/lit/ - Literature

>>6514450
DUDE VAGINA LMAO
I blame Psychoanalysis

>>6514450
There is no reason for moderate feminism to exist as a movement these days. It exists almost solely out of tradition.
People naturally look out for their own good and try to work for their own best interests, kids even more than others.

>...and how it went from a reasonable desire for equity to...
>Should women's products cost more than men's?
Capitalism

Capitalism must be destroyed!

tbh it would be cool if there were chicks in armor who were into crazy christian shit and fighting heathens instead of homo tumblr shit

>>6514551
I had a dream you and I led the revolution butters
>tfw

>today's female youth seems to blindly accept anything and everything with the feminist label and little changes as they progress into college

the fact that people with such unparalleled privilege as middle class white women are so uniformly committed to an ideology that is all about how hard they have it and how people should accommodate them more in every way really does act in favor of the worst that MRA types have to say about women's nature.

>>6514560
>Fist bump

>>6514574
Your shallow analysis shows you have as much brains as these deluded fools you speak of.
You've fallen for the old divide and conquer strategy

>>6514905
>Your shallow analysis shows you have as much brains as these deluded fools you speak of.
>literally "no u"
quit triggering me

You keep trying /pol/, but you still haven't convinced me that a reasonably large group of idiots spouting idiocy on college campuses and the internet is anywhere near as bad a thing to have in the world as misogyny.

>>6514450
Capitalism eliminates all resistance by accommodation and destruction. "Feminism" is largely dominated by middle-to-upper class White women whose idealist, social reform goals include letting women be equally exploited in the workplace and letting women equally colonize and murder third-world peasants and workers. Like good capitalists, they don't actually question the notion of the throne, just the identity of the ones sitting on it.

>>6514905
Oh snap, I didn't know he wrote a sequel about the Byzantines. My final university essay was about The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire back in '06.

>>6514979
This tbh, capitalism is insidious.

>>6514995
One of my favourites. Really kick-started my interest in the Eastern Romans.

>>6514917
Literally *think* about it. Why defend our mutual enemy when it's just a cold unfeeling "spook"?

>>6514545
>>6514574
You guys act as if most of the world lives in first world countries and that feminism is nonexistant is places that actually need it. Do you think women in India trying to stop bride burning are doing bad things?

Even from a perspective of the political realist feminism is worthwhile. Supporting education for women in developing countries results in lower birth rates and helps foster democracy.

>>6515065
The potential need in third world countries does not justify it's need in the first world.

>>6515065
Not all feminisms are the same. Liberal feminism is reformist social demand that only helps reinforce patriarchal relations and misogyny. Proletarian feminism is, however, necessary and needs to be supported everywhere.

>>6514450
DAE hate third-wavers amirite

>>6515102
Is it wrong for people in first world countries to want to support those suffering in third world countries?

>>6515109
Women fighting for the right to drive in Saudi Arabia could be boiled down to "reformist social demand" but I fail to see how that helps reinforce patriarchal relations.

>>6515160
>>>6515102 (You)
>Is it wrong for people in first world countries to want to support those suffering in third world countries?

That's not what's happening though. They are using issues in third world to justify their actions here. They do this without do a goddamn thing of merit elsewhere. This is standard feminist nonsense, what they say they are and their actions are two different things. It's why you people point so much at your dictionary definition, you aren't evident by your actions. If you were feminism would end in the west.
Look at this beach body ready nonsense. Petty bullshit.

>>6515190
>You people
OK, first off we're hardly even in disagreement. The freak out over the "dad bod" is ridiculous. Obsession over minuscule things like "proper pronouns" is ridiculous. Refusing to read books written by white male authors is ridiculous, etc.

OP never specified this was a thread for the effects of feminism on the west. He just said it was on the development of feminist philosophy. Now it has certainly been bastardized here but understanding women's issues in developing countries can be beneficial to understanding foreign cultures and social behavior. Just because a few people have misinterpreted a theory doesn't mean we should just throw it out entirely.

>>6515230
This is not a few people, drop that NAFALT bullshit. Garbage like this gets international coverage, article after article.
Why would we not speak of it in the west, it's the only place that we have any authority to speak on. Feminism may never gain any traction in certain places, they may find their own non adversarial non propagandist means to achieve. What we perceive as equality. They may not even want what we call equal.

>>6515160
>Women fighting for the right to drive in Saudi Arabia could be boiled down to "reformist social demand" but I fail to see how that helps reinforce patriarchal relations.
Because the house of Saud could today decide that women are now allowed to drive and women in Saudi Arabia would still find themselves in a patriarchal society. The Saudi government could eliminate all sex inequality measures and guarantee complete sex equality under the law, but women would still find themselves in a patriarchal society. Reform does nothing but reform- it can never actually address the cause of the problem.

Do you feel 20th century feminist philosophy tends to idolize the position men had in gender roles while ignoring their responsibilies and social struggles in attaining their roles? It's very strange that gender discussion seem to be so focused on women being the prime target as it's an oppressed-oppressor situation rather than both sides carrying a social burden.

>>6515339
To add to this, why the focus on institutional power? Institutional power doesn't affect the everyday man or common social interacts as much and one's positive liberty. Positive liberty is where one finds the greatest cultural power.

>>6515287
I had no idea what NAFALT was until you used that acronym. You seem to know more about tumblr feminism than I do. All I'm saying is we shouldn't completely ignore an idea because people have bastardized it. Feminism may never gain traction in some places, sure, but it has in some where it's doing real good. In India feminism is becoming pretty big and there they have legitimate grievances such as bride burning and the some of the highest levels of rape in the world. Are you upset I'm talking about these things? Am I really not allowed to talk about issues in other parts of the world because I don't live there? If women in the middle east had more influence in politics and in daily life we may not have the problem with ISIS and Iran attempting to construct nuclear weapons.

