What should I read to get the crash course on feminism? Is such a thing possible?
I'd like to better understand the waves of feminism, contemporary feminism, feministic activism, feminist perspective, leading feminist intellectuals, and any other sphere that would be important for me to best understand feminism on a macrocosmic scale.
Josephine Butler, Mary Wollstonecraft
A Room of One's Own- Woolf
The Female Eunuch- Greer
SCUM Manifesto- whatever the crazy lady's name was
The Second Sex- Beauvoir (large, not many feminists have read it, but important)
Gender Trouble- Judith Butler
The Manipulated Man- Vilar
Imagine the things that make you feel potent, like speaking your mind against opposition, being physically strong and seducing women. Now imagine there's a very strong psychological barrier between you and all those actions. Think about how much you would resent someone who spoke his mind, did heroic feats of strength and seduced women right in front of you, every day.
You now understand feminism.
feminists want all the female privileges with destruction of the male ones.
Oxford has a "very short introduction" of feminism...
that can be a good start..but you have to understand the different "waves" of feminism etc to get a hold of it. Its very heterogeneous. don't mind the hate you will be getting here for asking such question.
A biology textbook, Something about evolutionary biology and some background knowledge of Philosophy leading up to Nietzsche.
Feminism is reactionary garbage anyways, I dont know why you would want to learn about it; unless you are some overweight dyke with short neon colored hair...
Doesnt matter, feminism is still full of shit.
Evolutionary biology predicts that woman are the way they are for a purpose, all other complaints on feminisms behalf are ethical/political and therefore relative.
not everything is predetermined , social conditioning has still some room to operate(given it lost a lot of yard in later part of 20th century)
I can't find that evolutionary biology / evolutionary psychology book which says that you should sit on your ass and accept everything just because you know how to sequence genes....
all our political aspiration goes out of the window with this kind of "destiny" induced crack ideas.
Your genes control a lot, but so do your will, and evolutionary biology don't nullify that(infact evolutionary psychology strengthens some stuff)
>feminism is basically the scientology of political movements
What an odd comparison.
There's no central power, there's no official doctrine (in fact it's split up into several "waves"), you don't have to pay to be part of it, it's not centered around one person, etc. pp.
feminism was never about equality
Why is it that liberals prefer to have info-graphs, inane comedy routines and bullshit statistical charts do their talking for them?
>What should I read
Feminism is a conspiracy by fat, ugly women to make the attractive ones as miserable as they are.
A way to maximally restrict male sexuality and power while maximally unleash female ones.
A way to become privileged while whining that you're discriminated.
Two centuries ago it was for civil rights. Today, it's not.
You're all fucking idiots. Have we not learned from our last mistakes? Women are FUCKING SCUM. They are worthless and mean nothing. They are merely holes that we fuck and dispose of our cum. We should be entitled to their bodies, we gave them literally everything and this is how they pay us back? By revolting against us? I say we make murder legal for any feminist who sprouts her propaganda in a public setting. Her death sentence should be choking on the longest and strongest of male cocks. Don't you understand? We should be reading poetry in public and discussing the destruction of religion. Not fucking arguing for these "rights" for these sexual fucking objects. Ugly cunts.
it's literally true
1) First wave: This may have started in the middle ages already. A 13th century book the city of women is an example of this. But on a more serious level, this arrived long after the rights of men were established. By the end of the 18th century Wollstonecraft wrote a treatise on human rights applied on women. The wave accelerated during the abolitionist movements. Political rights such as voting rights for women were the focus of this wave. It was a wave of liberal feminism.
2) Second wave: This started with a book by Simone de Beauvoir The Second Sex. She argued that women are often defined of ‘’the other’’ of men, where women are subordinate to men. A famous quote is that you are not born as a woman, but made into a woman. This is distinct from the second wave because equal rights did not stop oppression and discrimination of women, while women had to play by male rules. This wave emphasized difference between men and women rather than similarity. There are two ways in which this difference in explained. De Beauvoir’s view was that this was constructed, while another view was that it is essential (inherent). Female rights in the private sphere were also a focus of this wave, as well as economic rights such as equal pay. Therefore, this is a critical and a constructivist rights.
3) Third wave: A strict difference between males and females was criticised here because this would exclude people which would not fall in either category such as transgender/gays. This wave goes against the ideas of essential differences of the second wave because this may backfire into justifying ideas as to why women should have fewer rights. A postcolonial aspect to this wave is that women realized that between women themselves, as well there are major differences, where the second wave sought to build on female solidarity by pointing to them as a globally oppressed group. Postcolonial feminists pointed to the western emphasis of feminism.
