[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]

/ot/ - off-topic

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Youtube
Password (For post deletion)

Townhall postponed: Now May 6th 8PM GMT. More info here. Townhall chat is HERE

File: 1550144360939.png (27.24 KB, 650x1050, cropped-woman-power_emblem.png)

No. 373459

This thread is for the discussion of Radical Feminism in contrast to Liberal Feminism.

Please direct gender critical discussion of transgender ideology to the Gender Critical thread >>>/ot/360163

No. 373460

What is radical feminism?

Radical Feminist theory analyses the structures of power which oppress the female sex. Its central tenet is that women as a biological class are globally oppressed by men as a biological class. We believe that male power is constructed and maintained through institutional and cultural practices that aim to bolster male superiority through the reinforcement of female inferiority. One such manifestation of the patriarchy is gender, which we believe to be a socially constructed hierarchy which functions to repress female autonomy and has no basis in biology. Radical Feminists also critique all religions and their institutions, and other practices that promote violence against women such as prostitution, pornography and FGM. The subjugation of women is a social process that has no basis in biology or any other pretext, and thus can and should be challenged and dismantled.

Radical Feminists see that our oppression as females is closely linked to and bound up in our roles as the bearers of new life and male hatred of our female reproductive power. Radical Feminists take an unequivocal stance on the right to female reproductive justice.

Radical Feminism increasingly recognises that females from different oppressed groups experience a combination of oppressions. Class, race and disability have systematic structural impacts on different women's lives in different toxic combinations.

Radical Feminists believe in an autonomous women's movement as the path to women's liberation. We believe in the importance of female only spaces where theory and action is developed from the lived reality of females who have been socialised into womanhood.

http://www.radfemcollective.org

No. 373461

Radical Feminism in a Nutshell

Peachyoghurt

No. 373464

File: 1550145201537.jpg (137.78 KB, 800x800, sheila-jeffreys-quote-lbc2b4d.…)


No. 373465

File: 1550145650063.png (222.45 KB, 768x809, bingo-card-final3.png)


No. 373497

File: 1550150909532.png (507.8 KB, 800x1147, Screenshot_2019-02-14-05-27-11…)


No. 373615

/rfg/ is finally here!

No. 373660

Apologies for sounding ignorant, but I often hear the terms "liberal feminist (libfem)," "radical feminist (radfem)," and "SJW" used synonymously and usually as insults. Would someone mind explaining the difference?

No. 373663

>>373660
A liberal feminist is a feminist who believes the optimal route to equality and liberation for women is working within the system to reform it. They usually believe that gender identity is real and that choice feminism (the idea that anything can be feminist if a woman chooses it) is a good thing.

Radical feminists believe the optimal way to achieve equality and liberation is to do away with the current system, because it's been built on a foundation of misogyny and inequality that cannot be reformed. They believe that some choices are inherently either non-feminist or anti-feminist. When they say "gender" they are using its original academic meaning, which is gender roles and expectations rather than the more modern idea that you can have a female or male brain.

SJW stands for social justice warrior, and doesn't have a set meaning, but usually refers to the kind of extremist armchair activist you find on Tumblr. They're much more likely to be a libfem than a radfem.

No. 373670

File: 1550177273734.jpg (42.59 KB, 436x268, p74q9qCcjt1vm8cxp.jpg)

>>373663
Good answer but I would change one thing
>the optimal route to equality and liberation
Libfems don't care about liberation, they care about 'empowerment'. The lack of focus on liberation is the biggest problem with liberal feminism and the main thing that separates them from radfems. And I don't believe equality is a necessary tenet of radical feminism because we can't define our own liberation by how it relates to men. One quote I see a lot is 'people in prison are equal, but not free'.

Equality is a really poor, simplistic way to describe what we want and need imo. It's used to make feminism easy and palatable for people, like "you want men and women to have equal rights? You're already a feminist!", but it doesn't really make sense. Men immediately jump to shit like
>then we should be able to hit women equally!
>feminists don't care enough about men's problems, what about equality?
>feminists just want special treatment, not equality
etc, it's just not a meaningful gauge of how liberated we are and it's an opportunity for obtuse morons to nitpick the aims of feminism.

No. 373676

>>373670
I agree with all you've said, but I was trying to be reasonably objective and just give as close to a neutral dictionary definition of both sides as I could. I think radical feminism stands by itself as the only realistic way for women to achieve our liberation, so I usually just define with as little bias as I can and let people come to the obvious conclusion by themselves.

No. 373677

>>373663
>the more modern idea that you can have a female or male brain.

NTAYRT, but please tell me that isn't actually becoming an academically recognized thing? male/female brain?? Because that's just another slippery slope for society slide down, since nobody can crack open your skull and see your brain's alleged "gender" then it means any shitbag male can flip-flop their "brain gender" to be a lesbian transwomyn without any psychological or medical transition necessary. People don't need a gender to define them down to every last detail. Do you wake up in the morning thinking, "I have to put on my female pants and shirt, brush my female teeth, comb my female hair…"? Nah. The more we obsess over the male/female gender identity bullshit, the worse it's gonna get because it's gonna keep splitting people into more and more subcategories like agender and third gender. Anyone who agonizes over their gender so much that they need to have gendered inanimate objects that have nothing to do with biological sex has an underlying issue with gender roles they need to address, and I feel like that goes for most of society these days. Everyone and their sister is trying to redefine gender nowadays to either escape their idea of opression or put on their idea of privilege when really, it's all subjective cosmetic bullshit unless you're having sex or trying to have a baby.

No. 373686

>>373677
There aren't many studies on it, and the studies we do have aren't very reliable because they don't have good methodology (using trans candidates who have been on hormones for decades, with no controls like trans candidates who have never been on HRT). And any research that seems like it would bring up a different conclusion gets defunded and no-platformed.

No. 373697

>>373660

Mostly agree with the other anon who replied to you, but SJW is a right wing/centrist dogwhistle for "possess empathy". Children taking puberty blockers can be SJW, but so can feeding the homeless.

No. 373703

Can't people be just feminists without an adjective? I agree/disagree with both sides. Libfems would definitely call me a terf but I'm too liberal for a radfem.

No. 373719

>>373663
how is male/female brain modern? it's not and beyond a few specialized behaviors rooted in reproduction and stuff like that, male/female behavior dictated by hormones isn't hugely different and it's not visible/discernible by scan or by analyzing the brain. there is no male or female brain and neuroscientists have failed many times in trying to sex brains because they differ in morphology from person to person more than one sex to the other

No. 373755

>>373464
I don't see gender disappearing as long as there are men with dicks.

No. 373759

>>373703
if anyone asks i just say i'm a "gc/gender critical feminist" because i don't believe that the notion that trans "women" are men should ever be considered radical, and i've debated things with radfems here before so i don't agree with some of the typical ideas completely.

No. 373762

>>373703
>>373759
what do you guys not agree with radical feminists about?

No. 373809

File: 1550190101215.jpg (189.92 KB, 1273x1280, F1.large.jpg)

>>373719
Yet, scientist are able to consistently guess the sex of a person based on their MRI scan with about 80% confidence.

>Consider, for example, a division of humans into two clusters or types on the basis of the number of “female-end” and “male-end” characteristics – one type, characterized by more “male-end” than “female-end” characteristics, would contain 99% of the males and 14% of the females in Carothers and Reis’ sample, whereas the other type, characterized by more (or the same) number of “female-end” than “male-end” characteristics, would contain 86% of the females and 1% of the males. Thus, a person’s sex category can be used to quite accurately predict whether s/he will have more “female-end” or more “male-end” characteristics.

>Moreover, although it is possible to use one’s brain architecture to predict whether this person is female or male with accuracy of ∼80%, one’s sex category provides very little information on the likelihood that one’s brain architecture is similar to or different from someone else’s brain architecture.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00399/full

Male and female brains are not indistinguishable. Just like male and female heights are not indistinguishable. You can say with very high confidence that people over 6'0" are male, even if there are females this tall or taller. And vice versa for below 5'2" being female. There's naturally the 5'2" to 6'0" in-between area, but you can guess that the ones closer to the shorter end being female, and ones closer to the taller end being male.
It just doesn't work the other way, both for brains and height. You cannot take "male" and say "they are over 6'0"" and "they have such and such brain".

Also pic related.
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468
Figure F: there were consistently no women with 6 or more "male-end" characteristics at the same time having 0 "female-end" ones.
Figure E: "Females" in the left column are consistently more classified as female brains, and vice versa for "Males" on the right being classified as male brains.
If there were no male/female leaning brains, all the figures would be equally uniform and indistinguishable.

No. 373833

When gender theorists talk about male and female brains, they are defining brain sex as being inextricably linked to the most stereotypical gendered behavior.

There are physical differences between male and female brains because sexual dimorphism exists. However, these physical differences do not dictate behavior to conform with gender stereotypes. If they did, then gendered behavior would be universal.

No. 373835

File: 1550194075165.jpg (91.26 KB, 598x685, 41598_2017_17352_Fig1_HTML.jpg)

Quoting a recent post on r/GC:

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/apgf0r/a_brief_lesson_in_gender_and_brain_difference_and/

The MRI studies from a few years ago that showed transwomen had feminised brains used TIMs who been insisting they were trans from a very young age. These are virtually all gay as adults. So those scans were of gay adults.

Other MRI work has shown gay males have feminised brains.

So in 2017, another study was done because it was realised that the older MRI studies were comparing GAY trans brains to hetero non-trans brains and was likely only picking up their homosexuality. It turns out the differences observed were almost entirely down to their homosexuality.

It also turns out the hetero TIM's weren't showing up as any different to a normal male. Which is probably why transbians register as totally unfeminine.

The paper and relevant snippets from it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8

>After controlling for sexual orientation, the transgender groups showed sex-typical FA-values. The only exception was the right inferior fronto-occipital tract, connecting parietal and frontal brain areas that mediate own body perception


Basically only one very small area was different between the gay TIMs and gay men. So if gay TIMs are women, so are all gay men. If anyone is interested in the one difference, I'll dig out what I've got.

>Thus, in contrast to the highly significant sex difference between heterosexual men and women, the homosexual groups differed barely from each other.


>Of the eight brain regions that distinguished male from female brains, the heterosexual transsexual sample differed from the male controls on none.


This last quote: it means hetero TIM's do not have any feminised parts to their brains. Whatever is going on there is not a mismatch between prenatal gender hardwiring and body. This is considered to be good evidence for the autogynephilia theory of hetero TIMs.

I know someone has posted this here before but I don't think the importance of it as a trans debunker has really been appreciated.

So the next time someone posts something claiming to show TIMs have female brains point out that it didn't correct for sexual orientation, and its not true for hetero TIMs at all.

No. 373836

>>373835
where's the part of the brain responsible for the obsession with catgirls and weird clothes?

>>373762
personally skeptical about the socialist leanings associated with it.

No. 373853

this is the most pedantic sounding question possible but i’d really like to know: why have men always hated women so much? why is there such a deep historical precedent for men controlling and repressing women in every aspect of their lives? it’s obvious why men hate women so much today but it’s unnerving and depressing to think of how much women have suffered for almost all of modern history

No. 373856

>>373762
I guess the only thing i disagree with is the black and white feminist/not feminist issue. Caring about her appearance or doing sex work does not make a woman a non-feminist in my opinion. Excluding women and shaming the "empowering" stuff will not destroy the patriarchy, it will just divide us further.

I'll also call trannies their pronouns if that makes them hate themself less

No. 373859

>>373856
you can't empower someone by letting them be extorted or lying to them

No. 373862

>>373856
I cater to that part of the troon delusion too. Mainly because I'm afraid they'll get violent if I don't cater to them, like most men tend to do.

No. 373887

>>373856
>Caring about her appearance or doing sex work does not make a woman a non-feminist in my opinion.
That is the same opinion as any sensible radfem…? Those are not feminist ACTS, but someone doesn't get kicked out of the radfem club for doing things that aren't feminist. I wear makeup even though I know it's not feminist, we don't have to be feminist 24/7 when we're all just trying to get by.

Of course, if those women refuse to acknowledge that those acts are not feminist, then they don't have radfem beliefs and aren't radfems. They're empowered choice feminists who are sticking their heads in the sand. Pretty simple.

No. 373889

>>373762
itayrt, i really don't want to start any debate over it bc no one will change my mind, but i heavily disagree with radfems who are against women doing makeup/shaving/etc. it is my choice to look the way i want to, if i am happy this way, love doing my makeup, and uncomfortable with body hair, let me do it without being judged. i'm an adult and i can choose to look the way i want. i am against all forms of sex "work" though and am very wary of the male gender in general- i avoid persuing relationships (i have a made-up "boyfriend" for this, lol) and i have issues having sex with men even though i'm attracted to them. so even though some of my opinions make me not feel "radfem enough", i still feel strongly feminist for living the way i want to without relying on men, and never giving into the idea that i would be happier if i wasn't single/"i need a man to be happy", y'know shit society tries to groom you into believing.

No. 373893

>>373889
How is it a choice when you feel disgusted by your own natural body and you've been groomed by society at large to participate in femininity?

See how much of a choice it is when you see how you're treated when you DON'T wear makeup and shave lol
Femininity is harmful and you are perpetuating hurt against other women because they fail to conform like you.

No. 373897

>>373893
Diff anon, but in my mind, isn't it ironic that women claiming to be feminist are still trying to tell other women what to do as if they're children? Making the fact known that shaving/makeup are constructs is fine, accusing some women of "perpetuating hurt against other women" for not doing what you say is kind of fucked and I would think the sort of thing that would be met with criticism if it were a man.

No. 373904

>>373897
So women aren't allowed to criticize each other now?
Funny how I'm supposed to sugar coat every opinion I have because another woman might get upset by what I say. That DOES make you a child.
It is objectively harmful to women because it perpetuates toxic femininity and what women are expected to look like you dunce. That's not even getting into the actual PHYSICAL effects that wearing makeup/shaving/promoting vanity does.

Are you going to start defending women that get plastic surgery and lip fillers now? Because well, they just like it! It's their choice to do it! Leave them alone you big meanie!
For gods sake take some personal responsibility into your life and try doing something that is meaningful and challenging.
Don't think it's harder for women that don't perform femininity? You probably literally only get critized by radfems on lolcow but the rest of the world supports your choice so just give it a rest already.

No. 373906

>>373897
>"perpetuating hurt against other women"
Is that a lie though? I'll perform femininity as much as I want but I still know that at the end of the day, we'd all be better off if we collectively stopped wearing makeup and shaving because then that unfair standard would no longer be enforceable. I know that I'm not helping women by doing this, I know it's not a real choice because we're punished when we don't make choices that appease men, but I'm not going to stop doing what makes me feel comfortable in everyday life.

People who have a cry about this shit really need to grow thicker skin. You're not a perfect feminist, big deal. Admit your flaws and move on.

No. 373909

File: 1550205175993.png (217.65 KB, 768x1119, slut-walk-2.png)

Dress however you choose. Just don't refer to choices that reinforce femininity as feminist.

No. 373915

>>373897
She was in no way telling that anon what to do, only pointing out that it’s a harmful practice and opening up discussion around the issue. If you take personal offence to this then you need to do some self-reflection and come to terms with the fact that it’s because she’s right in what she says and that’s okay - you don’t have to make every single aspect of your life some form of activism, but be aware that the choices you make do effect those around you.

No. 373917

>>373897
The main issue with choice feminism is that it attempts to rebrand EVERY choice a woman makes as a feminist act simply because a woman chose it, and it thereby stifles discussion and analysis about what societal influences could be at play. Yeah, some anons needs to accept that you may not agree with what other people do but you can't control everything. Get over it. Same with women who get pissy when feminists criticize something that they like. Other people have the right to engage critically with these subjects, to claim otherwise is anti-intellectual. If you're an adult you should be able to stick to your guns in situations like these. People criticize a lot of things that I like, doesn't stop me from not giving a fuck.

No. 373930

>>373917
This so hard but what other things do you consider not feminist?
I like makeup but I don't wear it most days but I feel hypocritical because I feel negatively about sex work.

No. 373976

File: 1550216011696.jpg (80.74 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>373930
I think discussion about whether wearing makeup or not is a feminist act or not depends on what the makeup looks like. You can definitely wear beautiful, well applied makeup that is nonetheless considered in poor taste or unprofessional. And of course so many men claim to hate makeup and wish women wouldn't wear it, so it isn't clear cut.

Given there is so much makeup that repels men or at least only invites indifference I'd say it is definitely possible to wear makeup in ways that are only pleasing to one's self and other women.

No. 373979

>>373976
It's still generating a profit for all the men behind the beauty industry that does, primarily, exist to make women more attractive to men.

I don't think anyone should beat themselves up over wearing makeup though, personally it's not one of the battles I pick.

No. 373989

>>373976
Yes, agreed. So many men seem to think we are shape-changing aliens and we are "tricking" them when they discover our eyelids are not naturally glittery, eyeliner doesn't come stamped on at birth, sometimes faces have different colors and blemishes. The worst kind of men hate makeup as I think it gives women freedom to express themselves and change perceptions about ourselves, which society restricts men from enjoying.

The man who wants a "natural beauty" but wants to chain you to the kitchen sink. Makeup can be a very positive interest and I think most women in the makeup community (fans, not influencers) are good people. It's a thing we have which men don't, something we can enjoy without (much) judgement.

No. 373992

>>373909

Insert rant about how corsets have been sexualized now, but men didn't really like them back in the day, they were primarily used for back support and to adhere to a specific silhouette which women preferred. Not a sexual thing at all.

No. 373997

>>373989
>It's a thing we have which men don't

It fucks me off that men and boys that have really generic makeup skills become influential and super popular seemingly overnight and overtake women just because they’re male. Even in make up women aren’t allowed to be better

No. 373999

>>373835
Great post Anon.

