What are some good introductory texts to feminist theory?
>Inb4 "go back to Tumblr"
It's okay to read about things whether you agree with them or not, Anons.
Here is my list of books I intend to look at. What do you think of it? What should I add? Subtract?
>The Female Eunuch
>Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human Fertility
>The Whole Woman
>The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution
The Second Sex
>Sisterhood is Powerful
>The Feminine Mystique
>Pornography: Men Possessing Women
>Sex and Social Justice
>If Women Counted
Kind of looking to read things from across the spectrum, different views on issues. "Sex-positive" and "sex-critical"; gender-constructivist and essentialist/cultural forms. Liberal and radical. Etc.
Also, has any feminist proposed a liberation theory that includes turning into starfish?
When I was a child I read the book in OP's pic. One of the characters turned into a starfish and it got cut in half and both halves turned back into human and then one was evil and threatened to kill the character and maybe even her dog I think.
I cried and told my mother and should said I shouldn't be reading animorphs. The next day I was fine and I still cringe when I think about it.
That actually sounds fucking terrifying why the fuck would they put that in a kids' book
I'll check that out. Only Woolf I've read is "A Room of Her Own." Seems more suitable to the context of the time she wrote it in, though I can see how it's applicable to today, to some extent (lots of studies are showing that achievement gaps between sexes are influenced by socialization and learning environments, and how the "stereotype threat" has an effect and all that jazz).
This. The way that spies in movies know foreign languages and disguise themselves as foreigners so that they can undermine the other country's agents, OP should read books like Sexual Politics and the Second Sex in order to pose as a Feminist and undermine Feminism from within.
MRA neckbeard here,
I was very happy when I found another male MRA neckbeard to date and have sex with and love because we both realized women are controlling monsters who enforce social misandry through feminism.
Women literally live to do this. It's why they start arguements over nothing. Fuck my sister wakes up her fucking cats when they're passing out or pushes them over repeatedly because "annoying them is funny". I don't know who said it first but they are honestly just big children. We could wax about whether or not it's "society's fault", but it still is what it is and cowtowing to their endless bitching even more will certainly not solve the "societal cause".
Lmao I'm engaged and going to the bar like, now. Maybe one day you'll realize your thought process and worldview is literally based on throwing strawmen at the wall and the concept of "xD", because you are mad about what is probably the oldest observation in the entire history of the human race - women are silly and manipulative.
No, I legitimately think all internet feminists are lonely autists.
>women in my life are manipulative
my apologies for triggering your latent castration anxieties and neglected mother issues. I realize your family is comprised of dumb cunts, which is only logical as you are a member of said, so it's unsurprising you've only seen a marginal slice of the human experience, through the lens of your whore mother and your abusive sister.
I bet your fiancé is a gem, too. Little wonder where a quality guy like yourself gets his opinions on the inferiority of women he's chosen to be in his life. I bet you two will have a great future, considering her choice of young misogynist as a life partner. Make sure your kids never know who you really are or what your mother did to you
i always wonder if people like this had a bad mother.
my father was a no show alcoholic, and my mother basically raised me while working.
my grandmother was the only other person in my life that ever did shit for me.
even if i've had my fair share of shit with women, i cant ever believe they are all bad.
Nah, feminists are literally just that crazy.
I am not a magic negro you fool. Stereotype threat is just pathetic in concept. If that is all it takes to stop you then you don't have the fortitude to actually do the work, when it does get tough.
The funny thing is that no feminist scholar of note has ever said "all sex is rape." Dworking and Mackinnon are constantly slandered as having said this, even by other feminists (typically the liberal "fun" feminists).
Yeah, you can find a lot of shitty blogs on nobody anons saying that all het sex is rape. I've even found an antinatalist feminist blog by some dude who isn't pro-choice or pro-life because he thinks "abortion should be the default."
What does that mean? That crazy people have access to the internet.
>Inb4 NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
Didn't say they weren't true Scotsmen. They're just shitty nobody Scotsmen who are convenient to nutpick.
>Still ignoring the evidence cuz of "muh bootstraps" and "muh ability to overcome the brain's fallibility and proneness to irrational systematic heuristic errors through sheer initiative and resilience
>Being this neoliberal
If all feminists want is equality, why aren't they called egalitarians?
>>Inb4 "go back to Tumblr"
>It's okay to read about things whether you agree with them or not, Anons.
>to talk about feminism people here have to pretend to be against it
>even with this people still shitpost
Jesus, I thought people here wouldn't be so sensitive
The distinction isn't between "liberal feminists" and "conservative feminists," but "liberal feminists" and "radical feminists." There aren't really any "conservative feminists."
