File: 1670623763479.jpeg (36.75 KB, 474x558, radfem.jpeg)
No. 6961
File: 1670624177387.jpeg (73.86 KB, 526x501, women who code.jpeg)
came across this today and it really angered me.
>women used to lead in computer science >until 1984, our representation in the field dropped dramatically >gender stereotypes, especially through toys and marketing, were beginning to have far-reaching consequences>the first personal computers weren't much more than toys and they were marketed almost exclusively to boys and men.>geek culture emerged during the 80s and TV shows, movies, and video games all reaffirmed that computers were the domain of boys>women left computer science programs in droves because they felt left out, discouraged and unsupportedthere is a 15-minute long NPR podcast episode on this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/17/356944145/episode-576-when-women-stopped-coding No. 7053
File: 1671485506954.jpeg (84.85 KB, 540x720, whitefeminism.jpeg)
No. 7204
>>7135Yeah. That's a race issue before a women's issue.
>>7139Oppression due to race is social. Oppression due to sex is universal. Women's liberation will achieve racial equality. Racial equality will not achieve women's liberation, this has been demonstrated.
No. 7310
>>7135>>7139How is it putting white women first to want to focus on issues that affect people based on their sex and not their race? The worst offenses against us predominantly affect women of color - child brides, fgm, honor killings, surrogacy, sex trafficking, etc. Helping women in general helps women of color because they suffer the most.
Nonnie is right, intersectionality in theory is great, but in practice just leads to a clusterfuck where everyone wastes all of their energy arguing over who is more oppressed and who gets to speak and on and fucking on. It's a pipebomb that completely disrupts any meaningful discussion and leads nowhere. Each axis of oppression is important enough to deserve it's own movement where they can really focus and get shit done instead of everyone using feminism as a dumping ground for every problem on the fucking planet except for issues relating to women's rights.
No. 9421
Met a radfem and we mutually want to become closer. We have so many specific aspects of our backgrounds in common.
I'm scared that in the case of a future falling out, though, she'll out me as a terf as revenge. I know this mindset comes from years of tiptoeing through toxic wokeoid culture online. But a lot of us in the RF community come from that, and I still see a lot of the old habits going strong.
Additionally, I know from having been very mentally unwell in the past and knowing mentally unwell people that you can do things out of character in the heat of the moment to hurt the other person.
As far as I know, she is reasonable and stable, and I'd really like to become close.
Should I just go for it and foster a friendship? Would you, personally, ever do this to a fellow radfem?
As an aside question… for those of you who have made radfem friends online, would you ever meet them in person? When you have radfem friends in a society where transphobia is extremely taboo, are you open about it? Or do you keep it between yourselves?
I've been a radfem for ages now, but the social aspect of these values that have to be kept under wraps still confuses me.
No. 9422
>>9421I don’t think I’d meet up with one from online, idk I feel like so much could go wrong.
But I feel you on being scared of being outed as a
terf by other radfems. I can’t even be honest with people who I know agree with me sometimes because there’s so much vitriol against radical feminism right now. I can finally be bonding with another woman on this topic and feel comraderie and then be scared regardless.
However I like to think, I wouldn’t put somebody as a
terf to ruin them. So there’s at least some people out there who wouldn’t either.
No. 9423
>>9421Another thing these online "radfems" do is take screenshots of your personal conversations and share them with their followers to laugh at you. And then they have the nerve to talk about "female solidarity" and how important female friendships are.
So be careful with her and don't share any sensitive information. She might even try to dox you if you do something she doesn't like.
No. 13359
File: 1681411426491.jpg (41.56 KB, 442x632, DbNUeXHXUAED.jpg)
I was listening to a radfem podcast recently and one of the lines really stood out to me. It was something like "Saying women's bodies aren't inherently mystical is one of the primary ways female oppression is enforced". I have to admit, something about spiritual radfems makes me feel a bit embarrassed. I get that male-dominated science has been used to oppress women for centuries, but countering that doesn't mean we have to embrace mystical mumbo-jumbo. Men and Women are not inherently special, and we don't have to resort to evo-psych essentialism either. There has to be a more rational option.
No. 13371
>>13364Idk, what is beautiful to you that isn't at all artificial?
I don't find birth at all beautiful but it's such a profound process for nature itself that I understand why some people think it's beautiful or at least captivating.
No. 13377
>>13367nta, We can admit that men made stuff up, but that doesn't mean we have to embrace goddess spirit worship. Just because it was practiced by women who also believed the earth was center to the galaxy and stars were spiritual beings in the sky.
>>13375This is why spiritual radfems often end up embracing reactionary ideologies. It's kinda worrying that they aren't aware of the reactionary ideas they're pushing.
No. 13409
File: 1681482129804.jpg (240.93 KB, 1200x1782, feminist-spirituality.jpg)
>>13396>>13388A Soviet writer Lev Gumilev, argued that very few people can truly be atheists. He suggested that human beings fundamentally need spirituality, and asserts that soulless communist sects of Marx and Trotsky could never succeed; Gumilev believed that communism needed a sense of "Divine" to survive.
This applies to feminism too. Feminism cannot rely on theory alone; It requires a spiritual and divine inspiration to advance and progress
No. 13425
>>13423No no no, don’t backtrack, you just said
>without divinity to justify our existence we have no right to existunpack that
No. 13435
File: 1681512983779.png (9.9 KB, 483x261, vaginas are transphobic.png)
I was watching an episode of a tv show from 2018 and a group of women were rallying together over something. they called this "pussy power". and it made me think about how commonplace the symbol of the vagina used to be in feminist circles or even just among women empowering themselves/each other and now has been completely removed. it's now only brought up in sexual contexts.
even when i google "pussy power" or "pussyhat feminism" (which i know was kind of cringe libfem shit but still) I can only find articles pre-2018 and things like picrel which call it offensive to trans people. and, of course, porn.
it makes me sad that we're losing this connection between feminism and our bodies. kind of jumping off what nonas are discussing above, but the vagina literally and symbolically is the source for life. and for it to become just resigned to just something "birthing people" have is bleak af.
No. 13438
>>13426so living concretely in reality is "living in this world from a detached perspective", but obscuring it with mumbo jumbo cope is not? Sounds like you got it flipped. Also the way you talk is like some sort of schizo cult leader
>it's not "sufficient" to live normally>without divinity we have no "right" to existlike what the fuck are you even on about? Who is dictating what life is
"sufficient" and who has the
"right to exist"? you? your god? shut the fuck up.
I'm not even the anon who started this convo but holy shit this is why everyone thinks you ~womanly divinity~ types are creepy as hell. Women who talk like this strike me as ex-christians/jews/muslims who literally can't imagine how it's possible to live happily secularly and shit on everyone else for doing so, just like they would have when they were in their original faith.
No. 13460
>>13459>fighting for change is pointless according to secular beliefs.…what? wanting women to live happier lives free from male abuse and control requires no religious beliefs. You legit sound either highly religiously brainwashed or schizo, or both.
>I'm not saying you don't have the right to exist.You can try to backtrack if you want but we all can clearly see what you said earlier in
>>13420>Cause [unless you have religion] what makes you unique or different from others?Why does one have to be special and unique from others? This, and your statements about "having no right to exist" sounds like you have a deep self-worth issue that you are dealing with using religion.
No. 13501
>>13494This has to be bait, like everything you’ve said is omega levels of retardation. I could easily imagine some moid chuckling to himself as he types this crap, anxiously waiting to see how he’s
triggered the godless feminists
No. 13502
>>13501>>13495I don't believe you fully understand that I don't subscribe to any established religion - I identify as spiritually inclined. What I mean by that is that I recognize and honor the existence of a higher power, but I don't adhere to any dogmatic beliefs or practices. In fact, I strongly believe that most people at their core possess a spiritual inclination, although they may not consciously acknowledge it or give it a label.
Almost everyone is spiritual and religious deep down. It's not always recognized or acknowledged, but it's there, guiding us and giving us strength when we need it most. The will to connect with something greater, that pure and perfect force that resides within us.
