Radical Feminism (continued from Capitalism)

[phillipsjk]

Firstly, thanks for finally posting something somewhat on topis
Secondly , the contents of your pants has as much to do with accepting that the undeniable sweeping waves of abuse women (specifically) have gone through at the hads of self absorbed.men is real. It's propped up by the inane notion of "equality." "Equality" is a myth. I want to end rape culture.

When you say you want to end rape culture, are you implying that our culture tolerates, if not encourages rape? Or, are you trying to eliminate rapists as a cultural group? (I suspect the former)

When I heard about a recent high-profile gang rape case I had a sinking feeling that it only made the International news because the boyfriend was also attacked. This implies that she was not alone, and presumably was dressed modestly, not showing unusual interest in other men. In short, victim blaming is not possible in that case: the victim did everything right.

Sort of refuting my point, I found a BBC article about high-profile cases in India. that story does not mention the boyfriend at all.

[1713487230]

1713487230

[1713487230]

1713487230

[1713487230]

1713487230

[ktttn]

Bump.
Any antifeminists out there want to bitch about how oppressed you are?

So by anti-feminist you mean any person who has been oppressed and also is the owner of a penis? It seems to me you are more interested in metering out your own form of self justified oppression rather than striving for equality, the true goal of actual feminists. I think the word you are looking for is anti-misandrist, because that is what you clearly do - attempt to subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis. Individuals be damned! PENIS = EVIL!

Firstly, thanks for finally posting something somewhat on topis
Secondly , the contents of your pants has as much to do with accepting that the undeniable sweeping waves of abuse women (specifically) have gone through at the hads of self absorbed.men is real. It's propped up by the inane notion of "equality." "Equality" is a myth. I want to end rape culture.

"Subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis."
This is trolling of the least admirable sort. That subjugation- rare as it is, only happens when Men try to stick their dicks where they aren't welcome or needed.

By anti feminist, I mean anyone unwilling to empathize with the construct of reality, as viewed by "the weaker sex."

So since we are on the topis, you are saying men can not be subjugated? You seem to be only repeating yourself rather than elaborating on your point. Since you don't believe in the possibility of equality, wouldn't that make you a supremacist?

Re-responding for the lulz. Troll.
Owning a penis is as simple as a trip to your local sex shop, geneticist, online store, or woods where you can gather a stick, widdle and sand it (hopefully) and attach it to your crotch with some vines, ect.
You are not in a position to determine "the true goal of actual feminists." Equality is a meaningless buzzword. Equality amounts to erasure. I am not attempting to erase women, but bring about understanding of the developed injustice that has grown around women.
Misandrist is also a meaningless and reactionary buzzword, used exclusively to discredit and confound feminists.
Also, next time you typo I'll find it and I'll hound you to the grave about it.

[ktttn]

Firstly, thanks for finally posting something somewhat on topis
Secondly , the contents of your pants has as much to do with accepting that the undeniable sweeping waves of abuse women (specifically) have gone through at the hads of self absorbed.men is real. It's propped up by the inane notion of "equality." "Equality" is a myth. I want to end rape culture.

When you say you want to end rape culture, are you implying that our culture tolerates, if not encourages rape? Or, are you trying to eliminate rapists as a cultural group? (I suspect the former)

When I heard about a recent high-profile gang rape case I had a sinking feeling that it only made the International news because the boyfriend was also attacked. This implies that she was not alone, and presumably was dressed modestly, not showing unusual interest in other men. In short, victim blaming is not possible in that case: the victim did everything right.

Sort of refuting my point, I found a BBC article about high-profile cases in India. that story does not mention the boyfriend at all.

The usual formula (victim blaming) doesn't fit here.
Singling rapists out as a cultural group, instead of a systemic impulse implies that rape is not a symptom of a larger disease.

[ronimacarroni]

why do my posts keep getting erased? 

[ktttn]

why do my posts keep getting erased? 

Troll.
Untroll yourself. Read the thread.