Well, Cathy Young and Christina Hoff-Sommers claim to be feminists, but if they are feminists, they are feminists who spend every bit of their time explaining why feminism is bad. And they are conservative.
People just really, really hate feminism. Can you blame us?
this is an oxymoron. Conservatives are the people who will defend the status quo for no reason at all other than it being the status quo. There is no space for feminism there.
>woman asks not to have doors opened for her
>asshole thinks it will be funny to assert dominance and mock A Feminist by still opening the door for her
Not that this deserved this kind of attention but it's like the more women complain about mistreatments the more you people want to mistreat women and give them more reason to complain.
Like it or not this is the public face of feminism. Even the westboro baptists aren't this crazy.
>telling someone not to perform a polite social norm that is done for both men and women to make yourself seem like a strong black woman who ain't need no man and then complaining about them being polite
>openening doors for people establishes dominance over them
>If all slavery abolitionists want is equality, why don't they call themselves egalitarians?
>Slavery abolitionism is the attempt to make slaves and free people equal by only focusing on the problems of slaves
ITT: continued male weeping
This is funny because Feminism in its current form is an inherently regressive and authoritarian movement, ultraconservative in that it is not open to genuine criticism or change outside of its own narrow ideological narrative
>mfw when I held a door open for a girl today.....and she said thank you
I live in the rural American West.....if a woman did not want me to open a door for her I wouldn't but I would be seriously confused
Reasons feminism is bullshit:
Women can literally have the worst manners, be absolutely rude, say the meanest shit about a man's looks or his short stature, or how much of a loser he is, etc., and get completely away with it. If a man, on the other hand, says one rude thing to a woman (such as a comment about her weight), he becomes excommunicated by society and socially reprimanded.
Women can humiliate a man by slapping him in public. If a man slaps a woman in public, he goes to jail and his reputation if fucked for life.
Women don't have to work a day in their life, marry a man, get bored of him, divorce him, and then take half of his money.
Women, even ugly ones, can date a man, get bored of him, dump him or get dumped, and already have 50 dates lined up the next day with decently attractive men. Men get dumped, and maybe get lucky and go on a date 6 months later.
A woman just simply has to be average looking to have a fulfilling sex life and to get a decent looking man who commits to her. A man has to be tall, dark, handsome, have a good job, have ambitions, a good personality, social status, good looks (above average doesn't cut it) to have a fulfilling sex life and to get a decent looking woman to commit to him.
Everything a woman touches is golden - society always comes to her aid and defends her, even if she is wrong. A man, on the other hand, has to prove his worth and fight for respect in order to gain social approval and support.
No think about it fool. If that all it takes to diffuse ambitious what good will you be against your competition. What bootstraps do women have? They have been graduating college at a higher rate than men for a generation and still have done little. We can't and shouldn't shove stem fields down their throats .
She asked him not to
When someone asks you not to do something and you have zero reason to still do it other than to spite them, and you expect your action to go unpunished because they have no power over you, you are asserting dominance.
Now go pee on a streetlamp or something
I can answer all your questions with
>only if the woman in question is a popular, pretty, white, rich one
Correcting for you
>this is why feminism without a class and race look on things is bullshit
>polite social norm that literally everyone does for everyone else
>doing stupid shit
The stupid shit is making a big deal out of it in the first place. Women literally looking for things to complain about.
I still participate in feminism discussions (as much as a thread on lit can be called a discussion) in predominantly male environments because I'm disappointed in feminism as a whole, but mainly in the part where they refuse to let men into the talk, claiming it is possible to change anything by diminishing half the world's population and assuming the same stance as the 'oppressors' (right, misandry doesn't kill like misoginy does, but is it really a good fucking approach?).
So I single-handedly try to erase the impression made by thousands of crazy schizofrenic tumblr posts and I try to make men see reason. It's a solitary and pointless endeavour but I feel somewhat righteous to know I practice what I preach rather than ignore men and close myself up insiste feminist circles like most do.
Tl; dr: btw im a grill
>Women can literally have the worst manners
Lol yeah, howcome nobody ever calls women bitches? Howcome bitches don't routinely suffer violence for rejecting men's gentlemanly advances?
>Women can humiliate a man by slapping him in public. If a man slaps a woman in public, he goes to jail and his reputation if fucked for life.