4) Fourth wave: there is a debate whether this exists. A difference between these waves is that the third was very academic, but the fourth was much less so. Women here have a positive view of their sexuality. This view accepts that women are different but also says women are still exploited, and that women may decide themselves what their identity is.
from some old lecture notes to give you an overview
>Anyone who doesn't think women have a leg up in today's society is fucking retarded
i love how people love stating this
but rarely provide any proof outside of "they have no difficulty when looking for sex" and "they have an easier time getting custody" spheres of thought
>rational, non-pol explanation of the Jew's extreme and disproportionate influence on Western society
Culture that values intelligence, rhetorical skill and scholarship, combined with a cutthroat approach to dealing with outsiders and nepotism that gets their voices heard because these people who value scholarship and rhetoric tend to own media outlets and work in academia.
The value put on rhetorical skill means that arguing is a huge part of the culture, and the Jewish equivalent of, beating up your dad is coming up with an argument you know will bother him that he can't outright refute. This is how you get so much interest in oddly radical but not intuitively interesting ideas.
dont forget the strong emphasis on formal education, as well as the acceptance of academic and cultural career tracks as viable work choices (as opposed to say, the asian-american disdain for working in any area outside the realm of business and government)
>a Ph D in Gender studies isn't equal to a bachelors in physics
yes, i do so agree. one certifies you as a serious academic in a social science field that isnt the most respectable one, but its still a field, and one is a bachelors degree to a natural science
oh, but did you mean something along the lines of the coursework of one being much heavier than the other? in which case I also agree, PhD students need to produce dissertations that are much longer and take way longer to research than mere undergrads honors theses
>these people who value scholarship and rhetoric tend to own media outlets and work in academia.
There's no unified body of redpillers, so I couldn't say. I think everyone who speaks passionately about such clickbait-friendly issues on the internet tends to oversimplify, and redpill stuff tends to be a little too essentialist for my tastes.
Yeah, because gender studies as a field is completely valid, not a sub-section of sociology, not a field completely fueled by political motives for political means. It also produces so much!
I used to be a rapist, until my gender studies degree, and my professor didn't only enlighten me, but also is a one wyman war machine combating the patriarchy ( More specifically the gender wage gap)
We're on a fucking wannabe Japanese garbage meme image board. we aren't academics debating the issue.
You have no thesis, nor a central point for me to dismantle. what do you expect? this is more conversation than discourse
You're the type of autismo sperglord to get into a fistfight in the street and expect some type of gentleman's rules to reign the day.
Structure your arguments like an argument instead of snippy little bullshit remarks from a 17 year old girl, and maybe I'll consider a back and forth.
>makes retarded point that cant be backed up by evidence
>i answer with evidence that the point is retarded
>decides to build a strawman to get free "amirite?" points
>gets called out on it
>goes on rant, complete with memery
yup, classic idiot. also, what kind of retarded metaphor is that? fistfghts in the street? we dont live in the 19th century anymore boy
but you know, of course youre right, you, random anon with absolutely zero qualifications or even argumentation, and all of academia is wrong. they should revoke every gender studies PhD, they should, on account of your brilliant argumentation!
so? that's like saying sociology after the 20th century or psychology lately arent legitimate degrees
this is one of the better burns I've seen on /lit/, but not the best
I'm thinking 7.5/10, the insults are too memey for my preferences, probably an 8/10 if you don't mind that sort of thing
fine by me
you can believe whatever you want, just dont expect other people (especially academics) to go along with it
not a street brawl, no
do soccer riots still happen?
regardless, my point of view is that dissing on gender studies as a an area of study in any other area other than its terrible job prospects or the scorn it attracts from regular people is stupid, because no one in academia is going to agree with you
plus your point about a bachelors in physics being harder than a PhD in gender studies was idiotic. the workload doesnt even compare, even if its an easy area of study
So if I'm opposed to an ideology, I am now part of an ideology? So if I think that, say, socialism is retarded, or that anarcho-capitalism is retarded, then I'm not only now deluded, but my entire worldview is now defined by my opposition to said ideology?
Did you think about this before you typed it or....?
What does the opinion of academics have to do with anything? Academics sanctioning something as being legitimate doesn't make it so. A PhD in Gender Studies has a vested interest in trying to tell me their field is of value, even if there's evidence to the contrary. The opinions of academics do not determine reality.
>So if I'm opposed to an ideology, I am now part of an ideology?
no, but if you're using terms commonly used in an ideological discourse in the same way they are used to dismiss another specific ideology then i feel my assessment is accurate
i don't care about the rest of your post
except its not just PhDs in gender studies saying their field is of value
its deans, its faculty, its administrators, its sociologists and other academics
so if this massive crowd of learned folk doesnt decide what is and what isnt a valid discipline, then who does?
So the terms
Are now a part of deluded anti-feminist discourse? I dunno man, seems like you're prescribing that to them for the sake of your horrible argument.
>not a street brawl, no
This gives me mixed feeling about you.