No. 13534
File: 1681608786903.png (427.41 KB, 879x2264, radfem to tard pipeline.png)
>>13533nta but terri strange is one clear example, you can literally see her tard progression in real time
No. 13567
>>13534holy shit. yeah, this is a great example of that.
there are definite pipelines in place when you're already attuned to mystical thinking. for example many women who are into yoga and wellness become puritans and get into anti vax stuff which leads them down a right wing pipeline into tradwifery. often going from a hippie liberal to conservative housewife.
>>13359>"Saying women's bodies aren't inherently mystical is one of the primary ways female oppression is enforced"I have to say that for me the "inherently mystical" thing is one way I see women being turned into signifiers, rather than being seen as real thinking, moral humans. and it's no coincidence that a lot of TIMs are into mystical shit too. they literally think they can possess a female spirit and it's just a mistake their bodies are male.
but like some other nonas have said, another way to interpret it is that our bodies are literally life-giving and that should be respected in some way. i just think the mystification of it achieves the opposite.
No. 13568
>>13534>>13567How does this one example prove anything? Even if Terri has become more religious, that doesn't necessarily mean she isn't still mostly progressive.
>>13547The misogyny is coming from inside the house
No. 13570
>>13426>>13438(Not going to quote every comment)
I feel as though this argument is born out of the tension between nihilism/absurdism and existentialism than of feminism. Many religious and spiritual people are tended toward existentialist thought. It's okay to feel one way or the other, because at the end of the day we (as humans) are incapable of understanding the true meaning of life, except that to which we ascribe it. We shouldn't start insulting others because they are spiritual or skeptical—there is nothing valuable to be gained out of hostility, especially with regards to radical feminism.
>>13568Much agreed to both points.
No. 13604
File: 1681696792029.jpeg (64.83 KB, 525x584, DDE7D288-0268-41E9-B92C-BCC8BF…)
I think all the woo woo is bad optics
No. 13612
>>13604this articulates something i've been wanting to put into words. thanks for sharing!
>>13607I don't think it's embarrassing. and i think most nonas in those threads would realise those things are not based on "fact" but still find some meaning in the process, which there is nothing wrong with. i just hate the association of women's wisdom = mystical and irrational.
it's only in very recent history we have even been considered moral beings in our own right and finally been part of the discourse but stereotypes still remain that we are incapable of logic and reasoning. when it comes to speaking about our bodies and our material reality, the last thing i want is to mystify it or give anyone an excuse to dismiss us.
No. 13615
>>13612What kind of meaning?
Also I've heard women say things like "I don't believe in astrology but it's just for fun" but I think they were lying.
No. 13619
>>13604The most based take I've seen in a long while. Witchcraft bullshit has been plaguing a ton of RF spaces because of this retarded ass "female wisdom is whimsical and mysterious" belief, and while women being into stone healing and other ridiculous alternative medicine garbage is 50% about medical science ignoring female problems the other 50% is caused by this shit. Horoscopes and spells and such as a fun LARP or as a way to do philosophical soul searching and such is okay, but when you're acting like a rational scientific approach is "misogynist" and "too masculine" you're doing a massive disservice to all women everywhere.
>>13567>it's no coincidence that a lot of TIMs are into mystical shit too. they literally think they can possess a female spirit and it's just a mistake their bodies are male. This. Full on agreed.
No. 13657
File: 1681761543373.jpg (40.86 KB, 920x652, jennifersbody.jpg)
sorry if this is too ot but idk what other thread to put this in. what do yall think of jennifer's body? i'm supposed to write a paper about it and i constantly hear how it's empowering subversive feminist queer etc but it just… didn't feel that way to me at all.
No. 13659
>>13658I'm generally pretty honest about radfem shit in my classes. it makes moids and handmaidens upset but it's worth it when so many other women tell me I said what they were already thinking.
iirc the climax of the movie involves megan fox and amanda seyfreid making out even though amanda's character has a boyfriend. libfem shit indeed
No. 13662
File: 1681764962289.jpg (941.4 KB, 4212x1944, 5jgClq2zvO1ILycU.jpg)
>>13658>>13657I have a similar sentiment towards Megan Fox in that she embodies internalized misogyny, and her stans refuse to see it. She was objectified for most of her life and then ignored when she got older. Instead of learning from this experience, she went in the opposite direction and embraced the bimbo archetype. not to mention her cringey attempts at being bisexual, And let's not even get started on what she's doing with her sons(basically grooming them since they were toddlers to troon out, and successfully groomed her firstborn to potentially troon out at least)
No. 13663
>>13659That's great, anon! I'm very vocal about this too and I love when I encounter women who are open about this.
>iirc the climax of the movie involves megan fox and amanda seyfreid making out even though amanda's character has a boyfriend. libfem shit indeedReally? I'm actually not surprised, from the trailer the camera seemed to eyefuck Fox as much as in Transformers.
>>13662I completely agree with you on this. It's sad to see what female celebrities will do in order to stay relevant in such a predatory male-dominated industry. Of course she is/was celebrated as a feminist icon at some point, how ridiculous.
No. 13721
File: 1681815943377.png (18.16 KB, 699x330, contra comment section.png)
this is from the comment section of contrapoint's latest 2-hour-long whine about JK rowling.
other than stupidity, what do you think the confusion is here for some women? do they really think we're saying that only women with wombs matter? I'm also a woman with endometriosis who has no desire to ever have children (never wanted to and am now in my mid 30s, unlikely to ever change my mind) but that's all the more reason for me to be able to speak about womanhood in relation to my biology. only women can get endometriosis, hysterectomies and anything else that makes them unable to get pregnant. only women can choose NOT to get pregnant (and be judged for it) and there are some places in the world where despite my choice, i might still get raped and have to birth that child. no matter how many of my reproductive organs cease to function or are removed, I will always be a woman and have lived my life experiencing things only a woman can experience, even if I try to pretend I'm not a woman. I have will always have something in common with every TIF, but have nothing in common with TIMs that is related to being a woman (nope, not even the stereotypes of liking makeup and shoes).
I'm guessing this is a result of libfems only seeing what TRAs paint radical + material feminists out to be? that we're all somehow right wing conservative tradwives who think women are baby making machines wtaf? we're not the ones calling women "birthing people". we're not the ones trying to remove the language and community that helped us fight for the rights we have now. I cannot tell if they are deliberately conflating right wing gender traditionalists with gender critical feminists or if the propaganda has really been so effective that women think feminists = nazi.
I'm not even talking about handmaidens here (although these 2 examples may be), but just ordinary women getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. they see radfems talking about female reproductive organs and assume that means we think only women with healthy/functioning/present reproductive system count. It's frustrating.
No. 13804
>>13773I didn't understand why so many TRAs brought this up because it sounded like a blatant lie to me, but later I came across a lot of "gendercrits" working under the radfem label who were gender essentialists hyperfocused on reproduction functionalities, like treating giving birth and breastfeeding as the definite peak female experience. Whenever radfem communities or activists are courting right wingers for "support" because of some "muh fertile mystical lifegiver goddess mommy, zipper tits are degenerate failed women" ideal it's just underlining the fact for any outsider. I know many, many feminist women who actually agree like 99% of all radfem ideas but because of the tranny question and the association with conservative groups they think it's
all about hounding troons and don't want to support them, and who can really blame them? That's like 90% of the discussion found in mainstream surface RF/GC-associated sites like ovarit that people come across, and even there it's bullshit like "all trans people are pedo rapists just like all gay people", not even regarding TIMs but TIFs too. How would one think a woman who only knows the nice, meek HSTSs and the cool lesbian trans men react to that? Especially when the only ounce of sympathy for TIFs is that exact kind of "poor misguided girls who will never breastfeed her baby" horse shit.
It's frustrating beyond comprehension, and anons here need to also understand how the movement is being observed by outsiders if they ever wish to reason with the people who only see them as evil conservative bootlickers obsessed with trannies. My local RF (which is now almost synonymous with "gendercrit") community keeps indiscriminately grabbing bigoted rumors and obvious lies and spreading them just to damage TRAs, only to fall flat on their faces in embarrassment because anyone with a half functioning brain can see that it's not true or is easily proven to be based on a bogus statistic. I'm sorry for sperging about this but I hate that so many amazing ideals that changed my life forever get buried under all this trans sperging.