No. 374000

>>373979
I realized the rebuttal as soon as I hit New Reply, this is a good point of course. There are more female owned brands now that women could support so thankfully the market provides option.

>>373989
I'm at the point where I think a portion of men really do have limited perceptive capabilities. Men are more likely to be color blind but they also seem to have issues more distinguishing makeup, shoop, traps etc. I wonder if more men suffer from prosopagnosia (face blindness) or something like it. Obviously there have been talented male artists, but this is a subset of men. 8% of men are color blind maybe comparable levels of men have their perceptive capabilities hampered in some way.

No. 374002

>>373997
Agreed…They're usually not very nice people either*, thinking specifically of the famous male Youtubers who do makeup. I support the gender non-conforming aspect of it and men wearing makeup in general however, so I can't really complain, which is the general consensus on it. But as usual men get an easy time of it.

*assholes

No. 374013

>>373997
>Even in make up women aren’t allowed to be better.
It's the same in countless other areas as well:
Hair dressers? The normal, ridiculously underpaid ones are all female, yet the rare super successful ones are men.
Fashion? Historically it were always women having to do the sewing , knitting etc. (find me a nomal dude who can even sew on a button), yet all the rich and famous brands are owned by male designers.
And lastly, the biggest one: cooking.
It's always been and probably will always be women who have to do the cooking, yet nearly all famous chefs are men! My father has only cooked for us children once in my whole life, it's always my mother who has to do it, yet once a man even so much as tries, he's immediately guaranteed success.

Makeup takes just the cake because it's a thing girls and women get made fun for even today. On the one hand we're shallow for using it, but on the other hand we're ugly if we don't.
It also angers me, that the supporters of all these gay makeup gurus are solely girls - it's as if we as women push them to fame, in this case there really are no men involved, it's in a way our fault.

No. 374015

>>374013
Yes, all of this.
Women forever will be the ones doing the grunt work while men get praised for their mediocre skills.

No. 374016

>>374013
piggybacking on this to say how fucking irritating it is that if a science has majority women in it (eg biology) it is seen as stupid, subjective and not a serious discipline. discussion of it turns into how women are all nurturing and care about living things even if its looking at microbes under a microscope.

No. 374024

>>374016
This is actually good in a way. The salaries and prestige go down once a field becomes female dominated I think, but if we can slowly push out all males those fields can become a safe haven for women. I'm seeing this with art kinda and it makes me feel so much better to know that there are hard working women who are making it. Even if men don't take us seriously we can support each other, and since we're half the population, and men don't do this(they're always competitive), it's a big deal.

No. 374026

File: 1550230404666.jpg (366.83 KB, 500x600, no fuck this I'm done.jpg)

>>373835
Thanks for the links, but if you want to discuss trannies and misquote studies you can do that in the GC thread >>360163
>point out that it didn't correct for sexual orientation
It did, read what you link:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8
>Interestingly, both TrW and TrM displayed FA values in the CST and SLF more in accordance with their sex assigned at birth, whereas in the IFOF the FA values were more in accordance with their gender identity (sex-atypical for TrW, sex-in between for TrM). The IFOF connects the occipital, parietal and medial prefrontal cortices[44]. The IFOF, in particular on the right side, may thus be involved in the perception of self (mediated by the mPFC50) and the perception of one’s own body (mediated by the right parietal lobe[51,52]). Consequently, aberrant FA in the IFOF of transgender individuals may be underlying to the unconformity between their perception of self and their body. Importantly, this finding of sex-atypical FA values in the IFOF did not change after accounting for the more heterogeneous sexual orientation among the transgender participants.
Who could have guessed that trans people have atypical brain areas (IFOF) responsible for self-perception and own body perception.
>Importantly, the present data also provide a neuroanatomical underpinning for a GD/transgender-specific aspect - the body dysphoria and great distress due to incongruence between physical sex and experienced gender. The right-hemispheric differences between cis-homosexual and transgender groups, together with the confirmed aberration of FA in the (right) IFOF, provide compelling indications for the hypothesized different own body perception, specifically in transgender individuals. In line with our results, several previous neuroimaging studies found differences between trans- and cisgender groups particularly located in the right hemisphere[16,17,22,27,29] (…), and the right hemisphere in general have been reported to be involved in cognitive processes of (body) perception in relation to self, body ownership, ego-centric representation, and bodily self-consciousness[51,52,53,54,55].
Colour me surprised. /s
>In conclusion, the present findings support the idea of a distinction and partial overlap between the neurobiology underlying sexual orientation and transgenderism. Moreover, the observed right-hemisphere differences between the transgender groups and cisgender controls, also after taking into account sexual orientation, specifically in the IFOF further emphasize that the signature of GD is related to self-processing and the experience of body ownership.

>>374013
Hairdressers?
Hairdresser to the British Royal Family is a woman, Denise Patricia McAdam. She also worked with Grace Kelly, while we are at influential women.
Fashion?
>Gabrielle “Coco” Bonheur Chanel
>the only fashion designer to be named on Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century
Cooking?
>When three Michelin stars were first awarded in 1933, two female chefs, Eugénie Brazier and Marie Bourgeois, were among them.
>The lack of women holding stars has repeatedly led to criticism of the Michelin Guide, who have in turn pointed to the lack of female chefs overall in the industry.
You know, maybe they are actually not lying?
Maybe the problem we should tackle is the sexist stereotype that is still prevalent in many cultures and among many people, that women's job is to tend to the house and bring up children, and not be successful in career?

>>374016
This is a problem with science overall, at least when it comes to recognition of women's research. Female scientists are dismissed by the wider populace and when it comes to awarding them for research.
Is it like this also in the scientific communities themselves? Because I don't believe that findings by female colleagues are dismissed there.

No. 374029

>>374026
For both hairdressing and fashion you only named 3 women total, and the point still stands that men, gay ones in particular, are seen as better in these fields despite them historically being women’s work.
I hate how much straight women obsess over gay men and their work, they don’t care about us. Just because some guy takes it up the ass doesn’t mean he’s suddenly better versed in fashion/styling than the entire female populace

No. 374048

>>374024
uh but aren't we left with a field that has no money in it in the end? wouldn't that mean that only women from priviledged bg can go into it then bc otherwise we wouldn't be able to support ourselves? t.bio student

No. 374056

>>374024
Then no one will want to go into said field because how in the hell are they supposed to afford living. You didn’t really think that through, anon
Men devaluing our work is in no way a good thing

No. 374057

>>373853
I don't think we can pinpoint one specific absolute reason. I think there are many and I think that most of them stem from our biological differences.

Engels speculated that basically men wanted to control the biological means of production ie: wombs. Basically, it's easy to say if a child is a mother's child etc, it's easy to distribute land from mother to children because it is so easily tracable. But once the mother has multiple sexual partners, how do you know for sure who is the father? The only way is to control women and marry them etc. (sorry for this shitty explanation but I read it in another language and it's hard for me to translate it in english)

>>373889
Can I ask you why you're uncompfterable with body hair ? Is it just your own or if you touch a man's arm/leg or whatever (even accidently) would his body hair specifically disgust you/make you uncompfterable.

Look, I sometimes wax myself. I think you can be a radfem and remove your body hair but you're absolutely delusional if you think that your unease with body hair is "organic" and that it doesnt directly stems from patriarchy.

No. 374061

File: 1550236587051.jpeg (21.23 KB, 300x297, creditbabble3.jpeg)

>>374029
Hairdressing was initially a gender separated profession, and later primarily male one. Dating back to ancient Rome and Greece, men would work with men, and women had their hair maintained at home. Hairdressing re-appeared as a profession around 17th century, where servants would be grooming wealthy people's hair. These were also men who would start hairdressing women first. Though, around the time, Madame Martin was the hairdresser at the court of Louis XIV, so it wasn't male-exclusive profession.
Only due to post-war sexism making hairdressing one of the few acceptable professions for women, alongside teaching, nursing and clerical work it's considered a female field. Blame modern sexism for flipping hairdressing into sterotypically female profession.

I don't know about fashion, I'm not too interested in the mainstream one, but the fashion I like is primarily by women for women.

Adding on to cooking. Eugénie Brazier, Marie Bourgeois, Marguerite Bise, Sophie Bise, Annie Féolde, Nadia Santini, Luisa Marelli Valazza, Elena Arzak, Helena Puolakka, Clare Smyth, Anne-Sophie Pic, Carme Ruscalleda, Dominique Crenn are all (but not all) female chefs who were awarded 3 Michelin stars.
Why are there so little? Because only 20% of chefs in the UK are women, while in the US it's less than 5%.
Cooking is not really a female profession (it's not tied to gender tbh). It's considered being women's work, because "women's work" is home work, which includes cooking, and not career as a cook.
I regret looking for some pic related.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/09/these-45-shockingly-sexist-vintage-ads-will-make-you-glad-to-live-in-2013/
But yeah, thank you America.

No. 374068

>>373853
Males have always been and will always be misogynistic - it's an extension of their existence. As long as their leverage over women is completely destroyed and as long as their noxious presence is quarantined then the way they feel won't even matter anymore.

No. 374076

>>374057

NTAYRT, but removing some or all of my pubic hair for most of my life has been related to the visual aesthetic of my piercings. Likewise for shaving my legs and sometimes my arms for my tattoos.

Also, freshly depilated labia are more sensitive.

No. 374083

>>373853

Let's look at the history of women's oppression based on menstruation.

The ritual segregation of women to menstruation huts is often the first thing that comes to mind.

For example, in Nepalese Hinduism:

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhaupadi#Origin

The practice of chhaupadi originates from the superstition that menstruation causes women to be temporarily impure, based on the myth that Indra created menstruation as a means to distribute a curse. In this logic, it is believed that if a menstruating woman touches a tree, it will never again bear fruit; if she consumes milk, the cow will not give any more milk; if she reads a book, Saraswati, the goddess of education, will become angry; if she touches a man, he will be ill.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_and_menstruation

According to the anthropologists Buckley and Gottlieb, cross-cultural study shows that, while taboos about menstruation are nearly universal, and while many of these involve notions of uncleanliness, numerous menstrual traditions "bespeak quite different, even opposite, purposes and meanings." In some traditional societies, menstrual rituals are experienced by women as protective and empowering, offering women a space set apart from the male gaze and from unwanted sexual or domestic pressures and demands.

An instructive example is provided by the anthropologist Wynne Maggi, who describes the communal bashali (large menstrual house) of women in the Kalasha Valley (northwestern Pakistan) as their 'most holy place', respected by men, and serving as women's all-female organizing centre for establishing and maintaining gender solidarity and power. According to one body of cultural evolutionary scholarship, the idea that menstrual blood marks the body as periodically sacred was initially established by female coalitions in their own interests, although later, with the rise of cattle-ownership and patriarchal power, these same beliefs and taboos were harnessed by religious patriarchs to intensify women's oppression.

But why was menstruation regarded as unclean at best and cursed at worst by both women and men in so many primitive cultures? Was it simply because primitive man did not understand menstruation and could only interpret it as an illness?

No. 374086

>>374083
Probably just a case of ‘this doesn’t happen to me, a man, therefore it is bad because everything in the world must somehow revolve around my own experience’

No. 374087

>>374061
I wouldn’t say cooking as a profession is female dominated field, but it’s a bit of a slap to the face when the men who are regarded highly in cookery are working off of the foundations of women’s work (recipes being passed down through the family and the like) while women as a whole will be looked down upon because they’re just ‘cooks’ and not ‘chefs’, as though the latter does not rely on the knowledge of the former.

No. 374115

>>374061
>https://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/09/these-45-shockingly-sexist-vintage-ads-will-make-you-glad-to-live-in-2013/
Imagine being a young woman during that period. What did the female suicide rates and mental health stats look like?

No. 374117

File: 1550246813994.jpeg (38.74 KB, 305x400, 7EB7C881-4FFF-4B3C-AA55-587CC4…)

>>374115
A treasure, truly

No. 374124

File: 1550247677761.jpg (64.27 KB, 350x471, $.jpg)

>>374117
Eh, that one's annoying but:
"is it always illegal to kill a woman?"
"show her it's a man world"
"keep her where she belongs"
"why you should beat your wife"
"innocence is sexier than you think" with the pic emulating a child, plus pic related.

And of course men in the comments somewhow managing to turn the discussion under the article to misandry. Really?

No. 374126

>>374124
Oh, I wasn’t implying it’s the worst one, the absurdity of it just made me laugh. Why on earth would a bald person ever even consider purchasing a hairdryer is beyond me

No. 374127

File: 1550247823964.png (342.29 KB, 443x571, picture-32.png)

>>374124
Don't forget "if she doesn't give it to you, get it yourself!".

No. 374128

File: 1550247920855.jpeg (727.89 KB, 1242x1449, 33065E34-00B3-4FCF-BFD8-99B868…)


No. 374137

>>374128
Interesting. I figure the spanking was just a way to make domestic abuse look “cuter” or less intense bc drawing a man punching the wife would’ve been too much or something.

No. 374178

>>374057
im that anon, and yeah, i dont like body hair on anyone, period. that being said i dont care if other people dont shave, it doesnt affect me, but even if i was a guy i'd probably shave because hair under my clothes just makes me feel uncomfortable. it's a tactile thing, idk autism

No. 374214

>>374083
When I took a Old Testament class the explanation we were offered is that in old Israeli culture at least any shedding of blood was considered ritually impure, which included menstruation. Couldn't really explain why it was so prevalent though, there's probably more to the story.

No. 374231

>>374214
Yet men are constantly killing one another, participating in wars and meaningless bloodshed in the name of "god" and killing animals on a mass scale. What the fuck is circumcision if not massive amounts of bloodshedding (where in some Jewish sects, they literally suck the bloody penis of the newly circumcised baby)?
But apparently none of that is considered impure.
What a fucking joke.

No. 374248

>>374231
All of those things were ritually impure too, anon (except circumcision, which was done because not being circumcised was impure) and required ritual sacrifice to be considered "pure".

I don't think isolating women was right, but to give the Israelis some credit those things all did require different outlined sacrifices in order for one to be "pure" again.

No. 374302

>>374016
>discussion of it turns into how women are all nurturing and care about living things even if its looking at microbes under a microscope
I don't get that. How is studying life akin to nurturing? Where's the correlation?

No. 374435

>>374128
>>373853
I think it's due to power and control over reproduction or womb envy. Fact that women carry the next generation and legacy of the species probably pisses them off. (look at all the men praying to every god in the sky for artificial wombs attached to sexbots to replace women on the planet) They claim they build everything but all things come to end, buildings fall and civilizations die away but people live on due to be born from women. They want that power so they flex and remind us all the time of how physically superior they are, how they can easily break us and abuse us when they want. I'm sure if we sat with our hands on our laps, quiet in a potato sack inside some shitty shack staring out into space while they go out to explore the world and lead interesting lives, they might still hate women for being so docile but the hatred might not be as intense? This is all just a personal theory

>>374124
>>374128
>keep where she belongs
>not too long ago women couldn't leave a marriage even if her husband was abusing her
No wonder many men now whine about divorce. They've lost control and desperate for it to come back

No. 374472

File: 1550315332052.jpg (16.29 KB, 460x322, 508da9a5-6b6f-4629-8fcf-936396…)

Crossposting from the GC thread

Today two radfem groups went to the 8M gathering to talk about what we're advocating for, taking a special note to prostitution and sexual trafficking, which is rampant where I live (South America), where the police and politicians run prostitution rings and no one bats an eye, women dissappear all the time, etc. They couldn't even say a word, all the libfems started censoring them, calling them names, calling them transphobic etc, one of the pro-sexwork (who is notorious for saying that she and the rest of her group know where prostitution rings are and where sexual trafficked women are imprisioned but refuse to disclose it because they won't receive any reward for it) pushed and shoved a few of my friends, and one tranny even choked a woman from one of the groups.
It's insane.

Link to video
https://twitter.com/alikajr_/status/1096603117016281088?s=19

Another video added by anon
https://mobile.twitter.com/mrqztrinidad/status/1096616666555969536

here's another vid where you can clearly see the tranny jumping to punch the girl talking, we are living this this kind of violence and misogyny here

No. 374473

>>373762
The Socialist/Marxist leaning,political lesbianism and man hating

No. 374480

>>374473
>Socialist/Marxist leaning
This. That's literally the only thing stopping me. Most Marxists/Socialists I've run into are self righteous narcs who will end up saying literally offensive shit because they think they're "left" enough to get away with it and blah blah blah muh solidarity

No. 374500

Is there any sort of real-time chat any of you anons use that is radical feminism centric? I can’t find anything, everything seems to be very secretive as though all the women are ashamed to have this ideology. I just want like minded women to actually talk to, even if it’s just general chit chat and not about feminism, and I feel like a radical feminist space would be the only way to really make sure that it’s actually woman focused since trannies wouldn’t be allowed and I wouldn’t have to hear garbage about how I should feel empowered by men as a collective viewing me as nothing more than a sexual object to dominate.

No. 374501

>>374500
maybe create a radical feminist discord server ?

No. 374510

Yay, finally!

Any radfems here really struggle with both left- and right-wing politics? I just feel like both sides are inherently misogynistic, but I'm starting to lean more right purely because it's coherent and honest. For example, I'm pro-choice but the argument against it logically makes sense, I just value the rights of the mother more than the foetus. Whenever I see leftists arguing against abortion they say "it's just a clump of cells!" - like all living organisms are a clump of cells, including the mother - but then will also be against capital punishment, which I don't think logically makes sense.

TLDR; I'm a radfem who is politically lost AF and it's making me feel like a bad feminist.

