- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
Alright ladies we can stop debating him he’s not arguing in good faith
Feminism discussion thread
- Thread starter Freya
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
I am bad arguing in general, I don't fucking know why I even had the idea of coming to this thread since even acknowledging Feminism as a man is a waste of time. Let's just let women discuss that among themselves as a form of respect.
If you have a penis, get out. I'm leaving.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
Couldn’t have said it better. Sayonara!
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2019
Men will always pretend to be "one of the good ones" but then not even kill themselves. So tiring.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2022
Get back to the kitchen and make me a sammich.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
IDanceonMaleGraves
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2022
So do I, just men who pretend they're women.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
Thread is generally OK but the women should post more, seems a lot of the ladies prefer to just mock Anisa and Chantal instead. Mass negrating people, celebrating death and atrocities is pretty much guaranteed to just rile up the "other side" and kill all discussion and create needless hostility.
As for biological differences, it's just a great place to start as they are measurable and undeniable. Denying them makes you a retard basically.
Liberalism and feminism are pursuits of equality, basically, and inherently attempt to diminish such differences, or to overcome them, like through affirmative action. Acknowledging biology means an acknowledgement of difference, hence inequality. Inequality generates hierarchy. Hierarchy generates order from chaos.
You draw your own conclusions
Here I go again trying for a good-faith discussion...let no one ever say I'm not an optimist. It's a choice, acknowledged.
Couple of level-setting notes/disclaimers to start:
- none of the random examples I might mention are intended to be exhaustive or exclusive, merely illustrative; further, as much as I'm going to try to be clear, a) I'm on a phone, and b) I'm sure there will be a temptation to spin my comments/examples out to an illogical or unintended conclusion, so I'll just note that best practice is to ask for clarification of any ambiguity rather than jumping to conclusions and going awf
- I'm using gender and sex interchangeably and meaning standard, historical categories, like pretend the last 8 years has been a fever-dream and we're not collectively confused/ deluded/ compromised as humans: women and men
- I'm on a phone and formatting options are unideal for sub-bullets, so I scrapped it and there are manual dashes. Oh well.
With that out of the way:
I would respond, say no to, or challenge some of your issue-framing assumptions and comments:
- "equality" can mean many things and be operationalized in more than one way, so there's a definitional problem if it isn't further refined when being challenged as a concept
-- for example, to some it can mean purely political equality, which term itself is subject to definition
-- some take a view that political equality is simply a matter of policies and laws that prevent any class of person from being denied rights available to other groups (voting is a basic one; baseline pay rates for the same job (before factoring in performance) might be another; laws against discrimination could be another)
-- to others, the concept of "political equality" extends beyond technical neutrality and/or universal rights granted or acknowledged without taking into account any theoretical or actual gender*- unique matters
- not all feminism is or feminismS are solely or primarily concerned with politics or "political equality"
--some strains of thought focus more on what it is to be, live, and experience life as a woman. A couple of examples:
--"difference feminism" (sometimes referred to as essentialist feminist, though again varies by proponent) is one such type of feminism (Carol Gilligan is one known name), though not everyone or every feminist buys into that theory's attempts to "biologize" the nature of woman, or may agree on certain aspects of the biology but not how it should play out in siciety
--French feminism, particularly l‘écriture féminin (notables: Luce Irigary, Helen Cixous, Christine Delphy), focused more on language, its power, and a uniquely female approach to it
--some individual feminists, such as Audre Lorde (in addition to honing in on intersectionality, which as a Black lesbian born in the 30s and an active feminist especially in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, she was all about long before that became a term (or distraction, or bonnet-bee, depending on your perspective)) wrote much about the "essence" of womanness - which can refer to anything from biology-driven experience to a spiritual concept to a meld of biology and all of the societal and sociological influences on women (so an "essential" quality, but also shaped by life, including politics/rights/discrimjnation (both hard and soft), societal roles and expectations, rights frameworks, and so on). She also wrote about women's experience of "the erotic" (which, frankly, has as a concept been so degraded these days and particularly here that I've no hope of any discussion about that particular line of thought bc if the past is any predictor, it will just involve zooming immediately to the pat wars about "porn/ sluttiness/ "degeneracy" dysfunction and basic mechanical biology that passes for sexuality in current year) as a powerful aspect of femininity and "womanness."