No. 13813
File: 1681901416017.jpg (129.53 KB, 1050x668, iam-wha-039-0466.jpg)
>>13804I'd argue the opposite, stripping feminism of pretentious academic jargon and neo-liberalism and putting it in the hands of regular women is what will push feminism forward. The collective will of regular working women is better then the recycled farts of bored academics.
No. 13825
>>13821I never said that feminism isn't needed, it very much still is. What I said is that feminists are too fragmented and detached from reality to have any major impact on politics. Women are 50% of the population yet we can't organise into a unified group to protect ourselves. In the west women are seeing their rights eroded and in most of the world women still don't have rights at all. It's bleak.
>>13822>Social conservatism and feminism are inherently incompatible and considering the primary function of women to be broodmares is literal medieval thinkingEmmeline Pankhurst founded the Women's Social and Political Union in 1903. After over 100 years in existence can feminism be classed as a western tradition? Social conservatism is the preservation of existing morals and traditions.
>What the hell is up with the late "ackshually being conservative is beneficial to feminism"The left is failing women so women are looking elsewhere for answers.
>I sure hope none of the "feminists" obsessed with child bearing aren't hypocritically getting their panties in a bunch when TRAs call women menstruators or birthers.Referring to a woman by her biological functions and not as an individual is dehumanizing no matter who is saying it. The lack of empathy for other women displayed in this board is something else.
No. 13831
>>13824>Ultimately, it is up to us as individuals and the masses to define and assign meaning to these principles based on our values, experiences, and understanding of the world around us.That's not how terminology works, you can't just redefine ideologies to your liking. You can't say you're a social conservative, but "accept values considered socially progressive" (such as gay rights, female autonomy, abolishment of gender roles etc.) because that's an oxymoron.
>>13825>Women are 50% of the population yet we can't organise into a unified group to protect ourselves.Really? Did all the progression with female rights come out of nowhere? Were they gracefully admitted to us by the scrotes holding power with no advocation from feminist groups? Get your head out of the gossip forum libfem vs radfem discourse and you'll see that there are large international feminist groups looking out for women globally.
>Social conservatism is the preservation of existing morals and traditions.Uh-huh, social conservatives were the ones denying women the right to vote and to own their own property, and in 2023 they're the ones who want to ban abortion and birth control because all these bitches are taking their jobs and university positions instead of staying home like they should.
>The left is failing women so women are looking elsewhere for answers. Radical feminism is inherently a leftist ideology based on marxism, its other name is literally "marxist feminism". What are you doing in this thread that's literally called "Radfem general"? And if you're so retarded you're lured in by promises of protection by a bunch of rich scrotes who assure you they'll protect you only after they'll get rid of all the trannies and brown people then you'll be in for a big, unpleasant surprise.
>Referring to a woman by her biological functions and not as an individual is dehumanizing no matter who is saying it. That's the point, genius. You can't start going on about how womanhood is all about the ability to become pregnant and then act all hurt when the other side does it.
No. 13836
>>13831Okay let's take the most conventional examples of right and left wing, Fascist Italy and the Yugoslavia, both had strikingly similar women's policies with regards to education, work and treatment of gays
tell me what what made one part of the "left" and the other "right"
No. 13842
>>13831Womanhood is about the ability to become pregnant. Women are treated differently from men because we're the sex that can get pregnant. It's why we're oppressed and why we're so often seen as resources first and people second. Pregnancy is at the root of all the shit that women face as a class, including the poor treatment of infertile and childfree women who are seen as physical and moral failures respectively because they didn't do their job and get pregnant.
When feminists point this out, they're not saying that women should be walking baby factories, they're saying that millennia of us being seen this way has shaped our roles in society and we need to band together and acknowledge it so we can undo it.
No. 13843
>>13830>kek and you think you’re going to find them with conservatives?Obviously not. I never said I condoned it, I pointed out what is happening and why.
>>13831>Really? Did all the progression with female rights come out of nowhere?Read the reply chain.
>>13813>>13819>>13821>>13825
>you'll see that there are large international feminist groups looking out for women globallyAnd what are they actually achieving? I help run a small women's volunteer group, while we can do positive things for women locally, we are unable to do anything on a national or international scale. We have no power to change anything. All we are able to do is react to what has happened to women instead of being able to pressure politicians to enact laws that prevent women from being harmed in the first place.
>Radical feminism is inherently a leftist ideology based on marxism, its other name is literally "marxist feminism". What are you doing in this thread that's literally called "Radfem general"?I never said that I agreed with women looking to the right, it's what is happening. An increasing number of women are becoming tardthots and tradwives because their exposure to feminism is liberal feminism that does not address their concerns and dismisses them as being "right wing". Outside of online spaces radfems have very little presence and some women aren't even aware that there is an alternative to liberal feminism. The right embraces them and does not attempt to censor them. The right will never do anything for them but they are at least prepared to give them a platform. Many women have concerns about troons, sex work and the sexualisation of young girls. Speaking out against any of this is often enough to get a woman labeled as a conservative by libfems. The reality is that these women would be more aligned with radical feminism than the right.
>You can't start going on about how womanhood is all about the ability to become pregnant and then act all hurt when the other side does it.I never defined a woman as being purely her biological function. I simply said that doing so is wrong no matter who is doing it.
No. 13849
>>13842>When feminists point this out, they're not saying that women should be walking baby factoriesThat's the issue here, tradfags sneaking in with regressive values when they're implying that the highest achievement a woman should aim for is to birth kids because "that's what our bodies are made for" and especially fresh radfems agree with it simply because they're too blinded by their hatred for tranny nonsense and are aching for someone to say that women have wombs and vaginas. There's a stark difference in saying "women can give birth" and "women should give birth".
>>13843>And what are they actually achieving?Read the news for once. Or better yet, google it. I'll get you started with the first result.
https://msmagazine.com/2019/12/24/ten-feminist-victories-heard-around-the-world-from-the-last-10-years/
>I never said that I agreed with women looking to the right, it's what is happening. An increasing number of women are becoming tardthots and tradwives because their exposure to feminism is liberal feminism that does not address their concerns and dismisses them as being "right wing".And an increasing number of women think gendercrit ideologies are full of middle class tradmommies having their gay panic moment because they're openly associating with conservative movements, sperg about "the left" not caring about women and sing the praises of openly misogynist conservative players for "giving them a platform". You don't get to complain about the masses of women gravitating towards 4th wave feminism and thinking you're not speaking for them or accusing you of being right wing if you think siding with the people who want to ban abortion or loosen sexual harassment laws is a reasonable. As a feminist I will always defend even the most conservative woman's reproductive rights and the right to her bodily autonomy and will help her when her husband beats her up, but she wouldn't do the same for me. Trying to make feminism more palatable for people like them is useless since it would mean giving up the core values of what female solidarity is.
>Many women have concerns about troons, sex work and the sexualisation of young girls.Sorry to tell you but right wingers are filled with rapists, pedophiles and their enablers and defenders too but I guess because they're not trannies it's okay. As for sex work? I can say with confidence that they will utilize prostitutes just the same, only call them morally devoid whores while doing so.
>Speaking out against any of this is often enough to get a woman labeled as a conservative by libfems. No, saying bonkers shit like "the right embraces us and gives us a platform!!!" is what gets you branded a conservative. They don't "give us a platform", they weaponize cherrypicked gender critical views from us to throw it back in the faces of feminists everywhere regardless of their perspective.
No. 13851
>>13850>pseudo-intellectual academic jargonmakes me think of this. someone posted it to ccc
>Anatomical difference (which is devoid of meaning) is transformed into a relevant social distinction for social practice. Social practice, and social practice alone, transforms a physical fact (which is devoid of meaning, like all physical facts) into a category of thought.>And this is one of the very problems: the line between shared experiences based on "sex" and shared experiences based on the social meaning of sex (period stigma, for example) is virtually nonexistent, because experiences are always going to have a social dimension. And it's fine…>…and in fact important to talk about the social meaning attached to sex, but you also need to be aware of the fact that all our ideas about sex are ultimately gendered or you're gonna end up naturalizing something that is social… and getting WAY too fixated on ontologyno wonder they are the way they are if this how their minds work. all this useless, frilly, wordy bullshit to say absolutely nothing
No. 13854
>>13849>Read the news for onceThere's two actual victories in this. Protesting without achieving anything is not a victory, celebrating anything "feminist" happening at the UN is an oxymoron because the UN openly advocates for sex with minors and holding up Greta Thunberg as an example of feminism is retarded because she is nothing but a meme.