I think your point that "no one in academia is going to agree with you [in that Gender Studies is a bullshit degree / field]" is completely unfounded. Neither of us would have that data on hand, i would think, so I'll leave this as it is as a point that could either way.
regardless, in my line of work, we rely on KPIs (Key performance indicators) to ascertain somethings quality or legitimacy. It would be my idea of breakthroughs in knowledge as the perfect KPI for academics. If you accept this as premise, then you must undoubtedly accept that Gender Studies is a low quality or illegitimate field because of it's lack thereof.
Sociology and gender studies are closely interrelated, to the point of many studies performed by sociologists being incredibly biased in order to conform to their view of reality. The dean, faculty, and administration all have a vested interest in it continuing to be considered a valid "discipline" because they make money from the people that spend their cash on learning the garbage.
It's why some schools teach classes on Harry Potter and Twilight, it's for money. Just because they're educated doesn't mean they're magically immune to corruption.
no you're right i just really wanted to talk to you specifically and i've never ever seen feminism called a 'retarded ideology' at all before. i don't think it's common at all
sorry for engaging you -- i should have known better from how sickeningly good your grasp is of the english language
Quick print screen to prove it wasn't me
>So you've only heard the terms "retarded ideology" in regards to feminism? Really?
no and this isn't even relevant. you were calling feminism a 'retarded ideology'
i hope in one post you'll manage not to embarrass yourself by not launching into some personal attack based on false premises
also, if you want to call someone out for samefagging, you should link all the posts that you think are samefagging, that way, it provides better context and an easier debunk.
I know, learning how to use 4chan is hard, but you'll get it eventually
and what would be KPIs for a social science field? because as much as we'd all like to have breakthroughs in a field like economics (my field), most of the work done is incremental in nature, not disruptive. no one questions the legitimacy or (most of) the output of it
i dont accept the premise that gender studies is a low quality field a priori, and in my experience gender studies doctorate students while not terribly brilliant or productive had work to do, things to articulate, and their own research to conduct
yeah, this is just unjustified cynicism
if it wasnt a viable area of study, universities wouldnt have accredited programs for it. i refuse to believe tens thousands of completely disparate institutions worldwide would just engage in a scheme like this, especially considering how most of them are very well-funded just through regular disciplines
>le helpful oldfage
heres your reply
Then what was the point of your post? You claimed I was a part of an ideology, I asked how, and you said it was because I used the terms of an ideology to fight one. I looked at my post, and the terms I used against it were "sickeningly retarded".
So which is it? Am I a part of an ideology because I oppose feminism, or is it because you just say I am? Because so far you've offered no concrete reason as to how any words within my post would place me into the "unimaginative self-deluding anti-fem ideology".
>no, but if you're using terms commonly used in an ideological discourse in the same way they are used to dismiss another specific ideology then i feel my assessment is accurate
maybe you should learn to read
I doubt it started that way. I'm sure when it began there were good reasons for having it around, the study of women's place in history, for example, was pretty much completely investigated prior to the formation of gender studies as a field. As it stands now though, it's pretty much a giant pyramid scheme where the only people that lose out are the students that get indoctrinated with this shit. At this point, it's pretty much cancerous.
>As it stands now though, it's pretty much a giant pyramid scheme where the only people that lose out are the students that get indoctrinated with this shit. At this point, it's pretty much cancerous.
yeah, i'd rather take the orthodox opinion on this one, rather than the vague calls of a "pyramid scheme" from some random in the internet, if you dont mind
I told you what I thought would be a good KPI of all academia. did you not catch the last sentence of my post?
Pick your own KPI, odds are, it will either prove my point or not be a true KPI. Ball's in your court. Tell me, what proves gender studies as a legitimate course of study?
If economics is your coin, you must know that your anecdotal evidence is moot.
Nearly everyone has work to do, things to articulate, and their own research to conduct, It doesn't mean that they serve a legitimate master.
Anthropology or history would have sufficed.
Gender Studies is just a manifestation of a toxic ideology strong arming its way into a pseudo-academic field. The true irony is that the Gender Studies departments are always anti-western and free speech.
my point was that assigning the same performance indicators for say, a physics department and an economics department would be stupid (as such, a "KPI for academia" would be silly)
unless of course you went by sheer amount of work done (i.e.: papers published), which you dont seem to accept as valid. fair enough
then we can argue for impact on the ways of thinking of society as a whole. inarguable that gender studies has had a very tangible impact on ways of thinking about gender, and its relation to all sorts of things such as anthropology, history, deviancy, and so forth
what other benchmark can we use? how much we agree with it? if that were the case, i'd be mixed, you'd be against it, which sounds like a seriously shitty benchmark, one that allows such width of interpretation
>economics is your coin
It makes unfalsifiable claims of mass sexism ingrained in the systems of western society, it gives people moral justification to censor, it bases it's conclusions on assumptions instead of arguments, statistics, or any kind of reasoning in general, deductive of inductive. The worst thing about is that it's intellectually dishonest and incites hatred towards anything that isn't a part of it, and silences anyone-including women-who disagree with it.
