that I don't mean that only the sexes and the races have different starting points. Every individual, or rather including animals, every being has a different starting point. You have unique capabilities, your friends have talents of their own. I just don't see where this obsession about equality comes from. We are born different. Fight for equality is literally fighting nature herself. As far as I can tell, equality was a lost cause from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.14714173]

>>14706622
>how many women did you rape op?

[Anonymous No.14715540]

>>14714087
AFAIK almost no one who wants equality has any issue with "unique capabilities" and the likes but systematic factors which create arbitrary barriers, so your question seems very much like trolling.

[Anonymous No.14715635]

>>14715540
>so your question seems very much like trolling.
I'm honestly and genuinely presenting my questions and arguments. If wanted to troll, I'm sure there are easier or better ways.
>AFAIK almost no one who wants equality has any issue with "unique capabilities" and the likes but systematic factors which create arbitrary barriers
If it is as you say, then why if in a given environment (say a workplace or university) men outnumber women, or whites outnumber other races, then why is it assumed that systematic misogyny/racism is at play? Could it not be due to "unique capabilities"?

Further, can't we say men and women have their own unique capabilities also? The latter, their agreeableness and pleasant company, the former their drive and competitiveness? It seems to me that this quest for equality wants to get rid of these capabilities (each unique to their respective group) just so that everyone could be equal.

It has also been noted that the blacks, on average, have easier time building muscle and outperforming the other races, while having a lower average intelligence. Is this not another example of the unique capabilities that we spoke of?

Again, these different strengths are everywhere in nature. Similar to those examples above, birds can fly, fishes breathe under water while humans cannot do either either. Similarly, you might be good at math while your friend could play sublime piano. Why can we not appreciate differences between demographics groups of humans as we do of species or individuals?

Or are you supposing that these properties of nature are exactly the arbitrary barriers that you mentioned? Curious what you define as arbitrary. Is nature, of all things, arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.14715693]

>>14715635
Blacks are strong because slavemasters captured the most muscular men and the most durable women and made them work and fuck like oxen for 300 years. Women are "agreeable" because agreeableness is a survival tactic for them--outspoken, angry, resisting women get killed so often it isn't news. These aren't innate characteristics, "properties of nature"--they are adaptations to society.

[Anonymous No.14715726]

>>14715693
Even if those are true, then evolution has mandated that these traits become parts of their nature, or else the blacks wouldn't have been inherently more talented at bodybuilding as their ancestors of three centuries ago.

So is this quest for equality trying to reverse evolution? A kind of veiled eugenics, which seeks to make all demographics of humans inherently similar after a few generations?

Even if that's true, let's come back to my very first question. What's the point of equality? Should we also try to make animals evolve to become as intelligent as humans, just to remove this systematic barrier? Should we create an eugenics program that makes humans evolve to breathe in water, so we could be equal to fishes?

[Anonymous No.14715732]

>>14714173
All of them.

[Anonymous No.14715779]

>>14715635
So do you seriously think a darky from the hood who happens to have about the same innate abilities as a whity from the burbs, would have anywhere a similar amount of challenges on their way to get the same tech job?

>Similarly, you might be good at math while your friend could play sublime piano
If I happen to grow up in a shitty place and go to a shitty school and have to work on the side to feed my family because daddy is in jail and mommy has a crack habit, while my friend lives in a great neighbourhood with parents who support her and can afford to buy her a piano, lessons, drive her to contests, etc … I'd say she's going to have a much easier time becoming a composer despite the field being a sexist mess with much fewer openings even for the best, while something as basic as a CS degree would be quite the unlikely path for me.

>Or are you supposing that these properties of nature are exactly the arbitrary barriers that you mentioned?
I mean, they are but going against that seems stupid. If someone has an easier time building muscle mass and wants to do something based on that, it'd be silly to cripple them on their way.