>>6515309
>Because the house of Saud could today decide that women are now allowed to drive and women in Saudi Arabia would still find themselves in a patriarchal society
That is completely true but there are very practical benefits of driving a car. It would help in some ways, for example women being able to drive would make it easier for them to work, because men don't have the time to drop them off and pick them up at their workplace everyday.

>Reform does nothing but reform- it can never actually address the cause of the problem.
I don't agree with this at all. Reform is better than revolution it's just that usually real reform isn't possible. In the rare cases it is it's always preferential.

Revolution is usually necessary to truly overhaul society. But reform for basic rights like being able to drive or vote isn't a terrible thing.

>>6515339
Of course they ignored the burdens that's why studies and polls show women are less happy than they have ever been.

Feminism is a conflict theorists circle jerk, or flick as it were.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

Post more chicks in armor

>>6515380
Feminism is doing plenty of harm in India. Their new rape legislation is a gross violation af due process, men can be convinced on little more than word.
We wouldn't have problems with ISIS? are you such a fool to think women are more peaceful than men? Look up the term 'violence by proxy' with regards to women.

I resist talking about the third world because we are in diffrent stages of decay in respect to feminism. What they do there has no bearing here and vice versa.

Anything with the oppressor-opressed dichotomy will become toxic very quickly.

>>6515415
You mean more chick's playing dress up.

>>6515436
Marital rape in India still isn't a crime. And the amount of rape in India is so incredibly terrible that individual rights need are not as important as addressing larger issues.

We likely wouldn't have problems with ISIS because women tend to be more democratic in general. Democracy has all sorts of problems, but it's better than whatever the fuck ISIS is. If you want to prove a point why don't you elaborate on violence by proxy instead of resorting ro ad hominem to ad hominem?

>Anything with the oppressor-opressed dichotomy will become toxic very quickly.
Why?

>>6515436
Marital rape in India still isn't a crime. And the amount of rape in India is so incredibly terrible that individual rights need are not as important as addressing larger issues.

We likely wouldn't have problems with ISIS because women tend to be more democratic in general. Democracy has all sorts of problems, but it's better than whatever the fuck ISIS is. If you want to prove a point why don't you elaborate on violence by proxy instead of resorting to ad hominem?

>Anything with the oppressor-opressed dichotomy will become toxic very quickly.
Why?

>>6514979
I've always found feminism's covert ties to capitalism realy interesting and I wish more people would think through that frame work. Even by putting women in the workforce in the second wave, a family can't survive on one income anymore, over-saturation of workers has made the worker a less valuable commodity and work days are only getting longer and more demanding as the years go by.

>>6515512

>not having a multi-million dollar trust fund

keep on plebe-ing

>>6515485

>Marital rape in India still isn't a crime. And the amount of rape in India is so incredibly terrible that individual rights need are not as important as addressing larger issues.

I am absolutely disgusted by you right now. One never surrender rights due to them, there is no greater good in that. Rape is a violation of individual rights. What you are doing now is putting the rights of some individuals over another's based on sex, it is impossible to be more sexist than you are now.

I did not call you a fool I asked you were a fool, slight difference.
By your statements you don't understand the situation. Democracy would do nothing to stop this, hell it broke out in a democratic nation. If anything the removal of the dictator allowed them to grow. This can even be traced back to the fall of the ottomans. Had we a strong centrak authority there so many middle eastern conflicts might have been avoided. You also must consider that even when allowed the chance to engage in politics women choose not to.
Women are also only as democratic as the situation benefits them. SJWs for example are hyper authoritarian , most feminists in the west seem to be.

As for why the oppressor-opressed dichotomy is toxic. Especially in regards to feminism. The male - female relationship is not based on that paradigm. So trying to solve any perceived imbalances in that relation ship makes a villain of people who are not nor had any intention of doing so. It just breeds bitterness on both sides.

>>6515599
>One never surrender rights due to them
You're doing it right now. The entire idea of government it us sacrificing our individual rights for the sake of security. Unless you are a legitimate anarchist, and no one is in 2015, you're OK with sacrificing your rights.

>You also must consider that even when allowed the chance to engage in politics women choose not to.
Many men choose not too as well.

> SJWs for example are hyper authoritarian , most feminists in the west seem to be.
SJWs don't represent women in the countries we're talking about, or even the majority of women in our countries. SJWs are a vocal minority just like racist /pol/sters are. And many women in academia identify as "feminist" and are not SJWs. Anyone who doesn't believe in enforced gender roles can be considered a feminist.

>It just breeds bitterness on both sides.
>I am absolutely disgusted by you right now
Considering how bitter you seem I guess I can't really argue with you there

>>6515622
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you went with an extreme example since you have no reasonable arguments.
The only right I surrender to a government is the right to be a COMPLETE asshole. The rights of due process and the right to face ones accuser are protected by amd guaranteed by the government. These would be hard to have in an anarchy.

You unsurprisingly miss my point about the gender diffrence entering politics. My point was that even given the opportunity women at a proportionally lower rate than men. So the government would still be dominated by men.

again you miss my point with SJWs. They are not supposed to be representative. They only demonstrate that women are only democratic so far as it benefits them. I said exactly that. Read what I wrote.

Oh I am not bitter, I am frustrated with your shorted ignorance though. Who is using ad hominems now?