[virtualmaster]

The only cure against radical feminism is polygamy.


http://www.votepolygamy.com/

[bitcon]

because no woman has ever raped a man right?

i had an asshole female boss once. i assumed she was feminist because she was always nice to the female employees. that didn't make me hate all females though.

i believe many feminists nowadays are just misandrysts (man haters) and it really undermines the feminist movement.  i believe if a woman is for equality, then feminism is not necessary. if a guy is an asshole to you, don't pigeonhole all men as misogynists, because theres assholes in both sexes.

i know in some countries such as in the middle east, women are still very oppressed, and feminism is needed in those places. but in america, for a feminist 
to say that "its a mans world" feels insulting. example: americas family courts are totally biased in the woman's favor as the mother usually gets custody or most custody of a child.
women also are able to get away with a lot more; maybe sweet talk their way out of a speeding ticket, etc.  Guys- when was the last time a woman bought you a beer at the bar?

i dont condone violence, but if women want to be treated the same as men, does that mean a man can get into a fist fight with a woman without impunity?

[ktttn]

because no woman has ever raped a man right?

i had an asshole female boss once. i assumed she was feminist because she was always nice to the female employees. that didn't make me hate all females though.

i believe many feminists nowadays are just misandrysts (man haters) and it really undermines the feminist movement.  i believe if a woman is for equality, then feminism is not necessary. if a guy is an asshole to you, don't pigeonhole all men as misogynists, because theres assholes in both sexes.

i know in some countries such as in the middle east, women are still very oppressed, and feminism is needed in those places. but in america, for a feminist 
to say that "its a mans world" feels insulting. example: americas family courts are totally biased in the woman's favor as the mother usually gets custody or most custody of a child.
women also are able to get away with a lot more; maybe sweet talk their way out of a speeding ticket, etc.  Guys- when was the last time a woman bought you a beer at the bar?

i dont condone violence, but if women want to be treated the same as men, does that mean a man can get into a fist fight with a woman without impunity?

Men get raped, and women can do it. It's missing the point however to make rules based on exceptions. To focus on this is to lose focus on the worldwide (including the first world) nature of rape, which is men raping women.
Misandry is a cop out word with no real meaning when considering currents of sociological practice.
Whether you're in the middle east or not, women are at a disadvantage- often being seen as your most american of consumer goods and nothing more, whether subconsciously or explicitly.
Child custody hearing statistics are irrelevent when you consider that men often feel that children are women's problem. I say good riddance to fathers.

In what ethical reality would anyone punch anyone with impunity? How is this a rubric fro equality? Why is equality even valuable?

[ktttn]

because no woman has ever raped a man right?

i had an asshole female boss once. i assumed she was feminist because she was always nice to the female employees. that didn't make me hate all females though.

i believe many feminists nowadays are just misandrysts (man haters) and it really undermines the feminist movement.  i believe if a woman is for equality, then feminism is not necessary. if a guy is an asshole to you, don't pigeonhole all men as misogynists, because theres assholes in both sexes.

i know in some countries such as in the middle east, women are still very oppressed, and feminism is needed in those places. but in america, for a feminist 
to say that "its a mans world" feels insulting. example: americas family courts are totally biased in the woman's favor as the mother usually gets custody or most custody of a child.
women also are able to get away with a lot more; maybe sweet talk their way out of a speeding ticket, etc.  Guys- when was the last time a woman bought you a beer at the bar?

i dont condone violence, but if women want to be treated the same as men, does that mean a man can get into a fist fight with a woman without impunity?

Men get raped, and women can do it. It's missing the point however to make rules based on exceptions. To focus on this is to lose focus on the worldwide (including the first world) nature of rape, which is men raping women.
Misandry is a cop out word with no real meaning when considering currents of sociological practice.
Whether you're in the middle east or not, women are at a disadvantage- often being seen as your most american of consumer goods and nothing more, whether subconsciously or explicitly.
Child custody hearing statistics are irrelevent when you consider that men often feel that children are women's problem. I say good riddance to fathers.

In what ethical reality would anyone punch anyone with impunity? How is this a rubric fro equality? Why is equality even valuable?

So if you're not for equality of the sexes, why call yourself a feminist at all? Isn't equality what the original feminists stood for, when fighting for the right to vote and so on? Your view seems to be more like "women are inherently smaller, physically weaker, etc., therefore we should get a golf handicap and a free pass wherever possible in life".

Isn't that just crying wolf with the victim card? If so, then I don't see that as a position anyone should actually want to defend. It has been done many times before, e.g.: "inferior"/disadvantaged cultural groups getting preferential treatment for university entrance -- it always backfires. Other forms of discrimination counteract and "price-in" the preferential treatment received earlier.