Removing the barriers society placed on them, would be beneficial for everyone on the other hand, since people could fulfil the potential of their unique capabilities instead of being stuck in designated roles because they happen to share the skin shade or genitals with someone who has different capabilities on the average.

[Anonymous No.14715780]

>>14715726
You've misinterpreted a central part of this argument. We're not arguing for a Harrison Bergeronesque social program where those with talent or innate ability are handicapped down to a common denominator. We're not trying to dampen the intelligence of the smart, or "cure" the intelligence of the dumb. Equality simply means the barriers to entry are removed. Racial segregation is a barrier. A refusal to hire women is a barrier. A school having no wheelchair ramps is a barrier. etc. Your talk of eugenics is beside the point.

[Anonymous No.14715841]

>>14715779
>>14715780
The arguments regarding the external factors imposed by society is fair. My question is, what if after removing those barriers most women were still disinterested in CS? What worries me is that advocates of equality focus more on quantity rather than quality. I very much wish any person talented in CS, regardless of race and gender, could fulfill their potential.

Aside from the removing of the external factors like the ones you mentioned, I don't believe it should be imposed on the employers to hire an strictly defined minimum of each demographic. Rather, the employers should be encouraged to hire based on merit.

It seems to me that the advocates think that when we remove all external hindrances, there should be an equal number of each demographic hired. This might very well be the case, but I argue that it shouldn't be assumed. It might also happen that even after achieving equal external starting point, inherent talents of each demographic would be distributed unequally.

[Anonymous No.14715902]

>>14715841
It's true, there's a possibility that women won't be drawn to CS in equal numbers as men. However, that's a hypothetical problem compared to the real problem that CS is still male dominated and casually sexist--many women report harassment and a hostile work environment, and that feeds into younger women wanting to avoid CS. The problem is deeply ingrained. What I'm saying is: let's focus on the problems in front of us, and get to the ideal scenarios later. I don't advocate for equal representation of every demographic in every workplace, but I share practical goals with those who do advocate it.

[Anonymous No.14715926]

>>14715902
I don't know how much your views are representative of most advocates of equality, but in this case, we are in agreement. Focusing on practical goals should be the priority, but it shouldn't be assumed that after removing all external inequalities, internal ones won't get in our way. And that's where we should draw the line, since it isn't wise to fight nature herself.

[Anonymous No.14715961]

>>14715841
>what if after removing those barriers most women were still disinterested in CS?
A big shrug from me. Although the outcome doesn't seem that realistic in CS specifically since it was a field full of women at some point and it looks like, the office drones of today are going to be the code monkeys of the future.

>Rather, the employers should be encouraged to hire based on merit.
Ideally, yes. Quotas are a heavy handed instrument out of necessity, not a great solution by any means, for anyone involved. It's not like the minorities or women want to have the cloud of "quote negro" hovering over them.

Though consider that factors like gender/ethnicity could also add to their merit. Especially when it comes to algorithms when biases can mess up the entire result, having a diverse team to minimize the chance of stupid mistakes one demographic wouldn't even consider is a pro.

>there should be an equal number of each demographic hired
I haven't seen that suggestion too often outside of silly soundbites. If the barriers are removed, going for quotas would be just as arbitrary after all.

[Anonymous No.14715965]

>>14715902
>However, that's a hypothetical problem compared to the real problem that CS is still male dominated and casually sexist--many women report harassment and a hostile work environment, and that feeds into younger women wanting to avoid CS.
There is no evidence of this, it's simply asserted that this is what's going on. Is CS more sexist than other fields? I am sure however you measure this in a study you could find a field that was ranked both more sexist and had a higher percentage of women in it. When you look at the fields women choose to go into there is no clear link with sexism, rather there is a persistent pattern of them liking stuff to do with people, and not liking abstract mechanical systems like Computer Science. Girls show this behavior from the age of toddlers, they prefer dolls and boys prefer building stuff or pretend weapons.

[Anonymous No.14715983]

>>14715961
I was under the impression that most advocates of equality believed in clean slate and therefore equal representation. Was I mistaken?

