I've pretty much left feminism and all that stuff to the women stuff. I don't often feel welcome there and being an activist for too many things at once is just exhausting. I just care about economic stuff and trans gay and other stuff. To be honest, I find I feel most natural when I'm liking what's called tough guy stuff and macho hypermasculine stuff. Seems like a contradiction to me. The stuff like aggression and mental toughness is cool inside of fiction, but obviously not when somebody in real life has no ability to process emotions properly, or turning that aggression to abuse others.
So does feminism mean leaving behind all that stuff as individuals and as a society? But that stuff always seemed so cool to me, and stuff called masculine and conforming to that stuff feels good. Maybe it's just because of male socialization. Leaving that behind sounds like it'd suck. Couldn't it be an evolutionary change to reduce the more toxic aspects of that, and making things more balanced? There was lots of toxic things humans did during the middle ages for example, and a lot of those behaviors and mindsets were left behind. Does that mean the same thing will happen to masculinity?
What if masculinity is cool and femininity is cool and stop calling them that eventually and they just become traits that can apply to any person depending on how they express themselves. This is just hard to deal with. Plenty of people like both masculine and feminine stuff. Do men have to leave behind traditional concept of masculinity entirely to make a better world? Or will it be iterative instead of complete overhaul. Either way I guess what's most important is being a well rounded person rather than conforming to stereotypes. All this gender stuff means more freedom, and this kind of freedom can't be bad. There's nothing better than freedom besides equality.
Also will this new masculinity will be as good to watch in action movies.
>>2181597I'm not sure I've read any specifically feminist literature, but I don't see what's so complicated about it from a male POV. Men can just treat women with respect. A lot of this stuff that gets called "toxic masculinity" could really be called patriarchial attitudes, no? It's about men controlling women, having power over them, telling them what to do, what to wear, and disrespecting them when they don't comply with those instructions. What kind of men are we to let those guys get away with that?
Explicitly feminist movements have their own problems and have torn themselves apart over various ideological things, but nevertheless women have formed their own groups around women's issues in history and have had it out with each other, and there may be ideological tendencies within feminist movements that positive and others that are just wrong or harmful to their cause, but I don't see why we need to interfere with that.
>>2181597I stopped calling myself a feminist or men's rights activist
I am simple an anti-sexist now because SPOILER ALERT: Misogyny and Misandry are one and the same. It's just sexism, baby
>>2181597>I just care about economic stuff and trans gay and other stuff. To be honest, I find I feel most natural when I'm liking what's called tough guy stuff and macho hypermasculine stuff. Seems like a contradiction to me. Out of curiosity, anon, do you view feminism as having "anti-hypermasculine aesthetics" as part of its creed?
>The stuff like aggression and mental toughness is cool inside of fiction, but obviously not when somebody in real life has no ability to process emotions properly, or turning that aggression to abuse others.Don't think most socialist feminists would disagree with you on that.
>So does feminism mean leaving behind all that stuff as individuals and as a society?Depends on the sort of feminism we're talking about- if we're approaching it from a socialist perspective (anarchist/ marxist/ social ecologist etc). Most women don't necessarily take issue with the masculine aesthetic but rather the overall mentality and uniformity behind it.
Just so we're on the same page, what would these "hyper-masculine behaviours" be? Because if it's chugging down beers and playing pool in a dingy bar with low lights and rock music I can point to at least 5 lesbians who do that.
>But that stuff always seemed so cool to me, and stuff called masculine and conforming to that stuff feels good. Maybe it's just because of male socialization. Leaving that behind sounds like it'd suck.Leaving what behind anon? If we're talking about the emotional repression and not expressing emotion then yeah, then yeah, you should leave that behind.
>Couldn't it be an evolutionary change to reduce the more toxic aspects of that, and making things more balanced? There was lots of toxic things humans did during the middle ages for example, and a lot of those behaviors and mindsets were left behind. Does that mean the same thing will happen to masculinity?Masculinity is an ever-changing culture in it of itself, much like systems of patriarchy. It used to be that high heels and wigs were considered pinnacles of masculinity in the 1600/1700s yet if you did such a thing today you'd either be seen as either 1. A historical re-enactor or 2. a drag queen.