Equality is for numbers. We're talking about classes of people, not numbers. The original feminists and feminists since have not put their ultimate goal up to be equality. Equality is erasure- a meaningless placeholder for a goal. This misunderstanding is harmful. The purpose of feminism is to make women's issues- numerous as they are- relevant to all discussions of liberation and justice. While the right to vote is ultimately in vain, pandering to state control, the conception that women are people at all was a radical notion that could have only reached mainstream acceptance after popular legislation regarding voting passed within that social-historical context.
No golf handicap- just understanding of the unique and complex position women are in. No free pass- just a revocation of (see earlier clarification of the term "man") men's free pass on women's bodies and minds.

[ktttn]

So if you're not for equality of the sexes, why call yourself a feminist at all? Isn't equality what the original feminists stood for, when fighting for the right to vote and so on? Your view seems to be more like "women are inherently smaller, physically weaker, etc., therefore we should get a golf handicap and a free pass wherever possible in life".

Isn't that just crying wolf with the victim card? If so, then I don't see that as a position anyone should actually want to defend. It has been done many times before, e.g.: "inferior"/disadvantaged cultural groups getting preferential treatment for university entrance -- it always backfires. Other forms of discrimination counteract and "price-in" the preferential treatment received earlier.

Equality is for numbers. We're talking about classes of people, not numbers. The original feminists and feminists since have not put their ultimate goal up to be equality. Equality is erasure- a meaningless placeholder for a goal. This misunderstanding is harmful. The purpose of feminism is to make women's issues- numerous as they are- relevant to all discussions of liberation and justice. While the right to vote is ultimately in vain, pandering to state control, the conception that women are people at all was a radical notion that could have only reached mainstream acceptance after popular legislation regarding voting passed within that social-historical context.
No golf handicap- just understanding of the unique and complex position women are in. No free pass- just a revocation of (see earlier clarification of the term "man") men's free pass on women's bodies and minds.

OK, if we're talking about classes of people, then to me it seems like quite a big dilemma. Fighting discrimination with discrimination (asking Big Brother to implement helpful laws) is unlikely to work as long as people's minds don't change. Many countries, especially ex-colonies seem to have played with giving various groups preferential treatment in order to fight discrimination, and all that seems to happen is that the majority quickly adjusts to the new reality. Sometimes the minority starts acting like a victim and asking for more and more -- but even if that's not true, the mere possibility of it is harmful because it causes bad relations.

E.g.: women only need a 45% pass mark to get into university? No problem, prospective employers simply adjust their recruitment tests so that women only pass if they get more, like 56%.

If women want to "hold their own" (so to speak) in some area of life, then I guess they just need to compete. E.g.: J K Rowling -- totally famous author who did Harry Potter. Was it feminism that made her a better writer than the male-dominated industry? Probably not.

I'm not begging authority. Nobody worth listening to is doing so, either. I'm making men aware of the fact that they've been carefully trained to hate and use women.
Any author who is a member of an oppressed class can firstly rethink the meaning of success, and secondly thank those who came before her.
In the total absence of the core ideas of feminism, no feminine voice could ever amount to more than that which is possessed by a husband or father.
One reason that Feminism and Anarchism fit together is that feminism has been more of a social call than a political one.

[virtualmaster]

Feminism began slowly as polygamy was prohibited.
Many womans have a different thinking than mans and can be understood only by other womans.
In countries where polygamy is official this can be solved and they feel themselves well if they are other womans also in the family.
In countries where they was robbed from the right to live together with other womans in a marriage with a single man it caused frustration and hate in their heart against the society and they search only the company of other womans.
For me there is no need personally for polygamy but the society needs this as balance and cure against feminism.
Fact is that where is polygamy there is no feminism(especially there is no radical feminism).
So if they would receive back this traditional right to live in polygamy they would cool down surely.

[ronimacarroni]

Feminism began slowly as polygamy was prohibited.
Many womans have a different thinking than mans and can be understood only by other womans.
In countries where polygamy is official this can be solved and they feel themselves well if they are other womans also in the family.
In countries where they was robbed from the right to live together with other womans in a marriage with a single man it caused frustration and hate in their heart against the society and they search only the company of other womans.
For me there is no need personally for polygamy but the society needs this as balance and cure against feminism.
Fact is that where is polygamy there is no feminism(especially there is no radical feminism).
So if they would receive back this traditional right to live in polygamy they would cool down surely.