>>6515672
>The only right I surrender to a government is the right to be a COMPLETE asshole
No. You surrender the right to do drugs, you surrender the right to pay people less than a certain amount, you surrender the right to dominate certains markets in regards to business (anti-trust laws). If you were to ingage in those things it wouldn't make you "a COMPLETE asshole"

>My point was that even given the opportunity women at a proportionally lower rate than men
Can you prove that's not due to a history of oppression? Of course they have lower political efficacy than men.

>They are not supposed to be representative. They only demonstrate that women are only democratic so far as it benefits them.
You say they're not representative then you use them to make a sweeping generalization. How can they demonstrate anything if they're not in any way representative of all women?

>Who is using ad hominems now?
I never once attacked you personally. Do you even know what ad hominem means?

>>6514950
misogny doesnt exist

>>6515622
>Anyone who doesn't believe in enforced gender roles can be considered a feminist.

What if you want to enforce equalized gender roles through force of law ? Is that not still Feminism ?

>>6515691
I'm pretty sure I'm a misogynist, though.

Or perhaps it's just a healthy sexuality I've been conditioned into hating myself for from both traditional and progressive agents.

What I'm trying to say is that girls are weird, man.

>>6515688
>Can you prove that's not due to a history of oppression? Of course they have lower political efficacy than men.
Can you prove it is? Burden of proof

>You say they're not representative then you use them to make a sweeping generalization. How can they demonstrate anything if they're not in any way representative of all women?
Do you have to be spoonfed to see that women are narcissitic, don't care for the benefit of the whole and are only out to get what they can. There's a reason stereotypes exist, the gold-digger, that wife who's divorced her husband taken his house and his kids, and brought her much younger lover in just to piss him off. Women don't care, this feminism thing is just another way for them to shout for more rights and another step up above men.

>>6515697
you got that right

>>6515697
women are alright, just learn to not give a fuck what they think of you

>>6514450
>you probably don't even know it's happening
>smiles smugly because she literally just told you she's smarter than you for figuring out one of the basics of capitalist supply/demand economics.

>>6515715
>Burden of proof
Oh please, you're the one that claimed that "given the opportunity women at a proportionally lower rate than men" by which I assume you mean women don't participate in democracy to the same extent men do, which is straight up not true
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf
http://www.idea.int/gender/vt_by_country.cfm

>women are narcissitic, don't care for the benefit of the whole and are only out to get what they can. There's a reason stereotypes exist
>Women don't care
And the genuine sexism comes out. You really think women are inferior to men despite absolutely no (non-anecdotal) evidence on differences in intelligence. Over generalizations like you're making right now are why we have these gender issues in the first place.

>>6514450
Technically this is Social Feminism:
>the free market creates a hierarchy of characteristics more suited to laborious work
>men become more associated with these characteristics
>women are not, therefore capitalism considers them better suited for house work
>patriarchy is thus a product of capitalism
>to overthrow patriarchy, women must unite to overthrow the free market.

>>6515485
>Marital rape in India still isn't a crime. And the amount of rape in India is so incredibly terrible that individual rights need are not as important as addressing larger issues.
so what ?
even in occident, the abuse of the women on the men are not discussed. The feminist refuses to talk about it and when the yearly statistics on rape come out, it is always about the rape on the females that is the topic of discussion.
When the feminists talk about abuse, they always blame men, see the rape publicity campaigns, never about women raping men. Nothing is done by them to break the taboo.

And I do not even talk about the definition of rape with this ''mandatory penetration'' which ofc favorize the three-hole females.

The problem is, feminism claims to be about being the antithesis to the thesis that women are dumb, incapable children. However, the so-called "thesis" was wrong, but this antithesis was wrong as well. It's simply not the case that women by and large are capable of independent decision making. Many women do need to be controlled. And it's when you get shit like pic related, that you realize how much many women need a serious master.

Co-opted by the spoiled generation in love with themselves, feminism is now for women in the first world to justify ever increasing special treatment while enjoying the gender roles society still allows them to occupy at the same time.

Meanwhile, women like Malala Yousafzai are an inconvenient reminder that the third world deals with real oppression, and are sidelined to preserve the "me me me" generation's screams for attention, and the weak men who support it for sex or as a white knight role.

>>6514450

There is this idealization of the men's lives by the femininazis:
-men work, so women must work
-men do not cook, so women must not cook
-men have contraception, so women must have FREE contraception+abortion
(what about free condoms ?)
-men are not sexually oppressed, so women must not be so
-men have orgasms, so women must have them
-men do not do chores, so women must no do chores
-men do take care of children, so women must not as well
-men drive, so women must drive
-men study, so women must study

>>6515688
OK fine I will give you that but it is moot. Just because I am willing to give up some rights does not mean I can't be unwilling to give up others. Such black and white thought should be reserved for children. Also the rights I mentioned specifically are ones that need a government or some other authority to enforce them, which I also stated earlier. You don't have this point, move on.

Yeah I figured the historical oppression thing would show up at some point. Can you prove that it is, you are the one making the claim. If so how far back must we go women have had the vote for a hundred years, they have outnumbered men in college for atleast 40. If someone, who is likley dust by now, was oppressed as some point and that stops you for running then you aren't worthy of my vote anyway.
As I have said I am not even on board with this oppressor-opressed dichotomy with regards to male and female relationship.

SJWs demonstrate a path of progression. You start where the downtrodden women are, you gain more and more power until you become a cunt.

Women are just men without dicks, there is literally no difference. You all are spooked to the max.

>>6515799
Yeah except that's totally not true at all.

>>6515803
Okay, they have also tits. I give you that.

>>6515811
Again, insufficient.

>>6515815
What did I miss? No balls?