I wouldn't disagree with feminism so vehemently if it's practitioners at least sought out debate to show that their claims were valid, but they don't, cause they know they don't have to to get the idiots who bought the shit hook, line, and sinker to keep giving them money, via books purchases, donations, and purchase of merchandise.
What the fuck do you mean "society"?
because the beauty of capitalism as an equalizing force is that it doesn't care your race color gender or creed, it just wants you to work and spend money.
Why is it evil to acknowledge gender? Why is it wrong to cater to a market? why is it wrong to sell products to women that women would prefer over men?
Post your shitty gotcha questions elsewhere
>It makes unfalsifiable claims of mass sexism ingrained in the systems of western society, it gives people moral justification to censor, it bases it's conclusions on assumptions instead of arguments, statistics, or any kind of reasoning in general, deductive of inductive. The worst thing about is that it's intellectually dishonest and incites hatred towards anything that isn't a part of it, and silences anyone-including women-who disagree with it.
seems like you're talking about ess-jay-double u's rather than gender studies as a field of study
gender studies is more inter-disciplinary than anth or hist
what is ideological about it? also they're not really anti-western or anti-free speech either. you could potentially say they are if you completely mishandle the terms or have some uninformed view of what they do
it doesn't really matter what i mean by society, because it is hard to imagine any definition of the word without including gender. i meant it in relation to whatever you thought society was. the point is that gender is very much ingrained in whatever we want to call society, so it is fitting and 'legitimate' that there is study on how it manifests and what we can learn about ourselves from this
also i don't see the point in asking me what i meant about society and then immediately jumping into a talk on 'capitalism' like it's even easier to define
>Why is it evil to acknowledge gender?
why is it evil to study it?
i'm not sure you're arguing what you should be arguing
>>economics is your coin
It's a colloquial term, meaning your proficiency mastery. akin to "having one's ducks in a row" means to be well prepared.
There must be some way to compare academic departments in between each other. Why is Notre Dame's philosophy department better than bumfuck-U? If you don't think there is any, then I'm starting my own academic department, the department of shitposts at the online unregistered college of 4chan. here's your honorary doctorate
But seriously though, post some KPIs, any benchmark that proves the worth of that useless field. because I cant find any.
The bottom line is Gender studies is a sham.
If it were truly about what it claimed to be about it would be a sub section of sociology.
Now, here's when the /pol/acks come in but it all stems from the Frankfurt school.
but like i said before it is more interdisciplinary than to be just a part of 'sociology'. if gender studies is a sham then gender is a sham. i find it funny that the academic study of gender makes people uncomfortable, like something is being exposed
Feminist academics and journalists wrote and said all of these things. There's far more than the ones I've gathered here, too. Here's a choice quote of these:
>will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation?
It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit.
Nothing I've said is unfalsifaible, actually read and analyze feminist arguments instead of repeating what I say back to me as if it's some kind of witty retort.
>There must be some way to compare academic departments in between each other. Why is Notre Dame's philosophy department better than bumfuck-U? If you don't think there is any, then I'm starting my own academic department, the department of shitposts at the online unregistered college of 4chan
college rankings generally, which are an arcane mix of fame, test scores of students, workload, career prospects, and some other things which arent explained. also, accreditation, thats a big thing too
regardless, youre the one that came up with the KPI thing, burden is on your end as far as i reckon, because as it stands, the orthodox opinion is that the field isn't useless. it's funded, it's accredited, it's graduating tens of thousands of people from tens of thousands of colleges every year
youre the one with the dissenting opinion, its on your end to prove why it's "useless"
So it's an inter-disciplinary discipline?
Damn, you got me there, I don't even know what to say about levels of retardation this high. I need some motherfucking RAD-X and purified water because your retardation is irradiating from my screen at levels that hurts my brain to read.
>Nothing I've said is unfalsifaible, actually read and analyze feminist arguments instead of repeating what I say back to me as if it's some kind of witty retort.
Unicorns are also unfalsifiable. if you assert something prove it.
post some academic articles if you will, helps make your case a bit more persuasive
otherwise, i could pass an article by some avowed crazy gold bug as representative of the wider consensus of economists, misrepresentation at its finest
>I need some motherfucking RAD-X and purified water because your retardation is irradiating from my screen at levels that hurts my brain to read.
>video game references
the average anti-feminist everyone
>if gender studies is a sham,gender is a sham
What a completely retarded argument. If I create a field called brick physics, and then with no academic rigor on my part claim that all mechanical processes are based on tiny men banging bricks together on a subatomic level, then that doesn't mean the study of physics is a sham. It means my retarded analysis and lack of intelligent analysis that makes it a sham. I'm absolutely certain that another incarnation of gender studies could contribute something of cultural worth, but this one cannot.