And yet men commit way more violence against women than the reverse, and in domestic abuse cases, in the much rarer cases where the woman abuses the man, the man is much more likely to press charges than the reverse scenario
>Women don't have to work a day in their life
Yeah cuz women having to do all the unpaid domestic work and being economically at the mercy of their paid husbands, to the point where leaving abusive spouses could put them on the streets, shows how much privilege women have in our matriarchal society.
>Women don't have to work a day in their life
Yeah, how many dates you get is the metric your rights and status in society. Poor oppressed men not getting dates, like they are entitled to!
>A woman just simply has to be average looking to have a fulfilling sex life
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE MEN WHO AREN'T GETTING LAID OH THE HUMANITY
>society always comes to her aid and defends her, even if she is wrong.
Which explains the stigma rape victims face and the low conviction rates and the fact that women who are known to be being abused in the workplace are told to "just cope with it" even today, yeah. Those women we put on a pedestal, amiright bros?
redpill/10 apply yourself
That person didn't make the best arguments, but the fact that female on male violence is more commonly acknowledged just means that male abuse victims suffer more, and there is often no way for them to seek help
Feminism simply increases the likelihood of male victims continuing to be physically abused
You are implicitly saying you believe those abuse victims deserve to suffer
Operationalize "pimpin'," b4 we take your claim seriously. I'm serious, I'll falsify ur ass u little bitch, come at me bro.
I'm a dude, but I feel like this whole "we have to show the men that we don't hate them! Love us, men!" is the wrong path. I don't think feminism should turn into a PR campaign.
>doing something you were asked not to do to someone
>while being smug and sarcastic about it
>not stupid shit
Again, it shouldn't become such a big deal for a letter or anything, but still is a pretty stupid thing to do. You just feed it unnecessarily, y'know?
Dude probably thought it was a joke. Who seriously tells someone to close a door so they can open it themselves?
I think anyone in that situation would have assumed it was a joke and made a joke back.
Ooooooohhhhhhhoooooohhhhhh! Da Popperite can't handle da heat! Bitch falsifiability is unfalsifiable! Explain Galileo, who by your own criteria initially put forward an unfalsifiable and thus unscientific theory!!!!!!!!!
MY ANCESTORS DIED FOR MY RIGHTS
I OPEN DOORS HOW I PLEASE
>This is funny because Feminism in its current form is an inherently regressive and authoritarian movement, ultraconservative in that it is not open to genuine criticism or change outside of its own narrow ideological narrative
I'm not a feminist but I think it would be funny if you gave feminists kukri knives and put them in a cage with unarmed men who are confirmed virgins, and watched the feminists brutally gut the virgins and stomp on the virgin mens' faces as they bleed to death
I would fucking clap
>reading this thread
Okay, I'm a feminist. But my feminism is not necessarily anything like the feminism depicted on some parts of the Internet. There are truly horrible things in this world that hurt my sex. Is it wrong for me to be concerned about those?
Yes, I know that some of the extremes of Western feminism are particular annoying. But does that mean it all is?
Why must all feminism be painted under the same brush? Take any ideology and there are so many types and denominations. Why make this such an us vs. them situation? Why must both sides do that?
I don't mean a harem for everybody, just a system which guarantees that everybody gets laid with minimal psychic stress and with a optimal hottie depending on their preference. Applies to both guys and girls.
>Making vinaigrette salad dressing cuz I need to become less skinnyfat
>Ingredients: balsamic vinegar, basil, extra virgin olive oil, garlic, salt
>extra virgin olive oIl
>e x t r a v i r g i n
>I'm the same skinny, underage /v/ retard who got pointed out at the cumination of this thread
>GUYS I STILL EXIST LMAO I'M POSTING LIKE HOLY SHIT
Even /b/ in 2007 was less retarded than 2015 /lit/. Degeneration is real, who cares about drugs or fucking, just look at how 20ish and under people engage.
Because Feminism, while it addresses gender issues such as female genital cutting in foreign countries that really do need to be addressed, is, in America, a hate movement aimed at perpetuating the systematic domestic abuse of males and stigmatizing/vilainizing male sexuality as well as perpetuating homophobia against LGBT males while insidiously claiming to stand for LGBT rights.
You realize that dispute was pretty much sowed by 4chan/anonymous starting disinfo accounts on tumblr and feminist communities by posing as feminists and then artificially creating a "debate", right?
/pol/ outright admits using these disinformation tactics.
I think it's funny all of the neckbeards here going on about imaginary "abuse"
Men can't be abused by women. Hit by women, punched by women, given a beat down women, but not abused. When a woman hits me, I get turned on. Also, female on male "rape" isn't harmful or traumatic, you fucks. It's actually damn pleasing.