No. 374521

>>373853
Men haven't always hated women. Some African tribes were historically matriarchal. I think it came about once people began to personally own things, like land and animals, and so a united family structure became necessary - a marital union of mother and father who bore children. Before that, people would just have sex and everyone would look after the resultant children, so parentage wasn't really an issue. Once inheritance became a thing, parentage became an issue - mother is easily determined, but father is not. So male paranoia about raising another man's child kicked in… Plus a ton of superstitious bullshit about menstruation. I remember reading once that women were deemed satanic because the average menstrual cycle is 28 days long, the same as the moon cycle, which actually works out to 13 periods a year.

>>373906
Minimising critical analysis of women's adherence to social beauty standards as "crying about it" - nice internalised misogyny. You sound like a man. The point of radical feminism is to liberate women from needing to do this shit to feel comfortable - if that hurts your feelings, Ms Thick Skin, libfem might be more your speed.

No. 374525

File: 1550327752398.jpg (51.22 KB, 1024x768, 870x619xpregnancy-week-5-amnio…)

>>374510
>but I'm starting to lean more right purely because it's coherent and honest
then you're not a radfem. and literally how is leaning right more coherent and honest? both the right and left are misogynistic, but there's absolutely nothing for women on the right.

> Whenever I see leftists arguing against abortion they say "it's just a clump of cells!" - like all living organisms are a clump of cells, including the mother

65% of abortions are performed on, not fetuses, but embryos, at 8 weeks or less, which are not viable, at all, like, not even close, outside of the womb and the 'cell clumps' aren't as highly specialized as the mother, obviously? Like, this is 5 weeks, and this 'baby' is the size of a literal sesame seed despite the ridiculous 'magnification'.

No. 374553

>>374501
I’m not sure where I would advertise it and I was hoping for an already active community

No. 374560

>>374510
sage for off topic but did you happen to become "radfem" because you don't like trannies

no offense but i have seen radfem spaces being taken over by women who don't actually believe in feminism but they just don't like trannies (or other dirty gays either)

No. 374562

>>374500

Not real time, but PeachYoghurt has a forum site going.

https://www.genderhammer.com

Related, should I include a resource list in the next OP? There will be a lot of overlap with the list in the GC thread, but there is a lot more out there.

>>374510
>>374525

And the politic of the right in the US is informed by Christianity, particularly Evangelical.

No. 374563

>>374480
i've not experienced that with marxist/socialist feminists. this is a problem in the general community, but i don't see why or how retards should discourage you from believing or adopting any ideology if you believe in what it actually stands for. that's the only way to prevent fucking losers from hijacking earnestly good political movements.

No. 374566

>>374560
This. Too many self-proclaimed radical feminists focus on how much they hate trannies. Once the focus is off of trannies, sex pozzie weirdos, and other junk from the 3rd wave then it becomes clear that these people should stick to calling themselves "gender critical."

No. 374568

>>374560
>>374566
either way they can still be saved
we can introduce them to rad em works and try to pink-pill them

No. 374573

>>374568
that's fine, but tbh i especially can't stand women who are 'economically' or 'fiscally' right wing (and consequently, obviously, as a result, they ARE socially right wing) calling themselves radfems. i see fewer homophobes and anti-fem christians calling themselves radfems, but yeah, that's obviously annoying too. i don't like that kind of dilution of radical feminist space. and really, the center left calling themselves radical feminists is a lesser form of dilution, really. radical feminism has everything to do with the dismantling of all systems that marginalize women. women marginalizing and exploiting other women under capitalism is not compatible with radical feminism. radical feminism is fundamentally anti-capitalist.

No. 374574

>>374525
In your opinion there's nothing for women on the right, there's many women who disagree with you. Don't remember when you were awarded the power to dictate who was and who wasn't a radfem, either. Radfem is a critical analysis, not a political leaning, it's not inherent to the left (quite obviously, re: misogyny).

Please save me the pro-choice lecture as well. I've had a baby, I'm intimately aware of all this information, and I'm pretty sure I outlined my stance in my initial comment. Pointless response.

>>374560
I'm from the UK, and the sudden erosion of women's rights is what introduced me to radfem, yes. I'm not the sort of person who needs to claim feminism though, I'd be quite happy as GC woman if I didn't agree with RF theory. I'm also bisexual, so the homophobia tack won't stick.

>>374573
There were radfems from the first wave who didn't think RF was fundamentally anti-capitalist.

>"I especially can't stand women who don't align with my worldview, not in MY feminism"

Ah, the left-wing Stazi strikes again. Tell me again what makes leftist ideological structure different from right-wing again? If you disagree with the herd mentality you're out? This is what actually puts women off feminism, which is fucking sad.

No. 374578

>>374057
Based anon citing Engels. I'm reading that book right now and I'm astonished how many of these ideas that are still kind of seen as cutting edge in anthropology and archaeology were already long part of academic discourse by the time of Engels' writing.

No. 374582

>>374566
>>374568
Your assumption that I'm a rogue GC tranny-basher with no knowledge of RF works is wrong, sorry. If you've got a link to the text that says you have to rigidly stick to one political ideology, never question it, or you're automatically disbarred from being RF - please feel free to post it.

Ending this OT here, as I doubt I'll get any critical conversation out of it.

No. 374589

>>374574
Radfem is a critical analysis, not a political leaning
Yes, fucking thank you. I'm politically independent, I know I value morality over finding people who share similar political minds like mine

No. 374590

Isn't radical feminism based on materialist class analysis? Seems like an inherent political leaning to me.
Both mainstream right and left are just different flavours of neoliberalism nowadays anyway (USian perspective).

No. 374592

What I'm curious about is what about Radical Feminism drew you all in? What is it about this ideology that you agree with and like?

No. 374594

>>374592
as >>374560 said I think the vast majority of us would be libfems who didn't accept trannies as women and or didn't like pron

No. 374596

>>374592
I was drawn into it after an almost rape experience, and some other assorted sexual harassment.

No. 374601

>>374590
To put it broadly: class feminism (Socialist, Marxist) is based on economic class analysis, liberal feminism is based on legal systems, radical feminism is sex class analysis. I see a lot of class feminists who call themselves radical feminists; the difference is the reasoning behind it, and I think a lot of the theory they agree with is exactly what supports the misogyny of the left. Stuff like "Women should be liberated from gender roles to benefit society - prostitution is wrong because capitalist exploitation, but "empowering" women to have meaningless casual sex is right, without there being any negative consequences for men!"

>inb4 someone argues that isn't feminism

I know it's not. Charles Fourier, the guy who coined the term 'feminism' was a radical socialist, and he believed in liberating women from the oppression of marriage and prostitution…but also believed in creating a fuck free-for-all society, like a precursor to the "Free Love" era that was supposedly super-feminist. Two sides of the same misogynistic coin.

No. 374605


No. 374944

>>374592
I was aware and critical of misogyny since I was in my tweens, so I’ve dabbled in a lot of feminist ideologies over the years but I feel like radical feminism puts to words everything that I’ve observed about the world best

It also feels like the only feminist community that still primarily focuses on the liberation of women which is a sad irony. Most others seem to now focus on men or marginalised groups, even if the problems they’re focusing on aren’t female specific

No. 375112

>>374601
I didn't know Fourrier coined the term "feminism", I'm gonna look that up. His wife was based, though. Their whole utopian collective living thing is really worth checking out.

No. 375120


No. 375124

>>375120
Anon, pissing off trannies doesn’t automatically make something radfem.

No. 375129

>>375120
Wtf I love Atlus now

No. 375134

>>375129
>>375124
This is not the only time Atlus was gender critical. See this article about Persona 4: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/denial-of-the-self-queer-characters-in-persona-4/1100-6404712/

There's a male character who likes dolls and sewing but who acts otherwise trad male. Rumors in society call him "gay". The game shows him coming to terms with the idea that having certain hobbies doesn't determine his sexuality. Cue liberal rage, whining about homophobia.

Second female character is a "detective prince". Characters use female pronouns on her after realizing she's a girl. Liberals cries transphobia like it's impossible for girls to dress a certain way without being trans.

Pull quote from the article that made me laugh:

> The discovery that Naoto is physically female immediately trumps all of the years he has spent living as a male.

No. 375309

I don't know if my beliefs could be classified as radical feminism. I'm anti-porn, anti-prostitution, pro-choice, gender critical, and overall just against women being treated like less then human beings. But I really hate slutty women. I don't think men who think of women as sex objects are any worse then women who act like sex objects thereby sending the message to men that women are sex objects, either through their words or their actions. It's pathetic how desperate they are to please men. Sure, it's men's fault they're that way but still. Whenever I mention this to anybody they say its not feminist to shame women but how are women ever going to be liberated if we just let it slide when they participate in the trappings of their own oppression? The definition of radical feminism is the radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all contexts. ALL contexts. So, why is it just about how men are evil, all women are poor little victims, and men need to stop. Why isn't it about teaching women to refuse to be sluts and stand the fuck up for themselves against asshole misogynist men? It would definitely be more effective.

No. 375313

>>374574
>This is what actually puts women off feminism, which is fucking sad.
Fucking thank you for saying it. It's no wonder trash like tradthots exist when left-wing feminists ree at anyone who doesn't agree with their political stances. Intersectionality never works, it's only bound to divide the movement and drive away those who would be interested in the core idea. I'm a strong supporter of economical liberalism and it took me a really long time to start calling myself a feminist and feel comfortable about it, simply because the word was so strongly associated with the archetypal blue-haired communist nutjob.

No. 375319

>>375309
>how are women ever going to be liberated if we just let it slide when they participate in the trappings of their own oppression?

You are in the good path. Wish more girls were as woke as you.

I think feminism and women rights activism would be a lot healthier and effective if we make the women who actively work against women and for men accountable for their actions, instead of excusing everything they do because… They are women?? This is the shit that always made me skeptic about feminists, either liberal or not. And no, I'm not talking about the poor women who are sex workers so they don't fucking starve, I'm talking about women as the slutty ones you put as a example who just sleep their ways to the top leaving the women who actually do the effort to work hard to attain what their want as pointless, and more hardcore examples; misogynistic mothers who abuse their daughters or let their daughters be abused by their fathers, or women who date really shitty men out of convenience and enable them. That's just to put some examples. They are really terrible women out there who actively take part on our oppression and don't give a flying fuck because they hate us as much as their men do, and when you call them out, you are silenced under the guise of what you're saying is misogynistic. I've seen it happen a lot in feminist communities, of all kinds.

The only ones I've seen calling out misogynist women who abused and degraded other women have been radical lesbians. Wish heterosexuals/asexuals learnt a little from them.

No. 375328

>>375309
I'm on the exact same page, anon

No. 375340

>>375309
I don't hate sluts, I pity them because it's not malicious, it's misguided. Self esteem and strong boundaries are the solution to sluttiness. On the other hand, the only solution for 'not like the other girls'/tradthot types is humility and not hating other women. Men maintain the madonna/whore complex regardless of slutty women, the existence of sluts only boosts the effectiveness of acting superior to women to appease men.

No. 375383

Is there a good baby's first radfem reading list out there? I've tried looking around myself but I simply have no reason to trust search results or mainstream curation (like wikipedia) on this, especially with how hostility towards the ideas has only grown over time.

No. 375428

>>375383
https://radfem.org/
Free e-books by famous radfems.

No. 375460

>>375309
>how are women ever going to be liberated if we just let it slide when they participate in the trappings of their own oppression?

But by considering slutty women something wrong and deserving of shame you are also in a trapping of our own oppression. the stigma of sutty women or way "slutty women" are shamed is what has led to much legislation against us. especially since there is no concrete definition on what a slutty woman is. to some a woman is a whore or a slut for just having high standards or daring to have sex out of wedlock. sex isn't the problem, idc about lesbians or bi women who sleep around with other women. i don't think shaming women for being "sluts" is what needs to be done. universally making sex unimportant and teaching women they do not need mens validation is vital to the movement.

No. 375466

>>375313
>It's no wonder trash like tradthots exist when left-wing feminists ree at anyone who doesn't agree with their political stances.

well no shit? there are some tenants that are vital to being a radfem. can't believe the anons in this thread are being agreeable to someone expressing pro-life sympathies.

to respond to your statement >>374510, many radfems are against capital punishment because many rads lean left and realize that the justice system can be exploited. if a rich man will never see the death penalty because he can afford the best lawyers then its not a fair or just system. and its a drain on resources due to infinite appeals and its not a deterrent against commiting crimes so whats the point of it? i don't see how thats incompatible with a pro-choice position. women aren't incubators or baby factories, a fetus doesn't exists and whatever "rights" it has should never trump those of the body it inhabits.


being pro-life is fundamentally incompatible with radfem politics. like >>374560 said, some of you anons just want a cool excuse to shame women and hate on troons. "im a radfem but i hate sluts you guys!" slut/whore/bitch are all slurs used against women and you should keep them out of your vocabulary. this doesn't mean you have to like women who sleep around, but those words can apply to every woman, not just the ones you don't like.

No. 375471

>>375466
>slut/whore/bitch are all slurs
it got real tumblry in here real quick

No. 375479

>>375471
that's a pretty standard radfem take. nothing "tumblry" about it.

No. 375480

>>375471
That is a factual statement though.

No. 375486

>>375471
>>Terms that exist to shame women’s sexuality aren’t slurs.

Right-o.

No. 375496

>>375471

What makes you think they aren’t? I’m not trying to be a dick like the other replies. I’m actually curious on what your take is, anon.

No. 375504

>>375309
>I don't think men who think of women as sex objects are any worse then women who act like sex objects thereby sending the message to men that women are sex objects, either through their words or their actions.
Honestly why does men's perspective matter when it comes to how woman live their personal lives? Their perspective is intrinsically skewed anyway. Expressing sexuality =/= acting like an object, it depends on the context. If that's how a man views all women it won't matter what the words and actions of individual women are. Men call women sluts and whores even for rejecting sex with them. Women in very conservative Muslim countries get called whore for showing their hair. Words like these are basically meaningless and innately misogynistic because they are frequently applied to any woman to shame her regardless of circumstances.

Of course I don't think it's a good idea for women to lack sexual boundaries or have unprotected sex with multiple partners but that's a self-esteem issue, and an extreme case.

>Whenever I mention this to anybody they say its not feminist to shame women but how are women ever going to be liberated if we just let it slide when they participate in the trappings of their own oppression?

By that same train of thought you could make the argument that choosing celibacy or opting out of being "slutty" is participating in the trappings of your own oppression because it plays into the patriarchal expectancy for women to be pure and virginal. Whatever choice you make within this dichotomy, you're still doing it "for men" and they will look down on you either way. Do what you feel comfortable with. What misogynistic men think doesn't matter.

No. 375506

>>375504

Expressing your sexuality is different from objectifying yourself. You sound like a libfem.

No. 375509

>>375506
>Expressing your sexuality is different from objectifying yourself.
Yeah, no shit? That's the point I was making.
>You sound like a libfem.
Nah, I've celibate by choice, and I'm anti-porn and critical of kink. I just don't live my life under a microscope always basing my decisions off of what men will think about me. Like who even gives a fuck?

No. 375513

>>375466
Thank you! Why does radical feminism need to be "inclusive" of viewpoints that are contradictory to it (like being pro life)? Why should we care the some women are "put off" by the ideology or movement? Maybe these women's core beliefs are not a fit for radical feminism.

Instead of making feminism, any strand of it, some kind of fun girls club it should instead be an ideology and movement with dedicated members that aren't just keyboard warriors and will make an effort to help women out materially. I'm saying this as someone who does not fully identify with the label specifically because right now I am just a keyboard warrior.

No. 375529

>>375471
I’m sorry, didn’t realise this is an ideology in which using mysoginistic slurs to shame women we personally don’t agree with is now apparently a feminist action.

No. 375532

>>375513
This.
How the fuck can you say you're a radical feminist but still perform toxic femininity and use other women? Or when you constantly excuse and defend the men in your lives?
It makes no sense. If you can't follow through some of it's basic tenants you're not a radical feminist. You actually have to do the things that are hard and uncomfortable (ie stop performing femininity completely, look at your male relationships, look at your female relationships and lack there of), you don't just get to say radical feminist things to feel superior to other women.

No. 375536

>>375513
This. Part of what put me off about liberal feminism is the complete lack of goal and focus. What's a woman? Anyone. Who is feminism for? Everybody. What's the fucking point? At least with radical feminism there are clear goals and definitions for things. Woman = adult human female. Goal = female liberation from patriarchy. And it should stay that way.

No. 375555

>>375509
NTA but most straight women's idea of expressing sexuality is the same ol spiel of tits out, ass out, tall heels, exaggerated makeup, etc. I honestly can't even believe anymore that these women are truly expressing their own sexuality and not just following the sex objects for male consumption handbook. I don't want to imply that women are NPCs or whatever, but is it really true that all of these women truly think this (very commercialized) concept of female sexuality represents their sexual core?

No. 375556

>>375555
How do we imagine female sexuality outside of a patriarchial society dominated by male gaze? To say its all high heels and cleavage and makeup is disingenuous, there’s pornography with petite women or chubby women with “natural” makeup and no high heels that still completely fall under the male gaze, there’s more to it than bimbo porn.

Women’s sexual desires exist independent from heels, sexy clothing and makeup, you take all that off a woman and you still can have a woman capable of arousal and having sexual feelings and enjoying sexual activity. it’s nearly impossible to say and no woman can answer this question because we’re all fed images of what men desire from the moment we’re old enough to read or comprehend a television program.