The "masculinity" as often described by revolutionary feminists- particularly that of the Jineology tendency that I draw from, comes from a system of dominance and heirarchy which has both class and cultural elements that are used as tools for repression- but it should be noted that women aren't the only victims here. Whenever men dare to say that women should be treated as human beings, or take issue with MRAs and how they talk about women- they're seen as "soyboy cucks" or "simps" or "male feminists who just wanna get laid". At worst, they often paid with their lives or seek further ostracisation- prime example of this was during the salem witch trials.
Patriarchy predates the creation of capitalism, and is sadly an inescapable social phenomenon- it has evolved in such a way that it has rooted itself in our current economy and statist politics, which in the case of America, now targets womens autonomy and people's right to educate people on history or sexuality because they're spreading "division".
I'd recommend reading this and any from pic related.
https://jineoloji.eu/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Killing-and-Transforming-the-dominant-man-booklet-en-compressed_compressed-1.pdf >>2214710Soviet attempts to collectivize(?) housework failed either because the party leadership did not care enough or because the technology was not there yet
Clearly the best option is to make homosexual marriage mandatory because research shows household choras are split more evenly in these arrangements and even then one party takes up the "woman" role and other the "man" role both show higher statisfaction than in straight marriages
I jest, but seriously what do you suggest?
1. Somehow turn housewife/husband into a normal job with a wage and other social benefits jobs bring
2. Educate boys even harder
3. ???
>>2181597Feminism is such a completely opportunist ideology, it can't really be said to stand for anything. Ask 10 feminists their position on some aspect of society and you'll get 11 different answers, without even the acknowledgement that these are mutually exclusive positions unless one of those answers happens to obstruct opportunism. It's basically just a "I stand with women" vibe, nothing more. Most will say that they're opposed to "the patriarchy," but then many self-proclaimed "feminists" will pivot on a dime and say some of the most unhinged pro-patriarchy shit so long as it fits in the mold of "man bad, woman good."
I feel like this is intentional. The feminist movement has had shit like CIA agents leading it since the 70s at least. It being a confused, resentful mess with no positive way forward may be by design. I feel like it has the potential to be a popular movement, but is too confused and self-sabotaging to go on for very long or make genuinely positive changes.
This even seems to be a cycle. Feminism gains popularity. Popularity fizzles out because of opportunism and the she-woman man-haters club. Feminism is relegated to being a fringe movement. New generation discovers feminism and the cycle repeats.
>>2242298>>2214787I'm like
>>2181597 but not the most interested in masculinity stuff – and I really don't know how to mentally approach any of this.
Like I see the liberal feminism of now as the dominant, and them plus "progressive" ones get upset if you dare recognize men have issues like:
>>2239946And I'm supposed to just read the theory of the past and go, "A woman said
>>2214749 this XXXX years ago, the feminist movement is approachable!", and just get routinly disapointed/frustrated.
I can pretend there's some anti-liberal ones, but when it comes to being against those positions then it's quiet or just full support.
Anfem (>>2214749) being an example I think of since she just does this as well, especially on bi-men question, but when confronted then she starts pretending to care about equality.
I have no idea what to think of this stuff, I don't know what's cia-coded or nonesense, and everytime I re-approach it I get more confused and more sexist towards women – and I'd really want to know what to do.
It feels like what I'd imagine a peruvian trying to like communism but everyone arround them is a gonzalo-oid.
>>2270778What you say I'm very mixed on in feeling, and if true it's really disappointed with women.
Like the number seems scary, but from reading the study, it includes:
> Someone calling you a like “Bitch,” “Slut,”“Cunt,” or “Whore”.