>i find it funny that the academic study of gender makes people uncomfortable, like something is being exposed.
>retarded reasoning and blanket statements of misandry make people uncomfortable, therefore they're onto something!
>I'm absolutely certain that another incarnation of gender studies could contribute something of cultural worth, but this one cannot.
okay then, what are you so upset about regarding it then? what is so systematically wrong with gender studies that you think the whole establishment should be torn down? with citations, of course, wouldnt want to critique something that you know nothing about
i find it funny that you're talking about a supposed lack of academic rigour but you make all these claims about gender studies without any shred of evidence backing any of it up. you're conflating tumblr sjws with an academic discipline and this is where you are fucking up.
if you think gender studies is basically only concerned with misandry then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Every single one of those people I linked to had a degree of a bachelors at the bare minimum, many of them higher. You'd know that if you'd bother to link to them, but I'm not going to waste my time displaying the obvious to you, you can do your own research.
Allow me to remind you of 4chan's history.
This is website is a shameless ripoff of a Japanese forum mainly used to discuss Anime and video games.
This website was moot's sandbox for videogame discussion and other dumb interests.
You are an idiot. You just walked into a desert and complained about the sand.
so you're judging the inner workings of a field of study based on a select handful of inflammatory articles? are you hoping the audacity of these women to say some things that could possibly be controversial will speak for itself, or do you actually want to 'read and analyse feminist arguments' instead so you can demonstrate how they're doing something wrong?
you're a fucking fraud dude. you're more fraudulent than you claim (your conception of 'gender studies') to be
a bloo bloo
i forgot to mention it wasnt just a video game reference, but a shit video game reference, and the fact that you so rabidly defend such a shit display speaks volumes about you
NV was a good game, the originals were good games. 3 was meh.
It's nice that you conveniently move those goalposts whenever you want. even on your shit posts. I commend you on the art of your craft
You have adequately proven to me that not only are you a severely impaired mentally deficient shitposter, but you also have garbage taste
Alice Eagly did a study where the most common gender stereotype is the "women are wonderful" stereotype. With the caveat that it manifests more in women who are perceived as "motherly" IIRC
By living inside a culture that's not their own, while retaining their own identity, they can reap the benefits without being bound to the same culture; the same thing happened to the Irish, who are extremely prominent in English lit, considering Great Britain outnumbers them 10 to 1. Same reason why most artists tend to be abnormal in someway; the isolation from the rest of society helps them see better.
Either that or natural selection made them smart during the middle ages.
i love how the only responses on this thread are snide passive aggressive quips accusing dissenters of being beta permavirgins.. on 4chan... the reason feminists always resort to this defence is that heterosexual women have fundamentally anti-feminist needs. You all want to be held down and fucked by the chad of your dreams. You could have been genuinely intellectual in another field yet your crippling insecurity about being inferior meant that it was always an easier option to opt for something softer like feminism, while blaming men and the patriarchy for bringing you down, while you take for granted the world men have built. Being a member of the most protected and safe demographic in human history has left you a bitter, unhappy and selfish moron with no desire for genuine self actualisation, preferring to bitch about manspreading on a phone your dad probably bought for you, a phone a man invented, designed and most likely built. Luckily i don't live in America where this kind of shit is the worst, i just feel slightly sorry for feminists.
Your "argument" is replacing definitions in your logic I can replace proletariat with men and the bourgeois with women. Because they have the same "dynamic" don't they... which is still unclear. Are you so blind to see this not an argument it's down right changing definitions.
Can you answer me honestly and say that you have read anything on the subject. There is literally nothing relating this to feminism also this was theorized in 1969 well after the origins of modern feminism.
I'd rather just drink and invest in cat food companies for when their ovaries get dead and unused like the few authors posted here. Feminism is just a way for eggless spinsters to sabotage fertile women.
"Projection of general guilt: Projection of a severe conscience is another form of defence, one which may be linked to the making of false accusations, personal or political."
hmm now where's my mattress
For you frog-people Chad is just a guy who is more attractive than you right? Someone who doesn't piss into bottles and isn't filled with ressentiment? If so, I think I'll do just fine.
you're assuming i resent other men in the same way you resent other women, for engaging with men without the emotional crutch of feminism, believing you're morally superior and faultless, constantly wronged by the men around you. /r9k/ spergs and sad feminists are two sides of the same coin
I met a girl on tinder whom was part of an art group that "exposed the sexism in art through the lens of 3rd wave feminism". Not being a cunt and jumping to conclusions, I asked her what was some good feminist literature and she went silent. The majority are just band wagoners whom have read a few articles and think they know what they're talking about.
its kind of amusing you have an emotional reaction to that, it's as if you're scared you wont be able to attach yourself to a man above you and will sink down to those mating options
>as if you're scared you wont be able to attach yourself to a man above you and will sink down to those mating options
Surely that is the most terrifying scenario imaginable. I'd much prefer death than to spread my legs for an eggman-tier male in all honesty. One does have standards after all.
so what's the solution? Literally all the feminist victories benefit them. a biodetermined feminism i would not mind much, but it requires dismantling the current LARP as a man paradigm.