No. 375560

>>375513
if you read that anon's post, she's clearly buttmad that women want radical feminism to mean something coherent. radical feminism is not for moderates, sorry. i don't give a fuck if it "puts people off". they can sit in the GC crew and it doesn't make us a "left stazi" to maintain boundaries to what radical feminism means. we already have to fight accusations of us being literal conservatives despite the entire ideology being based on leftism. i am NOT ok with validating the people trying to smear us and accepting conservatives into radical feminism just because right wing women want to believe they're radical feminists. sorry, but they can't sit with us when they refuse to engage in critical analysis by acting like their right wing views, socially and economically, don't affect women. i don't think women should roll over and accept everyone to be radfems because some women are more sensible than complete retards. it still doesn't make them radical feminists, and i'm especially tired of leftists being demonized by moderates or conservatives just because moderates want to identify into a camp they share some similar beliefs with. if not being fully accepted by us lessens their fire for the things they agree with us on, just because we don't fully accept their self declarations for being radfems, well, they weren't anywhere close to being radfems anyways.

No. 375562

File: 1550466385856.png (30.83 KB, 469x439, azGc1rsvhl7o1.png)

>>375555
It does often seem like we're so openly considered sex objects that many women are more aroused/satisfied by being found attractive than by sex itself or the man who finds them attractive.

No. 375566

>>375555
My point wasn't that women never self-objectify, but that the viewpoint of men is literally unimportant. Men would sexually objectify a curved hot pocket if given the opportunity, more often than not their perspective means next to nothing when approaching the topic of how women express their sexuality. By buying into the Madonna-whore complex to some extent she is still approaching things from a male-identified point of view, even though her intention verbatim is to eliminate male supremacy.

No. 375567

>>375560
This is a really good comment. Remember radfems, letting that label apply to everyone is what fucked feminism up in the first place. I remember first discovering feminism online in my preteens and telling everyone that I’m not “a man hating feminist” because “feminism is for everyone!”

Now it snowballed and we have people saying pornography is feminist, plastic surgery is feminist, makeup is feminist, being a housewife is feminist, religion is feminist. the label now means fuck all because we were stupid and self conscious and let everyone use it for themselves.

No. 375574

>>375556
Well, yeah, that's why I didn't say "all". But for the most part, sexualized images of women follow the same bimbo script, even if it's been repackaged in different aesthetics to appeal to different audiences.

I agree that a female sexuality independent of male gaze is difficult to imagine. You've reminded me to catch up on the female gaze thread, so thanks.

>>375562
I agree. The vast majority of girls are sexualized or pressured into sexualizing themselves before they've even had an idea of what they actually find sexually exciting. I also feel like this kind of mindset is what drives women to continue to have sex with completely horrible lays with zero stroke game and actually pretend to like it.

>>375566
I get your point.

No. 375583

>>375567
thank you, anon. radical feminism evolved out of our alienation and vilification by leftist men. they were forced to branch off because of the fact that the men leading leftist groups were not acting in our best interest and were routinely oppressing, ignoring, and abusing left wing women. ignoring this and using radical feminism as a catch-all for people that happen to be anti-porn and oppose gender is rewriting history and does NOT get to the root of dismantling all female oppression and betrays the namesake itself. women are especially victimized by capitalism, and, at best, dismantling patriarchal capitalism for matriarchal capitalism is not female liberation. it's LIBERAL economic 'empowerment'. it's literally the same as validating female pimps and female-run brothels and declaring them feminist. it's weak shit that values 'personal liberty' first and foremost and ignores the well-being of women as a class. it could not be more neoliberal.

No. 375584

>>375466
>talking about political viewpoints in economics and how radfems shouldn't include them
>starts sperging out about pro-life beliefs
what

No. 375587

>>375584
>>375584
>talking about political viewpoints in economics and how radfems shouldn't include them
NTA, but how can people believe economic systems don't affect women and that strains of feminism shouldn't have dedicated views/tenants that value what actually benefits women as a class?

No. 375593

>>375584
Where did you get the idea that I think radfems should speak on economical issues? Reread my comment again please, you understood it wrong.

No. 375685

>>375587
It's how they can exclude other classes of women while only making it about them. Why do you think radfem is seen as "white feminism" when other groups of women have contributed but they don't get talked about?

No. 375687

>>375685
Agreed, but it's happening ITT, even. You can't separate the two. You can't have cogent feminist analysis without economic analysis.

No. 375710

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-04/border-force-accused-of-targeting-saudi-women-traveling-alone/10768036?pfmredir=sm

I am so utterly disgusted and ashamed to be an Australian citizen when women seeking asylum are being turned away and forced to return to a country that will most likely kill them for their disobedience. To any fellow Australians, is there anything we can do to bring attention to this issue?

No. 375780

>>375460
>>375504


Women who are content with pandering to men instead of being a regular person shouldn't be empathized with. They just reinforce misogynist ideas. They allow themselves to be reduced down to whores. They can make their own decisions. They're deciding to contribute to the patriarchy and make things worse for us. How am I any less of a feminist for taking issue with this? Feminism is about women's liberation. Women's liberation is about freeing ourselves from our subservient status in relation to men. If they conform to that, they are part of the problem that we're trying to eliminate.


>>375319
>>375328

Thank fucking god. And like >>375319 said, I'm definitely not talking about prostituted women or women involved with the porn industry. That's totally different. Those women actually are victims. I'm referring to everyday women who pull this shit.

No. 375788

>came to get educated
>got despair
This thread makes me lowkey suicidal tbh liberation seems impossible and def not in my or my children’s lifetime. I can see why libfem is the preferred sunny sugar pill. Society wants you to feel glad that “it isn’t the 50’s anymore” but compares to general human advances, feminism had barely made progress for hundreds of years. Women are truly the stronger sex for realizing how absolutely fucked things are and yet are still capable of compassion and hope and press on…

No. 375795

File: 1550512364591.jpeg (53.96 KB, 427x176, E2AE0489-DB87-405D-AA9D-33B2F3…)

>>375780
>>375780
Read Right Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin please. You don’t have to like these women but women who dress sexy and sleep with men aren’t our enemies and you’re wasting energy by putting them on the same level of men. Women cannot be lumped with their oppressors.

No. 375804

>>375795

Just because they're women doesn't mean they aren't complicit in misogyny. Just because they're women doesn't mean they don't take part in our oppression.

No. 375806

>>375804
what women are you talking about specifically? Random camgirls? Individual women who sleep around? Those women don’t have the material power to contribute to oppression.

No. 375922

>>375780
>I'm definitely not talking about prostituted women or women involved with the porn industry. That's totally different. Those women actually are victims.
Unless they've been trafficked they chose that lifestyle. They could have had a job flipping burgers but decided to put a price tag on their indignity instead. I don't think less of women who get sucked into the industry though, we all make bad choices at some point.
You act like you've never internalized any misogynistic beliefs.

No. 375929

>>375922

Yeah but I grew out of it around the time I was 14. Usually when most people develop minds of their own.

No. 375935

>>375929
can we be realistic here? we're on a site thats entire purpose is to make fun of other women on the internet and call them fat or ugly. i know not all of us use /snow/ or /pt/ but even just using this website docks your radfem points a little. the whole idea is that focusing so much on women living lives you think panders to the patriarchy is wasting time.

No. 375941

>>375935

I'm not focused on them. I was just bringing it up because I wasn't sure if it made me not a feminist.

No. 376034

>>375929
>Yeah but I grew out of it around the time I was 14.
Wow you're so cool and woke anon. 14?!? 14?!?!? God-tier. XDDD
Get over yourself. You aren't doing shit for other women by feeling self-righteous and patting yourself on the back for being a perf feminist. This woker-than-thou mentalty is a plague on leftist spaces.

No. 376040

>>376034

I wasn't bragging at all what the fuck stop projecting

No. 376045

Are trannies and camwhores the only things you guys will ever discuss.

No. 376080

>>375795
I have real problems with Andrea Dworkin, and I can't get round them, as she always reads hateful to me. Am I wrong? As a result, I always tell myself I can never be a radfem even though it seems like the only iteration of feminism that makes sense. Bums me out.

No. 376146

>>376040
You literally called women you don't like "whores" despite claiming that you grew out of internalized misogyny but okay.

No. 376167

>>376045
You're being selective in your reading comprehension. Women can do sex work all they want, but it's not an empowering thing. It's the ones that try to push the narratives it's feminist to be a sex worker because she's getting paid.
And the troon thing, these are men who think they know what being born a female is like. They only know the stereotypes. Other women who try to push the narrative we need to coddle these men who demand our attention are not helping.

No. 376207

>>375560
I'm the anon you're talking about - I'm not fucking "buttmad" about anything and I don't want feminism to include everyone. That's cool though, create radfem as being only for liberal leftists and watch it dwindle to the point of non-existence. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your political fellows have mostly deserted you for liberal feminism, whereas moderates and conservatives are actually willing to debate this stuff, even when it's with people they fundamentally don't align with. Radical feminism is not based on leftism - if it was, why was it so white and middle class initially? It's based on critical class analysis, something that has been done across the political spectrum, it was just populated by leftists at first because it was the New Woke Thing. Your comment honestly reads like you're more invested in preserving the movement for your own benefit than for anyone else's. If a woman agrees with and works to apply the basic tenants of radfem, then guess what? She's a radfem! That's really how social theory works. Continually bleating things like "RF is inherently anti-capitalist" when that was never a universally held view, then deciding that women who don't agree with it can't be radfem, will weaken the movement. As will the apparently inability to read - I never said I was pro-life, I said I can logically understand the argument put forward by pro-lifers, even though I'm pro-choice. Thanks though, this experience has been really illuminating as to why other radfems I know have abandoned the movement. Hopefully you'll realise that there is room for freedom of thought here, just like there was amongst the guiding voices of radfem (Andrea Dworkin being a prime example: how can she be considered RF if she believes men can be women?!)

Out of this thread, enjoy your echo chamber.

No. 376215

>>376207
Anon god bless you, I dislike these people who gatekeep radical feminism requiring another woman to believe in a set number of things that have no relation to feminism at all.
Radical feminism's true focus is about sex based oppression, let's keep it that way. Leave everything else at the door and save it for later. Focusing on one subject at a time makes it way stronger than trying to focus on multiple at once.

No. 376221

>>375560
Yeah, I get that you're mad but there are still moderate and right leaning radfems out there whether you like it or not or refuse to accept they hold the same radfem beliefs as you.
>>375562
Underrated post.

No. 376224

>>376215
you know that sex-based oppression is held up by things like the economy and our government. there is no magical radfem thought where we only focus on womens issues and ignore intersections of race, class, and sexuality. reproductive rights, the access of education, even the effects of pornography and sex work all mean different things at different intersections. your understanding of radical feminism seems very juvenile if you think a discussion of capitalism has "no relation to feminism at all".

No. 376227

>>376222
Different anon, and your logic behind it makes little sense. We're speaking in a general sense here without getting deep into specific political leanings like being red.
It's almost like saying you can't be a leftist if you don't accept trannies for who they are, yet you're both a leftist and a radfem. You can fit a broader category without negating radfem beliefs.

No. 376228

>>376224
Sex based oppression still happens on a large scale in non capitalist countries, I’m not sure what your point is

No. 376230

>>376224
I agree with you but nobody mentioned capitalism and you're assuming all leftism shuns and doesn't participate in capitalism.
>>376207
>but your political fellows have mostly deserted you for liberal feminism, whereas moderates and conservatives are actually willing to debate this stuff,
See, what confuses me here is that the general leftist consensus is "let everyone be happy and do as they please" when it comes to pornography, transgenderism, and the way women's oppression is framed in moral terms. Many libfems wouldn't consider radfems leftist because of this, and I'm not speaking in economical terms.

No. 376237

what do farmhands think about TERFs and SWERFs?

No. 376241

>>376224
Exactly this.

>>376228
Capitalism literally disproportionately affects women when compared to other economic systems.

No. 376242

>>376207
>That's cool though, create radfem as being only for liberal leftists and watch it dwindle to the point of non-existence.
If you think liberals can be radical you have no idea what you're talking about.

No. 376246

>>376221
>right leaning radfems out there whether you like it or not or refuse to accept they hold the same radfem beliefs as you.
This is why radical feminism needs to be gatekept. You people are so desperate to make it appealing to people it doesn't even suit and are going to end up completely defanging it and hijacking it (ironically, just like trannies), DESPITE the fact that there is no reason why these "radfems" can't just call themselves gender critical. Stop.

>>376242
A million times this. Why are liberals even trying to cry their way into radical feminism? And worse yet, why are anons defending right wing leaning women trying to claim they're radical feminists? Are they angling to make radical feminism completely toothless? GC feminists and radical feminists ally together and there's no problem with that generally. Why do they need to be wholly accepted as radfems?

No. 376247

There is literally sex based oppression in non-capitalist countries…

No. 376251

>>376247
no one said anything to the contrary. there are ways in which other political systems besides capitalism work to oppress women on the basis of their sex. most anons here live in capitalist countries so that is what we will discuss since we have experience. but feel free to provide insight on the status of women in non capitalist countries and how that ties in with sex based oppression, that would be great for this thread and something im eager to learn more about, genuinely.

No. 376259

>>376241
My female relatives that lived through communist Poland would disagree with you. Sexism was just as prevalent.

No. 376260

>>376259
Samefag, but the women of China would also disagree with you, and China is very much still a socialist state

No. 376262

>>376237
Trans-exclusionary and gender critical folk?
More or less conservative transphobes afraid of their sexed world being undermined. The more extremist ones being a hate group, calling themselves feminists to virtue signal. Compounding it with "radical feminism" is some absolute joke, but some people seem to equate it with male-hating.
I see it as feminist-appropriating transphobes vs trans-appropriating sexual deviants lmao.
I agree in many places with GC movement, but not with the black-white thinking. I'm yet to run into someone acknowledging transition as the effective treatment and agreeing with medical research hinting at biological source of gender incongruence.

The issue with sex work exclusionary feminists is that they usually oppose sex work completely, to the point of wanting to ban it. That won't help anyone, especially women who do sex work, and will only put them at higher risk, because they will have to work illegally.
Personally I find sex work disgusting, but it's not a reason to hate on people who do sex work and enjoy it. It's more important to help the ones who do it not out of choice, but due to other reasons, like being discriminated and unable to find other job for being women.

Both terms are insulting imho, I don't know why would anyone use them to describe themselves.

No. 376264

>>376262
>it's not a reason to hate on people who do sex work and enjoy it

You mean the handful of priviliged white women that come from upper middle class backgrounds? They reinforce the idea that women going into prostitution isn’t an issue and are always brought up by misogynists to further their agenda.

No. 376266

>>376262
you sound like a libfem.

No. 376268

>I'm yet to run into someone acknowledging transition as the effective treatment
What? I know of a lot of GC feminists (outside of lolcow) who acknowledge that medically transitioning can be effective for people with severe gender dysphoria. The hard truth is that it will never actually make them the opposite sex.

No. 376275

File: 1550583024101.jpg (64.58 KB, 1600x900, n4scgse21iuz.0.jpg)

Anons ITT trying to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with their view of radfem as being either a libfem or right-wing

No. 376283

>>376275
>I don't believe any of the things radfems believe but I'm still a radfem!!!

No. 376286

>>376275
Central issues engaged by radical feminists include:

Reproductive rights for women, including freedom to make choices to give birth, have an abortion, use birth control, or get sterilized

Evaluating and then breaking down traditional gender roles in private relationships as well as in public policies

Understanding pornography as an industry and practice leading to harm to women, although some radical feminists disagreed with this position

Understanding rape as an expression of patriarchal power, not a seeking of sex

Understanding prostitution under patriarchy as oppression of women, sexually and economically

A critique of motherhood, marriage, the nuclear family, and sexuality, questioning how much of our culture is based on patriarchal assumptions

A critique of other institutions, including government and religion, as centered historically in patriarchal power

If certain anons don’t agree with these points then they’re not radfem, that’s just fact. I don’t see how it’s a bad thing to point that out.

No. 376293

>>376264
You sound like a total libfem.

Plenty of women in Thailand and other poor countries work as prostitutes willingly because it’s the only way they can make real money. Laws against prostitution in America mainly impact Black and Latina women anyways so it’s not like “privileged white women” are the only ones hurt by SWERFs. I agree with the others that sex work isn’t ideal and the institution of it doesn’t seem great. But there’s plenty of work that seems pretty shit and we just get on with our day.

No. 376295

>>376293
I’m sorry, but I’m a fucking libfem because I pointed out that the majority of women in prostitution don’t enjoy it, and the few that do come from privileged backgrounds? Okay retard.

No. 376296

>>376207
All of this. The screeching leftist radfems who can't deal with someone agreeing with the core idea of radical feminism but also being a supporter of the free market are doing what the retarded libfems did to feminism - ruining it with intersectionality that doesn't even belong there. And how the fuck is making radical feminism appealing to all women "traitorous"? You need to be diplomatic in order to gather as much allies as you can, you can't go into a governmental meeting and start shitposting without compromises like you'd do on an imageboard. I'd imagine that any sane woman agrees with points presented here >>376286 but because all the autistic loud as shit lefttards they don't want to associate with the movement.

Well, have fun with your extremist group, those are always taken SO seriously and go REALLY far.

No. 376299

File: 1550587222327.jpeg (531.98 KB, 1242x2053, 3FC21FC6-B238-464F-AB5D-71DC5A…)

>>376296
The anons going on about how capitalism is the worst thing for women are ignoring the experiences of the many disenfranchised women globally.

Here’s a list of socialist states in 2019, take note on how many of them are known to be absolute living hells for women. It’s almost as though dismantling capitalism won’t solve all of our problems and can often create more.

No. 376304

>>376293
>Willingly
>Only doing it because it's their only option to survive

You desperately need to read up on Marxist theory, anon. This is pathetic.

No. 376308

>>376304
That’s like saying people don’t work at McDonald’s or for minimum wage willingly because it’s a shit job but their only way to survive. I’m not saying it’s great but don’t pretend like it’s not any other shit low skilled work.