>sperg about "the left" not caring about women and sing the praises of openly misogynist conservative players for "giving them a platform".I am not right wing, I am making an observation. Critique is not an attack, it's necessary to improve and progress any movement. Like it or not the current left has embraced censorship. Criticism of transgenderism being a perfect example. Anyone who questions that trans agenda is not given a platform on mainstream leftist media, while TERFs are appearing on Tucker Carlson.
>You don't get to complain about the masses of women gravitating towards 4th wave feminismWhere am I complaining about women being drawn towards feminism? My complaint is that women aren't being drawn towards feminism and are instead being taken advantage of by the right.
>sing the praises of openly misogynist conservative playersI have done no such thing, I'm making an observation of what is happening and lamenting that it is happening.
>Trying to make feminism more palatable for people like them is useless since it would mean giving up the core values of what female solidarity is.Excluding women is not female solidarity
>Sorry to tell you but right wingers are filled with rapists, pedophiles and their enablers and defenders tooTrue but the difference is that the right claims to be against it while the left openly advocates for it. Normal women that aren't invested in feminist spaces are not aware of what is really happening and take the media at face value. The media actively covers up the illegal activities of politicians on both the left and the right.
>No, saying bonkers shit like "the right embraces us and gives us a platform!!!"But that's what's happening and it's an intentional tactic of the right.
>what gets you branded a conservativeAnd that's the problem. I'm not right wing and I have made no right wing statements or condoned the right, yet I'm a conservative for making observations. If women keep being told that they are conservative, they will eventually believe it. Censorship is cancer because it does not change views and opinions, it solidifies them and alienates people. Falsehoods should be refuted and the truth should be acknowledged.
>They don't "give us a platform", they weaponize cherrypicked gender critical views from us to throw it back in the faces of feminists everywhereExactly and it's working.
No. 13866
>>13819they can either choose to recruit numbers of girls/women or they can choose to remain insular and purity spiral among themselves.
the fact remains that males are beyond dangerous so they are best avoided but when the person telling you this is also slinging around "come brain" alongside of other demeaning sentiments and/or mocking mistreated women the recipient is going to turn away from banding with other females.
No. 13869
>>13854the person that was replying to you was boxing at shadows. immediately assuming the worst out of your words and assuming things about you that she had no basis to assume.
the trouble with communicating with other women about feminism is often they are talking when their flight/fight/freeze/fawn switch is set to ON.
No. 13870
>>13868that's your response? the reality is internet interactions have become real life, to phrase it in clunky but accurate wording. your reaction to what I am talking about is not going to land with the majority of women.
when women wake up to how misogyny underpins the basic fabric of all human civilization(s) it is like waking up into a nightmare instead of out of one and the nightmare doesn't end. it is very possible to take a long, long time to begin to understand the nature of how deep misogyny goes. that's the point of it. they do not want women to ever understand the full situation and that is why it can take an eternity to wake up.
so when you have a woman that's woken up and she is met with the purity spiraling behavior online (because, now there is nearly nowhere in the physical world to discuss actual feminism or else one runs the risk of enraging the trans mob) and intense contempt what do you think she is going to do? of course, you do not have to give a fuck about that. that's easy to do and many do just that. sure, it is a vent or can be a venting session but it is venting about how much hatred they have for their fellow women.
again, they can either recruit for numbers (meaning, to not tear down other women that are NOT actively harming girls and women) or they can keep their secret cool club mentality. if someone/a group self-identifies as feminist but acts like they cannot stand their own sex women are going to not be interested.
No. 13879
File: 1681976201035.jpg (69.84 KB, 640x363, comedycte.jpg)
>>13870Seriously, this whole 'radfem enlightenment' thing is so sad, you act like you're better than everyone else just because you read some books by old, boring intellectuals. It's like those LA comedians who call regular people 'civilians' - so cringe. Let's be real, janitor has probably done more for women than any of those radfem intellectuals ever have. So, chill out and don't take it so seriously.
No. 13888
>>13879in my post here:
>>13870I was speaking against being incredibly insular and fixated on being ideologically pure to the point of hating other women that are not actively harming girls/women.
No. 14116
File: 1682365162632.jpeg (157.76 KB, 750x993, BB1B279F-1AAC-4170-BDA3-1CEDCD…)
Who is she talking about?
No. 14139
File: 1682430030948.jpg (27.62 KB, 720x535, FVgf2D1UcAgsN8B.jpg)
>>13359>>13567I find spiritual rafems to be kind of weird because they seem to switch back and forth between sounding like conservative tardwives and actual feminists all within a few seconds, I was just listening to this radfem radio show/podcast(WLRN Episode 83) and one of the things that really stood out was how one of guests invited switched between sounding like an extreme tardwife and radfem within within seconds and it was pretty wild. Here are some interesting things she said.
>calls her womb space her spiritual place >Some Freudian explanation men are misogynists cause they can't accept they came from women, which would we be admitting inferiority>admitting she washes her plants with her own period blood I cut her part in the show, you can check it yourself
https://files.catbox.moe/zcje4a.mp3 No. 14529
File: 1682879832556.png (23.82 KB, 1060x540, Screenshot 15.png)
Don't know if this belongs here since there isn't a new radfem cows I don't know where else to post, Ovarit.com is currently undergoing major changes. the user base consisted mostly of women aged 30-40 who were mostly regular liberals, with some leaning towards conservatism. However, in the past year or so, the platform has seen a demographic shift with more Twitter radfems joining. Even some of the older feminist users are struggling with the Twitter radfems fetishization of revolution and the new slang being used. Additionally, there has been an increase in unironic fujos
No. 14545
File: 1682930922480.jpg (105.2 KB, 960x1049, 20230501_101446.jpg)
This is so repulsive. I'm tired of my radfem mutuals sharing babylonbee just because they shit on troons
No. 14547
File: 1682944157463.jpg (254.73 KB, 1200x848, FCk6lUtXoAoWdAS.jpg)
>>14532Western "intellectuals" should not be taken seriously. Anyone calling for a violent left wing revolution or a civil war in the US, needs to get off the internet and spend more time outside in reality. This map breaks down why.
No. 14551
File: 1682955927841.jpeg (10.89 KB, 259x194, 48F5E2E8-BCDA-4DE9-9DCA-03A85A…)
>>14547Republicans derive most of their support from rural area voters. However, few people live in rural areas compared to cities. The vast majority of people in the United States live in urban areas.
Population density must be taken into account when looking at election results. A map of precincts won by a particular party is not the same as a map of the popular vote.
No. 14555
>>14547A lefty revolution would fail, but not because of that map. Most of the red are states that are essentially shitholes with a population of hay. NYC alone has more people living in it than some of those states.
The
nonnie here
>>14553 makes a better point. A sizable chunk of lefties today are twitter-revolutionaries who can't even ask for extra ketchup at McDonalds without their heartbeat racing.
No. 14557
>>14551AYRT. You're missing the point. In a civil war the blue cities would quickly be surrounded and besieged. The rural areas are where food is produced and where utilities such as power plants and reservoirs are located. The right would be able to completely cut off urban areas from power and water, as well as block food from being brought in. If anything higher population density cities would suffer more in such a scenario as law and order would quickly break down and without basic hygiene supplies disease would also be serious risk.
>>14555>A lefty revolution would fail, but not because of that map.The areas that are controlled by the right would be the deciding factor in a civil war because it enables them to surround and lay siege to cities, control movement of resources and control utilities.
No. 15108
Sorry if this doesn't go here, but I kinda need to vent right now.
The past 4 years left-wing political parties have been doing a bunch of shit in my country, like creating "trans laws", laws to change how justice will deal with domestic abuse and rapes, etc. Feminists were not happy with all these laws, especially radfems, and that's understandable. Most of them felt betrayed.
And today my country held local elections. The conservative parties won and the left-wing political parties lost a bunch of votes.