Every time we have a thread like this it shows the true size of the female population of /lit/. That or there are a lot of people who are really sensitive about the fact that SHOCK SHOCK on a website for Chinese cartoons on a board talking about books from thousands of years ago might have some people who are little socially inept.
>thinking knowledge is only worthwhile if it can be applied for earthly gains and benefits.
You fucking sophist.
Joking aside, there's nothing wrong with studying gender and how it affects modern society, in fact that's a rather interesting pursuit of knowledge.
The issue is the growing trend that the people who enjoy gender studies believe their degree has more earthly impact and application than, say, a bachelor in Physics.
It's a disconnect, they want to study what they love without any downside (which is generally economic). And the refusal to accept downsides it what gives them the common perception of child-like.
>FEMINISM IS BAD YOU GUISE, ITS TOXIC IDEOLOGY, WAHH, STOP LEARNING IT, FUCKING WOMYN
>BECAUSE I SAY SO FUCKING FEMINIST ULTRA MEGA CUCK, EVERYTHING WORTHWHILE WAS MADE BY MAN, GENDER STUDIES IS A PYRAMID SCHEME, YOU ARE ALL MORONS, I HOLD THE LIGHT, I'M SO SORRY FOR YOU
every anti-fem argument in a nutshell
and what pro-feminist defenses are superior in any manner other than by consensus?
you're moving goalposts.
It makes women waste their fertile years and sabotages their happiness over spooks.
It has gone full-circle into its own form of bigotry and it is entirely reasonable to loathe bigotry under any label it takes. Unless you want to do something about your hostile bigots, feminism will share the same flaws islam does.
BTW, islam is a great metric of feminist gauging since anyone who defends it clearly is an ignoramus.
>the wage gap has been discredited so many times it's not even funny
hint: infographs dont discredit anything, as much as you'd think otherwise
this isnt even a debate, it's a statement of fact. the level to which anti-feminists have sunk is just amazing. it used to be a legitimate movement criticizing the excesses of the second wave of feminists and groupthink in academia, but now its all about "muh male feelings"
give me an article on somewhere reputable like jstor to read then, that patently says "the gender gap is caused by women picking lower-earning majors" or something to that effect
no one is more anti-women than other women.
a misogynist is just a man who hate women as much as they hate eachother.
you can be anti-fem and pro women those are not mutually exclusive positions despite what your propaganda tells you.
no you're a smart womyn who can do her own research, we didn't let you into universities if you couldn't do your own research.
but considering how many women get raped there, maybe letting you all attend was a mistake.
its characterized by an innate cynicism, a gut reaction to the intellectual establishment and their questioning of their values and beliefs, is motivated by pessimism about the future, seeks to put back in social bondage those who have transcended out of a state of being a subject, and works against the interest of the individual (white trash welfare recipients) to a perceived interest of the community (as if growth is motivated by a discredited economic notion from the start of the twentieth century)
your reading comprehension needs some work, because i said the opposite of that
>B T F O
It's just another axis of "blame white men for every problem" ideology.
Most of these feminists also defend Islam. They have no consistency whatsoever besides disliking white men. Ironically, they are only able to vocally hate white men because white man cultures are the only places that tolerate free speech.
it compares full-time worker pay with part-time worker pay, aka apples and oranges
which in fact would make the wage gap seem bigger than it is, but it's useful for the narrative that women dont undertake the hard jobs because they dont want to
You know there is support for men who have been raped?
If you want to hear what they say:
Any feminist literature will do.
If you want the truth:
I have to prove Lady Audley deserves a more sever punishment for her crimes.
>She is seen as a feminist protagonist and professor is a sjw.
>I just know after we give our evidence, the other side will just rebut with something like "well women had it rough back then! blahblahblah"
Does anyone want to help me? I really want to win this debate.
Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist. Occupy space. pass the time. You're a chick.
You're bored,tweeting about your fucking hair and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other women. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, and boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting Reddit stories about people who made interesting Halloween hats for their kids or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your legs that guarantees you'll at least never have to get up and move around and work to support yourself.
And then you see men, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them. These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.
And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that. You can never have it. You're just a stupid cunt.
So you get up, you walk over there, and you fucking ruin everything. Just ruin the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it. Because you're a woman.
You guys sure have had a long and unproductive argument...