[Anonymous No.14716012]

>>14715965
>there's no evidence of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_disparity_in_computing#cite_note-42
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/college/2017/08/03/college-women-in-tech-were-encountering-sexism-already/104272100/
You know, when you close your eyes, the world does not disappear, right? Educate yourself before opening your mouth.

[Anonymous No.14716022]

>>14716012
A list of claims of sexual harrassment is not a study showing a causal effect between said harrassment and women's engagement with the field. What is the size of the effect?

[Anonymous No.14716079]

>>14716022
Would it really matter to you? What kind of evidence would change your mind? When women are harassed and end up quitting, their engagement drops to zero. How much alleged harassment has to go on being reported before you acknowledge that there's a problem? Frankly, demanding to quantify the problem is beside the point and indicates a bias toward the system, since the problem isn't "real" until it hits your numbers.

[Anonymous No.14716084]

>>14716079
evidence showing women going into CS at much greater numbers in a non-sexist environment would convince me.

[Anonymous No.14716116]

>>14716084
I'll let you know when I find that non-sexist CS environment

[Anonymous No.14716122]

>>14706622
First, you need to read some philosophy, and understand that everything that has a name exists only in our conscience. This will help you keep in mind that feminist models of reality, different ways of thinking about it, are not The Only Truths About The World or new belief systems. It will also help you with whatever wave that questions sex and gender, as it basically is the applied philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14716124]

>>14716084
Which is basically impossible due lack of such environments, at best we could compare the numbers in less and more sexist societies ... and if I recall right a lot of sexist places like fucking Iran has tons of women in CS/engineering ... and if Iran got women on 40%, neither sexism nor innate abilities seem like sufficient explanations.

http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/vgalpin1/ps/Gal02a.pdf
Was what I found after two sec on Google (numbers start on page 4 and often are pretty old) and it ... makes things complicated.

Could be that sexism in university isn't a big factor after all. Could be that classes with more women are less sexist, which makes women want to do that. Or could be more down to economical factors; if you already live in a shithole where sexism is given, you might grit your teeth and do something more lucrative.

[Anonymous No.14716143]

>>14716124
It could be a lot of things I agree.

[Anonymous No.14716158]

>>14716143
https://qz.com/1223067/iran-and-saudi-arabia-lead-when-it-comes-to-women-in-science/

Maybe Islam was always the answer to get girls in STEM.

[Anonymous No.14716172]

>>14716158
>A study published in February found that the social and political gender equality typical of Scandinavian countries may be inversely related to women’s representation in STEM fields. This could be in part due to the fact that countries with greater parity between sexes tend to be wealthier, providing better government support to citizens and allowing women to accept less secure jobs.

read this paragraph really, really carefully. Look at what is actually being said there. holy fucking lol

[Anonymous No.14716184]

>>14716158
maybe it was the burkhas. i apologize for this shitpost

[Anonymous No.14716192]

>>14716172
if I could get a sinecure you bet your ass I would do it, just read all day. Let's be honest, the money is a huge factor in choosing tech

[Anonymous No.14716345]

aha the thread is still open 12. 16 hours later
excellent

>>14710811
>Well, I do recognise that none of them seriously complained about being a men outside of that one time when a guy was jelly at a chick who got a free burger. Hell, even if we include buddies whining online, the worst there was would be the usual "tfw no gf :(".

Well that is myopic. Tat's what I mant when I said,
>lack of emotional and social awareness.
I mean that my be true in what you say but you're not seeing the fuller picture; the absence of young men in many white collar jobs, politics, etc, the way men are babified in the media and schools; not being able or experiencing good talking - as if we're retarded - sure this applies to women too but there's far more going on than just what they complain of, it's what 's they've lost that they don't know they've even lost that are the real things... and as we know men seldom talk about things which are painful.

I mean, take that and write it off as dumbed down society, okay, but we're the ones being dumbed down and displaced and laughed at if we say anything about it. Or just ignored.