>systematic domestic abuse of males and stigmatizing/vilainizing male sexuality as well as perpetuating homophobia against LGBT males while insidiously claiming to stand for LGBT rights.
If you believe that men can't be abused by women or that female on male abuse is justified, you are not patriarchal or an MRA
You are a feminist. Believing female on male abuse is either justified or nonexistent is at the very core of feminist belief. There is a lot of coded or carefully worded language in feminist texts that implies this without outright saying it.
identity politics is just a meme, an impotent way for so called progressives to act out because the limits of egalitarianism in actually changing the established order (private property etc).
In the 1700s Robespierre used mass executions, today we use gender quotas.
What's the story behind this webm? I'm curious.
Also OP, it's a comic but I really enjoyed Fun Home. It's about two generations of gays. A homosexual father who eventually killed himself when his well constructed life began to fall apart, and his lesbian daughter who was able to live out in the open.
>tfw politics nowdays is even more polarized than ever
>you can either be a semi-racist misogynistic reactionary
>or a misandrist indentity politics spouting tumblr feminist
>no one is allowed to play the moderate middle
I don't like dilluted, marketed feminism that panders to men either. I simply think dialogue is viable and that the female-only "we don't need no men boohoo male tears" approach is terrible and counter productive as far as spreading feminist ideas go. Your audience will be far more willing to listen if you're not actively (and pointlessly, might I add) attacking them. And pretending like they don't need to listen or agree is either stupid or naive, I'm not sure which. It creates even more ressentment and desire to abuse women (see all the raping feminists fantasies out there).
Women are a common enemy most men can agree on. There'a also the historical erasure of female intellect. It's easy to see the worst and assume the whole thing is just like it in these conditions.
I honestly can't think of a straight male who likes that musical
So my extrapolation is that you are either a gay male or female
Nothing wrong with either of those things because I get along with both of those groups of people very well, much better than macho men or weird reclusive white male nerds who repulse all non-reclusive non-white males
>Women are a common enemy most men can agree on
Women aren't, feminism is.
There have been many otherwise decent people who subscribed to Nazism and Stalinism, after all. There have been many otherwise decent people who thought it was their duty to kill people of other faiths in the name of their God.
And so it is with third wave feminism. Good people swayed by a terrible philosophy.
>Take a trip to the Cdc.gov
Key Findings (...)
Women are disproportionately impacted. They experienced high rates of severe IPV, rape, and stalking, and long-term chronic disease and other negative health impacts, such as post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Women are disproportionately affected by IPV, SV, and stalking.
• Nearly 1 in 5 women (19.3%) and 1 in 59 men (1.7%) have been raped
in their lifetime.1
• Approximately 1.9 million women were raped during the year preceding
• One in 4 women (22.3%) have been the victim of severe physical violence by an
intimate partner, while 1 in 7 men (14.0%) have experienced the same.1
• One in 6 women (15.2%) have been stalked during their lifetime, compared
to 1 in 19 men (5.7%).1
The only Webber I'm a huge fan of is Phantom of the Opera. Cats to an extent, though the original poems are far superior to the musical adaptation. More about Sondheim than Weber myself.
here's what i found from the 2010 summary
Number and Sex
• Across all types of violence,
the majority of female victims
reported that their perpetrators
• Male rape victims and male
victims of non-contact
unwanted sexual experiences
reported predominantly male
If you can't see how women are a common enemy all men can agree on you do not deserve a decent response.
Not even getting into feminism now, this is a simple truth of life. Only very few homossexuais are capable of escaping this and even they ressent females because they are supposed to marry one of them when all they want is cock
>I simply think dialogue is viable and that the female-only "we don't need no men boohoo male tears" approach is terrible and counter productive as far as spreading feminist ideas go.
I guess I can understand that. Visiting feminist blogs, I still get somewhat offended when I feel like they are attacking me. Then I just sort of calm my emotions, realize that it's not about me personally, and read what they have to say. But yeah, it takes effort to do that.
>It creates even more ressentment and desire to abuse women (see all the raping feminists fantasies out there).
This part, I cannot say I agree with, though. People shouldn't have to edit themselves based on whether they could "create a desire to abuse" them.
>actually believing this
Erasure of female intellect was and is extremely common
People refused to believe that a woman wrote Frankenstein
After the identity of the Bronte sisters was revealed as female their works began to be stigmatized with the then quite derogatory label of "romance"
And so on
>People shouldn't have to edit themselves based on whether they could "create a desire to abuse" them.