I know what happened is 100% the fault of left-wing supporters. I hate how we keep creating small political parties nobody gives a shit about, just because left-wing people can't bother to reach agreements between themselves. No. We need a political party for each one of us. Right.
Then you look at right-wing parties and there's like… two of them? And right-wing people vote them always, all their life. They don't go around making small political right-wing parties that catter to their very specific needs.
I go to Twitter and all I see is radfems laughing at how the well known/bigger left-wing parties are not getting enough support. Bitch, wtf? I know those left-wing politicians are pro-trans, but wtf? I very much prefer living in a country that is pro-trans, but where at least abortion is legal and homosexuality is not a sin. We even have a far right-wing party that is starting to get more and more support each year. And you are laughing? Stop laughing, this is no joke. These women are so naïve is insane. If you read their recent tweets about the elections you would mistake them for far right-wing supporters, because they are using the same fucking vocabulary and insults. Fuck off. You don't have the right to call yourself a radfem. You keep throwing shit at your own roof.
I sometimes get depressed when I look at the political state of my country. I hate how we have a far right political party that is getting more supporters. I hate it so much. But what I hate the most is how feminists can't fucking agree to do something together and fight all the conservative shit in this fucking country. It's not difficult at all, ffs.
>inb4 i'm right-wing and radfem!1!1!!!
this is not about you, retard. also, i don't fucking care.
No. 15113
>>15108nonnie are u also from Spain? I think also what happened is that Podemos is such an embarrassment to politics and a lot of people started to realize this after the new trans laws and the Solo si es si (I think they dissappeared from Madrid, Valencia and Bcln afaik)
And honestly as much as I hate the conservative parties here I hate the way that podemos dealt with any criticism and how they thought they could just get away with everything. Im not sad to see them go after seeing how they cape so hard for the trans movement (SPECIALLY trans women, since you never heard them mention trans men, I wonder why kek)
No. 15114
File: 1685326620973.png (6.62 KB, 721x162, Captura de pantalla (1541).png)
>>15113Yes,
nonnie I'm from Spain!! (I guess I should keep talking in English, I didn't post this in the Feminismo Hispano thread because it didn't had much traffic and I think the two or three nonas there are from latam)
>Podemos is such an embarrassment to politics and a lot of people started to realize this>Im not sad to see them go after seeing how they cape so hard for the trans movementYes, totally. As I said, most radfems felt betrayed by Podemos, me included. So yeah, I'm not sad to see them dissapear, but I think radfems were wrong about casting null votes or refusing to vote. In doing that, they favored the right-wing parties. Like, in Valencia? Vox is going to end up collaborating with PP to get absolute majority. Fucking Vox. This wouldn't have happened if we didn't have quatrizillion left-wing political parties dividing left-wingers and feminists went to vote.
Radfems on twitter keep talking about how they did this so they can "create a better left uwu". There's no "better left", because left-wingers are never happy. Like, literally, someone was posting about how she was casting a null vote because the left wing government was not fixing a particular issue she was unhappy about and I was like "wtf, so you are going to favor right-wingers then?".
I'm sorry I'm rambling so much, but I feel so frustrated and anxious about what happened. I don't want Vox in the government, I would prefer a tranny president over fucking Santiago Abascal any day.
No. 15579
File: 1686074543973.png (56.92 KB, 959x751, Screenshot.png)
So, I get hating men and I get ranting against them, but I don't understand the strange denial of reality that a small number of radfems meme themselves into believing. They claim that women are just as physically strong as men, and can even be stronger, and that female athletes don't have the correct mentality because they don't compete against men and beat them. these radfemds(who aren't typically known for being sporty), claim to know more than actual female athletes and trainers because they simply regurgitate the theories of women studies professors from the 1970s
No. 15741
Have you all seen this Youtube content creator named Princella/The High Powered podcast?
https://youtube.com/@TheQueenMakerShe’s built quite a following using a lot of radfem talking points like how men are incapable of love and female separatism to people that haven’t heard them before but she acts like she’s the first one to ever come up with those concepts. When people point out that those radfem talking points have been around for a long time and mention other radfem activists, she gets really defensive and angry. She did a 30 minute segment in one of her videos angry about another woman “copying her work” even though she’s just been regurgitating radfem talking points herself.
Now she’s doing videos on how women should have compassion for men because of their suicide rates and how they’re
victims of patriarchy, leboohoo. She’s even mentioned before how she wants to talk to Jordan Peterson and she’s doing an interview with Charleston White who admitted to graping women. I think that she’s an egotistical charlatan. Maybe I’m not ~*enlightened*~ enough to understand her. She seems to use a lot of woo and
toxic positivity concepts too.
She’s one of those types where if anybody says anything contrary to her, she’ll immediately deflect and say that the person is in their ego so it’s a “them” problem, not her. I am happy radfem talking points are getting out there again, but not like this.
No. 15758
>>15757Oh my goodness, Nona. Thank you so much for replying and validating how I’ve been feeling about her. It’s been swirling around in my head the past couple of days, making me question if I’m interpreting her correctly because I’ve been getting really bad feelings from the way she has been acting when she’s presented with opposing viewpoints and from her spouting woo concepts. I’m not very good at articulating things like this but I knew something was off.
The fact that she’s making people question their reality is a bad sign in and of itself. She’s gaslighting people and she set up an environment where people have to walk around on eggshells and can’t speak out against her. Sounds like an
abusive and manipulative person to me, despite her claiming she’s all about love and positivity.
I’ve been watching her for a couple months too. I started to see red flags, like her slowly introducing woo concepts like the law of attraction and other
victim blaming type of spirituality like “you choose your parents” and “like attracts like”. It removes all accountability to the people who do bad things and like every good cult-like idea, it has defense baked into its foundations. "Oh, it didn’t work for you? That's your fault, you must not be believing hard enough." Same with her with her just immediately running to the “you’re just operating in your ego” excuse to shut down any discourse or criticism about her.
> If not having compassion for males that commit femicide or grape or anything like that means I’m “moving in hate” and not “spiritually enlightened” then oh well.THIS, so much. Thank you for putting it into words. I feel the same way. I actually was a paid member and I cancelled my subscription today over it. I’m done with her.
No. 15761
>>15758Aw nonna you’re welcome. Good on you for not just falling in line like most of the viewers did, it is totally cult-like as you said. I think a major problem is how there are so few voices online that actually put forth separatist ideals, so when we see one, we get excited and think maybe someone finally gets us. But sadly we have to always keep our guard up and treat everyone with suspicion.
Women shouldn’t be told they need to let go of their anger about male violence. Society actually needs MORE anger at things like that. If anger is “spiritually low” or is going to prevent me from “ascending spiritually” then something is clearly wrong with the spirit world. It’s ridiculous how mystical types act like no one should feel anything other than peacefulness and love, much like how wrath is a sin in Christianity. I also noticed her express anti-vaxx stuff, which lines up with the woo. Your feelings are totally reasonable, don’t feel bad at all, nonna.
No. 15815
File: 1687008323067.png (34.5 KB, 800x896, PA.png)
This is sadly accurate.
No. 16021
>>15941>NonconLel this libfem meme of a euphemism for violently assaulting someone
>What’s your opinion on dark romance books?>(aka rape), assault, violence, kidnapping…They're fine if they only involve the rape and dismemberment of males
No. 16212
File: 1688772814189.jpg (122.74 KB, 830x434, Screenshot_20230707-163003_Fac…)
>>16175Things like this always go to show that people who hate TERFs have never actually talked to one
, ever. This was on a post about how a woman was letting her gross husband cum on her blanket all the time. Someone said she must be a
TERF because TERFs let men get away with anything. Many TERFs actually hate men, which is why we hate TIMs. These handmaidens never have any idea what they're talking about.
No. 16587
>>16212To be fair it's hard to argue with stuff like this when "
TERF" groups are constantly astroturfed by tradtards who think Matt Walsh is going to save us from the trannies. True radical feminists are becoming a minority in their own spaces.