I grant you men do this to each other, yeah, but that's also something that's been lost; the comradeship and fraternity; the normal community itself.

And already as I talk about these things which are real and uncomfortable and not able to be solved by either of us, which make us both have to stare at evil reality, the response is to minimize it and blame the victims rather than the hostage taker: stockholm syndrome.


> All of the outrage will be useless without actions and the amount of women that needs to complain to introduce sanctions against sexist hellholes just doesn't seem in the cards.
>I don't see anyone giving a fuck. Unless not enough women are bitching about it ... and going from local issues to global problem is unlikely to motivate more to join.

Well ..what I said was,
>you really don't recognize that women being outraged has changed our societies from A to Z, you don't think our societies react whena lot of women become angry? That's all we EVER DO!
Really you don't see that? There's not a policy that doesn't exist today that ind't exist 40 yrs ago that wasn't largely because of white women complaining until it happened.

It's not about recruiting to a cause is it? That's crap. It's about accomplishing stuff in the real world; just making up a political party and giving each other badges is fucking dumb, that comes from the patriarchy hahaha

Anyway my point was just do something useful if you're interested in feminism; save women being beaten up by cops in india, leave alone the boy in the western states who is already polite and courteous and is actually not abusing anybody, duh.

[Anonymous No.14716350]

ed.
>>14716345
>Anyway my point was just do something useful if you're interested in feminism; save women being beaten up by cops in india, leave alone the boy in the western states who is already polite and courteous and is actually not abusing anybody, duh.
e.g. a 'feminist' or any activist today will read about a thing going on in the thir world helhole,they are motiviated to stopit - as they are right to be and do - but they can't get there and do anything, so the anger goes instead into fueling angry vitriol at the man sitting next to them in class or something; i.e. it's a contained feedback loop of self-destruction 'because' the will-to-power has been directd away from real cases and directed back onto themselves or their own towns or something which have virtually nothing in common with the third world hellhole and to treat ones own people as if they were guilty of doing it.

[Anonymous No.14716469]

>>14716350
I’ve never really found the antagonistic feminist stereotype to be true. Maybe on places like Twitter or Tumblr blogs it holds some credence, but every self-identified feminist I’ve had face to face interaction with has been a nice person and has never begrudged me for being male.

Part of me thinks that the problem men face is actually less to do with things like that are more to do with the fact that the media and the internet does a really good job of making them feel inadequate and insecure. They’re told that they ought to behave in a certain way and achieve certain milestones. Pressure from boomer parents who buy into these ideas might increase the problem as well.

[Anonymous No.14716586]

>>14716345
>the absence of young men in many white collar jobs
Gender and age imbalances exist in most fields, although white collar ones seem relatively balanced, just varies a lot on the specific thing. And when it comes to politics ... not sure, never paid too much attention to the young ones who are such a minority already but the ones in parliaments tend to be men, and specially in more conservative parties they tend to be clear majority.

>it's what 's they've lost that they don't know they've even lost that are the real things.
Such as?

>the comradeship and fraternity; the normal community itself
Not sure if it's been really lost, seems more it shifted online instead of the community being the people living close to you. Which of course has the downside like trusting your neighbours less but also benefits for people who never had much in common with their community in the first place, like some gay kid in a conservative hellhole.

>There's not a policy that doesn't exist today that ind't exist 40 yrs ago that wasn't largely because of white women complaining until it happened.
Most policies don't have shit to do with gender but are boring legislation most people don't even know about.

>It's not about recruiting to a cause is it? That's crap. It's about accomplishing stuff in the real world
Can't do the latter without the former.

>leave alone the boy in the western states who is already polite and courteous and is actually not abusing anybody, duh.
Got any examples when anyone attacks THAT sort of person? Hell, as someone who isn't polite or courteous I still never got shit for it and the most confrontational thing was a friend telling me that maybe I shouldn't use "bitches" as synonym for women, even if she knew how I meant it.