This is bullshit. I would also argue for the censure of graphic novel artists such as Frank Miller and Alan Moore who openly make light of the rape and sexual abuse of women in their works.
>Nearly 1 in 5 women (19.3%)
is it just me or do these percentages keep getting larger
does that include blacks?
>Erasure of female intellect was and is extremely common
no it wasnt
youre vastly confining the history of western culture
there have been many female writters who were very well received
history isnt as one sided as feminists like to pretend it is. especially in the west which was by far the most egalitarian of all the societies of earth
Yeah, because male abuse victims were totally heard more often before feminism was invented. Then it all went downhill.
Lol. Pointing out that violence is gendered and that men harm women way more often than the reverse doesn't mean "therefore, lets not care about male victims."
I don't think MRA tippers even care about men's issues. They almost never raise them, except to counter feminist concerns.
When there is no feminist to shout down or discredit, though? Prison rape is totally fine! Hey, it wouldn't be prison if it were a cakewalk, would it? (At least, it wouldn't be the ideal conservative prison based on retribution instead of rehabilitation).
>history isnt as one sided as feminists like to pretend it is. especially in the west which was by far the most egalitarian of all the societies of earth
But history isn't as one sided as you think it is.
The problem is: anyone talks about any issues and they get insulted.
Sure - some arguments are retarded. But others? Not so much.
You actually deserve a cookie for being able to calm yourself down like that, it takes a monstrous amount of desire to understand others to do that. I'm not being ironic. Most are unable to do so, and with (understandable but not justifiable) reasons, feminist spaces tend to be defensive and quick to attack, a hell of a lot of men end up being misunderstood and yes, personally, attacked.
On the second part, my problem is mostly that it is unnecessary and has negative consequences. It's pointless and stupid. Feminists are stupid when it comes to getting the point across and convincing others. I don't know who is more idealistic, me or they - me because I still try to talk to those who are unwilling to listen or they because they think they don't need others to listen.
we would have erased you long ago if we could reproduce homosexually
you literally did nothing except giving birth to children.
you were considered as a reproductive resource because thats what you are.
dont worry tho, artificial wombs are not that far away.
So, you're saying that making sure women don't get too angry, lest some man resent their anger and rape them, is the same as censuring misogynistic material.
I don't even agree with censoring either, and I realize that these two things are completely different and not analogous.
I've not read much of Miller's work, so I cannot comment upon it. I do know he has quite the reputation for poor treatment of women in his fiction.
Moore, on the other hand, uses rape a lot, but I don't think simply having rape in the narrative is the same as glorifying it or "making light" of it. To make rape the only violent crime off-limits in fiction seems more like denialism of one of the most significant crimes in our culture. It seems like making it invisible.
Moore has some protagonists who are rapists or serial rapists in his work, such as the Comedian and the Invisible Man. They are treated like part of the team by the other protagonists. That is sick and disturbing.
Also, think about the message that sends to male readers.
Despite the fact that a select few on here will always be idiots, I'm really happy to see that the rest of /lit/ is both rational and open-minded about this topic. I love you guys.
Who is Lady Murasaki
Who is Mary Shelley
Who is Agatha Christie
Who is Elizabeth Kostova
who is James Tiptree, jr.
Who is Donna Tartt
Who is Daphne Du Maurier
Who is Octavia Butler
Who is Ursula LeGuin
Who is George Eliot
>But history isn't as one sided as you think it is.
uh ok thats what i said
>The problem is: anyone talks about any issues and they get insulted.
>Show me one good book written by a woman.
does it ever bother you how wrong you are?
the one i personally know the most about is anna komnenos
and she plays a very important role as a crusade historian.
>uh ok thats what i said
History isn't as one sided as YOU think.
Don't you get that yeah? Some of the feminists may be ridiculous but the other side can be just as bad?
That you make one comment on the treatment of women and everyone has to complain about it? We can't even have a balanced conversation on the topics as it ends up in a thread like this.
Certain feminists might present history as a one sided thing but what is the point in doing the same right back in response to it?
>Despite people not bowing to the almighty pussy on fucking 4chan; I'm impressed some people are willing to retardedly shitpost in favor of white girls, the most priviledged people on the face of the earth, ever, in history
>I love you guys for contributing nothing, yet sticking up for me somewhat, as if I'm some token being
I'm seriously splitting my sides laughing irl
I've not read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, so I can't comment on that (my understanding is that he rapes the bad guy or something...?)
The Comedian, though, is far from a "protagonist." Watchmen is about broken characters, not heroes. The Comedian is not portrayed as admirable. He's depicted as what he is: a murderous sociopath. The only other character who likes him in is Rorschach, another sociopath.