No. 16713
>>15108> I very much prefer living in a country that is pro-trans, but where at least abortion is legal and homosexuality is not a sin.That's because you're an intelligent person capable of evaluating tradeoffs and recognizing, correctly, that there is no outcome where women losing abortion rights or gay people being pushed back into the shadows is good. It makes me livid to see the ovarit losers in the US talking about how they're not voting for dems, shitty as they are, because of the trans shit. The right wing literally wants to get rid of abortion and no-fault divorce to force women back into being shackled to shitty men and pumping out babies. Trans are a miniscule portion of the population. Way more women in my life have had to deal with abortion and divorce than mtfs in women's spaces.
Trans shit has absolutely colonized feminist spaces, either in handmaidenry or reeing about how it's the number one issue women are facing. I swear I can't go a single day without someone bringing up being for against transgender shit. When I think about the major issues women face (poverty, domestic violence, unfair/uncompensated domestic/emotional/care labor, general reproductive justice), the amount of oxygen that trans shit takes up is dumb. Yes, the ideology is a big problem for talking about women's health and force-teaming women and mtfs/trying to tell autistic and lesbian women that they're not really women. But we have to prioritize if we actually care about liberating women. I'd rather collaborate with some he/they autistic female to protect abortion than team up with forced-birthers to remove gender identity from the law. Most trans ideology problems are cultural anyway. You can't legislate away people on tumblr or Tiktok talking about their microgenders. That work has to be bottom-up with solely feminist principles, no right-wing interference at all.
No. 16728
>>16587Exactly, especially since many of them self describe as TERFs. The other day I saw some "
TERF" caping for Desantis on Twitter. I wish the larpers would fuck off instead of showing up and destroying our credibility with their half-baked politics.
No. 18130
>>18117NTA but I
hate how the word radfem is being coopted by other groups and is being watered down to just mean 'anything someone thinks is transphobic'. We're so much more than that and gender critical beliefs are only a small corner of our fight. I swear the internet has made this problem so much worse.
No. 18765
File: 1691684320858.png (298.22 KB, 957x1532, radical feminism 2.png)
What is radical femininsm to nonas, really? I was under the impression it was simply acknowledging the female sex exists, and all oppression stems from that fact. But I lurk tranny servers (this is from a Utena server where everyone has pronouns in their d/n as you can see) and they speak of radical feminism like it's some self-defeating circle…one mostly centered around males
No. 18769
>>18765>What is radical femininsm to nonas, really?From Wikipedia: "radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. Radical feminists view society as fundamentally a patriarchy in which men dominate and oppress women." This is a universal definition, which applies to everyone who calls herself a radical feminist. However, where radfems differ and can't agree on is how the liberation from patriarchal norms, culture, standards and roles will be achieved. Many believe that men's behavior as we see it now is inherent to them. Those radfems tend to advocate for separatism. But there are also those who believe that men's misogynistic tendencies stem from socialization and culture, and that changing laws and shifting cultural standards will fix the problem.
Personally, I agree with the she/her user in the screencap, it's men's nature, not nurture, so trying to collaborate with them on any level can only result in minimal or temporary changes. Males promise but don't deliver, or they deliver but take it away (referencing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which didn't even get the backlash it deserved).
>and they speak of radical feminism like it's some self-defeating circle…one mostly centered around malesRadical feminism is exclusively centered around women, and is the only branch of feminism afaik that does not even welcome men to be members of the movement.
No. 18771
>>18765>What is radical femininsm to nonas, really?In a technical sense, I understand radical feminism as a branch of feminism that derived much of its ideological bedrock from Marxism and borrowed liberatory strategies from other contemporaneous leftist movements such as the Black separatist movement. Marx spoke on how women are exploited for reproductive and domestic labor, and this informed radical feminist concepts of how patriarchy functions and maintains itself. Whittled away to its barest essentials, it's about liberating women from patriarchy, which is conceptualized as a system with a beneficiary class (men) and an exploited class (women). What differentiated radical feminism from pre-existing feminist movements was its willingness to name male supremacy for what it is, and its insistence on taking radical action to dramatically re-order society and destroy patriarchy.
Proposed solutions varied quite a lot, and this did (and still does) lead to a lot of infighting, but the idea that radical feminism was a "failure" is pretty dubious and bad faith imo. No leftist movement has ever been successful at completely accomplishing its goals, but people love to leave "you didn't destroy patriarchy in the two decades you were active" at radical feminists' feet while ignoring the very real successes it accomplished for women. If that's the metric we're using, no movement has ever been successful, and that renders this person's entire argument pretty malicious and bad faith to me.
>and they speak of radical feminism like it's some self-defeating circle They love to frame radical feminism as self-cannibalizing because radical feminists rather famously believe(d) that "the personal is political" and therefore women can and should take personal action within their lives to support and uplift other women. This did (and again, still does) lead to a lot of friction among women because personal action can mean anything from "buy from woman-owned businesses" and "abort your male fetus." The nurture vs. nature debate is long-standing, and this person is right that you can slip into a self-defeating mentality because if males are just inherently evil and there's nothing to be done…then there's nothing to be done, that's where your movement stops. The human race cannot continue without males, so killing them all is not viable, nor is enslaving them (and that's putting aside most women would obviously not be fine with this.) But in modern times this is called being "blackpilled," and it's hardly a default radical feminist position. If it was, there wouldn't be so much literature on different strategies for liberation. Many radical feminists did believe it was nurture, and some believed it was a combination of both (but that nature could be curbed by nurture, or at least laws.) Some believed that the nurture was so powerful because we are so deeply steeped in patriarchy, it may as well be nature, and this is part of why many women started to separate. Even if it is fixable, oppressors aren't generally interested in ceding their power, and so the amount of class consciousness it would take to dismantle patriarchy in a systemic way was just not achievable, hence many of them just living on communes away from men.
There are a lot of modern day "radfems" who have never read theory and don't subscribe to radical feminist ideology in any meaningful way beyond tranny bashing (which wasn't even a lockstep position during radical feminism's heyday) and calling women whores (would certainly be frowned upon by OG radical feminists), but I chalk this up to social media brainrot. There are women on here who disparage radical feminists and everything they stood for while proudly identifying themselves as radfems. I don't necessarily affiliate with radical feminism because so many self described radfems treat it like a fandom (and are allergic to actually learning anything), but this Utena server person obviously has an axe to grind, and based on the pronouns, I think it's rather obvious why.
No. 18775
>>18772As far as I'm aware, we have not achieved parthenogenesis or two females having children together without the assistance of sperm from males. I just looked it up again and there's buzz about preliminary studies, potential experiments, etc., but absolutely zero cases of this actually being implemented in humans, much less successfully. This article is from 2020 and confirms they haven't even been able to successfully do this in mice yet (as the offspring generally die very quickly or are born with defects):
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-slow-march-toward-the-first-same-sex-couple-to-have-a-baby but of course if there's some news story I am not aware of, feel free to share it.
It's very possible they will figure it out, but even if they do, we are just not going to be rolling out this tech quickly or affordably enough to replace males, at least not for a very, very long time. Further, many women are attracted to men and would not want to live on an all-female planet, simple as. I'm not one of those women (I am a lesbian who trends towards separatism), but attaching moral dimensions to sexual orientation is what gave rise to political lesbianism, and those women truly could not reverse conversion therapy themselves no matter how badly they wanted to. And even if they could, you are just never going to convince billions of women to let their male friends and family die, or convince them that it would make for a better society if those men didn't exist.
The "all female world" concept is a niche thought experiment that is wholly divorced from reality and what the vast majority of women actually want. It is so impractical for so many reasons it boggles my mind that anyone has actually tried to organize around it. It's a dead end and we need to put our energy into actually engaging with the reality we live in. And the reality is 99% of women don't actually want men to disappear, they just want their oppression to end.
Society could technically continue without males–IF we developed tech for women to have children without them, IF this tech was widely accessible, and IF billions of women agreed to eliminate the demographic they are attracted to and is full of their loved ones. And even IF all that was accomplished, it would still take a long ass time. These are not arbitrary hurdles, they are enormous gulfs that make this whole idea so impractical that it doesn't make sense to seriously propose it as a solution. I also don't see the point in building a world that other women wouldn't want to live in.