>but they can't get there and do anything, so the anger goes instead into fueling angry vitriol at the man sitting next to them in class or something
At least from my experience the angry vitriol just disappears when something else gets their attention, and the anger is usually directed at media either way … which makes sense too. Activism ain't fun and results are unlikely, so people went on social media and go back to their lives.

>>14716469
Pretty much same here. If anything I found feminists IRL way too careful about not offending anyone with their views even if they dealt with obvious sexists.

[Anonymous No.14716621]

>>14706627
/thread

[Anonymous No.14716700]

>>14716586
I think feminists are careful about expressing their views precisely because of the “crazy feminist” stereotype. Men who sympathise with feminism have to bottle it up even more because they have to deal with being called a fag or a soiboi if they come out with it.

I genuinely don’t know where the belief that feminism is endemic in the western world comes from. The ideology is still heavily stigmatised and states and companies only cherrypick certain bits of it for the sake of justifying globohomo culture. In fact, despite being pro-feminist myself, I feel jaded towards the liberal direction of current feminism, so I’m apprehensive to apply the label to myself as well.

[Anonymous No.14716703]

>>14716700
Feminism is an extension of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.14716710]

>>14716703
>the most confrontational thing was a friend telling me that maybe I shouldn't use "bitches" as synonym for women, even if she knew how I meant it.

That sounds like a terrible "friend". Why would you want to hang out with someone who just polices things you say? You aren't allowed now to step outside some bullshit fence because of linguistical kulturkampf? Count me out.

[Anonymous No.14716714]

>>14716586
>>14716710
Meant to reply to this post.

[Anonymous No.14716784]

>>14716469
>>14716586

>antagonistic
>never begrudged me
It's probably just normalized to you, when women talk down to men as if they're retarded farm animals. Or that creepy pedophilic "where's daddy" persona a certain class of woman adopts.

>Maybe on places like Twitter or Tumblr
Well again I was talking about the feedback loops of destructive behavior; somebody is furious because of X over in Xland they can't do anything about X in Xland so they unload it onto whoever they can; be it irl or twitter, it's exactly the same thing, albeit easier on the internet and more able to dehumanize and establish confirmation biases to make it seem you're never in the wrong and that detractors are retarded farm animals.

>such as?
i went onto list things you replied to :)

>pressure from boomers
>behave a certain way
that's certainly true: the 1950's comprehension of the world of work running into an economic flatline and broken education and broken employment,
>white collar ones seem relatively balanced, just varies a lot on the specific thing.
hm well, if you've worked overseas you'll notice the difference: the child-like corporate not-serious world of western corps and agencies staffed by women and doing no work vs. economic powerhouses of the 1980's and places like japan and china etc. but these are wider economic subjects...

...mostly stemming from the western colleges I think. Although it's been said since at leas the 50's to my knowledge that universities had been training people in useless qualifications for which no work existed and just took the money of the student and parents who were oblivious.

we really are drifting from feminism now

>t shifted online instead of the community being the people living close to you
which is a fail. You're not actually social-networking with anybody online, just swapping cute things. And most people arent online anyway. Plus the child-like nature of a lot of the online 'forum' and format is like at a 12yr olds level and nuance and reality.. actual adult things... is stamped out. So helps to perpetuate infantilism and a stagnant discourse.

>Got any examples when anyone attacks THAT sort of person?
oh hell yeah, that's most cases where a comment has been deliberately taken from context and the outrage mob of 'feminists' (so-called) revel in destroying a person. That's become commonplace. You really can't think of these examples? lol

>so people went on social media and go back to their lives.
well exactly, they can't do anything irl of any use so they stew about it for ..decades.. sinking deeper into ideology which becomes exlusionarily dogmatic and then they become twitter mobs attacking anybody they can who seems to be ideologically 'the enemy', even though it's just a normal person critiquing normal things.

it's what i said about the destructive feedback loops coming from doing nothing about things in the real world.