>>6515825
you're a pathetic person to maintain this charade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronna-benjamin/raising-boys-ignorantly-dumb-and-purposefully-stupid_b_3185209.html

>>6515109
>patriarchal relations and misogyny
2spooky4me

>>6515693
There's nothing wrong with anti-discriminatory laws

>>6515778
>so what?
Are you saying rape is OK?

>never about women raping men
Is this a joke? Female on male rape doesn't happen on a meaningful level besides in regards to child abuse which is absolutely a crime.

>three-hole females
If you're implying there's anything but "three-holed females" then unamusedpepe.jpg right back at you

>>6515779
Muh strawman

>>6515798
>I will give you that
>YOUR A CHILD
>You don't have this point
Strong argument

>historical oppression thing would show up at some point. Can you prove that it is
Are you asking me to prove women lacked the rights men had throughout human history? Regardless, see what I said here >>6515764

>You start where the downtrodden women are, you gain more and more power until you become a cunt.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

>>6515842
Huff Post is a shit publication? Stop the presses everybody.

>>6515842
No, don't look at it! It will only give them ad-revenue

>>6515857
>anti-discriminatory laws
If that was all they were, there wouldn't be a problem. A lot of it is discriminatory against men though.
>if you have the same qualifications as a woman, you are now statistically less likely to be hired than her, because there's a quota

>>6515857
>There's nothing wrong with anti-discriminatory laws
They discriminate against people who like to discriminate. That's discrimination.

>>6515860
>No, don't look at it! It will only give them ad-revenue
not him, but I no longer click on those as well
I put the link in google and read the cached version

>>6515857
My god woman, chill out on the misrepresentation. I have said this before, I said black and white thought should be left to children. Aparently you were headed that way, and that your issue don't take it out on me.

No, I am not asking you to prove women did not have the same right as men. I am asking you to prove that it still has an effect a century and generation later.

If you don't understand the SJW point, read it again.

>>6515857
My god woman, chill out on the misrepresentation. I have said this before, I said black and white thought should be left to children. Aparently you were headed that way, and that your issue don't take it out on me.

No, I am not asking you to prove women did not have the same right as men. I am asking you to prove that it still has an effect a century and generation later.

If you don't understand the SJW point, read it again.

>>6515837
Do you question my sincerity?

>>6515898
If you seriously believe that, you're a fucking retard.

>>6515857

Anti-discrimination laws are not what we are talking about. We are talking about things like gender quota's, which are added even when there is no evidence of discrimination taking place. It is the forcing of certain outcomes so to create a synthetic gender parity, based on blind faith that if all conditions were equal then the outcomes would be equal.

When the 2nd wave moved tons of women into the workforce it caused an influx of workers that allowed wages to drop to the point were most working class people could no longer afford to live off of single salaries. Because of this women who wanted to maintain traditional gender roles and stay in the home were forced into having to work as well. If you claim that feminists are anyone who is against forcing gender roles, then feminists fucked up bad and betrayed their cause completely because many women were forced by circumstance into adopting feminist gender roles.

>>6515892
>I said black and white thought should be left to children. Aparently you were headed that way
You were very obviously trying to simply my argument as "black and white" when you first brought it up.

>I am asking you to prove that it still has an effect a century and generation later.
So you're asking me to prove how traditional values have an effect on modern society?

>>6515904
>which are added even when there is no evidence of discrimination taking place
They were added in a time where sexism in the workplace was rampant. Granted it's not the same problem as it used to be and they should be reevaluated, but that doesn't mean everything under the guise of feminism is worthless.

>If you claim that feminists are anyone who is against forcing gender roles
The only point I was trying to make there is the term feminist can be applied very broadly.

I just finished reading this. I don't know if I quite really get why it's considered "feminist." For me, it was more about mental health.

>>6515485

"lets get rid of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial because reducing rape is more important than not undermining common law"

10/10 plan

maybe you should torture them into signed confessions then execute them in mass graves too

>>6515999
Presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial have been gone for a long time.

Common law is arbitrary anyway and gives far too much power to judges

>muh rape culture

>>6515999
Except that's not what he said at all

>>6516057


>>6515436
>>Their new rape legislation is a gross violation af due process, men can be convinced on little more than word.

>>6515485
>And the amount of rape in India is so incredibly terrible that individual rights need are not as important as addressing larger issues

my mistake

this person clearly not saying that convicting rapists is more important than boring things like due process

"It is better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one rapist escape"

I've encountered many women in my life, and I must say, by far the ones I respect and admire the most are the ones who are completely self-defining.

Most women these days, be they active feminists or not, do not define themselves by themselves. They define themselves in relationship to their environment, if you will. They define themselves based on their interests, their friends, and perhaps even the social struggles in which they believe. Their entire life may be keeping up with the news and building who they are in contrast to what they hear. Such a perception can be rigorously dichotomist: a world-defined woman will be the quickest to make an enemy of you if you fit into her idea of an enemy.

To help with a contrast later, I'll give you some characteristics of what I'm calling a "world-defined woman." A world-defined woman will expect you to pay for expensive dates entirely with little more than a petty objection stating otherwise. They may have an interesting hobby but trying to discuss anything about it with them will be unsuccessful — it's a hobby they simply "have," if you will, without thinking about it. They will begin to harbor emotional attachment to other people due to nothing more than time spent around each other, even if they know very little about the other person. In bed, these women will do any humiliating thing you ask them to do, if you ask long enough.

Then there are self-defined women. Self-defined women are actually unaware of the whole "division" between women and men. They don't live their life in relation to men, the just live their life. They may even "use" men in a Stirner-like fashion — think of them as property to be enjoyed without any specific emotional attachment necessary. They don't see much of a reason to keep up with the news, since, after all, it doesn't affect them in any way.

