>>37532652 Depends on your own personal view. Some would say the entire movement was a mistake, others would say they did nothing wrong. I personally would say their biggest mistake was trying to turn the movement into something more than just a women's issue movment. The movement pretty much scrambled after this and now it has no clear boundaries or ideals besides "lol gender equality". Now you get a bunch of different people with conflicting ideas all fighting under the name of feminism which is counter-productive.
>>37532916 >now feminism is just out to hurt white men
If women wanted to fight for easy causes, why does sarkeesian attack Mario for rescuing the princess, but no one goes after sir-mix-a-lot for making a song that says a woman's ass is her only redeeming feature?
>>37532829 I don't really have too much of an opinion on the movement. I don't really see much of a movement anymore, "feminism" has almost become a buzzword.
As a communal voice for women's issues I can understand the importance. Just as any voice for any community is important. The problem i've observed with Feminism lately is that people are trying to sum up all their ideals under one umbrella which is pretty much destroying the movment and building something more grotesque. Feminism is becoming more of a symbol of leftist ideals rather than a women's movement, and as I've said previously it is being pushed to be a monopoly ideology. Seems almost like women are being used by the Feminist movement to push leftist ideologies, like if you don't accept these ideologies you aren't a feminist which means you hate women, which makes you the bad guy. >Accept our -ism or you are the enemy
>>37533084 That's not really a problem of Feminism. It's a lack of Masculism. Men just aren't fighting for their rights on a large enough scale, and the minority that do seem to feel the best way to fight for their rights is just to attack women who fight for their own rights. I mean, case and point the image you just linked, it doesn't offer an actual critique of feminism, it just lists a bunch of male problems and poses that as a critique of feminism.
>>37532379 Feminism is wrong from strictly traditionalist point of view because traditionally a woman would always be the property of a man, either her husband or her father if she is unmarried. By giving women voting rights, this effectively gives her owning man double voting rights since she'll vote how he says, and by giving her equal legal representation it infringes on the mans right to do what he shall with his property. Almost nobody subscribes to this point of view, so it's almost irrelevant. From an economic standpoint, pressuring women into the workplace effectively doubled the low skill labor pool while doing nothing to increase the demand for said labor. At least when we import people from mud countries that also increases demand for food and housing and shit. So at this point young, unskilled males, who would normally only be competing against each other for wealth and educational opportunities, are now competing against young women too. Were this an even fight, it wouldn't be too bad since it would still allow the cream to rise to the top. But since feminism was accompanied by things like Affirmative Action and various race/gender quotas in the workplace and in educational institutions, those same males now face a battlefield stacked directly against them. The highest potential candidates are jockying for limited spots while Sally and Suzy are getting in for free because "muh quotas" and "muh vagina", while Jamal and Paco are getting in for free to up the color diversity. Again, feminism did nothing to increase economic demand, so all it is doing is increasing the difficulty of acquiring a job or degree. On top of this, the effective doubling of each household's income due to two earners has lead to mass price increases, since the single biggest factor in pricing of any object is always "how much can I charge before people will refuse to pay?".
>>37533480 Families see their income double since the man and the woman are both working, local vendors see increased money in their customers wallets, so they jack their prices up a bit. Rent goes up, food prices go up, clothing prices go up exponentially since women no longer have to beg a man every time they want to buy a new cardigan, and they can pretty much blow all their income on stupid shit since a free meal is just a flirt away. These factors lead to the death of the traditional housewife, sine a family now pretty much NEEDS two earners if they want to be able to afford more than a cardboard box in an alleyway and rat kabobs for dinner.
From a cultural point of view, feminism has caused the death of marriage. It erodes existing marriage by essentially forcing the woman to work, leading to stress at home because the housework that would normally be completely done by the stay at home wife is now shared between two full time workers, and competing schedules limit time for intimacy and bonding. On top of that, pro sex feminism has encouraged young women to expose themselves to as many sexual partners as they can before marriage, damaging their capacity for pair bonding with their husband. On top of that, pro sex feminism means that married couples are far more likely to have had premarital sex than their parents and grandparents did, limiting the range of exploration open to them after marriage.
With changes in laws to favor women in regards to alimony, child support, and child custody, as well as the tendency for prenuptial agreements to be thrown out in court, combined with the death of the stigma against divorced women, divorces are now something to be expected instead of the worst thing that could happen to someone. This has lead to a reluctance of men to marry, since sex is freely available at any bar or party, and marriage only promises heartbreak and financial ruin.