Granted, there are some problematic aspects. The Comedian regrets the rape of Silk Spectre, and she forgives him, much to the consternation of her daughter. It's a bit grey and murky there... one could say having the rapist have a change of heart after the rape and having the victim bury the hatchet so easily sort of minimizes the crime.
>in the 1700s Robespierre used mass executions, today we use gender quotas
I wouldn't eat that cookie too quickly, as I don't feel I am this "enlightened feminist man" who rises above the tendencies of men raised in patriarchal culture, and I'm still fallible and probably continue to do and say indefensible things without really thinking about them, but I do appreciate the comment.
I actually find that the majority of feminists blogs I come across are that sort of liberal inclusive thing that won't upset men too much, like Jezebel or Feministing. That's kind of what made me seek out things a bit different, and Feminist Current is what I've been browsing recently, which I've found a bit more challenging. I Blame the Patriarchy is one that I still can't really bring myself to go to often without hurt feelings, tho.
OP's list is good. I would add:
The Origin of Family, Property, and the State by Frederick Engels
The Sex Which is Not One by Luce Irigaray
Feminism Unmodified by Catharine Mackinnon
Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest by Nick Land
This collection of articles by MIM: http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/study/sp144.rtf
>but the other side can be just as bad
i dont believe i ever said otherwise
what are you talking about
men are bad
uh ok yes i dont disagree?
>That you make one comment on the treatment of women and everyone has to complain about it?
because 99% of the time its just exagerated bullshit
nobody is being oppressed
rape culture isnt real
the patriarchy isnt real either
>Certain feminists might present history as a one sided thing but what is the point in doing the same right back in response to it?
uh to show that theyre being ridiculous
if anything the western world has a distinct feminist tilt
i dont understand what youre complaining about
people need to hear the other side of the argument im sorry if you think its too harsh
>Reads like garbage. No thanks.
>ITS BAD BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT
what a typical feminist answer
please tell that to all the medievalists out there because im a bit tired of reading her myself
ive read her literally 3 times by now because shes considered so important
but apparently she isnt according to you
>i wont accept any evidence that contradicts me
pls go youve been beaten admit defeat
>men are bad
What are you talking about now? Why are you strawmanning me? The otherside is just as bad. People are being oppressed but it is all about context and it isn't as black and white as feminists present. But the other side is just as bad in pretending to say we are just as much the victims.
>uh to show that theyre being ridiculous
But what about the people not doing it to be ridiculous. What about the people who are just as bad on the other side.
>comparing the problems of modern white women to that of the slaves
this is the modern era
>The otherside is just as bad.
what other side are you talking about
i dont understand what youre getting at
i just dont understand what youre saying
youre being really vague and unclear
>What about the people who are just as bad on the other side.
i dont know how to respond to this
are you saying we shouldnt shoot down "feminists" because some people on the opposite side are retarded too?
>What is sexual abuse
>What is unpaid informal labour
>What is poverty
>What is harassment
>What is less presence in roles decision-making roles
>Implying that the analogy rests on the degree of harm inflicted, not upon the absurdity of the notion that a movement isn't egalitarian if it doesn't put equal focus on both the advantaged and the disadvantaged group
>tfw when you post a list of good feminist literature but it's in the middle of MRA opinions no one wants to read
>are you saying we shouldnt shoot down "feminists" because some people on the opposite side are retarded too?
I am saying that presenting a side as all being retarded is ridiculous. The other side is full of retarded concepts too.
And ridiculing one side and not ridiculing the other is just hypocritical. Most people in this thread would easily complain about the silly ideas some modern feminists and then often defend it by talking about the more serious issues (but they don't really care about those things at all).
How shitty is your life that this is your life now, anon? Please share? No one here knows who you are. An honest confession of your /r9k/, or perhaps if wer're luckt, old /b/-tier life, would be infinitely more entertaining than any shitpost here.
>What is less presence in roles decision-making roles
what does that have to do with anything
there are less rabits in Antarctica than in england
does that mean rabits are oppressed?
>What is harassment
yea, we'll worry about that right after we end all wars
more men are impoverished than women
what are you talking about
>not upon the absurdity of the notion that a movement isn't egalitarian if it doesn't put equal focus on both the advantaged and the disadvantaged group
because the modern white woman is a poor underprivileged soul
>He doesn't realize the guy I quoted is trolling way harder and likely is way more pathetic and bitter or a neckbeard for being "that obligatory guy"
>He is actually this new
Marginally related at best. Tell us why you wear the mask. Seriously. Let it all out. The post probably won't even get deleted. No one knows who you are. Why do you shitpost pretending to be a feminist on the literature board on 4chan when you really just watch anime and suck and are terrible. Share it with us. Everyone has seen the enormous drop in quality in the last year, so just illuminate the particulars. Please? How did it happen?