I don't think that at all.
There is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men and women.
With polygamy someone is getting the short end of the stick, unless its a war mongering society in which men die more often.
What we should is defend regular marriage.
Which is hard because apparently neither side seems to like it a whole lot.

[ktttn]

Feminism began slowly as polygamy was prohibited.
Many womans have a different thinking than mans and can be understood only by other womans.
In countries where polygamy is official this can be solved and they feel themselves well if they are other womans also in the family.
In countries where they was robbed from the right to live together with other womans in a marriage with a single man it caused frustration and hate in their heart against the society and they search only the company of other womans.
For me there is no need personally for polygamy but the society needs this as balance and cure against feminism.
Fact is that where is polygamy there is no feminism(especially there is no radical feminism).
So if they would receive back this traditional right to live in polygamy they would cool down surely.

I don't think that at all.
There is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men and women.
With polygamy someone is getting the short end of the stick, unless its a war mongering society in which men die more often.
What we should is defend regular marriage.
Which is hard because apparently neither side seems to like it a whole lot.

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery. Love, cherish and Obey? Polygamy as referenced is simply a way for one man to have multiple wife-slaves. This isn't acceptable, and will not continue uncritiqued.

The only cure for feminist concerns is the abolition of the state and the masculine supremacist structures that prop it up- commodification of the feminine, the idea of owning (to whatever extreme) a person, and the end of denial on the part of men that men, in fact constitute the vast, vast, vast majority of rapists and abusers. Is it not true that children assigned an "M" on their birth certificate at birth too often get trained by virtually everyone they come accross to hurt women, and people in general? Is this not true? Am I missing something here? I strongly doubt it.
A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures, a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters, and most urgently and abrupt end to this reactionary and apologist "I'm calling misandry" foolishness men have recently started howling about in response to being called out must happen first here and there with us in this thread and them who we affect and next everywhere from all angles.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that misogyny and misandry are not social equals, either in frequency of occurrence and  severity of consequences to those it affects.

[ronimacarroni]

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.

A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures

Since when have communities been matrileneal?
[/quote]
a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters
[/quote]
Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

[ktttn]

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.

A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures

Since when have communities been matrileneal?

a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters

Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts.
YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes.

Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around.
Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames.

Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it.

[ktttn]

[ronimacarroni]

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.

A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures

Since when have communities been matrileneal?

a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters

Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts.
YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes.

Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around.
Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames.

Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it.

The lack of community isn't because of men.
Its because you probably live in a city.
Cities have too many people to be communities.
Also communities are more boring and filled with rules.

[ktttn]

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.

A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures

Since when have communities been matrileneal?

a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters

Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts.
YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes.

Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around.
Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames.

Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it.

The lack of community isn't because of men.
Its because you probably live in a city.
Cities have too many people to be communities.
Also communities are more boring and filled with rules.

I ask you in all seriousness. Who built cities? Women? No. Men built cities, and gave their wives no choice but to raise their kids. They did this personally and through establishing cultural norms.

[TECSHARE]

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.

A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures

Since when have communities been matrileneal?

a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters

Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts.
YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes.

Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around.
Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames.

Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it.

The lack of community isn't because of men.
Its because you probably live in a city.
Cities have too many people to be communities.
Also communities are more boring and filled with rules.

I ask you in all seriousness. Who built cities? Women? No. Men built cities, and gave their wives no choice but to raise their kids. They did this personally and through establishing cultural norms.

Wow I didn't know a man had to do was tell a woman to do something, and she has no other choice but to comply. Our evil powers have no limits.

[ktttn]

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.

A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures

Since when have communities been matrileneal?

a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters

Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts.
YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes.

Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around.
Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames.

Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it.

The lack of community isn't because of men.
Its because you probably live in a city.
Cities have too many people to be communities.
Also communities are more boring and filled with rules.

I ask you in all seriousness. Who built cities? Women? No. Men built cities, and gave their wives no choice but to raise their kids. They did this personally and through establishing cultural norms.

Wow I didn't know a man had to do was tell a woman to do something, and she has no other choice but to comply. Our evil powers have no limits.

Not "a man." Generations upon generations of men- all trained by other men to think of women as things.