- One common point of all or nearly all feminisms is simply this: women as a class are humans with the exact same level of hunanity/humanness as men as a class. Moreover, it is not a matter of "woman are as good/valuable/valid/deserving of rights of men," but rather "women and men are human, and if we (some/many/most of us, or sometimes) experience things differently from one another, at a general group level, those frequent or average differences neither elevate nor diminish either group as equal humans, and so (at least in the abstract and not accounting for any corrective or rehabilitative purpose, which is yet another area of variation in views) neither group should be subjugated, formally or informally, in public or in private, on the basis of any frequent/common differences.
- Most feminist strains of thought - whether they emphasize or de-emphasize average/common differences in physical/ intellectual/ emotional incidences (body strength/aptitudes, thought-processing, hierarchy of values, interpersonal styles, etc); or whether they perceive those differences as wholly, mostly, or only slightly natural or societally influenced; or however they rate or rank those differences, or whether they acknowledge them at all - are interested in women being able to self-determine, period. Yes, self-determination, a guiding principle in all of human history, is of interest to women, as a group and individually. There are a huge range of views on how that takes shape - a difference feminist of a certain subtype might say that the ideal or utmost position for a woman is as a mother and wife; a hardcore second-waver-type at a certain point in history might have had the view that a woman should choose the opposite, as both a personal political statement and a conscious effort to correct past imbalances and carve a new path; a different type of feminist might have left aside what "women" "should" do and simply said that every woman should be absolutely free to pursue what she wants and when she wants, as constrained or unconstrained by tradition OR "feminist" politics as she chooses to be, and that artificial or socially constructed barriers (or, to some degree, judgment, though of course that is inevitable in any human endeavor) to any choice should evolve out of existence through a combination of structural and dispositional (ethos) changes.
- You have mentioned biology multiple times, and the ways in which you did so, particularly you last paragraph in the comment to which I'm replying, suggests you perhaps perceive physical strength as the ultimate decider of overall essential superiority and righteous placement at the apex*. I reject that out of hand (and I'll do so without ridiculing it, because again: good faith, my provisional estimation of you, and my generally positive and entente-encouraging nature). Even if we were to agree that in human history it was relevant in a conquering sense, that only gets you to physical (theoretical; plenty of strongk men have lost on the battlefield, obviously; strategic acumen, resources, and/or a mix of elements, both personal and group/wider/geopolitics-level happenings have all gone into the calculus of who wins wars) dominion - not inherent, qualitative superiority. I don't know for sure your perspective, but if it's might = right, I would not necessarily agree at a practical level, generally or even politically. I would also suggest that perhaps a value hierarchy predicated on the (again, theoretical or extrapolated) ability to out-muscle others might not be the sole or best evaluation of worth or quality (especially so on an individual level).
--And to that last point, plenty of individual women are stronger or more athletic than plenty of men, and that doesn't even get to the brains aspect. I've certainly beat men at certain sports and strength-related efforts (nevermind intellectually, because that's just too damned easy and I'm trying to stay on the physical point since you alluded to it) - and as you and I exchanged a few comments about on the health & fitness forum, I'm not even a runner, much less a weightlifter or setting records for pull-ups...but even my moderately fit and moderately naturally strong ass (on the girl scale, of course) can sometimes out-tennis-play, out-wrestle, out-shoot, out-climb, out-hike my male equivalents (sometimes). So what? And so what if I lose sometimes? Neither on an individual nor a group level does merely out-physical-ing someone else elevate you morally or essentially above them if you weren't already. But yes, that's a tangent - Iknow think you weren't speaking to individuals. But if it's the case physical superiority for individuals doesn't magically confer moral superiority or some grand destiny, how sway for general populations?
*--Query why it is necessary to believe in some hierarchy between men and women. Hierarchies are for domination, not complementary existence. Creatures not on the same hierarchical level shouldn't mix; that is the point of the hierarchical "order". Lions and lizards don't mate (I declare this a non-Rule 34 zone bc I don't want to see that shit if it exists (it no doubt exists)).
- none of the random examples I might mention are intended to be exhaustive or exclusive, merely illustrative; further, as much as I'm going to try to be clear, a) I'm on a phone, and b) I'm sure there will be a temptation to spin my comments/examples out to an illogical or unintended conclusion, so I'll just note that best practice is to ask for clarification of any ambiguity rather than jumping to conclusions and going awf
- I'm using gender and sex interchangeably and meaning standard, historical categories, like pretend the last 8 years has been a fever-dream and we're not collectively confused/ deluded/ compromised as humans: women and men
- I'm on a phone and formatting options are unideal for sub-bullets, so I scrapped it and there are manual dashes. Oh well.