> Someone purposefully misgendering you or calling you a homophobic or transphobic slur, like “Fag,” “Dyke,” or “transhumanist.< Why is this under sexual harassment?>Someone talking about your body parts inappropriately or offensively (such as your legs, crotch, butt, or breasts), saying sexually explicit comments (“I want to do BLANK to you”) or asking inappropriate sexual questions.< The first part is really insane to include. At one point is it just anti-sexuality?> Someone physically following you without yourpermission
< This I'll assume it 99% valid, but the rest is very worrying for this type of study.There's no weight of these types of harassment, plus also the weight of even the word is now purposefully muddled.
This comes off a situation of when someone calls something "Sexist", they are abusing the standard perception of the word being
> "Something problematic that you should cut all ties with", and when confronted give a cop out
> "Actually it's just when you need to think criticallyAnita Sarkissian did that, and that's what made her so controversial, in which today she's white washed for.
It's that still continued "rape-feminism" of
> Don't question, don't challenge, just accept – criticizing women = sexism.Even with everything accepted, it doesn't really answer of if you should pick up a hatred towards men.
How many are the same person/repeat offenders?
Men on the study also are 40+% of the data – which is easily too low – are they part of that, or also sympathetic victims?
In picking up male hatred, I'd assume it's a natural consequences of gender division, but for a group that's suppose to be against that, they are truly one of the worst vile groups I've ever seen.
>>2272521Unironic red flag
>>2275185>> Someone calling you a like “Bitch,” “Slut,”>“Cunt,” or “Whore”.I think that's bad enough in-of itself, but if you only focus on unwanted sexual touching, the number is still like a risible 50% of all women, like literally half of the women you've ever met in your life have gotten groped at the very least, that's fucking insane, and of course it's extremely radicalizing.
>There's no weight of these types of harassment, plus also the weight of even the word is now purposefully muddled.Calling someone a whore is definitely harrassment, go call your mother a whore if you think it's cool behavior.
>>> Don't question, don't challenge, just accept – criticizing women = sexism.I think this sort of stuff is limited to online wokescolds tbh, you're out of the loop with both feminists (who tend to be more conciliatory) and radfems or dworkinites and everything in between.
>Even with everything accepted, it doesn't really answer of if you should pick up a hatred towards men.>How many are the same person/repeat offenders?Instead of trying to figure out who are the real rapists, maybe try to figure out first why is your first instinct to react so strongly at very straightforward numbers
>>2275277pretty much, it's just so fucking absurd that this has been allowed to go on for this long on a supposedly leftist board
>>2275280not what I said, also kill yourself
>>2275194>extremely radicalizing.Is it?
These studies are supposed to be an argument of why men "Inherently want to rape and murder women" and that's why women'll pick the bear (suicide) – when the goal shifting, lie throigh omission, and gaslighting is everywhere.
What are those men's material circumstances?l for instance? Is it repeats? Etc.
>go call your mother a whore if you think it's cool behavior.What would make sexist remarks sexual harassment?
If you call a guy a dick would that count, or would it not since it's a patriarchal society?
(If latter, this would align feminism's white washing problems).
>think this sort of stuff is limited to online wokescolds tbh,I've only interacted with online ones granted, but it's defended behavior constantly, and it's a massive fight to get them to even say it's bad.
Feminists have an issue of:
Recognizing men's issues = bad
>maybe try to figure out first why is your first instinct to react so stronglyBecause this is the evidence is argued for a "justified" attacks to anyone that doesn't autmatically submit to them.
The movement is the most aggressive toxic and rapey people I've dealt with (that's not pure fascists), and instead of getting recognized I'm told to shut up since they're our "natural allys"
(Rubbing your clit to gay porn = allyship).
You yourself even play into that with your postering.
>>2275281But that's why "she" said with their original comment.
The movement is liberal to pinkfascist, and they're handwaving saying they're "Illiterate".
They cop out of saying that there was once a feminist marxist doesnt spark courage when it's an insane minority and most of the people dont even read the theory.
>>2275282Kill yourself you rapist subhuman.