I have two suggestions:
- Stop trying to prove the value of Gender Studies (one way or the other)
It doesn't matter where the burden of proof falls the fact of the matter is that it is a subject that is taught / studied - hopefully with the objective of uncovering valuable information.
- If you see some blatant bullshit then agree that it is stupid and *this is the important part* don't generalize it!
The study of genders can definitely be valuable however it has been popularized in recently so a lot of subpar shit slips through. Everyone hates SJW's so let's try to disentangle them from gender studies, eventually the field will settle down into becoming a niche academic field that will have an interesting finding every once in a while...
I don't think there is a lot of merit in reading up on feminism (unless you want to know the history of it or something). It's probably more interesting to read whatever you want with regard to gender equality since it's such a pervasive thing.
All the dick measuring with citations will get you nowhere. I've started to think of the whole asking for citations (when any citation would just be some equally ambiguous paper on correlations) as a logical fallacy, the argument goes nowhere and just spirals because the participants are unwilling to find any common ground to start their argument...
Not only are half of these not true, but all of them are things that feminists dislike, and would argue are not only harmful to women in indirect ways, but a result of other social phenomena caused by a historically male dominated society (true btw).
The only feminists who would want to maintain any of these, or any difference at all in social attitude to gender, are retards you generally only find on the internet and in extreme wings of already feminist circles.
It'd be fair to say that feminists generally neglect these issues, but if you think a substantial portion wouldn't be as opposed to them as you are you need to take your sample of feminists from more places than tumblr and university feminist societies.
Not even a feminist, but the intellectual rigor of poltards like you who shit up our threads with bad info-graphics as a way of dealing with your mommy issues/unatractiveness is just as low as tumblr SJWs.
Please leave and don't discuss things again until you learn proper conduct in such matters, and engage open-mindedly with the other side of the argument.
Everyone who cares about the standard of discussion on this board.
why would you feed trolls if you care about board quality? why would you /pol/ post when you care about board quality? just because you like your politics better didn't make this a literature board post. fuck off and die with the rest of the cancer.
I used to take this attitude as well, but I just got worn down by it all I guess. Aren't you sick of seeing it? Every thread with mention of feminism or even sometimes a female author just descending into another boring misogyny general? I feel sometimes like if these people realised how widely they're disagreed with by most of the board they might shut up about it, but because most reasonable people take the attitude of "whatever, I just won't reply. Back to an actually lit thread I guess", they end up getting about half the thread on their side (or at least pretending to be to troll) and think they're in good company, and keep posting. Idk I guess you're right but I can't help but want to do something active when I see this annoying shit day in day out. Also true that I forgot to sage, which I should have done.
In my judgement the entire feminist movement has become highly toxic to all parties involved. Economic shifts, not political or social movements, are responsible for the advancement of women in the world. Things changed after women filled the workforce during WW2, especially in America. Hitler was aware that once a country went down this road, there was no going back, and for this reason he chose to use forced labor rather than put German women to work. It was a bad decision with ideological motives behind it, but his reasoning was sound. There is nothing wrong with women working, but it does drastically alter the arrangement of society. Feminism for the most part is not about advancing women's rights or interests. Feminists care about themselves more than anything. They've devoted their lives to this cause and therefore need the cause like you and I need food. Only look at the despicable treatment of women who turn against mainstream feminism. Look at what happened to Erin Pizza, a (former) feminist who opened the first women's shelters in England. She undertook to research domestic violence and questioned the then (and still) widely accepted Duluth Model, which states that men are universally the aggressors. She found a very different reality among flesh and blood women, namely that women were often just as violent as the men, and that domestic violence on the whole was reciprocal. The feminists ran her out of England, sent violent death threats and even poisoned her pet dog, simply for contradicting their established model. These people border on mental illness in more ways than one.
Famous people like Emma Watson call themselves feminists without really understanding what that means. It's hip, and it goes hand in hand with the greater movement towards 'social justice'. The reality is quite different, and you shouldn't be fooled by attractive, well adjusted outliers like Watson. Nor should you let the popularity of feminism among college children mislead you, because many of these people are simply toeing the line and trying to jive with academic culture. The movement is (and has been), on the whole, composed of women who fall very low in the social and reproductive hierarchy. It's unfortunate and unkind to point out, but as Nietzsche told us very clearly over 100 years ago, the healthier a woman is, the more fruitful she is, the less interest she has for so called 'equal rights'. Why? Because her current position is unquestionably one of special, superior rights: equality would be tantamount to a demotion for this sort of woman. It would mean being dragged down to the level of ordinary women, and even that of repugnant, sterile women. The correct account of feminism is nothing like what it purports to be. Feminism has been nothing but a long conspiracy against women, a bitter struggle of the lowest orders of the female sex against all higher orders. The feminists have been engaged in trying to topple this social hierarchy for generations. Feminists do not despise men. They only despise other women, namely the successful, desirable, fertile types which hitherto have always 'had it easy' in life. By upsetting the structure of society, they have sought to make this type of woman question herself, her comfortable life, her carefree dependence on whatever man was providing for her. They affect to hate men, but in reality they only hate other women. The feminists understand that in reality, men empower women to do many things; they provide, they make children for them which ensure a decent living and some inheritance later in life.