Self-define women will pay for their expenses on a date without second thought. But they won't do it to support some notion of equality, they'll just do it as if it was the only option. They may pay for some of your expenses, too, and they won't bat an eyelash. They will show you examples of their artwork and ask for critique on it, not because they values your opinion specifically, but because they just want critique so they can improve themselves. Their emotional attachment depends on things like how similar they are to a person, or how loyal the person is to them, instead of mere time spent together. If they have desires to be dominated in bed, they'll want to dominate equally.

(1/2)

I don't know exactly how some women come to be self-defined. Or, maybe, I should ask how some women come to be world-defined. A great majority of the men I know appear to be self-defined. If I may think openly here for a moment, I believe the fact many women are world-defined (and subsequently not very independent) is actually because of feminism. Feminism, by insisting that women are unequal to men in some way, reinforces a toxic attitude of inequality. It first tells women, as a postulate, that they are inferior, and thus need something like feminism in order to equalize the playing field. THEN feminism holds it true that women are equal, but only after first ASSUMING this statement needs to be said. Any statement that says, "X group is really equal, guys, you've got to believe me!" carries with it the implication of not actually having true equality.

The most independent of women are not really feminists, I've seen. They don't subscribe to this ideology that, for whatever reason, assumes them inferior and in need of help. They say, "Why would I need any help?" and just live their lives like any normal person would.

Because of this, I maintain that modern feminism in the developed world actually perpetuates inequality more than it serves to dismantle it. Feminism refuses to take that crucial step in attaining true equality by destroying itself. Only after it destroys itself, and no longer teaches women that they are in need of help, can we reach a society full of self-defined women.

(2/2)

Capitalism reduced the idea of justice to mean just “human rights”, and the idea of dreaming of equality became blasphemous. We are not fighting to tinker with reforming a system that needs to be replaced, is the problem.

Statistically you're all MEN so you can't be critical of feminism and WOMEN's social issues.

Those against feminism are just men trying to reinforce their position in the patriarchy.

Gee, it sure is tumblr around here...

>>6517200

"The cry for an equality of wages rests, therefore, upon a mistake, is an inane wish never to be fulfilled. It is an offspring of that false and superficial radicalism that accepts premises and tries to evade conclusions. Upon the basis of the wages system the value of labouring power is settled like that of every other commodity; and as different kinds of labouring power have different values, or require different quantities of labour for their production, they must fetch different prices in the labour market. To clamour for equal or even equitable retribution on the basis of the wages system is the same as to clamour for freedom on the basis of the slavery system. What you think just or equitable is out of the question. The question is: What is necessary and unavoidable with a given system of production?"

>>6514979
I've never seen it that way before. How did you come up with this?

>>6517147
agreed with the first part of your psot, but I think you went off the rails at the end.

>They don't subscribe to this ideology that, for whatever reason, assumes them inferior and in need of help. They say "Why would I need any help?"

A woman who believes that she needs help because she is a woman has an inferiority-complex and may go running to feminism for quotas and other means of 'raising her up to the level of men.' She's expect these things as a kind of recompensation for being a woman.
A woman who believes that she needs help because she is human is self-defined, she'll ask for help and give help where she sees fit. She'll try to do things by her own strength, and she will want to be valued for who she is, rather than what group of people she belongs to.
A woman who believes that she doesn't need any help is just an idiot.

I'd also like to remind you that women are in fact disadvantaged by their biology in some ways. Building more public toilets for women than for men makes sense, as does providing them with legal safeties in case they decide to have children, so in that sense women do need help with things because they are women. If we want to run society that way it'd be nice if men got something for dying one year earlier than women do though.

>>6517210

>>6517227

It's been consensus among Marxists for over a century.

It comes to the point of certain "resistances" being in place to grant bare minimum needs or needs of the privileged classes. Basically, first world white feminism is totally isolated from direct material problem and it shows.

>>6517232
>A woman who believes that she doesn't need any help is just an idiot.

sigh

>>6517244
People are dependant on eachother. That's just the way the world works m8.

>>6517237

Ah yes. Such contributors to liberationist thought like Anita, and such contributors to any thought as the people who obsess over every liberal statement she makes.

>>6517244
Why is sarcasm the only feminist tactic?

>>6517244
You are afraid of relying on other because you believe that you will be betrayed, which is why you isolate yourself and maks that solitude as 'being strong and independant', so you don't have to admit that you have trust issues.

>>6515485
The ease with which you are willing to do away with civil liberties is really horrifying. How have we come to this in the last 5 years? Suddenly it's acceptable to promote things like extrajudicial violence and overt racism. Feminists today become wet at the thought of flirting with fascism and totalitarianism.

>>6517253
>People are dependant on eachother. That's just the way the world works m8.

Plenty of people are self-sufficient, actually.

>>6517264
That's not an example of sarcasm.

>>6517273
Being independent isn't the same thing as isolating yourself.

>>6517297
>implying you don't live with your mom
I sure do

>>6515795
You're right. Men today are becoming ever more heavily gendered. Meanwhile women slip into a state of genderless oblivion. Think about Lacan in this context (woman as the universal not).

>>6517297
If there are people in your life with whom you have a relationship of trust, and if you do things for eachother, you are living in a healthy relationship of interdependance. Even the so-called self-sufficient people you know are dependant on having social interaction and connections so they can find work, or at the very least they will have to depend on others when they get older.

>>6517147
Isn't feminism taking the same approach to gender antagonism that Stalinism took to class antagonism, i.e., you do not know how to think, you are incapable of knowing what is right, we will do all of the thinking for you, no questions?