>there's more to a person than that
not if youre a woman
>Yes Guyim, we are very concerned with the stereotypes concerning your gender role in society. Now put on these frilly pink panties so you can enjoy these privileg...err. perks as well.
>there are less rabits in Antarctica than in england
does that mean rabits are oppressed?
Does presence in Antarctica afford rabbits more autonomy?
>yea, we'll worry about that right after we end all wars
Oh I forgot, we can't worry about any problem until we stop hunger and end all wars. Hey, what are you posting on this board for? Why the fuck aren't you getting over here and helping me END ALL WARS?
>more men are impoverished than women
>because the modern white woman is a poor underprivileged soul
Compared to the modern latino woman, no.
Compared to the modern white man, yes.
Women, as a class, are underprivileged relative to men, controlling for all other factors that affect advantage and disadvantage in society.
Within the category of women, women are allocated different levels of advantage based on class, ethnicity, etc.
christians believe that women have no soul and i think they were onto somethink
>vilainizing male sexuality
>implying male sexuality isn't the worst
>Does presence in Antarctica afford rabbits more autonomy?
>white women have less autonomy
>Compared to the modern white man, yes.
>Women, as a class, are underprivileged relative to men, controlling for all other factors that affect advantage and disadvantage in society.
Ancient cultures worshiped Jar-Jar Binks?
where were u when dawkins found the gene for domesic abuse on the Y chromosome and sam harris did a brain scan and all the angry violent parts of the brain were lit up on the boy brain, proving that biology says we can't decrease violence ever? where were u then?
so is that where all the perceived oppression comes from
it doesn't need to be done euphorically. violent crime rates have been going down in the west for a while. I see no reason why it's not possible to reduce sex assault, too
behavioral perennialism is why india is a shithole
>hostile work environments
women have problems working in competetive environments
some manage to adapt, fairy princesses tend to fail, not because of oppression but because of incompetence.
>implying male disposibility is not a thing
>implying anyone has free will
>implying there is any inherent reasoning behind feminism which coincides with any sort of cosmic justice
Well I am happy to be sick in the head.
>Yeah it doesn't come from all that rape and harassment and hostile work environments and burden of unpaid labour and shit.
>all that rape
lol uh ok :^)
that tsunami of rape
the earthquake of rape
the thunderstorm of rape
the avalanche of rape
the tornado of rape
the hurricane of rape
these are all royalty free btw
>not when they're disproportionate
except they arent
and in fact some of those issues have more men victims than females
another part of the problem is that feminists see the underlying issue as mans fault
Feminism as a set of theories is some of the most unfalsifiable unscientific bullshit available in literature.
Literally the sort of stuff Thomas Kuhn rolls in his grave over
I disregard it as much as I disregard marxism, fascism, etc.
>what is up with MRAs embracing victimhood culture
why is showing feminist hypocrisy victimhood culture
how does that make me an mra?
why do you samefag to avoid addressing points?
why are you a slimy little cunt?
im just tired of this fucking board being shit on by this influx of pseudo-intellectuals
>ugly ambition we were bullied into pursuing
>>ugly ambition we were bullied into pursuing
"In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers.
What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one.
There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second. "
feminists want sex and money :
-they got the sex back in the 70's where they could be fucked by anyone they want (read chads) thanks to contraception and abortion plus men's financial obligation towards undesired babies and ex-wifes thanks to No-fault divorce
-they now complain more on the money in the work place because that's all they want and it is true battle to win since it allows to bypass men altogether to get the shekels
what a smarmy little cunt.
good thing she got shat on.
The world doesn't need you, but hey your useless pathetic existance is still shitposting.
>but they are the most basic needs
>implying money is a need and not an enabler of needs
>still having only those two general things as 'the most basic of needs'
Once again, must be a pretty fucking awful life to have those two things as your primary pursuits.
no that wasn't my implication. before my last post, i'd actually considered that unless you're a hippy growing your own food, you're going to need to buy some groceries. beyond that, money is also freedom, the ability to cause change, etc.
>Once again, must be a pretty fucking awful life to have those two things as your primary pursuits.
Humanity is far more hedonistic than epicurean and sincerely, hedonism works well to sustain a society.