No. 376309

>>376308
McDonalds and prostitution are not remotely similar and you know it. Why are you bringing this libfem shit into the radfem thread?

No. 376310

>>376308
compare the rate at which mcdonalds cashiers are raped while at work to the rate sex workers are raped while at work, anon.

then slap yourself for being such a dipshit.

No. 376311

>>376283
Please point out who in this thread said they categorically disagreed with everything radfem stands for, then called themselves a radfem. I'll wait.

>>376286
And women can believe in all of that but still be putting none of it into practice, because of their living situation. What does that make them? Are they still radfem, or does being so oppressed by patriarchy that you can't be a radfem mean you're not one? This ideological gatekeeping is pointless when it means shutting out women who are for the fucking cause! Like radfem is just overflowing with support? This is why feminism will never actually achieve anything, women too busy arguing over the semantics.

No. 376313

>>376311
>This is why feminism will never actually achieve anything, women too busy arguing over the semantics.

Firstly, this is just wrong. You can thank past feminists for many of the comforts you get to enjoy today.

Secondly, I’m the one who posted the list and my point was that these are the core values of radical feminism - if you don’t believe in them then you’re not a radical feminist, and I stated as much. At no point did I say that they have to actively be put into practice.

No. 376315

>>376311
You're the one who's been sat here arguing semantics though.

No. 376317

>>376308
Women being financially coerced into giving complete strangers access to their bodies, risking their physical and mental health, having to deal with the lowest scum because other women will often view them as below them and therefor have to deal with these men(oh, why doesn’t so and so just buy a hooker?), risking being trafficked, indulging in the fetishes of your rapists while you grin and bear it, having life long mental trauma from the abuse of the industry, and being viewed as nothing more than objects to the point that they are often targeted for murder is in what way comparable to flipping burgers? Please, enlighten me.

No. 376318

>>376311
You seem insanely pressed regarding how ~hard~ it is to practice radical feminism for some reason.
Why is that?
In your personal and local life, what are the things you are having trouble following?
Do you still perpetuate femininity?
Do you still have relationships with men?
Do you lack real female friendships?

What is it about your life right now where you can believe all of what radical feminism says but not actually perform any of it?
Radical feminism grows through its members actually doing things, giving it support ideologically doesn't mean very much.

No. 376319

>>376304
This
>>376293
>>376308
Anon you have to take a hard look at your own beliefs. Even as more of a lifem with a softer approach to sex workers, I can grasp that prostitution is synonymous with exploitation of the most vulnerable people and that perfunctory sex to pay bills is not consensual. If we lived in a world where it was just an additional thing anyone might dip into as a paid hobby because they liked sex then we could have room for a debate, but we don't. A choice between destitution and prostitution isn't consensual.

The right to give or decline consent to sex is a vital part of all feminism, nobody should be in the position where they have to trade their consent to live. This is why a McDonald's manager can give you shit work, but cannot legally force you to fuck as part of your job.

No. 376320

If sex work is just work, then it needs to comply by OSHA standards, and OSHA standards say that anyone who can be expected to come in contact with bodily fluids as a routine part of their work needs to wear protective gear, including gloves, and undergo training on how to dispose of that gear once used. But for some reason the "It's just work!" people don't like this idea. Hmm.

No. 376323

>>376313
I'm sure past feminists weren't sat about on lolcow telling other women that they weren't feminist enough to be part of their feminism. My apologies for not saying "current feminism".

>>376286
So you say belief is enough, but then >>376318 says that ideological support isn't enough. Which is correct? Obviously one of you isn't radfem enough. /s

>>376318
I have no problem practising it in my own life, but I'm not the only woman in the world. Why are you making it about me as an individual? Ever considered how women under Saudi Arabian guardianship law might be unable to practise radfem? Good attempt at trying to make it personal so as to undermine my question.

No. 376329

>>376320
not just that, but if it's just work then it's ok to threaten unemployed women with the loss of social security benefits if they don't become sex workers.

the only way to stop this would be to make it a specialized profession that requires training and a degree, and since 99% of sex workers are living in deep poverty and unable to afford that, they would be out of a job unless they once again broke the law to do it.

No. 376330

File: 1550590016794.jpeg (95.32 KB, 632x900, 2C616B7A-DEE9-4B9B-B0FC-FD00FD…)

To the anons who are preaching about needing to practice activism in order to be radfem:
I posted this before about how Saudi women seeking asylum are being turned away at the border and sent back to the very country they were seeking refuge from and will most likely kill the women for disobedience.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-04/border-force-accused-of-targeting-saudi-women-traveling-alone/10768036?pfmredir=sm

Abstaining from practicing femininity is all well and good but maybe our resources should be pooled into actually making a difference to the women who need it most, even if it’s just globally bringing awareness to this issue so that Australia feels the heat.

I’m disappointed but not surprised that such a current life threatening issue is being ignored to instead infight.

No. 376331

>>376329
>not just that, but if it's just work then it's ok to threaten unemployed women with the loss of social security benefits if they don't become sex workers.

They did exactly that in Germany recently.

No. 376337

>>376323
I’d say ideological support is enough as it helps spread awareness, and the more women who learn of it the better. For every woman who is not at a point in life in which she can actively partake in the feminism there’s a possibility she’ll pass on knowledge to a woman who can really make a difference with her resources/ambition.

No. 376346

>>376323
Pray tell how you think the movement is going to achieve anything if the only thing in it is ideological support?
Of course there are women more opressed than us and that cannot put radical feminism into practice, how is this news? Except to actually liberate those women we need less opressed women to start doing more.
Ideological support for those women isn't enough because it doesn't actually get them out of their situations.
Ideological support doesn't help any women get out of their situations, it literally takes other women doing things.
Spreading the message is all well and fine, but it's not going to help the most opressed women.

No. 376351

>>376299
>The anons going on about how capitalism is the worst thing for women

Which not a single person here said. Acknowledging how capitalism can be used to enforce and implement patriarchial standards doesn’t mean that we’re ignoring how other government systems can also oppress women in different ways.

No. 376379

>>376146

>women you don't like


How much longer are y'all gonna pretend the patriarchy doesn't reward women who conform to it and punishes women who don't and kiss every womans ass just because she's a woman when she's fucking over the rest of us who want to be treated with like people just because she wants asspats from men? I guess feminism has no place for chicks who actually want to get shit done because cool girl man pleasers who are upholding the patriarchy are such a priority over actually achieving equality. There really is no hope for women when feminism is no longer about fighting for liberation but treating every women like a poor wittle misguided pwincess who doesn't know any bettew and shaking your fist at those mean, mean men who treat us oh-so-badly instead of actually doing something to change the misogynist society we live in because, you know, having a pussy means you can't be complicit in misogyny and our oppression as women at all. Have fun cradling women who are holding us back and only care about fulfilling men's needs. It's never gonna get you anywhere. It's never gonna get womankind anywhere. I guess feminism actually is fucking useless afterall.

No. 376409

>>376246
>You people are so desperate to make it appealing to people it doesn't even suit
How? Nobody is "hijacking anything". There is more to being a radfem than just being gender critical stop being so desperate to exclude other women.

No. 376416

>>376379
Why are you incapable of seeing things im multitudes? No one said women are all innocent victims or can’t be complicit in patriarchy, but upending the power systems that enforce sex based oppression isn’t going to get us absolutely anywhere if we focus our time on getting mad at other women. Women aren’t in power like men are. Even the most conservative, religious, far right, misogynistic woman in the world is less complicit than your average man.

And what do you mean by how the patriarchy “rewards” women, there is no way to live life as a woman and only receive benefits from patriarchy and misogyny. Are you talking about camgirls who get paid by men? They’re still at risk of being unable to get another job due to doxxing. Housewives? They may be “rewarded” by not being ree-ed at my incels online but they’re still in a vulnerable place and at risk of having nothing of their husband leaves them, plus the threat of domestic violence.

>treating every women like a poor wittle misguided pwincess who doesn't know any bettew and shaking your fist at those mean, mean men who treat us oh-so-badly instead of actually doing something


What is “doing” something to you? Fun fact: it’s not complaining about whores and sluts on lolcow

No. 376419

>>376416
I'm glad to finally see some sense being made in this thread.

No. 376461

>>376346
I'm not arguing with you, I'm illustrating the point that anons in this thread don't actually all agree on how radfem you have to be before you can be radfem - ie, that ideological gatekeeping is fucking silly when we could all just be working together towards the common goal of female liberation.

>>376330
Actually there are many radfems who are involved in trying to help Saudi and Korean women by spreading awareness and contacting media, including myself, which is why puritanical anons ITT sound so ridiculous. Just hoping that their exclusivity complex comes from some actual IRL activism.

No. 376618

This thread is just infighting. This is your first and final warning.

No. 376777

>>376461
>Actually there are many radfems who are involved in trying to help Saudi and Korean women by spreading awareness and contacting media

I’ve posted this twice and you’re the first person to actually respond, so thank you. I can’t do much as a single person but if we actually pooled together our resources to gather awareness around this issue until hopefully someone with enough power to do something becomes aware of it, but all anons have been doing in this fucking thread is infighting and slapping each others tits like a bunch of retards on a short bus.

Why don’t we actually make this thread useful and share among one another what is happening in our corner of the world and see if there’s anything we can collectively do (even if it’s something as small as spreading the word about it).

No. 376778

>>376777
Not sure if this would be better here or in gender critical:

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/edinburgh-labourer-shouted-abuse-at-transgender-woman-in-bonnington-1-4872906/amp

But here’s something to discuss, a man has been made to pay a trans woman £500 compensation for his verbal abuse; has anything remotely similar ever happened in response to the verbal abuse women are subjected to?

No. 376780

>>376778
If a British woman dared go to the police to report men yelling things at her on the street she'd be laughed out of the police station.

No. 376783

>>376778
>they're from my part of town
I'm wondering if this is one of the trans women I've seen around here, who are both middle aged, overweight men in extremely short mini skirts. If that's the case they probably just thought it was a drunk man having a laugh.

I wish people who insulted/harrassed me on the streets would be fined, though. I've never had anyone lift a finger to help me even when men got physical with me in broad daylight.

No. 376784

>>376780
You’re right, here’s a compilation of much more severe cases where the perpator was made to pay a similar amount in compensation.
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3507674-Labourer-fined-500-for-mocking-woman-and-ordered-to-pay-her-500

No. 376787

>>376778
I expected it to be worse than it was, but when I read the article it was a group of men laughing as the MtF passed and that was it.

That's still fucking annoying of those men and they should keep it to themselves but I wouldn't even dream of going to the police over that. I've had men follow me home, men physically grab me as I passed, men spit on me. A group of men laughing at me and then doing nothing else? That's just any other day.

No. 376816

>>376783
We may as well use it as a precedence to push police to do this much for women too.

Not that anyone actually has the time to stop and call the police every time an idiot screams at their breasts but if someone ever does and the police don't take them seriously, we can bring up this case as an example of why they aren't doing their job properly. If we have to share bathrooms, we also should get to take a share in their sense of entitlement.

No. 376825

>>376816
Scottish farmer here. My best friend was grabbed by a man as she left a supermarket a year ago. He just grabbed her arm and started yanking her towards his car. She only got away because she started screaming at the top of her voice and struggling and he got spooked and let her go. Still screamed "Bitch! Bitch! Fucking BITCH!" at her as she ran back inside though.

She actually did go to the police, but they didn't want to bother doing anything about it. There might even have been CCTV since it happened in a car park but they said it would be too hard to track him down.

They don't care about us.

No. 376830

>>376825
Some women are just more equal than others. Penis is tooootally unrelated, of course.

No. 376848

For American radfems:
What are your women's only groups and spaces like, and do you even know of any? (Ie meeting spaces, spinning spaces, work spaces)

I'm seriously interested in seperatism and the like, so I'm wondering if any other farmers had experience themselves with these spaces. My ideal goal would be to live on a commune or farm with other women and to have a job that helped other women.
I've heard of a few that are in America, makes sense because of all the space, but I haven't heard of any in Canada.
I'm not sure if it's because Canada has a lockdown on "appropriate speech and behaviors" regarding women's only spaces (because of the whole TRA movement here) or if they have to be just that more hidden and secretive.

No. 376858

>>376825
Yes and it's awful but we should still use this as leverage to improve things going forward, if a TIM is getting this care then I'm going to demand it too.

Also I'm not going to pretend the police have ever given a shit but there are actually slight improvements being made in how sexual assault cases are being handled now since the large scandals. There are always going to be shit police but we can and should keep pushing for change.

No. 376953

What does everyone ITT think of artificial wombs? I'm not talking about biological implants, I mean incubator-like machines that exist in hospitals and can carry a fertilised egg to term.

>removes a key biological difference underpinning sexism, leading to a far more equal society

>or devalues women and leads to further marginalisation

I honestly can't decide if I should be cheering on their development or demanding they're immediately outlawed.

No. 376961

>>376953
i admire shulamith firestone but i truly think it'd be the second. as far as removing the biological underpinning that oppresses us, that's why i think women should stop choosing to have children, especially with men, but also just in general.

No. 376983

>>376953
personally i'm against them. i feel like it devalues women. the ability to carry and nurture a fetus is something unique to women and i do believe that it's something that needs to be respected and cherished. it's really loaded, but it's loaded bc it's something only women can do. i feel like artificial wombs are another attempt by men trying to take something they envy away from us. why do we need women when we have artificial wombs? when you combine artificial wombs with sexbots it really starts to look bleak. misogynists will hate women bc we're nothing but incubators, then they will hate us bc they've created a newer, better incubator. transhumanism does not bode well for women.

No. 377261

>>376816
When a man in Yorkshire (England) was contacted by police for liking a "transphobic" tweet there was a call for other marginalised communities to start reporting similar actions. Sadly each county has its own police force and they seem to be able to pick and choose what low-level crime they chase up.

No. 377730

This stupid ad keeps circulating Facebook with young girls explaining how gender equality benefits everyone, not just girls and women. I'm so sick of this "men-too" feminism.
Can you imagine if campaigns started blasting "here's how racial equality benefits white people!" Or "LGBT rights are important for straight people too!" Nevermind the conniption everyone would have over "here's why trans rights benefit cis people"
Why is it so fucking bad to have one thing that helps women

No. 377737

The comments below make me want to shoot myself. Especially of a woman (god knows if she's a male LARPer) saying she just wants to be a housewife.

Bitch, you get a choice to be a housewife or NOT because of feminism! I'm sure you would have hated only being able to become a housewife if not for feminism…

Also, is feminism not a thing in Japan? I know Korea has a radfem movement stirring up, thank god.

No. 377742

>>376953
On the plus side, if more financially available it could end the use of surrogacy for hire, which is often a really exploitative industry. In countries where it's illegal to directly pay for surrogacy couples will have it done abroad, in places with less regulation or protection of the surrogate mothers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28627374
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42845602
personally too would like to have a baby but wouldn't like the actual pregnancy effects, so it's kind of cool that it could be an option that wouldn't wreck my body or career even if it probably leads to a lack of connection between baby and mother.

No. 377749

>>377742
I'll wait until they've found a way to cure every form of cancer before I'd trust the medical profession to grow a healthy baby outside of the human body.

No. 377752

>>376787
I thought mtf people love getting catcalled? I've seen plenty of evidence in the GC thread to support that. They even invent stories where hundreds of men compliment them on every journey

No. 377753

>>377750
You should get a refund on that burger mate

No. 377754

>>377730
"men too" feminism is the most logical one, especially when many women are trying to turn things up instead of looking for equality between men and women

The problem is that feminism began as a legit movement for liberation of women and we got very far, but nowadays is going to the extreme where it often promotes violence against men (at least where I live it happens)

No. 377758

>>377751
it seems that, even if a woman willingly chooses that lifestyle, some feminists will think it´s a shame and will make her feel like trash.. which is not very "feminist" if you ask me

No. 377761

>>377754
There's nothing logical about it. equality is objectively a loss for men. They will never be on our side when it means they have less control over us, and wishy washy men too feminism is inherently incompatible with our liberation.

The system is the way it is for a reason, men didn't design it to fuck THEMSELVES over.

No. 377763

>>376246
I think liberal feminism is the result of trying to include too many people in it. They backed down on too many issues in order to please men and handmaidens that their ideology is meaningless

No. 377770

>>377730
I fucking hate that nothing can be for women. Same with men who complain that feminism doesn't do enough for mens rights. They just whine and cry, like go fight for your own rights. Why should women fight for the rights of our oppressors?

No. 377774

>>377770
tbh even for much pettier things like hobbies or internet spaces, men throw a fit if they don't feel included. This is why you get robots coming here with some weak bait or sissies invading j-fashion communities. The idea that women might get along with each other and want things other than male attention and approval upsets them.

No. 377776

>>377754
>"men too" feminism is the most logical one
Do you feel the same way about other issues, like animal rights activism including human rights? or is it just feminism that has to include everything and everbody under the sun?

No. 377802

>>377776
nta but animal rights does do that. it promotes for animals and humans to have he same rights.

No. 377813

>>377802
That is not at all the same thing anon, the idea behind it is that animals should have the same rights as humans - it isn’t human focused activism with an end goal of equality for humans.
This is such a dim comment

No. 377884

>>377758
Feminism is not supposed to be about every woman supporting every other woman in every choice they make. Women who perform femininity, become a mother and housewife, support the sex trade, etc are a model example of how to be oppressed. Critiquing the "choice" does not mean criticising the woman.

No. 377887

>>376983
>when you combine artificial wombs with sexbots
Won't ever happen. Misogynistic men claim it will as a cope and to hate women further for existing. But that artificial womb tech is too valuable for the medical industry that it won't be put on the open market for the general population to buy. Seriously, nobody should be worried over artificial wombs because some mgtow talked about it in a YouTube video. Most it will do is exist in hospitals for emergencies or for conservation efforts to preserve a species of animal.