>>6515778
>three-hole females
kek

>>6517185
Unfortunately I think it's too late for jokes.

>>6517304
I don't, but when I did I felt ashamed. Since I've been on my own I don't feel any more capable or proud. Living with your mom isn't always a terrible thing, it's definitely nothing to feel ashamed of.

>>6517343
>dependant on having social interaction and connections so they can find work

I mean, I guess you "depend" on other people in order to talk to them, but that's kind of stretching the concept of dependency beyond needing help, which is what was originally contended.

>>6517374
>Living with your mom isn't always a terrible thing, it's definitely nothing to feel ashamed of.
>when I did I felt ashamed

>>6517273 's post was spot-on it seems.

>>6517384
>I felt ashamed of living with my mother because I was afraid of being betrayed

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

>>6517374
>you "depend" on other people in order to talk to them
You depend on them in that if you do whatever the hell you feel like without thinking about how it affects your image, if you actually try to be utterly independant you will end up being an inconsiderate asshole with whom people don't want anything to do. You won't find work, nor will you have anyone left to talk to. Civilization is people living in a relationship of interdependance, and if you break the rules that govern how it is organized you will realize that you -are- dependant on both individuals and society.

>>6517412
You can adhere to basic ethical and/or civil codes without framing things in terms of your self image.

>>6517232
Thank you for your post. Currently, my ideas are admittedly fairly undeveloped, and I value the opportunity to discuss them in order to improve them.

I apologize if I was unclear by the meaning of "help." I mean, of course we all need help. Earlier today my father helped me by cooking breakfast, and I helped him back by cleaning the dishes. Helping each other is fundamental to a cooperative existence. What I call "self-defined women" give and take this kind of cooperative help all the time. Lone wolf women who refuse all cooperative help in order to "prove" women don't need ANY help (the type who bully you for opening the door for them) are normally world-defined women that are making a mountain out of a molehill. As far as this goes, I think we have some common ground.

However, I disagree with your assertion that women are "disadvantaged" by their biology. On what basis are we deciding what is an advantage or a disadvantage? Is it better to be taller or shorter? Lower body fat percentage or higher body fat percentage? Larger hands or smaller hands? Certainly, men and women have many biological differences that make men male and women female. But whether these attributes are an advantage or a disadvantage depend on the environment. One can easily imagine an environment in which women's biological attributes (shorter, more fat, smaller hands, etc.) are at a great advantage to men's biological attributes. Furthermore, the fact that such a disparity of characteristics exist evolutionarily implies that both characteristics have their own "advantages."

I still maintain that this is a fundamental flaw of feminism: teaching women that they are fundamentally "disadvantaged" or even "different" implies that men are superior in some way or that men decide what is "the norm." Women are not "different" from "the norm:" they compose a full half of the human race. Men and women simply exist, and both of them together decide what is "the norm." The fact we even consider supplying "special advantages" to make up for women's "shortcomings" reveals an innate sexism.

We must decide between rational equity and true equality. If women generally need more toilets, then consider building more ladies' toilets. If men generally die a year earlier, then perhaps men should retire a year sooner. Such is rational equity. But if one finds such ideas distasteful, then one must choose true equality: same number of toilets, same retirement age, every time, without taking gender into account. But we cannot constantly flipflop between the two, or else we risk one gender ACTUALLY becoming "advantaged," by claiming all of the comforts while giving none in response.

What do you think?

>>6517350
I apologize, but I am not familiar with Stalin's approach to class antagonism. Could you please explain your inquiry in another way, perhaps providing a few examples to illustrate your hypothesis, so that I may understand? Thank you.

>>6517427
>Lone wolf women who refuse all cooperative help in order to "prove" women don't need ANY help

Those women aren't "lone wolf women." And your father didn't "need" your help washing the dishes. You and your father have a world-defined understanding of cooperation.

>>6517426
Bro, I don't think you've thought enough about what reliance means. You're saying 'but I'm doing these things of my own free will! How can I be reliant?' That's like saying that you you don't feel like you're a slave because you have no desire to run away from your master anyway. You are reliant, and you are complicit. There is nothing wrong with this, you just need to admit it to yourself.

>>6517471
I don't understand. You are correct, I didn't NEED breakfast cooked for me and my father didn't NEED the dishes washed for him, but I don't see how that relates to anything. I also don't know what you are implying by your statement that our "understanding of cooperation" is "world-defined." The only way in which I have used the "world-defined" vs. "self-defined" dichotomy is in relation to how people build their personalities. Could you explain what you mean by your post?

>>6517480
I'm not saying anything like that. The difference here gets at the heart of the difference between guilt and shame. The negative perception of others is shame, ie that you were "caught" doing something "wrong" (being an asshole), whereas guilt does not rely on this external judgment. You are "wrong" to your own code of ethics and feel bad about it without requiring external feedback.

>>6517505
>but I don't see how that relates to anything.

Because before you gave your example you said "we all need help." One would think that the example would relate to the preceding statement.

Your use of "world-defined" seems to correlate with the idea of culturally defined norms, no? Hence, the expectation of a woman to have her dinner paid for. How does this differ from the norm of washing dishes as a "thank you" for someone else cooking you a meal?

>>6517427

>On what basis are we deciding what is an advantage or a disadvantage?
By looking at the context people have. 'What environment do these people live in, and how do their biological differences affect the position they occupy in society.' I think there are a lot of ways to go about that, but just for example let's do it on the basis of what people want to do:

Let's say you want to stay at home and raise children. Here women are given special rights so they don't get screwed over if their husband wants to leave them. That's what makes the lifestyle a viable choice. A lot of the same insurances don't exist for men though, which is a problem because it denies them the ability to make that decision based on an outside factor. I'd say that giving everyone who wants to stay at home and raise children the same advantages would be the answer here.