>If abortion is murder than femisinsm is the most vile movement in history with one billion humans slain.
Abortion is infanticides legalized and almost encouraged. For the proponents, it is better to kill what they see as only a few cells devoid of nervous system than killing a baby afterwards. Anew, it works great in a liberal-hedonistic world and there no real counter-argument...
i read science fictions so i already know. (aliens will be pesky problems too.)
it's a requirement for my master's degree in channing
>but i do donate to causes occasionally
i'll readily admit to institutional problems but resource scarcity and competition due to overpopulation is gonna be a pretty big deal
>Those are also inequities feminism is trying to solve
feminism has never been about equity. Feminism is about women catching up on the advantages of men have and never giving up on the females' ones. Take the the conscription for instance : not a single feminist in the last forty years has advocated the mandatory enrollment of women in the army, before the conscription was no longer a requirement.
Women have free contraceptives while men must pay for condoms. Not a single feminist talks about this...
Feminist want to retain women's natural or social advantages over men, especially in the dating/romance/sexual matters
Life expectancy of men and women aged 35 by income quintile in 1988-2007
feminism illustrated :
The famous feminist Gloria Steinem at one point stated, “you became a semi-nonperson when you got married.” She also famously coined the expression 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.' Steinem dismissed marriage in 1987 as not having a 'good name.' Steinem got married in 2000, stating that the symbols that feminists once "rebelled against" now are freely chosen, or society had changed.
To be honest I would be very disappointed if someone wrote a story about someone having the superpower of invisibility and didn't at least once use it in a sexual way.
I feel like that would immediately be a disingenuous character.
I just finished reading The Left Hand of Darkness, because it's a famous feminist novel and I've never read any feminist works before.
It starts out very slow and boring, but the writing is decent, and the part with the journey across the ice is very good. There's one major problem: the protagonist does absolutely nothing to advance the plot. He only observes and reacts to other people's decisions. I'm pretty sure this is deliberate, and I can't imagine a man ever writing like this. Maybe it is intended as an attack on men, but the author is female so all it does is strengthen the impression that females are weak and useless. I am not impressed with this book.
I'm a feminist using the dictionary definition of the word aka I believe men and women should have equal rights.
I also support actual feminists doing actual work that supports the actual cause.
But all this third-wave, SJW, literally-everything-is-rape, hashtag campaigning, identity-politics applied to art an entertainment, shit is disgusting. Not only are these people incredibly uninformed and vile, they're setting feminism back and making (the perception of) it evil. They're fucking disgusting and are the enemy of equality and intellectual discourse about the subject.
>not a single feminist in the last forty years has advocated the mandatory enrollment of women in the army, before the conscription was no longer a requirement.
Lol. NOW opposes the draft, but they say as long as it exists, it should include both sexes.
Not that it fucking matters because virtually no civilized country has the fucking draft anymore.
Also, feminists also tend to be anti-war. What's the fucking point of fighting for equality in an oppressive institution that they seek to abolish anyway? That's like saying "feminists aren't truly for equality" is they aren't trying to get women to commit equal amounts of murder to men.
>This tu toque
>Implying Steinhem represents all feminists and that other feminists have never criticized her
Problem is, there isn't a clear-cut set of attributes the "second-" and "third-" waves have. Third-wave is more LGTB-friendly, as their were a lot of blatantly homophobic second-wavers. However, third-wave also has a lot of the "choice" feminists, who ignore the fact that choices aren't made in a vacuum, and don't see anything amiss with a woman who's personal "choices" curiously align with what Hugh Hefner thinks women should be like.
However, second-wavers tend to shout this down, as well as anything women do that second-wavers don't think they should do, with "FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS," which is a useful concept, but needs to be used with care because of how fucking unfalsifiable it is and how it just shuts down debate.
In other words... shit's complicated.
>Also, feminists also tend to be anti-war. What's the fucking point of fighting for equality in an oppressive institution that they seek to abolish anyway? That's like saying "feminists aren't truly for equality" is they aren't trying to get women to commit equal amounts of murder to men.
expected answer but no feminists pushed in favor of the abolition of the conscription while being anti-war does not mean being anti-military and is anyway silly
Basic Feminist talking points boil down to these implications:
>There are no male physical abuse victims and/or male victims deserve it
>Violence against men by women is always justified, even if the man did nothing wrong or just said something the woman doesn't like
>Heterosexual or female-attracted male sexuality is "creepy" and "rape culture" unless it's tightly regulated by women or suppressed to the point of forced asexuality
>All criticism of feminism or women should be thoroughly censored