What's more realistic for our future as women is combating mtfs who demand our spaces and our bodies.

>>377774
They especially hate women cooperating with each other. It's that divide and conquer mentality that they haven't moved on from.

No. 377993

>>377887
i mean "combine it with sexbots" as a general term. Not sexbots with artificial wombs inside them. i think we're about 200 years away from that.

>exist in hospitals for emergencies or for conservation efforts to preserve a species of animal.


I wish i would could trust like that. Give it a few decades and it will be treated like surrogacy where you skip the middle man. I think its good to think about the implications of artificial wombs. Especially in our current political environment. we cant even use yoinic imagery without mtfs and their allies screaming at you. If artificial wombs are ever used for human fetuses you can kiss away "womb = woman" because now "womb = rentable machine".

it's not a pressing problem right now but im really worried for the future.

No. 378042

>>377813
>it isn’t human focused activism with an end goal of equality for humans.
And neither is all feminism, it's about the liberation of women. You're mixing up different theories of feminism.

No. 378116

>>376848
Your best bet is to look online. We have a few communes and things like that here, but outside of that, it seems American radical feminism largely exists online. there used to be a female festival in Michigan, but the gender specials all banded together to get it shut down because it wouldn't let in trannies and nonbinary idiots.

No. 378158

Every now and then I'm reminded of Judy Brady's essay 'I Want a Wife' and it depresses me. I get that its supposed to be satire and maybe I should laugh a little but it encapsulates what I dread about heterosexual relationships. I try to be optimistic but I know very few healthy, happy het relationships. Makes me sad yo. I want a wife, who wouldn't?

No. 378441

>>374115
My god, the comments are rage inducing, literally "what about the menz??"

No. 378639

>>374115

>Imagine being a young woman during that period.


"That period" represented by those ads was nearly a century, from 1893 in #23 to 1988 in #35.

Those ads reflected cultural norms, and sexism was the norm.

No. 378673

>>375929
You really think that you never internalized any mysoginy since the age of 14?

>>376299
China is capitalist. Socialism is just a name there, if you truly think that China is left-wing to this day, you're completely uneducated.


>>377754
you're literally retarded.

No. 382485

Hi ladies, I'm new to this thread so i don't know if this has been posted but there's a channel I'd like you to look at.
It's called "The Deprogrammer" and she's doing really interesting videos, discussing lesser known cases/ways in which pedophile culture is being normalised(especially within the LGBT community), and much more.(wrong thread)

No. 382557

>>382485
I'm not gonna lie, the brainwash-y effects (for example: use of dreamy songs like "Pure Imagination" - a song rumored to trigger dissociation in MKULTRA victims - the flashing colors, hazy filters, repetition, attempts to manipulate the viewer's mood when showing certain clips by adding sad music with lyrics like "I've had it up to here", etc) used in each video remind me of those sissy hypno videos men on 4chan obsess over. Since this person references Pizzagate a lot in their videos, I'm not convinced they're not completely aware of what they're doing.
I don't disagree with the messages they're putting out, but it's clear these videos have certain "influences". On top of that, the suspiciously deep voice that sounds like it's deliberately being forced to have a feminine "lilt" makes me want to stay away. It's too creepy, like some kind of psyop or reverse psychology attempt.(wrong thread)

No. 382789

>>382485
>>382557

This is OT. Take it to the General Tinfoil thread.

No. 382811

Might be a dumb question but do most radfems here believe that misogyny/men being pieces of shit in general is biological?? I've seen anons claim that it is in the pink pill/MH threads but I disagree.

Is there really a male and female brain? I don't think men are pieces of shit by nature but its how society and culture comes at play.

No. 382847

>>382811
>>382811
>I don't think men are pieces of shit by nature but its how society and culture comes at play.
i agree. they're absolutely shit people but giving them the biological excuse plays into their hands in multiple ways and is dumb. gives them carte blanche to escape accountability and validates the male female brain bullshit, ironically. it's shown that the culture and way that people are raised can turn them into massive pieces of shit/sociopaths. look at the children of the hideously wealthy. growing up with the entitlement, constant asspatting and ball-flouring that men grow up with, being encouraged into literal sociopathy as they are, i think it's silly to say conditioning isn't to blame. we know conditioning is to blame for pervasive gender norms placed on just women, that are demonstrably harmful to a degree that's impossible to even calculate, and people genuinely believe those are ingrained, so why shouldn't the same be said for men?

plus it's like, light skinned people have been, historically, pieces of shit to darker skinned people and it has been that way for millennia, but does that mean there's a genetic component to their shittiness? no. i mean, it's just dumb to start assigning biological underpinnings to the bullshit garbage behavior of any oppressor class so they can escape actual culpability. people gonna scapegoat and violate and bully and shit on anyone they can to get their way and continue the cycle, it's human nature and def not exclusive to dipshit males. there is literally NO part of male culture that is healthy or sane and men are encouraged to go full retard from day 1. there are literally no salvageable qualities to their culture. there's no chance they won't be absolute trash.

No. 382893

>>382811
There are absolutely biological differences between the female and male brain, every inch of our body has sexually dimorphism differences, but they’re definitely not the reason as to why men are mysogninistic. I’d say it’s more so their aggressive and dominating tendencies being allowed to exist to toxic levels that’s a big part of mysoginistic culture, they’re stronger than us and have used that to bully women into submission over generations and now all typical male behaviour is seen as normal and female behaviour as the outlier. But again, this is mostly because they can keep getting away with it that mysoginy is pervasive and continues to be passed down onto boys who would otherwise be nonconformist

No. 386054

https://global.ilmanifesto.it/putting-the-lie-to-the-pretty-woman-myth/

We spoke with Julie Bindel, author of a new book about prostitution. ‘Putting an end to the sex trade requires a twofold change. It’s necessary to create fully developed and well-thought-out exit paths for women who are prostituting themselves. … At the same time, we must put up deterrents in front of those who are paying.’

When the film Pretty Woman came out in 1990, the image of the happy prostitute—who, thanks to her work, meets and marries a handsome billionaire—swept half the world.

This was the first powerful pop culture argument in favor of the sex trade. In her book Il mito Pretty Woman. Come la lobby dell’industria del sesso ci spaccia la prostituzione (published by ed. VandA ePublishing, 283 pages, €15; translated from The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth, ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), Julie Bindel debunks the assumption that sex for pay is a job like any other.

Bindel conducted 250 interviews in 40 countries, in which women told her what it really means to be a prostitute.

They spoke of the tremendous odor of the clients, of the pain of a raw and ulcerated vagina after being penetrated by many men, of the horror of having sperm and other fluids come close to one’s face, of beards rubbing against their cheeks until they bleed, of not being able to eat, drink or kiss their children because of what they had had to do with their mouths, of cramps in their arm or elbow after desperately trying to get the client to finish so they wouldn’t have to be penetrated again.

Then, Bindel reconstructs the origins of the movements for legalization, reveals who is financing those acting as part of the pro-prostitution lobby (which also includes the likes of Amnesty International) and their methods of persuasion, chronicles the disastrous and damaging effects of laws decriminalizing and regulating prostitution, and showcases the results of the “Nordic model,” adopted in several countries, including Sweden, Ireland, France and Iceland, which is the only approach that truly manages to fight the phenomenon of prostitution, as it addresses the core of the problem: the existing demand and the clients.

Together with Rachel Moran’s Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution, Bindel’s The Pimping of Prostitution is an essential read in order to understand that prostitution—in the words of the American sex trade survivor Evelina Giobbe, the founder of WHISPER (Women Hurt in Systems of Prostitution Engaged in Revolt)—is an industry “driven by men’s demand for unconditional sexual access to women based on their social, economic and gender power—in other words, patriarchy.”

A radical feminist and activist, and a journalist renowned for her investigations into religious fundamentalism, violence against women, surrogacy and human trafficking, Bindel is in Italy until March 9 on a tour to present the Italian edition of her latest book.

No. 386091

Can a woman be a radfem and straight or bi?

No. 386132

>>386091
is this bait? yes it's totally fine. acknowledging and understanding all of the issues that radfem is trying to address doesn't mean you can't be into men. you just have to protect yourself and not tolerate any misogyny or toxic masculinity from them.

No. 386134

File: 1552438765866.png (104.27 KB, 460x699, b49ee1111dd2217ef141880512ad6a…)

>>386091

The Angry Lesbian Separatist Feminist is a trope, not an accurate descriptor of rad fems.

No. 386154

>>382811
It can't be. From what I've researched, misogyny exists in the state system along with slavery and all sorts of discrimination. Tribes and other smaller societies never experienced the same dynamic.
We also need to account for the fact that the most predominant religions in the world are abrahamic. Most Abrahamic religions came from herding cultures that were male dominated for some reason. The greeks grew crops and women were respected nearly as equals. I don't remember much because I studied anthro so long ago but I would read more into it. Real interesting stuff.

No. 386157

>>386154
What? The Greeks treated women like shit, they believed that women are mutant or tainted men

No. 386163

>>386157
Well I'm speaking about agrarian cultures in contrast to pastoralism. Women in ancient greek society had much more representation and respect, and that isn't saying much as you pointed out. http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/BooksOnline/He5-95.pdf

No. 386221

>>386091
There are some radfems who claim you should choose women but they're definitely not the majority and somewhat fringey. You can be a radfem and straight anon.

No. 386754

Resources to start participating? Rad fem spaces in North Texas? not sure if there are any groups around here and how to seek them out…

No. 387015

>>382811
I agree with both >>382847 and >>382893
. It's a combination of biological and social components. You can raise a male in a very tolerant society, a male who has good values, a male who isn't a sociopath, and he can still end up doing horrific things. And vice versa.

It's just like in psychology the idea of nature vs nurture. Nurture seems to play the biggest role in the outcome of the self, but nature also plays a role and can override nurture even in what seems like the perfect environment.

There is a difference between male and female brains but it's not like what trans/TRAs say. Yeah there's obviously something different about our brains but it's not something that can be mixed up in the womb or some crap like that. This is why many steer clear of the male/female brain talk because they don't want to seem like they support what often is used in the trans community as proof of trans-ness (even though it was debunked, see the GC thread).

No. 387666

What do farmers think about this?

https://old.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/b1xbeu/feminism_is_not_about_men/eioxk9k/

Drama between hetpartnered radfems and Pink pilled radfems

No. 387668

>>386154
>>386157
>>386163
I have read that "barbarian" cultures like the Mongols.Gauls.Celts often had higher amounts of Gender equality then "civilized" peoples
Spartan women had more rights then other women in the Classical Period and It was common for the richest citizens in Sparta to be women

No. 387669

>>387666
I personally find this kinda shit not helpful. I think we can critique men as a whole while realizing that we can have our own good experiences with me.

But I consider myself more gender critical/gender abolitionist not a radfem.

No. 387672

>>387668
There's a really interesting part in Caesar's De bello Gallico in which he talks about the germanic people. He wrote both genders bathed together naked to teach them to resist temptation, sex or marriage under the age of 20 was not allowed because it was said to stop growth and make you weak and in case of a war women sometimes had to fight as well. So while they might have looked and lived more primitively than the Romans, at least shit like child marriage and women being confined to solely the house wasn't a thing.

No. 387676

>>387672
Yeah I read that
during Caesar's Invasion of Gaul
In battles Gallic women would stay behind and cheer for the men to fight on but also care for the wounded and injured men,If any man came back that was not properly Injured they would hassle and at times beat him to go back and fight in the front lines

No. 387698

>>387668
Sparta was pretty fucked up and parasitic, though. Their society could only exist as it was because for every Spartan citizen they had 10 helot slaves to keep society running. All that Spartans themselves did was fight wars and birth more soldiers. Males and females were segregated from a very early age and it was forbidden for married couples to see each other in daylight for the first years of their marriage, to discourage emotional attachment and emphasise sexual activity and procreation at night. Spartan women were much more independent than e.g. Athenians, but only because the men were always off fighting and dying in wars somewhere. Their value first and foremost was in breeding more soldiers. A Spartan woman who died in childbirth was considered as heroic as a Spartan man dying valiantly on the battlefield, but likewise a Spartan woman of fertile age who wasn’t actively popping out healthy babies was as much subject to scorn and contempt as a Spartan man of fighting age who didn’t fight.

Gauls and Celts were a varied bunch but I like the story of Boudica. She was the wife of an Iceni king and when he died without a male heir the Romans assumed his territory would default to Roman rule. However the Iceni custom in such a situation was for his queen to take over as their ruler and when the Romans disrespected this, her people were prepared to follow her into rebellion. It’s hard to know how many of the details are true and Roman authors certainly loved to write about crazy barbarians doing silly barbaric stuff like treat women as people (good thing our armies are over there to civilise them, right?) but it’s nice to know that she’s been picked up as a British folk hero either way.

No. 387880

https://www.reddit.com/r/gc_woc

New GC Reddit for woc

Also where did the GC threads go? I was gonna post this there….

No. 390192

Can I talk about a "divide" that I noticed a lot in the radfem community
its between the Heterosexual married radfems with male children and Lesbian or political lesbian radfem on the men in their personal lives that they choose to be with
arguments start and threads are always locked
I feel it pushes away women from radical feminism

No. 390196

>>390192
The divide is between separatists/lesbians/normal women who are secure in both their relationships and also their feminism vs self important not-my-nigel types who throw a tantrum when they feel slighted on their boyfriend's behalf. If they can't cope with radical feminism not coddling their personal choices, maybe it's not for them and it doesn't have to be. Keeping radical feminism faithful to it's political stances is more important than making everyone feel welcome and included, trying not to push anyone away is what gets you liberal feminism.

No. 390197

>>390192
I’m a straight radfem but even I’m sick to death of a lot of other straight radfems. They marry shitty men and it’s so hypocritical. And I don’t mean “occasionally shows male socialization” I mean straight out porn sick losers and shit. They’re fucking enabling men and then want to complain about porn. Stop dating men who watch porn and maybe men will actually fucking stop??

No. 390203

>>390197
>>390196
I have literally had a lesbian separatist argue with me,that years of happiness with my bf means nothing since his male socialization will creep in and make him mistreat me eventually and that we should break up
I'm not going to call him a "Nigel", demurely kowtow and apologize for "sleeping with the enemy". One can be hetpartnered and " One can acknowledge male violence and the overarching impact of patriarchy and try prioritize woman oven men as a group but still love and cherish the Individual men in our lives

No. 390204

>>390203

>I'm not going to call him a "Nigel", demurely kowtow and apologize for "sleeping with the enemy".


Holy shit I’ve seen this exact sentence elsewhere kek. You really are everywhere on the fucking internet white knighting your damn Nigel. Get a life outside your man

No. 390208

>>390204
I'm now white knighting him
It shouldn't be controversial to say that I don't think my bf is my oppressor in any way

No. 390211

>>390208
You’re one of the insufferable ones. Being glad at news of women’s abuse because your man ‘isn’t like that’

You don’t center women

No. 390212

>>390203
Seperationism is a nice sentiment and great for those who can/want to follow it, but it means little on a practical level. It's not a realistic plan whatsoever to help women as a whole. Also, yeah sex isn't a human right, but declaring that a whole group of people aren't allowed to love who they naturally love because of your political views is starting to mirror a very bad precedent.

No. 390215

>>390212
It can actually drive change, and a lot more effectively than what a lot of radfems normally do. If women stop dating men then men will begrudgingly get less horrible. And the women who stay single can normalize it and come together to help each other instead of wasting energy and resources on men.

No. 390218

>>390215
the number of women in the US who Identity as "feminist" are about 18% and of this 18% most are either libfems or the feminism is about equality for everyone type people
radfems and gender critical feminists are a small minority
even if we were to all stay single and celibate for the rest of our lives it would still have no significant change and it would be pushing more women away from feminism

No. 390219

>>390215
>Being glad at news of women’s abuse because your man ‘isn’t like that’
>You don’t center women

you don't know damm thing about me

No. 390220

>>390218
There’s a whole hell of a lot more women who are uncomfortable with porn and such than those who identify as feminist. If a percentage of women held their standards and refused to date men who do that stuff, it would encourage other women and show them that it doesn’t have to be normal. All of our advances have been driven by a minority of women whose ideas slowly spread.

>>390219
Oh please, what’s the chances that someone else would be spouting the same exact shit word for word everywhere?

No. 390230

>>390220
yes I made that post vent but I'm the any of the things your accusing me of
>Being glad at news of women’s abuse because your man ‘isn’t like that’
>You don’t center women

No. 390237

>>390230
I can provide a screenshot/link of someone using that exact sentence several times and one saying that news of another woman’s abuse made her glad

Again, it’s probably you. Getting tinfoily now but I fucking bet you’re the anon who started this conversation >>390192
Just so you could talk about your Nigel

No. 390239

>>390203
You are literally EXACTLY the self important not-my-nigel type referred to. Just shut up and enjoy your relationship, holy shit. Nobody would know or care about your personal life if you weren't voluntarily bringing it up to defend yourself against some imaginary feminism police. It doesn't have a place in feminist discussions, it's irrelevant and if you are comfortable with both him and your feminism then you don't need to justify it to anyone. It's obnoxious that you still do because you want feminists to validate your choices.

No. 390250

>>390237
>>390239
I am that anon who posted this >>390192 and that on the vent thread but I never ever posted anything about being glad women got abused

No. 390255

>>390250
I’m not even talking about LC. You dragged that shit over all the way from reddit

No. 390259

>>390255
post the screenshots then

No. 390270

File: 1553416587194.png (159.81 KB, 640x1136, A1CB1B4E-FB01-42F6-8F9A-778663…)

>>390259
NTA but you posted this in TWO fucking reddit threads. gtfo ESL chan.

