Feminism discussion thread

[The Observer]

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

Feminists in the 70's and 80's weren't exactly sure what to do with the tranners. Especially when one of the first supporters and activists in Lesbian spaces were "trans"-lesbian such as this one lmao https://theoutwordsarchive.org/interview/beth-elliott/ . It seems they should have nipped the problem from the bud instead of it turning into what it is now.

 

[AmberHeardSupporter]

idk, i think that women are starting to peak regarding the tranny shit,

But will those women call themselves feminists? That’s the true test for the movement

A romanticism toward the "trad" lifestyle already seems to be cropping up among younger women.

conservative feminism.

Conservatism is inherently anti feminist imo That’s just tradthottery disguised as feminism
like skekcuck

Me personally, and this is just my opinion, but if I had to choose, I’d be a radfem. Which means that I believe that the entire concept of marriage is anti woman. I think that men are the oppressors and structures that suggest that women should be slaves to them is wrong. I know you’re going to say that being a wife isn’t a slave but getting married to a moid if you think about it literally only benefits him if we’re talking trad marriage. Married men live longer and are happier, have a live in bangmaid and slave, someone to cook clean and sex them on command. Married women have shorter lives and are less happy, and married men are more likely to leave their wives when they get sick, hell if they get old or ugly after pregnancy a man will fall out of love for you over that. Men simply don’t treat women well enough to have a woman be their wife. I truly believe if men just weren’t so shit to women there would not be any feminism and no need for liberation. Being a housewife is the easiest life on planet earth and most women would like to do it but men have been abusing the fuck out of their supposed loved ones so much women revolted and decided they’d rather be wagies. I don’t believe in a call for traditional marriage because men look down on women too much to ever truly value our contributions to their lives. Of course I’m not saying all women are unhappy in marriages but marriage is an patriarchal concept used to oppress women. Remember when married women couldn’t open their own bank accounts in the 70s? Yeah that was used to keep women broke and forced to be tied down to a man to keep a roof ever her head. The more rights women have, the lower the country’s marriage rates are. That means something. Men and pick mes are gonna say that we need to take away women’s rights but what it is is that men have made marriage imto something not that women do out of love, but out of necessity. That’s not freedom or liberation. That’s oppression. Im not anti marriage but it’s always been nothing but incel affirmative action and inherently anti feminist. Idk I’m rambling but I hope you understand me

 

[Feline Supremacist]

I was happy to go, but there’s this thing that happens when you have kids where the idea of them in a combat zone makes you very upset. At least it does if you love your kids.

Women who are mothers, with babies even, serve and deploy. This tells me you have never seriously considered it.

This issue is that you keep saying this but in the real world, trannies are running Feminism Actual Lunatics are running our show.

So much this. The refusal of so-called feminists in positions of power is never discussed, because 'we need to pick our battles".

Since we're on the topic, I have a question for the women of this thread: for those of you who are anti-trans and anti-porn (on an ideological level, i.e. believing that no amount of any intensity is "okay"), what keeps you away from radical feminism and/or identifying yourself with the movement?

The statements here and the in Man-Hate thread are not at all unusual or controversial among rad-fems, and being around people who sperg like this IRL is not for me.

tapestry as an artform

Do you know the story of the Unicorn Tapestries?

Spoiler: art history

The tapestries were owned by the La Rochefoucauld family of France for several centuries, with first mention of them showing up in the family's 1728 inventory. At that time five of the tapestries were hanging in a bedroom in the family's Château de Verteuil, Charente and two were stored in a hall adjacent to the chapel. The tapestries were highly believed woven for François, the son of Jean II de La Rochefoucauld and Marguerite de Barbezieux. And there was a possible connection between the letters A and E and the La Rochefoucauld, which are interpreted as the first and last of Antoine's name, who was the son of François, and his wife, Antoinette of Amboise.

During the French Revolution the tapestries were looted from the château and reportedly were used to cover potatoes – a period during which they apparently sustained damage. By the end of the 1880s they were again in the possession of the family. A visitor to the château described them as quaint 15th century wall hangings, yet showing "incomparable freshness and grace". The same visitor records the set as consisting of seven pieces, though one was by that time in fragments and being used as bed curtains.[13]

John D. Rockefeller Jr. bought them in 1922 for about one million US dollars. Six of the tapestries hung in Rockefeller's house until The Cloisters was built when he donated them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1938 and at the same time secured for the collection the two fragments the La Rochefauld family had retained. The set now hangs in The Cloisters which houses the museum's medieval collection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_Tapestries

Tapestries were often made for and and possessed by the nobility/upper class but unfortunately many seem to have disappeared during times of war/upheaval.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

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.

I think that's a poor guide, because kiwifarmers are old people and the character of new waves of social movements is decided by young people. The feminist waves usually solidify. A first wave feminist in her youth is usually a first wave feminist in her old age. Whatever 5th wave feminism will look like, it will be a generation that one day looks at 6th wave with a mix of surprise, horror and disapproval when they themselves hit their 40s and 50s.