No. 18791
File: 1691766192421.png (522.6 KB, 452x678, shulman.png)
>>18765This person seems to have read a handful of feminist texts but doesn't actually understand anything. OG Radical feminists don't believe that men are inherently bad; if anything, they believed that men and women are much more similar than everyone thought at the time. Reading Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin and even Germaine Greer you see they were invested in the idea that men and women are not that different. Greer thinks women don't actually have more fat than men and that male scientists are just biased because they want "cuddly" women. Remember sex science in the 70s was way less advanced than it is today, so a lot of feminists thought/hoped that men and women weren't actually that different and women might be able to catch up with men physically. Firestone hoped we would have artificial wombs one day to free women from the burden of pregnancy and childbirth. This is not consistent with the idea that "men are biologically evil" at all. Both Firestone and (early) Dworkin advocate for the idea that in the future, men and women will be more similar than different and we'll live in a bisexual world. The only 'blackpill' to them was the idea that society had gotten so misogynistic that it would take centuries to undo all the harm.
Secondly, radical feminism didn't 'fail'. A lot of its points simply got absorbed into the mainstream. The idea that violence against women is one of the major ways by which men control women is a radical feminist idea. The idea that women's history is worth studying and that "feminine traits" should be reevaluated independently from men was a radical feminist idea. The idea that women should focus on female friendships is a radical feminist idea. Libfems can talk about how much they hate men and how sisterhood is good and how rape is a serious issue and how we live in a misogynistic society because radical feminists pushed the overton window.
The place where radical feminism failed is arguably too ahead of its time. The anti-porn movement was made at a time when porn was something only weird perverts watched, so the idea that porn would become mainstream and something everyone would be exposed to felt bizarre. Also, radical feminists were interested in reclaiming female sexuality (see Germaine Greer), so the idea of being anti-porn took a while to develop. Now that we live in a world where porn is everywhere, this critique of porn is far more poignant. I won't mention female separatism because that's part of lesbian feminism which was not actually a part of radical feminism and the two camps were often at odds.
The next time somebody makes these sweeping points about radical feminism, ask them which specific BOOKS they read. If it's a book summarizing feminist history, ignore them, because the amount of historical revisionism about second wave feminism is insane. Ask them - which specifics books BY radical feminists have they read? Woman-hating by Dworkin? The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer? The Redstockings manifesto? If they can't tell you, ignore them, because their exposure to radical feminism is likely just the terminally online people on Tumblr (who also don't know anything about OG radical feminism) or liberal 'histories' of feminism that treat radical feminism as a side chapter.
If you actually want to learn about the history of feminism through the ORIGINAL WRITINGS of the time, I recommend picrel. It has writings from a wide variety of feminists from the 60s to modern day. It opened my eyes to how many lies I'd been told about feminist history. The idea that feminism "only" focused on white middle class women? A lie, there are countless references to the Civil Rights movement, socialism, even Vietnam. Feminism was deeply tied with other radical social movements of the time. (Obviously since a lot of the writers are middle class white women who went to college, they don't do the best job of covering other topics. But they definitely brought them up and tried, even when they failed.) And all the excerpts are from the time period. If you're ready for more critical reading, I also recommend 'Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars' by Finn Mackay. Finn wrote a book on radical feminism, and although she's definitely in the gender waters now, she absolutely knows her stuff about the history of feminism and radical feminism specifically.
No. 18799
>>18791>A lot of its points simply got absorbed into the mainstream. Ntayrt but I forgot to mention this in my comment and I think it's really important to emphasize this. Many women have radical feminists ideas rolling around in their heads and aren't aware that they are radical feminist concepts (and would likely be put off if they knew), and that's incredibly important and impressive given how thoroughly radical feminism has been misrepresented (even by self proclaimed radfems.)
However,
>I won't mention female separatism because that's part of lesbian feminism which was not actually a part of radical feminism and the two camps were often at odds.I think this is a tenuous position. Lesbian feminism was formed by radical femists due to discontent with their alienation within the movement, hence why many of them incorporated radical feminism into their names and theories (such as "Radicalesbians".) Many lesbian feminists perceived their movement as being located within radical feminism, not outside of it, and it's why major lesbian feminist theorists such as Audre Lorde, Mary Daly, and Adrienne Rich additionally called themselves radical feminists/radical lesbian feminists, have been recorded as radical feminists in historical documentation, are remembered as radical feminist theorists, etc.
I think there's something to be said for a "flattening" of radical feminism, an almost purposeful ignorance of variance of thought within the movement (such as differing beliefs on the ethics of butch/femme and female masculinity in general), but these schools of thought were so intimately interwoven it feels odd to try and separate them as being mutually exclusive/differentiated to such a degree we can no longer identify separatism as a radical feminist idea. Even when reading lesbian feminist writings, they frame their disagreements as ones with other radical feminists as a cohort rather than a wholly separated camp.
Sorry to autistically fixate on this one sentence out of a very well-thought out and articulate comment, I just hesitate to go so far as to say that the lesbian feminist theory that emerged from radical feminism as a movement was different, rather than related, and part of broader intra-community discourse.
That said, I have not read the book in your picrel, and have it in my cart right now (thank you for the recommendation, even if it was for someone else!), so it's very possible it will change my attitude on the topic.
No. 18827
What do other anons feel about the Madonna-Whore complex? I don't know what to call it, but there's a highly insane percentage of men who internalize this shit it's surprising to know of a man without a Madonna-Whore complex. There's also men out there who don't think their issue is sexual, but deep down, it pretty much is. They're more likely to give into it when they're depressed or extremely stressed. I don't doubt many men have these behaviors come to light in darkness and they're ashamed to be associated with it, but it's the truth. They're only genuinely nice to women they view as wife material or attractive, but when it comes to lust, all those core values are thrown out the window. Only the personally unattractive women and "women" could fuel this impulse, because the respectable women in their lives could not be such a sinful thing. The non-sexual side of it, a man could internalize the thought that a respectable woman shouldn't be tainted in some way, so he shouldn't taint her and would rather interact with those who are already tainted or are easily disposable.
People say this is a complex present in narcissists, which I can see as true, but I believe it also extends to those without narcissistic traits, such as the non-sexual part of it. The whole "This is Your Brain on Porn" where exposure to porn affects all relationships in life and even if you don't like watching porn at all. This shit runs so deep.
Many of my relationship issues surrounded the Madonna-Whore complex to some degree.
I had an ex who trooned out, one of the more ultimate ways to objectify women, he just decided he could easily "become" one to satisfy his desires.
I had another ex who was so sex/porn addicted, we wouldn't have sex for months. He would go out of his way to have sex with escorts and would donate to multiple women creating porn online. Within our long term relationship, he dropped over $11,000 to fuel his addiction. Meanwhile, we would be struggling to pay bills, barely ever spent time together, etc. This guy was a narcissist.
My current relationship, his Madonna-Whore complex was so extreme, he would reach out to types of women he wasn't sexually or romantically attracted to, with extreme mental illnesses and white, and men who objectify themselves as feminine anonymously. In his head, these interactions weren't sexual but more of a form of escapism, but this was something he kept a semi-secret from me, because he knew if I knew what he was actually doing, I wouldn't like it. When he was younger, he admitted he once had sex with a stranger, and had a moment of "what am I doing with my life" realization after it happened and called his friend in the middle of a panic attack to tell him he fucked up so bad while the woman was asleep on the other side of the room. During this relationship, I would struggle with not being sexually satisfied and not feeling like I was being cared for. He says, because I'm so unique, perfect, mature, and caring, being with anyone else wouldn't make him as ever happy as he's ever felt being with me. This mistake will forever haunt him. From my previous relationship, I made it an effort to tell my boyfriend when I felt sexually aroused and when I wanted him to hold me and touch me, but he would majority of the time push back with being stressed from everyday life, yet he had these fits in that stress where he would go out of his way, for hours in a day, to anonymously interact with people who fundamentally have no value to his everyday life.
How could we get men to recognize this shit is ruining their lives and their futures? Moreover, the non-sexual side of the whore complex as well, because that also affects the sexual side altogether? How early can we get boys and men to overcome this?
Overall, how can this be resolved so other women will not have to become victim to this complex at any degree, now and in the future? How can we have fulfilling long term relationships with men? Many of us want to be mothers, how can we secure a relationship when this complex exists?