>>2275313no u
>>2275318>it's reactionary garbage>to specifically leave out any analysis of patriarchyby which I mean that making the choice to leave patriarchy out of a materialist analysis is an arbitrary decision that probably arises more from subjective biases and ignorance than any serious engagement with Marxist theory. I have seen people try to make this same idiotic argument for a decade now and there's never any coherent reasoning behind it other than falling for the psyop that the only feminist position that exists is liberal feminism.
tl;dr Silvia Federici summary for illiterates: patriarchy is a thing that falls under the scope of a materialist analysis because it functions similarly to imperialism, except inwardly and on the micropolitical domestic scale. in order to maximize profits, capital constantly is seeking to create new classes of people who are cut off from the means to reproduce daily life (i.e. have access to food and shelter and whatnot) and have to sell their labor for a wage. this happened during the primitive accumulation phase of capitalism where the commons was enclosed, but it created a similar power structure in the domestic sphere where modern gender roles were created and women were forced into the position of being a subjugated servant-prostitute class (i.e. a housewife) in order to reproduce the labor of the proletariat in the literal sense of giving birth to children and also in the more abstract sense of performing unpaid domestic labor like raising kids, cooking, cleaning, etc. so that the male proletariat could be maximally exploited.
the consequences of this following women's liberation in the 20th century where more women were allowed to enter the workforce and how we got from there to the manosphere incel movement today where men as a class are still allowed to exist and essentially raised to be entitled to have a household servant-prostitute but are materially less able to actually have that now is an exercise that is left to the reader.
>>2275332This doesnt respond to that being a response to the aggressive liberalism of current day feminism, all you've said is that patriarchy exists and we're illiterate for not submitting.
You people are always like that.
If the men dont just automatically accept the take it's problematic, your "no u" is evidence of that low energy which you make from assuming people would just agree with you.
Why are feminists so god damn rapey?
>>2275342I'n assuming you mean like a schooling thing and not a subjugation system, yeah that's fine.
Pausing that learning is a life time thing – education to dispel bigotry and the design/goals of the new workers' state is needed.
>>2275355>you're painfully unfunnyIt is preferable for the fragile psyche of the women reading this thread that I describe their deficiencies in a playful tone.
Feel free to thank me for my patience and the free schooling I am giving you.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2275373I'm:
>>2275338And you should kill yourself.
It's the joke equivalent of black people and water melon "jokes".
>>2275401Your joke was
having emotions = false rape accusations
> accusation = culpabilityThose people are bad, the "synthesis" is that the police should investigate all rape accusations instead of just dismissing it as a false rape accusation
I think I'm never going to get any satisfactory out of feminists, and I think I'm going to have to accept that.
Feminists now are abusive rapists.
I've used leftypol, tiktok, rednote, instagram, reddit, and some others I'm probably forgetting – I haven't met one that didn't atleast:
* lie,
* white wash,
* support abuse
* support false rape accusations / rape
* goal shift,
* gaslight,
* change definitions,
* change the weight of words,
* lie through statistics
* push for group think
* defend pedophilia
and others I'm forgetting.
Ha, I guess I have egg on myself for thinking otherwise!
>>2275194I forgot to say one thing:
> Real rapistsI'm not saying men dont majority represent rapes, my issues is that the movement, with this study as an example, simplify it to just gender essentialism, making rape not something you want to fight back, but a tool for you people to argue why you should rape.
This is why I think of those feminists in the early 2000s that would argue that men/little-boys cant be raped by women since rape is tied to power (and men have the power in patriarchy).
I'm not trying to be a conservative that's like
> The democrats are the real rapistsYou people are also either rapist allies, desire to rape, or just rape.
Everytime I interact with you people this is what I get – it's no surprise I get so frustrated I mentally give up and want you people genocide, since your as valuable to society as a fucking landlord.
>>2181597I see it as similar to national liberation. Bourgeois national liberation can only get you so far. Bourgeois feminism was historically progressive but now that a substantial amount of women have been proletarianized and raised themselves out of their lumpenized status bourgeois feminism is no longer progressive.
It's kind of like how sometimes communists support Iran. I think of radfems like Khomeini. I think critical support for Andrea Dworkin was called for. Today, we should not support bourgeois feminism.
Unique IPs: 38