Following on this, the motivation for altering women's feelings towards their role in society, and that of men as well, could not be more clear. The feminists want privileged women to renounce their advantages in the world, to throw away youth, health, beauty, chastity, charm, fertility and all the domestic talents. This is precisely what you see among feminists, who encourage and personally demonstrate:
>Unhealthy habits (drinking, smoking, bad diet, partying, recreational drug use, etc)
>Poor hygiene (lack of cleanliness, refusing to shave, unusual piercings, tattoos, lack of gynecological hygiene)
>Distasteful appearance (slovenly or lewd attire, unnatural hair colors, etc)
>Profligacy (causal sex, indiscriminate sexual favors, fetishism, etc)
>Uncouth behavior (vulgar language, screaming and yelling, physical violence, nasty dispositions, hostility, combativeness)
>Contraception (rendering sterile, birth control, forced miscarriage, abortion, delayed entry into motherhood)
>Contempt for domestic life (the housewife is a slave, the stay at home mother is unfulfilled, etc)
The aim of all this is what I have already stated, namely to destroy the innate female social hierarchy, the natural order of rank among women. It is just another miserable chandala revolt, an uprising of the female underclass against their betters. No one should think favorably of feminism on any level. It is conspiracy and hatred through and through. It has wrought untold dysgenic harm on our entire species, and it must be purged before any more generations are poisoned by it.
lmao okiedoke mr purist, I did sage and it was directly pertinent to what is already the #1 thread in the catalog and what you had just said to me, but sure. I'll make it up to you by adding that I think antifeminists should read more Wollstonecraft and de Beauvoir, and realize that in most feminist circles these pretty reasonable and well argued people are still more influential than the likes of Bell Hookes and other toxic ideology. Happy now?
>stop trying to prove the value of Gender Studies, one way or the other
Oh, like you're doing in your post? All I asked for was that the /pol/lack prove why Gender Studies was a "pyramid scheme" and if so why most every respectable university would ascent to such a study area
There is no common ground, because the answer here is "yes" or "no." It's an actual dichotomy. You either think gender studies as an area should exist, or you don't. I personally don't even like gender studies that much, but I don't go around the Internet doing th equivalent of screaming my lungs out saying that it's stupid, or a meme, or a pyramid scheme because A) I don't know the field too well personally and B) because of that, I'd rather trust the people who do (sociologists, gender scholars, philosophers and university administrators).
Their act is a bit like a layman saying screaming about how the Fed is a lie, that it's only a force of evil in the economy and that the USA would be better of without a central bank
in terms of literature
first wave: shitty political criticism, really surface level and not worth reading except for historical interest. basically looks at how women are treated in literature.
second wave: gynocriticism, focus is more on canonizing overlooked female authors and there was also some stupid french bullshit about 'écriture féminine' (the female language). gynocriticism is alright but the ecriture feminine stuff is painful to read, rambling semi-freudian nonsense about how metaphors are phallic and such
third wave: a big mess of different ideas that you can't easily summarize. one prevalent idea is intersectionality, which basically is an attempt to consider other groups underrepresented in literature such as racial minorities
>first wave: shitty political criticism, really surface level and not worth reading except for historical interest. basically looks at how women are treated in literature.
i think nellie bly just rolled in her grave so hard she circumnavigated the globe again. read a book nigga or even just a newspaper
As much as I dislike the Duluth model and think it's a relic of other times when people tried really, really hard not to think about substance abuse, Pizzey's criticism of it are irrelevant, as it is completely anecdotal in nature.
>Feminism for the most part is not about advancing women's rights or interests. Feminists care about themselves more than anything. They've devoted their lives to this cause and therefore need the cause like you and I need food.
This is the sort of gross generalization that makes most people immediately dos consider anything else you have to say
ok well i don't own every book ever written so can you just explain to me what she contributed to feminist literary criticism? i will read her if she contributed anything interesting.
i have googled it and i cannot find anyone who believes she contributed anything to feminist literary criticism
why don't you just back up your assertion and say what you think? why are you so scared to write anything but a baseless and smug opinion?
you are the one making an affirmative claim, how the fuck do you cite a lack?
why are you skating around a really simple question? what did she contribute to feminist literary criticism?
ok but im not going to read the book because it doesnt sound very interesting and you seem to be the only person in the world who thinks it is relevant to my interests and you wont even explain why
>obvious error in induction, that is if you consider what is being presented "evidence" in the first place
>"Your problem with it is just that it offends your sensibilities!"