>>20729 This is derailing the thread at this point, so please take any more feminist dialogue to the /siberia/ thread on the topic.
>i don't like this website Why do you come here then?
>this guy don't know what he's talking about Sure bud
>each decade of feminism essentially tries and fix the toxicity of the previousLiberal mythology. Each 'decade' or rather wave of feminism has not tried to fix the toxicity of the previous, just double down with a different sort of toxicity, this is exactly what people like Clara Zetkin predicted and why the USSR rejected feminism and instead promoted women's rights as part of the working class. The first Western feminists were bourg movements that only got headway for the same reason general workers rights were improved - the Soviet Union's emancipatory efforts in bringing literacy and rights to its working class, gave workers unions and labour movements incentive to protest and demand rights from their corporate overlords. Thus, had the social democrats not committed to welfare capitalism, the USA and other Western states would have faced a genuine socialist revolt. So porky changed tactics, embracing populist rhetoric, co-opting movements like 'feminism' and later through the CIA, creating and controlling these ideologies that divided the working class by identity, only granting rights in superficial terms, while pitting different groups of people against each other by supporting policies that negatively impacted one group of workers to marginally 'improve' the rights/status of others, be they women, African-Americans or anything else. This started off subtly, but at this point grown into full-blown reactionary politics under the guise of 'social justice'.
>the gen-x/90s wave of feminism that tried to compete with men at their own game ie. being masculine and doing boy stuff.That's not how feminist 'waves' are divided. First Wave was the original suffragettes, which became active from the late 1910s into the 1950s, although their origins go back to the late 19th century with people like Victoria Woodhull. The Second Wave came in the 60s and went through the 90s, with the Third Wave beginning with the turn of the century up to today.
>now and days it seems that feminism is embracing femininity saying it can be strong in it's own way. ie. girly, frilly, makeup stuff. That is almost entirely untrue. Modern 'feminism' has attacked both traditional femininity as 'patriarchally enforced' (even though it is a result of material dialectics and is entirely by choice) and attacked concepts like non-traditional femininity (tomboys and independent women) by purporting that women that prefer masculine roles are closeted trans and so "need to come out" which is ironic, considering their attitude towards 'misgendering'.
At this point feminist rhetoric is a shallow one dimensional concept of 'strong women' that act like the caricature of toxic masculinity/machoism they claim to fight against, and simultaneously reject any older forms of femininity - traditional or otherwise - in lieu of having an amorphous ideology of women replacing men in all regards.
I recently read a feminist news article where feminists were crowing about how Massachusetts has so many women and women of color leading the government and that it was 'over' for men. It'd be childishly silly, if it wasn't what burgers unironically see and support as an ideology.
TL;DR: Feminism has always been idpol, always will be idpol and identarian politics is the enemy of workers movements and socialism by default. If the Western feminists siding with the anti-Soviet Intervention of 1918 wasn't proof enough, then the major icons of modern feminist ideology (Herbert Marcuse, Gloria Steinem, Judith Butler etc.) being CIA assets makes the case rock solid. Feminism purports to fight toxicity, but is just as toxic if not more so than what it purports to fight, and you don't fight fire with fire, nor do you solve inherent systemic problems by 'fixing' the system.
Now again, take this to the idpol thread in /siberia/