Is the only way men can overcome this is to associate with men who have overcome that complex and who outwardly speak of the dangers of having such mindset?
No. 18844
File: 1691891822531.png (22.23 KB, 772x207, dworkinquote.png)
>>18827The Madonna-Whore complex is most obvious in how men view escorts, women in porn, etc. As in, they see these women as disgusting, damaged, and not worth "bringing home to mama," but will still gladly sexually gratify himself to her exploitation. This is a core mechanism of patriarchy and how we socially understand women's sexualities: women must be sexually available, but if they are, they are garbage. This is because women are objects to be owned and prizes to be won–if you do not see women as fully fledged individuals with interiority, it makes perfect sense as to why they simultaneously desire and revile sex workers, to the point those women's lives are valued less than a farm animal's. The core problem is the way men refuse to see women's humanity. A woman is either a sex object or she is a potential wife, but she cannot be both, and neither one of these archetypes allow her to be a full person. In one of your examples, you point out a man who almost seems to view it as escapism–this is extremely telling because it further proves he sees them as fantasy, unreal in some way, intangible and therefore not worth respecting.
It would be easy to think women becoming Madonnas–virginal until marriage, submissive, and existing only for a man to fully understand himself as one–would resolve this, but it won't. This cannot be resolved without a dramatic dismantling of patriarchy, which would require dissolving marriage's power as an institution and abolishing porn altogether. Marriage was constructed as a way for a man to own his wife like property, not to join with her as an equal partner. That's why it was (and still is) legal in many parts of the world for him to beat, rape, and torture her. The false choice here helps women perpetuate their own suffering; many are convinced that if they can just become a Madonna, they can escape the dehumanization of the whore, but this is fruitless. In many cases, the husband will compartmentalize his attraction to women and his hatred of them, relegating the Madonna to domestic labor while seeking sexual labor from the whore.
Dworkin wrote on this in "Right Wing Women" (picrel), noting that many women are not aware of how false a choice this is. The Madonna and the whore both judge each other. The Madonna wonders how the Whore can accept being treated like she's for sale (an object), and the Whore wonders how the Madonna can accept being treated like she's property (an object). It's a Catch-22, an unwinnable, cruel game that women are expected to play within patriarchy, and the only individual way to opt out is, well, to opt out. Dworkin also argues in "Pornography: Men Possessing Women" that within patriarchy, women are just a "thing" while men are granted the privilege of humanity. Women are located within, not outside of, male ego.
She wrote, "Woman is not born: she is made. In the making, her humanity is destroyed. She becomes symbol of this, symbol of that: mother of the earth, slut of the universe; but she never becomes herself because it is forbidden for her to do so." And I think it sums up what I think pretty well.
No. 18847
>>18827>it's surprising to know of a man without a Madonna-Whore complexMen created the Madonna-Whore box around women. The men these days don't even understand the Madonna-Whore cage, but the know they inherited it from many years of patriarchy and still use it, despite feminism tearing it down a lot the past century. It's their cage. It was completely made on purpose to steer us into either being wives to serve them or sex workers to serve them. Notice you can't be a normal girl who just wants to have some sex here and there. That can't exist in their paradigm.
It does not benefit any man when a woman is completely free like that. When we are free like that, they learn they must actually perform, like earing money, looking good, or behaving better. Men must become competitive to a win a woman's heart, which is the natural order of things. Just look at nature and how male animals must perform and impress the woman or literally have his genes die off.
>How do we fix this erosion of normal relationships?It is actually being fixed right now. That's what incels are perpetually whining about. They're so mad we have choice and nature's order is going back to what it was. We will not choose the obvious low effort men and they know they're genetic dead ends. It's why they hate intelligent women who understand all of this and why they perpetually try to dehumanize, hoping we'll believe we're lessers or like dogs or property when we're literally fixing a natural order system to remove bad DNA that the ancient patriarchy fucked up. They are terrified knowing they must do their best (which, their choice, they choose not to do) or they will die alone.
No. 18881
>>18827There was one Jordan Peterson video I agreed with is how intelligent women are single for longer in their lifetime and it's a good thing because she's weeding out the retarded men who try to approach her and the ones she dates who she realizes she's not compatible with. He said this to Mikhaila and she agreed.
With regards to incels, a lot of them could be smart, but they don't like the fact that just any woman wouldn't want to date them, especially a woman with a similar or higher intelligence as them. A woman having her own boundaries and making radical life altering decisions frustrates these men who are subconsciously expecting her to be instantly submissive, when he can hardly even prove he's trustworthy enough to be relied on.
Just thinking about it, so many intelligent men these days are too afraid to do anything, they'll point the finger at everything except themselves for the reason why they can't keep long term relationships.
No. 18918
>>18883>Especially ones that involve only one woman, it makes me even angrier for themWhy? These women are willing
victims and masochistic to put up with this abuse and casual degradation. All we can do as women is nudge them into the right direction, if they are stupid enough to drink troon, violent male and libfem koolaid there is nothing you can feasibly do to undo this when they are secure in their masochism. What do you gain by yelling into the void and becoming "angry" over their willing exploitation? I understand this sentiment over things that are truly out of the
victims control like human trafficking and child abuse but these are adult people who choose to live like this. Its not your job to teach masochistic women to see themselves as human nor save them with a false martyr complex. These women play stupid games and consequently win stupid prizes.
>They're(the women) usually the ones who are too good for these men
>Men will literally convince a woman to bring in another man in the relationship instead of being mature and working on himself to be the man the woman is expecting him to be.This is not radically feminist at all, like the Madonna whore complex anons text wall
>>18827
>How early can we get boys and men to overcome this?You both don't want women actually freed from the cage of patriarchal oppression by engaging in separatism, self reflection and actual critical radical feminism. You only want women to have a slightly larger cage. The only difference is that that anon focused on "how do we change men because women want kids?" whereas your focus is "how do we change masochistic women and how do we change men to work on themselves". Both posts may very well have fitted better in the vent/relationship threads. Radical feminism doesn't mean you become a braindead martyr for masochistic women and drop all critical credence nor is the goal of radical feminism to change men to be "better" so that they "work on themselves" as if radical feminism boils down to the female dating strategy lol. The purpose of radical feminism isn't to make men better and coddle masochistic women.
No. 18926
File: 1692056436362.jpg (2.16 MB, 947x2048, sjpQWX6.jpg)
I'm too furious to say anything about this right now
No. 18948
>>18799> Sorry to autistically fixate on this one sentence out of a very well-thought out and articulate comment, I just hesitate to go so far as to say that the lesbian feminist theory that emerged from radical feminism as a movement was different, rather than related, and part of broader intra-community discourse. No need to apologize, you're right and your correction was needed. I had forgotten about the radicalesbians and other such groups. I wanted to emphasize the separation because a lot of people seem to think the two are the same thing, when many lesbian feminists had issues with how the radical feminist space treated lesbians. But the two do have important connected histories and shared origins.
One of the biggest problems with the pop 'radfem' sites is an unwillingness to engage with the material directly and a skewed sense of history, so it's important to correct the record. That's why I liked the book I rec'd you - it's basically the original, primary sources for the women's lib movement, and it shows women agreeing and disagreeing and engaging in diverse ways that don't match up to how we've been told about what feminism was like.
No. 20032
File: 1695601957865.png (396.55 KB, 620x2004, muh demons.png)
I hate fuckers like these so much! These spergs who keep replying to radfem or GC tweets with their religious spergery.
No, they/thems don't call themselves that because they're possessed by demons you fucking morons. I hate people who attribute everything to religious bullshit so much. It's like thinking the sun rises every morning due to the sun god or something, or that fire is produced by magic. Explaining what you don't yet understand with nonsensical religious thinking.
The other day I saw a bunch of replies under a rafdem tweet about TIFs, it was a bunch of women sperging about TIFs not being "in harmony with their feminine divine" or some retarded shit like that. I FUCKING hate this "feminine/masculine divine" shit. What are they smoking? You're not being helpful AT ALL. Aidens hate being told that they have to be feminine due to their reproductive organs and that's one of the big reasons they troon out, you're only making it worse you assholes. Fucking idiots.