>>37533504 This tendency for divorce has lead to the death of the nuclear family, children no longer grow up with a mommy and a daddy who love each other. Instead they get to spend the week with mommy and her new boyfriends, and the weekends with daddy, who's probably pulling overtime to try to pay for the child support, or else he's hung over after trying to score more tail. The prevalence of children being raised by single mothers has been blamed for the rise in behavioral disorders like ADHD and Autism, as well as the rise in criminal behavior by young people. There, now you have three different view points on why feminism was a bad idea
>>37533280 because literally ALL of those problems were caused by feminism - cultural and governmental interventions that feminists agitated for.
do you think the current family court system and it's insane bias against men just popped up on its own? no, it was engineered that way by feminists/lawyers and lawmakers who were eager to grab female votes by writing laws that persecuted men.
reproductive autonomy? men get told "keep it in your pants if you don't want to pay child support/too bad if you wanted to be a father, i'm aborting/adopting out" - yet women scream bloody murder if someone so much as mentions that perhaps they should not kill their own children and accept the consequences of their own actions.
basically, feminism has spent the last 30-40 years lobbying to give women every privilege possible, while removing (or transferring to men) every single responsibility/cost that they might have to bear.
and you can't even have an honest conversation about any of this without being labeled a bigot and shouted down.
all you're doing is joining in: it's all men's faults that they're second class citizens. again, it's just assumed that men have to accept responsibility for EVERYTHING, whereas women must be kept from having to shoulder any responsibility.
>>37533630 Compared to the old model, yes, but not a strict double in that we aren't striving to provide goods and services for twice as many people. That would be easy to accommodate, since increased demand would create new jobs for the people creating the demand. Instead, we have a situation where people who previously didn't need to work now want to work for no real reason (wanting to be "empowered" isn't a real economic motive). I sincerely hope you read all of what I said instead of the first section which I admitted was irrelevant, I just wanted to acknowledge where the troll comments come from
>>37533630 the problem is really not price increases per se - it's wage growth. because of the MASSIVE increase in the labor force that women supplied, wages stagnated badly. 2 generations ago, a man with just a high school diploma could easily support a family by working full time (and maybe some overtime). now, you would need both parents working to support the same family - if wage growth had just kept pace with inflation, about the lowest wage anyone would be paid now would be ~$21 an hour - which unless you live in an expensive metro area, is definitely enough to raise a family on if you are careful with budgeting (and have a stay at home mom to prepare food, clip coupons, fix clothes, not have to spend money on child care, etc).
women suffer from feminism as well, though obviously not as much as men - women have been lied to about how fulfilling having a "career" is. feminists just assumed having a career was great, because almost all men used to do it while their wives stayed at home... but 95% of those men didn't work because they loved it, they worked because they had bills to pay and a family to support. feminists just ASSUMED that the grass was greener on the other side, and that's why there's so much encouraging women to have a career now - nevermind that women who forsake family and having children for a career are less happy, and women as a whole are less happy than before they were tricked into the labor force by feminists and greedy corporations.
feminists have basically been working to destroy the foundation of western society: the family. without the family, men have less incentive to work 50-60 hours a week producing much more than they need - birth rate plunges because women are lied to and told they can have everything, and that they will still be able to have kids in their late 30s/early 40s (most won't without fertility treatments, and even then children born to older mothers are at MUCH higher risk of serious birth defects).
>>37533730 Lol no, what your describing are the leftovers from a traditional system that women have broken out of and men have remained silent about. It's our sex culture that has influenced the law. And i'm not proclaiming it's men's fault for falling into their crappy position, it's culturally systematic. Men have been viewed as the provider and the doormat as long as the traditional family unit has existed. But men aren't doing anything about it. All i'm seeing is a tantrum that women are being treated better, but they sought out that treatment through feminism, and men have done nothing remotely comparable. So it's no wonder we're on the bottom.
You're blaming feminism for how society holds male gender roles, but all feminism did was break women out of societys female gender role. The male gender role and all it's inequalities existed long before feminism.
All you're doing is casting blame so you don't have to take any personal responsibility. Men are 50 years behind women when it comes to gender equality, and it's because nobody wants to fight for it, they just want to bring women down because it's easier that way.
Feminism has and always will be the Marxist political movement of the bourgeoisie women to escape the boredom that they find is apparent in the stereotypical gender role of a mother or homemaker etc. which they feel is ascribed to them due to socio-economic class.