[Anonymous No.14716809]

>>14716700
>The ideology is still heavily stigmatised and states and companies only cherrypick certain bits of it for the sake of justifying globohomo culture.
given that Feminism was never about putig women into slave-like factory and office jobs and corporate culture has made it all about doing that, i'd say the 'ism' it's pretty obviously being held hostage by the fatcats.

Camille Paglia talks about this, others as well.

But this is why I suggested, ages ago in this thread, to go BACK BAC K BACK and read the Women from the 1700 and 1800's who were writing with high IQ on the nature of intelligence and literacy and good effective conduct.. because that's the only way to rise people out of the mental gutter.

the party-pol approach is just the old boys club stuff lingering on. it achieves nothing. and anyway modern feminists haven't obviously even read or understood where feminists were coming from on any level at all.

[Anonymous No.14716847]

>>14716710
Is it really linguistic kulturkamp when someone tells you "hey, I get what you mean but it's kinda offensive" especially when what you say IS offensive by most objective criteria? It's not like she accused me of harassing her or intentionally attacking anyone. She got where I was coming from and just gave me her perspective. And sure, I could go full kid "but bitch, it's obvious I don't mean it it in a offensive way, are you on you period or something?" ... or recognise that we don't need to actively try to hurt someone to say something hurtful.

Besides, people are just different. For me the idea that words can hurt someone or certain topics can trigger someone (in medical sense) is just outlandish; but if someone says it is the case for them, why would refuse to acknowledge that and adjust my wording a bit, assuming I don't want to diss the person?

Funny enough, I had a lot of men who aren't even feminist were whining to me about calling my friends names when the friends were actually perfectly fine with it. That virtue signalling on someone elses behalf without even checking with the person ... yikes.

>>14716784
>Or that creepy pedophilic "where's daddy" persona a certain class of woman adopts.
Wonder where that shit even came from. I remember laughing about it a decade ago but now it seems pretty common. Though a lot men encourage that and want to be the DADDY.

>the child-like corporate not-serious world of western corps and agencies staffed by women and doing no work vs. economic powerhouses of the 1980's and places like japan and china etc
Well, seems more about culture and liberals trying to sell work as something more. Though given the economical changes ... yeah, it's another, huge ass topic way beyond feminism for sure.
Btw >>14716469 is a different person yo.

>So helps to perpetuate infantilism and a stagnant discourse.
In general sense you're right but it depends a loooot on the platform and the group involved into it.

>that's most cases where a comment has been deliberately taken from context and the outrage mob of 'feminists' (so-called) revel in destroying a person.
Ahhh, finally I start to see more clearly what you mean. Although I NEVER, EVER, EVER experienced shit like that offline. Online ... oh yes, pretty common for sure. Although I'd say it's just the online nature and how tricky actual activism is, so people play out their fantasies of doing something positive by showing off their self-righteousness online. And yeah, fall for the negative feedback loops.

[Anonymous No.14717012]

>>14716847
>to see more clearly what you mean. Although I NEVER, EVER, EVER experienced shit like that offline.
well think about the sociolgical dynamics 'of' that; it's exactly the same as gossip irl, ganging-up, belittling the out-group person i.e. the person whose opinion or observation breaks the ideology or norm in some way. It's the same thing happening, there is no difference in the mentality. So there's no difference in the thought and bheavior process from religious bigotry to ideological bigotry of whatever the religion or ideology is about...and let's face it we're talking about types of clothes and hair color now.. the exclusionary behavior women do women is a huge thing where this is concerned, over the most trivial things, but it's the same mentality and group-behavior wherever you find it.

> infantilism
My own conclusion is that it's the caveman brain that hasn't been taught to think before reacting .. the james-lange theory ... ; that'd explain how regardless of 'dogma' that the behavior on part of group to base and exclude people not like them is just so prevalent and keeps reoccurring in the majority.