Let's say you want to work. Are women capable of competing on equal grounds with men in the workplace, without being given legal aid? To answer that question you only need to look at what happened to women when they didn't have laws protecting them from being fired when they got pregnant. Did they benefit from 'fair competition'? No. They were exploited by factory owners and they suffered from the conequences. I don't see what argument could be made that would lead to the conclusion that their sex wasn't a disadvantage for them. Someone saw it as a vulnerability and was able to use it to make a profit. Wouldn't you say that that is conclusive proof that it exists?

Let's say you want to stay healthy and get old. Women used to die in childbirth a lot, and they have quite a few healthproblems that men do not. We go about keeping people healthy in a way that is intended to be optimal for each group of people, which is why women get regular breast cancer check ups. I think you would agree that treating people 'equally' would be monstrous in this case.

My point is that you don't get a functioning society by treating everyone the same, regardless of their differences. You have to look at what problems arise from peoples physical differences, and try to compensate for them to a certain degree so people are still rewarded for being good at things, but noone gets exploited to shit. It's a pretty delicate balancing act.

>>6517147
What? Is your dick some kind of antenna that reads minds via vagina? There aren't just two types of women. Just because a female feels inclined to support feminism doesn't mean that they're automatically lashing out blindly because they have personal issues. And all these self-defined women you know, is it possible they could have just been more reserved with their opinions by nature, and how different would their lives be had there been no social progression?

>>6517542
I suppose that "world-defined" correlates with cultural norms to the extent of how much people let these cultural norms define them. Extrinsic vs. intrinsic. Generally, when someone gives you a gift (in this case, breakfast), then some form of repayment is expected (in this case, washing the dishes). Indeed, that is a cultural norm, but I would argue that such a cause-effect relationship is so universal that it might transcend culture. As evidence for this, from what I've read, people in Native American tribes would frequently take back gifts they gave in the event their generosity was not reciprocated. It is, at least, not distinctly European culture at work here. So, if this dynamic is intrinsic to human nature, I would argue this action is actually not "world-defined."

In the event a lady expects me to pay for an expensive date, though, I don't see the same cause-effect relationship. Say I pay for dinner and a movie, I might be out $50-$60. What do I receive in return? Nothing. To expect any kind of reciprocation of this gift, especially if that expectation is of a sexual nature, is very much out of style. Is the "gift" for which I paid upwards of $60 to spend a few hours with her? That's ridiculous. If both of us truly enjoyed each other's company, I would not have to hire her to spend time with me. Is she unemployed or otherwise cannot pay her share of the date? Why does she feel comfortable agreeing to such an expensive proposition if she knows 100% of the charge will be on me? Does she just expect men to make more money, no matter what job they have? Then why doesn't she promote men earning more money than women for similar jobs?

My perception may be flawed, but no matter how I look at it, I cannot find any humanity in such an action. It is blatantly disrespectful. It openly takes advantage of me without the least bit of remorse, and it's entirely self-interested. Though, in a way, I can respect just how unshakably self-interested it is, I cannot engage in it myself, being on the losing end. How a woman could ignore all appeals for equality and respect in order to uphold nothing more than a social norm betrays pointed cynicism or simple unthoughtfulness. This is being "world-defined" without a doubt, because such a woman enforces such a completely ludicrous rule solely because it's how her grandparents dated.

I know that it's pretty nuanced, and you caught something most people wouldn't see, but I don't believe there are any inconsistencies here.

>>6515924
because she was a girl and wasnt taken seriously.

i dont get it because this happens to people regardless of gender even today, it was just a different version with the woman as the victim of disbelief

>>6517259
can someone post some of the retarded Anita shit. my gf doesnt believe shes just a jew with no interest in feminism

>>6514450
>logical, rational discussion
>feminism
>4chan
Pick two.

>>6517632
>you don't get a functioning society by treating everyone the same
Then I believe we are in complete agreement. Personally, I advocate for a rational equity, like you, keeping in mind the fact that it's indeed a "delicate balancing act." Admitting any kind of inequality will always be a gateway for tyranny to those who wish to inflate the inequality into a means for discrimination. But we have seen that irrationally committing to equality and enforcing equality unevenly leads to tyranny as well. I doubt we will ever truly find this perfect center, and power will constantly teeter among groups getting "more" equity than other groups, but I believe fully embracing a rational equity would be vastly superior than our inconsistent swapping between equality and equity.


>>6518118
I'm not sure why you antagonize me. For the purpose of this discussion, I have separated all people into these two groups: world-defined and self-defined. Note in my original post I said: "A great majority of the men I know appear to be self-defined." I have met quite a few men who are very much world-defined, they just don't happen to be in the majority, so I do not believe I am judging women unfairly. Presently, I am only discussing the women at length because that is the topic at hand. And I draw all of my conclusions (which can, of course, be inaccurate) from my own experience.

I also don't understand why you are conflating historic feminism and modern feminism in the developed world. Indeed, their lives would be quite different had they been born in, say, 1500 B.C. But they were not born then, they were born now, in a time where women at large enjoy so many social freedoms that identifying the genders in terms of social roles at all might be irrational.

And even so, perceiving oneself as equal is timeless: I'm quite sure all of the self-defined women I know would perceive themselves as equals regardless of the time period in which they were born. How can I make such a bold claim? Because even in this time period, women are being told from birth, in great numbers, that they are unequal which feminism is trying to fix. Yet these women casually dismiss all of the modern rhetoric in favor of radical equality — at best, they describe themselves as "feminist" when asked, but rarely do they actively define themselves or the rest of the word as a part of a gender struggle. They pay absolutely no attention to their gender, and it affects them none.