No. 390306


No. 390311

File: 1553435716122.gif (315.44 KB, 200x148, 200w.gif)


No. 390341

File: 1553442006475.jpeg (195.51 KB, 640x1079, 475F7F64-CBA3-4C52-B1A2-A6A0BE…)

Thread title was “man deafens woman’s ear during rough sex”

There’s at least one other thread where the “kowtow” line comes up, too

No. 390342

File: 1553442209954.jpeg (120.36 KB, 640x795, 01B991F2-32B0-4A2A-882E-2F8E45…)

>>390341
>>390311
Forgot the second part

No. 390358

>>390341
>>390342
ok this was me I admit that

No. 390387

>>390342
>>390341
>>390358
At this point, I think it's not only "NAMALT", but a hint of "I'm not like the other girls uwu".
What the fuck did you mean "This just makes me glad"? How does "This makes me glad" sound even close to a sane thing to say in a thread about other women being abused? Why are you talking about how great your boyfriend is instead of, I don't know, the fact that enough men are like this, and that it's so common that you can just open Reddit and see hundreds of cases of this shit?
Nope, all you can talk about is how your bf totally isn't like this. It's all about you.
Dickmatization is real.

No. 390388

>>390385
Tbh I kind of sympathize with her, I have radfem tendencies but it really annoys me when the dykes in these spaces start sperging about any woman who has had decent experiences with decent men. Even when I recounted how my dad was one of the few men I respected I got shit from the r/gendercritical crowd (some of them anyway).

I'm convinced dykes just don't like straight women being happy with the few decent men who do exist. It's both sad and creepy.

No. 390426

File: 1553451341961.png (797.94 KB, 1738x2048, Screenshot_20190324-141345.png)

>>390387
>>390341
It's this fucking sperg who posted this retarded shit here multiple times and on Reddit.

No. 390432

>>390388
I'm bi and dating a guy, but I don't talk about him and how great I think he is in radfem spaces. There's a time and a place for everything, and I feel like radfem spaces are where you go to criticize men as a social group and their control over societies, not to talk about how my or your experiences with certain men are so great.
It should go without saying that not all women's experiences are the same to the very letter, but it's not my or any other woman's place to try and "Ok but my boyfriend is nice" when other women are trying to discuss how utterly shit men can be, the ways they get away with it and what can be done to improve it and/or keep ourselves safe.

No. 390433

>>390432
When the content of the thread is basically "men are all trash, there are no good ones at all", then it's topical to mention that actually NAMALT and draw upon anecdotal experience. That's just human nature. Like I said, I don't blame them for wanting to vent because I want to sometimes as well, I just think a lot of it is motivated by creepy dykes who hate seeing happy het couples.

No. 390434

>>390433
I don’t believe women when they tell me how great their guy is. 9 times out of 10 they go on to be like “ugh I’m mad my husband wants to go to a strip club!” or “my bf never cleans, but he really gets systemic oppression of women, tehe~!” somewhere else

Also anyone in a feminist space is already aware that conversations are on a class basis, there’s no fucking reason to NAMALT.

No. 390435

>>390434
Depends on what the guy is like. Liberal feminists are predatory motherfuckers, but ordinary guys can be alright.

No. 390436

>>390435
Libfem guys are just sly normal guys. Typical guys are disgusting shit. Liberal guys are smart enough to try to hide it and gaslight us

No. 390437

>>390426
Glad other people thought that post was fucking weird

No. 390438

>>390435
*libfem males anyway

>>390436
I've had significantly worse experiences with male feminists than I ever have had with normal dudes, even the dudebro type.

No. 390440

>>390197
Honestly. Can some of these women just become Libfems again? I seriously mean it. Liberal Feminism that "worked with the system to make it better" used to be useful once upon a time. Maybe they can go back to that and improve the libfem crowd with their ~rad-leaning knowledge instead of constantly going to radfem spaces to get validation for their lifestyle. It's so annoying.

No. 390441

>>390433
"Creepy dykes" wew

No. 390442

>>390440
A lot of them are straight up conservatives/right-wingers and tend to migrate over to the alt-right/goodwife section. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the right is growing so fast now, the left is in free-fall everywhere.

No. 390447

>>390440
This is exactly how I feel

No. 390449

>>390442
I resent that so much. Like, what do they think radical feminism even is? Tradthots incorporated?
It's like they only think in black and white. There is only one feminist outlook, and every woman who doesn't subscribe to liberal ideology must be an alt-right handmaiden/housewife like themselves.
They think they're above libfems because they respond to the failures of the left by "demurely kowtowing" (to use Reddit-Anon's words) to the spirit of "tradition", but they're really both just doing the same fucking thing, aka exactly what men want, just with different attitudes about it.

No. 390451

>>390449
Iktfs but it has to be seen as part of a bigger picture. The right is ascendant pretty much everywhere now. In fact their ascent in the west is slightly more delayed than in places like Russia, Turkey, China etc. Liberal ideas are dead and done for.

No. 390494

>>390451
Does that mean we're dead and done for too?

No. 390497

>>390494
No, history shows a constant oscillation and reaction. Culture isn't static and swings between 'liberal' and 'conservative'. I'd expect radical feminism to grow, not shrink, in reaction to the failures of liberal feminism. Radical feminism was even smaller a movement 5-10 years ago. British feminism has helped kickstart a burgeoning revival. Outside of the Anglo sphere radical feminism is surprisingly popular in Latin America.

In terms of broader cultural zeitgeist I think 'leftism' as we understand it in the US is reaching a point where it can't sustain itself. Im really hoping to see something new and different taking its place to contrast the new kind of conservatism. I hope new activists and ideologues can present novel ideas and ways of looking forward.

No. 390498

>>390497
>Outside of the Anglo sphere radical feminism is surprisingly popular in Latin America.
For an ideology to gain traction it needs to have a certain cachet or brand value. Think about how the success of China has empowered authoritarian, right-wing ideology because it broke the myth that you need to be socially liberal to have a successful economy and increasing living standards. So Latin America means nothing because it doesn't confer any brand value, because the place is so dysfunctional to begin with. In other words, you need to show your ideology has real, tangible benefits to people's everyday lives. Places like China can turn around and say things like "well, you talk about your freedom and democracy, but how is it that our third-tier cities where people are on $5000 per year salary-wise are safer than uber-wealthy New York and London?" for example.

No. 390501

>>390497
>I hope new activists and ideologues can present novel ideas and ways of looking forward.
Impossible, both right and left liberalism have exhausted themselves. They've got nothing new to offer. As for what comes next: racial nationalism. Even what people call "SJW politics" is really just thinly veiled race-nationalism ("what's in it for my tribal group?" is the question they ask about every policy discussion), it's no wonder white nationalism has started rising massively too.

No. 390544

>>390437
how was my post weird ?

No. 390548

I'm a male and radical feminism makes the most sense to me.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

No. 390560

>>390544
"I'm glad my husband is incredibly socially inept"

No. 390565

>>390560
I think men on a fundamental are flawed in their nature(I believe women are flawed as well in similar and other times completely different ways ) but I do think its possible for a man/woman to overcome these flaws through his/her own will power
that to me is SO a man who has overcomed his human flaws
I am the only who see's that about him
I love him

No. 390569

>>390565
Not wanting your husband to have a social life or be able to talk to people is abusive and controlling, nothing about that is feminist.

No. 390571

>>390569
This exactly

holy shit that entire post.

No. 390576

>>390565
Socializing with people isn't a human flaw. It's a basic part of life everyone has to do. Also, why would eating fruit even be a problem?

No. 390577

File: 1553482162300.jpg (255.23 KB, 1200x900, 1708w-getty-fruit-closeup-Cars…)

>>390576
Yeah! Fruit is great, I love fruit. Why is it good that he doesn't eat fruit? How is abstaining from fruit feminist?

Fucking weirdo.

No. 390579

>>390571
>>390569
I do not control him
he was like this before I met him,In fact I made him cut down on his self Discipline
he has difficultly understating people at times so I help him but he's content with just being me and I'm content with just being with him
I feel other men should emulate him and try to be like him

No. 390581

>>390579
For the love of God please stop sperging out about your husband in the radfem thread.

No. 390582

>>390577
>>390576
he only eats vegetables and meat
he'll eat fruit if has to but says its healthier to eat vegetables(mostly potato's) and he never eats any junkfood at all

No. 390583

>>390581
you brought him alright(derailing)

No. 390584

Why are you guys spending so much time talking about some anon boyfriend at a radical feminism thread?

No. 390585

>>390584
She won't stop talking about him

No. 390589

>>390582
>(mostly potato's)
…The fuck? I'm pretty sure I remember you mentioning this before in some other thread, and someone said you and your boyfriend were both morons over the potato thing.

No. 390591

Who knew the radfem thread would get its own milky cow

No. 390604

>>390591

Apparently becoming a cow on KF over her posts on reddit three months ago wasn't enough.

No. 390656

>>390579
You need a Youtube channel where you talk about this. I'd watch. Boyfriend reveal at 500k subscribers

No. 390718

>>390426
isn't that the dynastia sperg? They posted the same shit on kf

No. 390930

File: 1553549536637.png (278.1 KB, 1066x1308, ll.png)

http://thestrippershateyou.tumblr.com/post/183530529269

This person really found it sensible to compare women who do sex works to dogs unironically, and then complain that radfems are the ones who don't respect them.
And people are agreeing with them in the notes (though, some radfems did call them out). I want off this ride.

No. 390933


No. 390960

>>390933
Yes I know, that's what I was referring to.

No. 391815

File: 1553787220147.gif (1.53 MB, 540x304, gif1.gif)

Does anybody have any suggestions on how to 'de-brainwash' yourself out of the 'not like other girls' and seeking male approval mentality? No matter how illogical I know it is, for some reason my brain tries to make other women the enemy.

No. 392129

File: 1553841752209.jpg (66.52 KB, 533x371, Germaine-Greer-headline-festiv…)

what are all your thoughts on Germaine Greer ?
She's called out troons for a long time now but she's also shamed women who came out against Harvey Weinstein saying they spread their legs for Movie Roles,defended Woody Allen and also she said that one of the goals of women's liberation should be women having the right to be able to apprentice young male beautify with out scorn
so in 2003 she released an Art Book called the beautiful boy filled with over 200 Pictures and paintings of young teenage boys with her commentary on it
her exact quote was "Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."


"Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests

No. 392130

>>390930
Does anyone have a good article on the problems with sex work?
I had a discussion with someone recently who had a problem with me calling sex work unethical. They kept replying that it is just someone providing a service and they are receiving payment so how can it be unethical. I tried to explain that practically nobody chooses to become a prostitute willingly. They are either forced by their situation, or literally forced by someone else. There might be a unicorn who willingly does it, but you cannot differentiate between the two, because the women who were forced will lie about it. Either to not get hurt by their pimp etc, or because they need to lie to themselves to be able to get through the horribleness of it. Eventually the discussion had the sticking point of how is sex work unethical in and of itself. How is it harmful even to that one unicorn, because if it isn't, apparently I am not allowed to say prostitution or going to prostitutes is unethical.

No. 392132

File: 1553843261157.png (265.92 KB, 498x1162, Image1_2.png)

>>392130
I don't know about an article but the best way I can explain how it's unethical (on the john's part, not the prostitute's) is that money is coercion, and there can be no real consent when sex is coerced. If you hold a gun to somebody's head and say 'have sex with me or I'll shoot you', it's rape. If you tell them 'have sex with me or you won't be able to eat or pay rent', it's not much different.

And the conditions sex workers work under certainly wouldn't be considered ethical from a HR standpoint, if it was judged like a regular job. Sweatshops, child labour etc are just providing a service for money, but they are unethical as fuck.

No. 392133

>>392132
Thank you!

No. 392136

>>373703
>SJW is a right wing/centrist dogwhistle for "possess empathy". Children taking puberty blockers can be SJW, but so can feeding the homeless.
That's dishonest, you aren't going to get called an SJW for feeding the homeless, but you can feed the homeless and still be an SJW depending on what you do.

The term is generally applied to leftist moralists. Someone who feeds the homeless isn't an SJW. Someone who goes on the internet and shames people into feeding the homeless, however, is.

No. 392138

>>392133
Oh and I really liked this explanation as well. Probably too convoluted to bring up in a discussion IRL though.
>Well known woman hater Thomas Aquinas said “Prostitution is like a sewer in a palace. Take away the sewer and you will fill the palace with pollution.”
>His meaning was that a certain class of women exists to absorb, indeed to serve as a sewer, for men’s dehumanizing and violent sexual desires, thus providing a buffer between this ignoble form of fornication and the “castle,” that is, the kind of wholesome fleshly congress reserved for good and proper women and their husbands.
>We see this ancient pretext for misogyny repeated throughout history in a variety of ways, including the oft-cited-never-proven idea that modern prostitution (and pornography) somehow protects society at large, and women in particular, by providing a class of women upon whom it is acceptable to let loose the excrement that is violent male sexuality.
>Prostitution and pornography are falsely attributed as being means by which to reduce rape and general violence against women when in reality, they just concentrate these things onto the rape-able underclass, leaving the “good” women to bear men’s children, clean their homes, and be their wives.

No. 392186

>>392138
When a paragraph starts with "Well known woman hater Thomas Aquinas" it's quite hard to take the rest of it seriously.

No. 392200

what are your thoughts on Training men ?

I think men on a fundamental level are flawed in their nature(I believe women are flawed as well in similar and other times completely different ways ) but I do think its possible for a man to overcome his flaws through training and his own will power

would any of you want your bf's to better and truly worthy of you

No. 392209

File: 1553873150201.jpg (186.38 KB, 1000x1202, man_in_the_glass.jpg)

what are your thoughts on Training men ?
I think men on a fundamental level are flawed in their nature(I believe women are flawed as well in similar and other times completely different ways ) but I do think its possible for a man to overcome his flaws through training and his own will power
So you can save the males in your life and make them better you just have to make them think its their side
start with self discipline for exercise and diet then add reading later on and with in a year you can mold a deadbeat man into a Ideal male
one who doesn't get offended when you say stuff like "Men Suck" "Kill all Men" and one who cares for yours and others needs

No. 392218

>>392186
NTA, but if the shoe fits, it won't slip off. Sorry if you were triggered.

No. 392267

My thoughts are that this >>392209 poster honestly sounds like a man trying to shift responsibility for men's actions onto women. It'd be great if it worked that way my dude, but it doesn't. There's a whole stereotype around women trying to change the bad boy (see: all men) and failing miserably. Individual women trying to change individual men won't amount to anything. You're better off supporting feminism and other women; the change has to be collective.

Although, the relationship conundrum is a tough one for sure. My own view is that you should only enter a relationship with a man who is a radical feminist, and who genuinely applies it to his own relationships with women. Very few men like that out there, but I'd say no relationship is better than one with a man who's gonna degrade and abuse you, and again, trying to change a person is a very bad idea. Committing to a relationship because you think the man is going to change is basically a death sentence.

No. 392272

>>392267
Yeah, many men love the idea of them being helpless and that a proper, good woman can and should change them by acting like their mom or unpaid 24/7 coach.
And if they don't succeed in bettering themselves, it's the woman's fault.

No. 392276

>>392209
>>392267

You can never 'fix' a man but you can help a man that has a good demeanor to begin with become a better functioning person because that's what relationships are about, helping each other grow. I encouraged my bf to stop playing overwatch, get a skincare routine, go to therapy, and keep his room clean but I didn't invest a great deal of emotional labour into making him do those things, he simply listened to my advice because he genuinely wants to improve his life. He started out as a feminist ally and radical leftist so he understands my need for equity in our relationship. If you're a feminist don't settle for someone who doesn't support what you believe in.

A lot of men have poor self-discipline but they have no desire to put effort into not being a scrot. Women should never waste a second of their time on these men. We need to hold men to high standards or cut them off immediately because our self-preservation comes first, no negotiation.

No. 392277

>>392218
They probably are catholic

No. 393184

>>382893
I agree with everything you say, anon

No. 393185

>>377737
I'd rather not let my sanity drop right now, but might do it later

No. 393202

>>392209
Why do you keep going into the rad fem thread to "not all men". It's really not the place for it

No. 393208

>>393202
I think she's just trying to be positive. There are much worse capers.

No. 393288

Why do I continually see women on here harp on and on about "fixing men" or "helping men" or "growing men".

When the fuck has any man ever uttered any of those phrases? When has any man saw a vulnerable or misguided woman and thought, "I will teach her to grow".

Why do women insist on putting more of a burden on themselves for something that men can do themselves individually? Men can fucking teach themselves the basic requirements for being a decent partner and citizen.
If you're having to do that so soon in your relationship it's already failed. You can expect to continue to "teach" your man how to wipe up after himself or clean his piss of the toliet until he dies.

No. 393897

File: 1554121902446.jpg (26.89 KB, 405x430, L.JPG)

Just found this

No. 393898

File: 1554121935463.jpg (35.63 KB, 415x322, o.JPG)


No. 393899

>>393897
Context?

No. 393900

File: 1554122218745.jpg (22.91 KB, 445x221, S.JPG)


No. 393901

File: 1554122532167.jpg (19.28 KB, 420x177, A.JPG)


No. 393903


No. 393921

>>393897
Original comment is a joke, but the replies are digusting

No. 395608

File: 1554554791417.jpg (45.45 KB, 300x188, mosely2.jpg)


No. 395721

>>392209
You really shouldn't use stoicism or ancient Greek notions to "fix" men considering how misogynist ancient greek society was.