>Wonder where that shit even came from. I remember laughing about it a decade ago
lol yeah, a lot of stuff today that started as obvious parody becomes totally serious now.. i suppose it's part of the vacuum and absence of culture/people, latching onto images instead.

shit, you reminded me of a conversation on this on here ages ago, a guy was not able to understand that..whatever it was..had originated as a joke, something i can't remember but that he'd taken to be serious and not a joke at all.

parodies about.... ...uhh... OH THAT'S RIGHT

The CHAD trope: that this was making fun of the low brained wanna-be alpha types.. tryhard betas... and now, apparently, is taken to be a literal role model, as if it wasn't making fun of them.

Amazing stuff.

[Anonymous No.14717299]

>>14716809
I think modern feminism buys into party politics so much because:
A. It knows engaging with that system is one of the few ways to introduce meaningful changes
B. Feminism as a philosophy found it’s origins historical materialism and modernism.

I’ve always wondered what a more spiritual feminism would look like. One that still called for gender equality and the abolition of patriarchy, but focused on the emancipation of the self and the spirit rather than going down the libfem route of getting people to climb the social hierarchy. I really think a resurgence of anti-liberal feminism would be ideal for the future.

>>14717012
I’ve never really found women that exclusionary. I think a lot of guys are just scared of girls and don’t know how to talk to them.

[Anonymous No.14717304]

>>14717299
As a working class guy I find them highly exclusionary.

[Anonymous No.14717395]

>>14717012
>The CHAD trope
Shieeeet. I genuinely forgot it used to be a fucking meme. To think it involved of something people take serious and there are multiple groups building ideologies around that stuff ... man, we sure live in weird times. Future anthropologists are going to have their work cut out for them.

[Anonymous No.14717424]

>>14706622
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminist_literature
>Women apparently don't know how to look for stuff on the internet.

[Anonymous No.14717622]

>>14717299
>the emancipation of the self and the spirit
sort of like trans-something

i wonder if people will latch onto trans and start using the term, or maybe if something has been artificially attached to it which blurs the real meaning then people won't.

ha

>party politics
No, you know I think it just doens't work. I mean, the pslit-chamber politics isn't something we've had forever or which is somehow 'good', it's a parliamentary thing that kept class and differences around and never sought to unite people in the first place. Given that this has never achieved anything I think it's quite right to dismiss party politics as,
>old boy club
It provides a going-through-motions of what politics "might feel like" but it objectively can't change the system because it is the system.

> I think a lot of guys are just scared of girls and don’t know how to talk to them.
true but we were talking about twitter mobs and girl vs. girl bullying,
>exclusionary (behaviors)
you can be the greatest person in the world and make no dent on 50,000 people becoming outraged for reading a hit-piece on you and unleashing bottled-up psychosis onto you.. they 'want' to unleash that onto someone in the first place, that's why they do it, not for any logical reasons or anything.. it's chimpanzee sociologically.

It's one-sided and impervious to reason and entirely about status.

[Anonymous No.14717626]

>pslit-chamber
*split-chamber: left v right dichotomy

[Anonymous No.14717751]

Solanas, Wittig, Irigaray, Plant

[Anonymous No.14718116]

>>14717622
The problem with trans is that it’s a product enable by capitalism. There’s also the fact that transgenders want to become the gender of their choice, thus acknowledging the gender binary. MtF trannies mimicking male stereotypes of women is so common that it’s practically cliche. I do think that patriarchy is redundant and that in a few generations it will cease to exist (at least in the western world), but my concern is that nothing meaningful will replace it. We’ve all become so nihilistic and materialistic that there’s not much many of us believe in strongly anymore. That’s why I feel feminism next step should be trying to find some goal for humanity that transcends the flesh and I don’t think transsexuality is going to provide that.

[Anonymous No.14718152]

>>14707267

[Anonymous No.14718551]

>>14710062
>implying /pol/ wants gender equality in saudi arabia
lmao they dont even want it in the west

[Anonymous No.14719321]

Bump