With that out of the way:
I would respond, say no to, or challenge some of your issue-framing assumptions and comments:
- "equality" can mean many things and be operationalized in more than one way, so there's a definitional problem if it isn't further refined when being challenged as a concept
-- for example, to some it can mean purely political equality, which term itself is subject to definition
-- some take a view that political equality is simply a matter of policies and laws that prevent any class of person from being denied rights available to other groups (voting is a basic one; baseline pay rates for the same job (before factoring in performance) might be another; laws against discrimination could be another)
-- to others, the concept of "political equality" extends beyond technical neutrality and/or universal rights granted or acknowledged without taking into account any theoretical or actual gender*- unique matters
- not all feminism is or feminismS are solely or primarily concerned with politics or "political equality"
--some strains of thought focus more on what it is to be, live, and experience life as a woman. A couple of examples:
--"difference feminism" (sometimes referred to as essentialist feminist, though again varies by proponent) is one such type of feminism (Carol Gilligan is one known name), though not everyone or every feminist buys into that theory's attempts to "biologize" the nature of woman, or may agree on certain aspects of the biology but not how it should play out in siciety
--French feminism, particularly l‘écriture féminin (notables: Luce Irigary, Helen Cixous, Christine Delphy), focused more on language, its power, and a uniquely female approach to it
--some individual feminists, such as Audre Lorde (in addition to honing in on intersectionality, which as a Black lesbian born in the 30s and an active feminist especially in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, she was all about long before that became a term (or distraction, or bonnet-bee, depending on your perspective)) wrote much about the "essence" of womanness - which can refer to anything from biology-driven experience to a spiritual concept to a meld of biology and all of the societal and sociological influences on women (so an "essential" quality, but also shaped by life, including politics/rights/discrimjnation (both hard and soft), societal roles and expectations, rights frameworks, and so on). She also wrote about women's experience of "the erotic" (which, frankly, has as a concept been so degraded these days and particularly here that I've no hope of any discussion about that particular line of thought bc if the past is any predictor, it will just involve zooming immediately to the pat wars about "porn/ sluttiness/ "degeneracy" dysfunction and basic mechanical biology that passes for sexuality in current year) as a powerful aspect of femininity and "womanness."
- One common point of all or nearly all feminisms is simply this: women as a class are humans with the exact same level of hunanity/humanness as men as a class. Moreover, it is not a matter of "woman are as good/valuable/valid/deserving of rights of men," but rather "women and men are human, and if we (some/many/most of us, or sometimes) experience things differently from one another, at a general group level, those frequent or average differences neither elevate nor diminish either group as equal humans, and so (at least in the abstract and not accounting for any corrective or rehabilitative purpose, which is yet another area of variation in views) neither group should be subjugated, formally or informally, in public or in private, on the basis of any frequent/common differences.
- Most feminist strains of thought - whether they emphasize or de-emphasize average/common differences in physical/ intellectual/ emotional incidences (body strength/aptitudes, thought-processing, hierarchy of values, interpersonal styles, etc); or whether they perceive those differences as wholly, mostly, or only slightly natural or societally influenced; or however they rate or rank those differences, or whether they acknowledge them at all - are interested in women being able to self-determine, period. Yes, self-determination, a guiding principle in all of human history, is of interest to women, as a group and individually. There are a huge range of views on how that takes shape - a difference feminist of a certain subtype might say that the ideal or utmost position for a woman is as a mother and wife; a hardcore second-waver-type at a certain point in history might have had the view that a woman should choose the opposite, as both a personal political statement and a conscious effort to correct past imbalances and carve a new path; a different type of feminist might have left aside what "women" "should" do and simply said that every woman should be absolutely free to pursue what she wants and when she wants, as constrained or unconstrained by tradition OR "feminist" politics as she chooses to be, and that artificial or socially constructed barriers (or, to some degree, judgment, though of course that is inevitable in any human endeavor) to any choice should evolve out of existence through a combination of structural and dispositional (ethos) changes.
- You have mentioned biology multiple times, and the ways in which you did so, particularly you last paragraph in the comment to which I'm replying, suggests you perhaps perceive physical strength as the ultimate decider of overall essential superiority and righteous placement at the apex*. I reject that out of hand (and I'll do so without ridiculing it, because again: good faith, my provisional estimation of you, and my generally positive and entente-encouraging nature). Even if we were to agree that in human history it was relevant in a conquering sense, that only gets you to physical (theoretical; plenty of strongk men have lost on the battlefield, obviously; strategic acumen, resources, and/or a mix of elements, both personal and group/wider/geopolitics-level happenings have all gone into the calculus of who wins wars) dominion - not inherent, qualitative superiority. I don't know for sure your perspective, but if it's might = right, I would not necessarily agree at a practical level, generally or even politically. I would also suggest that perhaps a value hierarchy predicated on the (again, theoretical or extrapolated) ability to out-muscle others might not be the sole or best evaluation of worth or quality (especially so on an individual level).