The thing about "fixing" men is that the reason men are the way they are is because of private property, ultimately. One constant of "civilization" is that men have forced women (and sometimes other men by creating a new gender, its interesting that eunuchs had their genitals removed because they were forced to do jobs typically assigned to women) to do free, unpaid labour, whether that be domestic, sexual or child rearing, for them. They forced women to effectively be their mothers and do everything for them, without pay, for thousands of years and they don't want to give it up.

I think men can "change", but its not women's job to do it. They need a loud wakening call into just how vile their behavior is and that women will no longer do all their unpaid slave labour and be their sex slaves.

No. 395734

What do you guys think of WoLF and the Heritage Foundation thing? Do you think it's good to ally with them on this? Or does this further stigmatize radical feminism and serve to "prove" idiots right that want people to believe radical feminists are right wing? Cathy Brennan is being attacked because she disagrees with allying with them and regrets having done so in the past because she feels she has done damage to the movement, and to lesbians and gays, in allying with them previously

No. 395737

>>395734
Allying with right wingers is never a good idea. Don't forget these people's only concern with regard to women is to get them back into lifelong slavery to their husband like in the "good old days". If they want something, its never a good thing. I'm also not anti-trans, so there's that.

No. 395741

>>393901
>>393900
>>393898
So tired of this logic
>the right porn is good!
When we know how harmful it all is, especially being exposed so young. Hope these men never have kids so they can only hurt themselves in the end

>>395737
>Don't forget these people's only concern with regard to women is to get them back into lifelong slavery to their husband like in the "good old days"
This. They only want breeding stock and despise that women are people. Seeing them as allies can only hurt women

No. 395743

>>395737
I agree, but tbh it's hard to reach a consensus and prevent such shit because even people in this thread adamantly believe right wing women can be radfems and defend right wingers calling themselves radfems. I think, right now, especially, the complaint/smear that radical feminism is right wing is very dangerous to radical feminism and dangerous to anything radfems will try to advocate for, so imo, it's really important they gatekeep and be careful with who they ally with. The last thing radical feminism needs is the psychotic men who hate women, on the "left", who explicitly are trying to smear them, being proven right by allowing right wing nonsense within actual radical feminist ranks or allying with them. I agree with Cathy.

No. 395746

>>395743
The thing to remember is, women are always going to be pushed away from the right wing. There are exceptions of course, especially when money is involved (its no coincidence many right wing women are raking it on patreon), but the truth is, any ideology based around oppressing and abusing a group is naturally going to push the abused away from it. I mean, look at how right wingers treat women who support them, they call them "thots", make hideous memes about them, causally talk about how they want to do vulgar things to them. I really don't think half of them would put up with it if they weren't making enough money to justify it. Not to say there aren't women who've been indoctrinated, but more that as mass, naturally women are going to seek liberation, and will keep seeking it until the world ends or they get it.

No. 395748

>>395746
>Call them thots
This something I see on both sides of the spectrum and a lot of it is done in a "comedic" joke way.
Slightly OT maybe, I recognize a lot of women are more politically independent compared to men, who always try their hardest to fit into a political ideology. I see it a lot on this forum. A lot of women are shamed for disliking far left politics despite also disliking far right politics, both far sides strive to try to police women and their beliefs.

No. 395751

>>395746
I think some people try to separate right wing social issues and economic issues and claim this means it can still be compatible with radical feminism because even if not religious, being anti-porn, for the abolition of gender, anti-sex work, etc but imo, it's really impossible to be fiscally conservative and support fiscal conservatism as if conservatism doesn't affect women the hardest. I don't really see the point in allying with them anyways. Conservatives are already going to be against the equality act, centrists that are conservative leaning will likely be as well. Allying with conservatives isn't going to sway the left or left leaning centrists re: the equality act, so who is supposed to influence?

No. 395766

>>395737
This.
On top of that, an alliance with the far-right means alienating all women who aren't part of a very specific race/class, and in the end, it fucks women of all race/classes over, anyway.
It really is the stupidest move for any pro-woman group to take.
Don't repeat the mistakes of Susan B. Anthony and co.

No. 395939

File: 1554617990524.png (149.08 KB, 495x350, asddslk.png)

I only lurk the GC threads here. Sorry if this has already been discussed but I had a question regarding fashion/radfem

I see a lot of radfems reject fashion and makeup entirely. And I understand where they are coming from.

But what about alt-fashions? I wouldnt say many men like woman in extreme alt-fashions. And some are even used to deter men. I enjoy alt-fashion as a creative outlet and I like participating it and being involved in the community (which is predominately woman in my choice of fashion).

What are peoples thoughts/opinions on this? Can both co-exist or can alt-fash be feminist?

To clarify I dont feel obligated to wear my clothes/makeup. Most days Im casual comfy and no makeup. But when I dress up its truly because I enjoy it and find it creative

No. 395947

>>395939
Honestly if you enjoy it and find it worth doing go for it. I don't think everything you do and like needs to be ideological. But I don't always agree with radfems on things so maybe I'm not the best person to respond. I think a lot of radfem analysis focuses more on the beauty industry as whole rather than the individual

No. 395954

File: 1554619175611.jpg (297.68 KB, 2000x1333, img.jpg)

>>395939
I know plenty of radfems who belittle women for having a mainstream style but still always go for a "Punk" aesthetic

No. 395959

File: 1554623526552.jpg (102.9 KB, 640x1138, 9sgexon1i7q21.jpg)

thought this was good and relevant lol

No. 395960

File: 1554625086694.png (1.44 MB, 1194x1214, jqqgh0hou7j11.png)

>>395959
I'll contribute a relevant meme too

No. 395962

File: 1554626332059.jpg (71.04 KB, 500x655, sb0fp41fs8p21.jpg)

>>395960
I'll contribute as well

No. 396037

File: 1554650145554.png (579.84 KB, 2268x1810, IMG_20180302_192925.png)


No. 396061

>>395962
I don't get it

No. 396070

>>396061
Its just a stupid meme

No. 396077

>>395962
it's meant to highlight how stupid those "that is not feminism, this (prolly something very libfem or Male centred) is!!" statements are

No. 396096

File: 1554663089017.jpg (81.6 KB, 540x760, jqnmrworurl21.jpg)


No. 396097

File: 1554663183882.jpg (82.29 KB, 640x720, Gi24Nmh7LYXdizv_D173AHWveDKPuf…)


No. 396098

File: 1554663278365.png (568.17 KB, 960x667, biuq8rssu8q21.png)


No. 396105

>>396096
I love hehesilly's comics!

No. 396116

I don't get why so-called "left wing" marxist women think sex work is OK and not coercion. You've got to ask the question: would women be doing sex work if money wasn't involved? If that's a no, then its non-consensual sex. Engles even literally said sex work needs to go, and yet they call themselves marxists?

"What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it."

Was Engles a "sex-negative SWERF?"

No. 396130

>>396097
I want to know the stats on sex trafficking in places where SW is legal. I know it can slightly lower the spread of stds and stis but all the time I hear from lib fems that legalizing sex work will eliminate trafficking because the demand for victims would disappear… Yet you'd still have women being treated like worthless objects. How is that empowering gdi

No. 396132

>>396130
IIRC trafficking increases in most places where it is legal. Not enough women go into sex work "consensually" for the demand to disappear. In Germany for example they traffick women from Eastern Europe.

No. 396150

>>396132
It only seems like it increased because stats got more accurate. If prostitution is illegal, then you have no chance of getting the real numbers. Just recently I saw some radfems claiming that there is more sex trafficking in Germany than in some 3rd world countries with zero women's rights. Do you honestly think this is true? Of course not, in those countries they're just completely in the dark about how many children and women really are forced into prostitution.

No. 396167

>>396116
>>396116
Yes, Engles was a SWERF and said a whole bunch of TERFy shit. I think I remember hearing some dumbass "Marxist" cry about Silvia Fédérici being a "TERF", essentially, or whatever. They're such annoying dumbfucks.

No. 396172

>>396132
God that reminds me, in Germany a while back there was this huge scandal about how they were telling women that they should go into prostitution and won’t be receiving benefits.

So many libfems were shocked that a) it was actually being treated like a viable work option and b) that only women were being targeted. What do these retards think that yelling about how it’s exactly like all other will achieve at the end of the day?? I just hope it never reaches the point were employers can start demanding it of their female employees just like it can already be demanded that women have to wear makeup and heels. I mean if sex work is work, then how is it any different from having to grab someone a coffee while you intern?

No. 396314

>>396130
>legalizing sex work will eliminate trafficking because the demand for victims would disappear
That's clearly bullshit if you think about it for more than three seconds. How many women do you know who would go into prostitution willingly, even if it was legal? Actual physical prostitution, not selling nudes on Snapchat. It's legal in my country and yet every woman I know, including all SWIW libfems, would still rather struggle on benefits or work a soul-crushing grossly underpaid food service job than head to the red lights district. When I was in middle school we were warned about so-called loverboys who would manipulate and blackmail teenage girls into prostitution and become their pimp. Legalization didn't make this kind of behaviour disappear, it made it easier. After all, they're not asking the girls to do anything illegal!

No. 396381

>>396132
Yep. Fuck sex work. Women should have guaranteed employment or be paid a wage for domestic labour. That is what we should be demanding.

No. 398561

stolen from a deleted post on r/GenderCritical

I have been doing some research on different branches of feminism and have stumbled upon amazon feminism!

Here a quick blurb about it from a site:

> When I first heard of Amazon Feminism, I was a little confused. It both ended up being exactly what I thought it was, and even more, in the best possible way. Born in the unlikely place of being inspired by Ayn Rand, Amazon Feminism is a branch of feminism that emphasizes female physical prowess as a means to achieve the goal of gender equality. At the most basic level, adherents of Amazon Feminism are dedicated to the image of the female hero in fiction as well as in real life – as expressed in the physiques and feats of female athletes, martial artists and other powerfully built women in society, art and literature. The fictional poster-goddess of the Amazon Feminist movement was Wonder Woman, who was conceived in the early 1940s and based partially on the Amazons in Greek mythology.


>During the women’s suffrage movement, there existed militant suffragettes. Amongst these, those who practiced physical culture and who engaged in violent forms of political protest were frequently referred to as ‘Amazons’ by novelists and newspaper journalists. In the early 70’s Gloria Steinem drew attention to the concept of Amazon Feminism with her praise of Wonder Woman as a feminist icon, and her criticism of DC’s decision in 1968 to change Wonder Woman’s powers. Wonder Woman’s famous equipment had been replaced with mere-mortal Kung-Fu. The year after Steinem generated attention toward this issue, Wonder Woman was changed back and her popularity with young female readers increased. According to Thomas Gramstad, “Amazon feminism is concerned about physical equality and is opposed to gender role stereotypes and discrimination against women based on assumptions that women are supposed to be, look or behave as if they are passive, weak and physically helpless.”


>Further, “Amazon Feminism rejects the idea that certain characteristics or interests are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a vision of heroic womanhood. Amazon Feminism supports and celebrates female strength athletes, martial artists, soldiers/women in combat, firefighters, lumberjacks, astronauts, power lifters, etc.” Ultimately Amazon Feminism is about the ability to view oneself as the captain of their own soul, as a person willing to face and resolve any conflict – and, as a woman, to refuse to see oneself as a victim of man-made or biological circumstances – separates oneself as a warrior from those ‘ordinary’ people, male or female, who are willing to drift with the current and bend with every breeze. Wonder Woman remains central to the ideals of Amazon Feminism, she embodies this idea that through hard work and discipline women can become strong and independent and free themselves from their economic and psychological dependency on men.


This looks pretty interesting and great since there are actual real women who practice amazon feminism. It is a different way to break down the patriarchy. Radical feminism states that women are oppressed due to their biological gender. Not only reproduction but women being weaker than men has caused for a lot of violence and strife.

Amazon feminism empowers women to find their own female strengths (whether it be flexibility or speed) magnify it. Of course men would still have more political and social power (that’s what other forms of feminism is for such as radical some liberal lol) but the violence faced by women would decrease.

Sometimes women want to play nice with men but forget that can put them at a disadvantage.

what are your thoughts ?

No. 398622

>>398561
I feel like ideology like this is the only way forward.

Most types of feminism are self-defeating, the foundations of them are always built upon victimhood and suffering. It allows women to always retreat into the identity of being a victim, to relinquish responsibility and essentially give up any meaningful power they had.

People view traumatized women as weak or like they don't know what they're talking about, when instead we need to be treating traumatized women as experts.

I'm really feeling this. The time to be nice is over. Being nice got woman absolutely nowhere. The world we live in doesn't not reward niceness, even though the men in the world try to gaslight any woman who thinks otherwise as being "crazy", "psychotic" or "out for blood".
It's funny to see men react so suddenly when women start speaking of initiating violence (such as shooting pedophiles, rapists and other undesirables - all primarily men) or organizing groups.
It's so telling. They are afraid.

I really suggest watching a few of this woman's videos. I don't agree with everything she says (the stuff about the esoteric/magic side I know nothing about) but damn does she give a good wake-up call.

No. 398633

>>396314
legalizing sex work doesn’t eliminate trafficking, but it does lower its rates. not because it’s more difficult to find unwilling victims, but because it gives women the agency and more avenues to ask for help. lots of trafficking victims and prostitutes can’t ask for help because they’ll be arrested themselves if they report anything to the police. it’s difficult to seek justice even if you’re just a random civilian snatched up from the street.

men will never stop being rapists and degenerates, and nothing short of a worldwide women’s revolution will ever stop the porn and the sex work industry. the best thing we can do in the meantime is try and institute laws to protect the unfortunate souls who are currently stuck in them. it’s not about empowerment or sexual liberation no matter how much libfems want to pretend like it is, but you have to understand that criminalizing sex work does nothing but harm and deny justice to women who are already suffering.

No. 398648

>>398633
simply legalizing sex work doesn’t help women at all unless there are certain precautionary measures taken to actually aid them out of their situation and not harm them, such as the Duluth model.

No. 398653

>>398648
the two go hand in hand. you cannot legally institute laws to protect sex workers if sex work is illegal.

No. 398655

>>398633
>>398653

Who the fuck are these people who have clearly never done a basic search on this shit? Legalizing prostitution, even if you try to “unionize” it does raise the rate of trafficking, they just traffick women of color/immigrants who can’t get out of it and who no one cares about.

And look up the fucking Nordic model holy shit there’s this thing called criminalizing the demand

No. 398656

>>398633
except legalising prostitution goes hand in hand with increased trafficking rates… its better to have protections for the women but punish the pimps and the "customers".

No. 398688

>>398655
kek do you really think women of color and immigrants are not already being trafficked at a higher rate than others? and i never said it’s a bad idea to follow in Norway and Sweden’s footsteps, i’m just saying the current situation favors absolutely no one. calm yourself

No. 398777

>>398688
No but the rate rises which affects woc the most….

>legalizing sex work doesn’t eliminate trafficking, but it does lower its rates.


Showed you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about, but nice attempt there

No. 399001

>>373663
sjw is just an alternative term for regressive leftist.

No. 402786

File: 1556245560976.jpg (63.18 KB, 480x688, IMG_20190425_214104.jpg)

Im sorry if i sound retarded saying this but i dont understand her logic, i think she's the sexist one impliying the lack of femenine qualities erases your womanhood. She's talking about women desings in videogames btw, so…if a woman isnt showing her hips or tits or has some muscle then she's being erased?

No. 404383


No. 404385

>>404383
>It’s been 15 years since he listened to a word I’ve said

Is this the fate of all women with male partners once the sex appeal wears off?

No. 404386

>>402786
No, she's right. It's very common for a woman not to be taken seriously or considered strong if she has rather feminine qualities. It goes both way, though, since masculine women are also judged.

Basically, women are just judged no matter what.

No. 404387

>>404385
Radfems who date/marry males like this when they are capable of living alone are annoying and embarrassing

No. 404388

>>404383
that comment about how people perceive men and women crying got to me. i used to have a lot of meltdowns when i was younger and now i can't help but bottle up my emotions to the point where i will get serious depression from it. a lot of it is really due to misogynistic notions about women crying and it has caused a lot of internalized misogyny and self-hatred for me.

No. 404479

>>402786
This does sound retarded. What are feminine qualities that are being erased? Having characters with huge balloon tits or other exaggerated proportions and lingerie "battle outfits"? How are these inherent to womanhood? It isn't sexist to have female character who are fighters have a more practical outfit lmao. Handmaidens and males do too much.

No. 405275

I often doubt whether PMS emotional symptoms are an actual side effect and not just an easy way to dismiss women's feelings.

It's so nebulously defined in terms of how it can effect mood, and it varies SO much from woman to woman, that I just feel like it's only seen as credible because men enjoy being able to ignore women's worries and emotions.

I'd like to hear any of your thoughts on it

No. 405283

>>405275
i think its definitely real. or at least in some women, maybe some people just dont have it.

i personally always feel significantly more irritable, hungry and angry the week before my period even though im usually fine.

No. 405290

>>405275
I think it varies from person to person just how like length of period or severity of bleeding and cramps etc does. like I personally get very teary and hungry the day before. I sometimes don't keep an eye of when my period is coming and only after it does start do I realise that oh yeah, that explains why that extremely trivial thing yesterday made me cry lol.

No. 405419

>>405275
Apparently it is true for some, but I always thought it was a meme. Like, the first couple days I was indeed more irritable, but that's because I was in constant pain, who wouldn't have a shorter fuse?
Nowadays I have a very light period and usually no pain, so no more extra irritability.

No. 405423

>>405275
For me it's true, my mood always crash violently a few days before my period, I usually know I'm PMSing because I get obsessive suicidal thought out of no where and I cry for no reason, I'm really humiliated to be a walking cliché.

No. 405427

>>405423
this happens to me too. tbh whenever i inexplicably begin to feel depressed i know i'm abt to get my period. i hope it doesn't get you too down

much love



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]