>>6515924
I read The Yellow Wallpaper as part of a feminism unit in one class and I had the darnedest time convincing anybody that the conflict was primarily a universal tale of power struggle before anything else.

I know this is teetering on the line of MRA/nice guy bullshit, but hear me out.
Many feminists focus on the power that men have, that women do not - such as economic power.
However, it shows me that there is very much a grass is greener attitude prevalent in feminism. How about sexual power? Women clearly have more control over men in relationships on a physical level (leaving aside rape which is illegal for good reason).
I'm also confused by the fact that chivalry such as holding a door open, or letting a woman go first in whatever situation is seen as only sexist to women. This is considered patronising. I won't disagree, yet there is no acceptance that this is also assuming that women have more value than men. It is a two way street.
They point to the patriarchy as a structure that means that men hold the power, therefore misandry isn't a thing. I'm not sure how they are able to point to a construction that feminists theorised to shut down any argument that many argue - yes, men and women are both discriminated against - hence the need to fight for gender equality.
I'm not saying men have it worse, but why shut down any discussion on the matter?

>>6515764
but there are difference in intelligence, and I do of course not mean that women are smarter or anything like that. Haven't there been numerous studies saying that the brain structure is different and babies preferring different toys and such. That seems to me that we do think in different ways and I do not think that this is unreasonable that it extends to bigger roles within society.

>>6518329
In regards to chivalry, the term should have died out with the age of knights for which it was created. If you're not about to take up knighthood, there's no point in practicing chivalry.

The bastardized version of chivalry that we have teaches us that women should be helped because they are women and not because they are people. Not to mention that it doesn't teach men about helping men, women about helping other women, or women about helping men.

>>6515691

>pol actually believes this.

Throw out the word misogyny for a second because it is loaded. A lot of men are dehumanizing/devaluing women in a lot of common social interactions, and it makes them upset. There are a lot of radical feminists that are just a louder voice of the more common dissatisfaction with that state of affairs.

>>6518632
>A lot of men are dehumanizing/devaluing women in a lot of common social interactions

This is less a legal/institutional problem and more of an individual/social issue. Unfortunately, people hate being told that maybe they need to examine themselves and how they treat others. It's not just a select group of people that need to do this but everyone.

My problems with feminism are pretty simple:

*They want to micromanage every interaction and piece of art.

*They rely on bad science, sloganeering, and emotion to effect change.

Basically they're intellectually dishonest authoritarians.

>>6518797

Agreed, but I think the point modern feminists want to make is that average people should speak up when somebody is being a douche in the hopes that it becomes a social norm to consider some behavior as unwelcome.

People differ on what they think is appropriate, and radical feminists are obviously a little more extreme, but I've personally met strangers on multiple occasions that act in ways towards women whom they don't know that is pretty demeaning and inappropriate. And on some of those occasions it has become clear after some talking too that they hold a negative view of feminism, and so it is not improbable they are the types of people that may post "I hate feminists" on youtube videos, reddit, the blogs and 4chan.

Which doesn't seem like too much of a stretch.

>>6515512
>over-saturation of workers
>work days getting longer

Shit, how the fuck does that happen? Serious question, the obvious consequence of more workers should be more people employed with shorter workdays and better salaries (so they can put their longer free time consuming and contributing to the economy).

Are business owners that fucking greedy and stupid?

MRAs are a fucking joke but it's a shame we don't have WRAs.

>>6518848
>but I think the point modern feminists want to make is that average people should speak up when somebody is being a douche in the hopes that it becomes a social norm to consider some behavior as unwelcome.

Of course, this just brings in tryhards who want to complain about the death of freedom of speech or what have you.

feminists want equality PLUS FEMALE PRIVILEGE

>>6518951

reminder that feminazis are trying to tell us that they are approached by men

>>6518915
>Are business owners that fucking greedy and stupid?

Yes.

>>6518951
>all feminists want
False statement.

Also, equality may as well be a buzzword at this point.

>>6518968
>thinking women now or have ever had equality

Men can't even be equal to other men, much less women.

>>6518935
Who would complain about the death of free speech when they read something like that? The most appalling aspect of that sentence is the idea that we are so aware that "social norms" are a matter of shaming each other that "speaking up" is acknowledged as a way of domesticating the herd in the guise of a socially revolutionary act.

What a confused group of idiots.

>>6518848
>I've personally met strangers on multiple occasions that act in ways towards women whom they don't know that is pretty demeaning and inappropriate.

And what makes you the arbiter of what is "appropriate" for a woman to experience? Who is the priest of this movement? Where do I find the commandments?

>>6518951
This is true. Being a man is different from being a woman. Both come with unique positives and negatives. Women want to keep the positives of being a woman while removing all the negatives; and often also wanting to do the opposite for men.

Could I get a response to
>>6515356

>>6518329
>Women clearly have more control over men in relationships on a physical level (leaving aside rape which is illegal for good reason).
This is only possible because men give them that power, and only they can do anything about it. It is in men's best interest to have higher standards and not be willing to have sex with any female who consents.

Agree with everything else though, as a female I have to admit I acquired a huge dislike for feminism because of how little dialogue they allow. It is understandable, of course, to be suspicious of men but that suspicion should not shut them out so completely.
The fear of admitting men -also- are disadvantaged by the current system is seen as a threat to their fight because it might mean there will be less attention paid to women's issues, which are more urgent and drastic. So they pretend these problems don't exist and men are only benefited by this system.

I really hate that /lit/ is being raided by fedora tippers from /pol/