Successful application of feminist ideals does little more than reinforce the hierarchical nature of our consumer society. An example of which is best seen within the right to work or earn wage, wherein the woman escapes the sphere of influence of her prospective husband only to enter into that of her employer - a rather ambiguous change in a sense for the upper and middle classes, whereas the working class or lower are subjected to an obligation of work due to the constraints their socio-economic standing (which changes due to the widening of the gap between rich and poor as a result of the influx of new workers and their resulting buying power/consumption).
>>37534046 No, we blame feminists because we still want to do our parts, but you girls won't play ball. We want to be providers for a loving wife and children and have a house and spend weekends barbecuing with the neighbors, but you guys just want to slut around, take our jobs, drive wages down, and replace our neighbors with niggers
Modern feminism is based on two central assumptions >women should do what they want and face no consequences >if women is in an undesirable situtation it's men's fault and men should do whatever it takes to change the said situation
Since WWII western feminism has not been about equality, respect, freedom etc. Today it's a very typical, authoritarian ideology that declares one class of people superior to another class of people and uses state-sanctioned measures to make the latter serve (sometimes slavishly) the former. Feminists resort to most common tactics of such movements i.e. >self-victimization, often through fabricated threats or gravely exaggerated events of everyday life >complaining about corrupted culture (sexist videogames etc.) >introducing constant atmosphere of threat (rape culture) >abstract, all-encompassing enemies (patriatchy) >the idea of X-traitors (women who 'internalized' patriarchal mode of thinking) >reinforcing in-group solidarity through 'loyal media' >anti-family rhetorics, loyality to the group/the state >bullying, scare tactics, censorship
In Poland we've been through similar shit for almost entire 20th century so no wonder feminism is widely despised here. Most Polish women would feel offended, if somebody even vaguely implied that they are feminists.
>>37534919 Authoritarianism is basically where the government dictates to you what to do. There are different levels of it going from "don't kill people" through "Don't smoke in public" to "you are thinking about something illegal. Go to jail forever".
Cultural marxism is a bit harder to explain but in basic terms it is marxist ideas applied to culture. For example the marxist idea of class priviledge is substituted into male priviledge, or white priviledge.
SOOOOooooooo, remember how when we laughed at people who got liberal arts degrees because WTF are you going to use that for? There are not many jobs in the REAL WORLD where 'liberal arts' produce anything useful or productive. Science? Nope, we're dealing with sciencery, and emotional obfuscation is absolutely not required. IT? Nope, computers have no feels that require emotional obfuscation. Engineering? Nope, you can't emotionally blackmail that bridge into building itself because misogyny. Banking? LoL fuck off you whiny slut. It goes on and on.
But here is what "liberal Arts" degrees ARE being used for.
YOUR INDUSTRY NEEDS TO LISTEN TO ME. I HAVE NO RELEVANT SKILLS ACTUALLY ASSOCIATED TO PRODUCTION, IMPROVEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES, ENHANCEMENT OF THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE THAT MAKES UP THIS FIELD OF ENDEAVOUR, ACTUALLY ANY SKILLS OR KNOWLEDGE THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS FIELD OF INDUSTRY.
NO!!!! ALL I HAVE IS A PRE-CONCEIVED SET OF ARGUMENTS AND PHILOSOPHIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH your INDUSTRY, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH FORCING YOU TO HAND OVER THE HERETOFORE NON-EXISTENCE HIGH-GROUND OF RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION WITH WHICH I DEMONSTRATE TO YOU HOW YOU ARE A BUNCH OF CUNTS WHO NEED TO GIVE ME A JOB SO THAT I CAN USE MY BULLSHIT JARGON TO SHOW YOU HOW YOU ARE A BUNCH OF CUNTS WHO HAVE CAUSED ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD.
ALSO YOU ARE ALL RAPISTS. And THAT is what they are doing with their liberal arts degrees.
Most people are bluepilled fucks that are motivated by external forces to achieve. That's primarily why feminism is about promoting equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Theoretically once enough women are motivated by external factors the equality of outcomes will be removed and women can be seen as equals. But equality of outcomes ignores the genetic differences between men and women. Women by and large can't or aren't predisposed to doing things that society values.
What we need to do to achieve equality is to vale the things that woman do well or can do well if properly socialized. Namely managing a household and caring for small children. If society valued these things by devaluing the relative deviant lifestyles of women, the value of housewives and their role in society would be equal to the role that a man provides to his family and society.
Essentially to answer your question OP, society doesn't value the traditional roles of women this in turn causes inequality and to remedy the situation we should encourage conforming behaviour from social deviants.
TL DR: Slut shaming will ultimately promote equality between men and women.
>>37532828 Funny how SJW's will spout the 'Black folk are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whiteys' routine, but fail to mention the fact that men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than women.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.