--And to that last point, plenty of individual women are stronger or more athletic than plenty of men, and that doesn't even get to the brains aspect. I've certainly beat men at certain sports and strength-related efforts (nevermind intellectually, because that's just too damned easy and I'm trying to stay on the physical point since you alluded to it) - and as you and I exchanged a few comments about on the health & fitness forum, I'm not even a runner, much less a weightlifter or setting records for pull-ups...but even my moderately fit and moderately naturally strong ass (on the girl scale, of course) can sometimes out-tennis-play, out-wrestle, out-shoot, out-climb, out-hike my male equivalents (sometimes). So what? And so what if I lose sometimes? Neither on an individual nor a group level does merely out-physical-ing someone else elevate you morally or essentially above them if you weren't already. But yes, that's a tangent - I
*--Query why it is necessary to believe in some hierarchy between men and women. Hierarchies are for domination, not complementary existence. Creatures not on the same hierarchical level shouldn't mix; that is the point of the hierarchical "order". Lions and lizards don't mate (I declare this a non-Rule 34 zone bc I don't want to see that shit if it exists (it no doubt exists)).
And btw, anyone who gives me a tophat (cue the tophats) didn't read. No one's mad, calm down, please.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
Absolutely correct. Women are paid in porn to act as a male’s ideal woman. Same thing with vtubers.
When men can’t pay a woman to act out the ideal woman fantasy, they’ll resort to artistic pursuits such as anime and hentai. This is why men instinctively compare porn to romance novels: a romance novel contains a woman’s ideal man.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2022
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
No. But I will beat an old drunken man for you
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2022
What is your next wave of feminism going to look like (5th)? Serious question.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2022
That isn't a proper answer. I am asking on what will the movement push for, and what will it look like? I'm not sure what answers to expect from the KAM crowd from the man-hate thread
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
I’m doing my part!
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
WORLD DOMINATION
i don't have it on-hand, but i'm pretty sure @Lidl Drip posted some AI pictures of a world dominated by women, and, frankly, it looks not-so-bad
edit: found it
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
In all seriousness, it’ll probably just become more pozzed with more tranny sympathizing and whore loving. Women who care about women’s rights are going to be more supportive of women but less likely to call themselves feminists. It’ll never implode on itself, but it will forever be subverted
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
idk, i think that women are starting to peak regarding the tranny shit, so i'm going to be cautiously optimistic that this trans thing is a fad and will go the way of lobotomies. that being said i think that feminism will continue to be overly sex-positive to the detriment of women.
Mukhrani
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
I think that a big part of the dearth of prominent female artists in that time period was the decline of tapestry as an artform. It's a really complex, intricate way of creating art, and one of the oldest on the planet. It's also one that for most of human history has been associated with women - Louis the XIV collected thousands of stunning tapestries in the 17th century, almost all of them likely woven by women. Probably because they had developed the necessary skillset - textile work like weaving, spinning, sewing, embroidery etc. was largely seen as female work, so they had the necessary precursor skills to weave tapestries. You saw it die off as a prominent artform once weaving was mechanized, and those hands-on skills atrophied among a lot of the female population. In the Renaissance proper, most of the famous tapestries were woven by men because by that time art was more about establishing relations with patrons or joining prestigious academies/societies, and less about the Sun King going 'I need fabulous tapestries, find me some broads who can weave'. Even a lot of his tapestries aren't credited to the women who wove them, but to a workshop owner.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2023
This is kind of a tricky question because the 3rd and 4th waves, which are the ones bouncing around right now, are in direct opposition to each other on nearly everything. Usually new movements are a direct reaction/response to whatever movement or system preceded it; a reaction to the spinelessness of mainstream 3rd-wave feminism would fall under 4th wave, and anything responding to 4th-wave principles would probably fall under the 3rd wave.
The only possibility of a "5th wave" I can think of would be a middle-ground between the two that seems to be common among female Farmers, which is a sort of conservative feminism. Feminism is usually attributed to some portion of the left-wing, but I think that overlooks the women who would otherwise prefer conservative values/ideals if not for how much conservative men tend to fuck women over. A romanticism toward the "trad" lifestyle already seems to be cropping up among younger women.