 

[Freya]

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.

View attachment 5431426View attachment 5431428
View attachment 5431430View attachment 5431433

thats cool. are you saying there were more female artists in like, the middle ages?

 

[TruffleSpark]

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.

Tranny shit and sex positivity reinforce each other, trannies are just the logical end result of "your kink is valid". Just people living out their fetishes 24/7. What I'm saying is kink shaming is good and we never should have stopped doing it.

 

[skekChuck]

Conservatism is inherently anti feminist imo That’s just tradthottery disguised as feminism
like skekcuck

Lol, lmao even

 

[Lidl Drip]

What is your next wave of feminism going to look like (5th)? Serious question.

Don't you worry your pretty little head about it sweatypie, everything is going according to my 10 year plan.

 

[starbies]

I work in male-dominated industry, and I have worked with skilled and competent women in almost every site I've ever been on, and the only consistent problem they had doing that kind of work was that male coworkers kept sexually assaulting them.

I work in a male-dominated industry too - to the point where I stick out like a sore thumb. Anyway, we need a 5th wave feminism where we can ask, "why are men so fat and lazy?"

I also explained that "feminism," much like other broad political terms, is a big tent, and suggested that you "use your brain" to evaluate feminist claims. But I guess you missed that, probably because your brain is overworked as it is, on account of you being retarded.

that was the best post i read on this thread - people joke about burgerfags having zero nuance skills and the response to your post is a good example why.

??? I have already answered this. Calling myself a "feminist" or a "liberal" does not mean that I agree with every retarded thing that other people who call themselves feminists or liberals say. It just means that my views, as a whole. on a wide variety of issues, more broadly align with theirs than, say, people who call themselves antifeminist or conservative. Again, use your fucking brain and accept nuance. Is this clear enough for you, or are you going to continue to act like you do not have any reading comprehension.

yeah this. earlier ealan or elian or whoever said that her views on abortion would get her kicked out of feminism club but the truth is that I support her right to have equal rights as men even though she thinks i shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion or something.

Before I get banned for having a penis, I want to just ask, do y'all's husbands know you're posting on here? Do they really let you shitpost about feminism instead of getting dinner on the table?

yeah. he's the one cooking dinner for us rn. i love a man secure in his masculinity that he can be provider at all times instead of chimping at his wive's internet habit like a faggot, but i digress, this is not a men appreciation thread. most men aren't deserving of appreciation.
anyway, back to the topic. kill all men.

Legitimate rage towards men is necessary but that's bad because you like men and dislike trannies, even though they're one in the same.

correction: she hates trannies and brown men. not saying brown men aren't deserving of hate because they absolutely are. but this post (i can't quote her for some reason)

tells me that she has absolutely no idea what brown women have to go through and mostly speaks out of her ass. i agreed with a lot of her points but this is the point where i stopped carin

Since we're on the topic, I have a question for the women of this thread: for those of you who are anti-trans and anti-porn (on an ideological level, i.e. believing that no amount of any intensity is "okay"), what keeps you away from radical feminism and/or identifying yourself with the movement?

I'd be interested to know since there's some variation of ideas in here.

this is a very interesting question and i feel like we're back on topic. I also believe it was mentioned before but I need to ask, what constitutes as radical feminism? from what i got so far, I would probably not fit the bill for a radfem because first and most importantly, i cannot do the whole separatist thing (cue men taking my post and saying "huehuehue all women love dicks") but i agree with every radfem talking point i heard so far. also yeah, I suppost the radical part of radical feminism - if you read history of the suffragette movement and every splinter feminist achievements around the world - the women have always been extremely radical, at least for their time.

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

i guess i already answered that but now i agree with Lurker

Conservatism is inherently anti feminist imo That’s just tradthottery disguised as feminism

I actually agree with group project here because like it or not, i think that's where the overall feminine shift is happening anyway. maybe women aren't saying "ban abortions" en masse, but there has been an upcrop of "feminine energy" influencers and their followers, meaning women wanting to go back to some sort of "nuclear family ideal" but like all zoomer movements, this is also not that deep (like it doesn't deal heavily with abortions, divorce, prenups etc) so i'm curious to see how that will affect feminist movements going forward. there's also a lot of WGTOW unironically so that's interesting.

 

[AgendaPoster]

calm down, please

That's a lot of stuff to reply to.
The thing is, the apolitical (and very niche) flavors of feminism you mentioned are well, politically irrelevant. And we live in an era of nearly overt power seeking and group interests legitimization.
"Humanity" is also nearly irrelevant. We can all acknowledge that the bantus, Amazonian tribes and Sentinelese are human, because if we take one of their women, and we put her in Cairo or Oslo, she will be able to reproduce with any male of any ethnic group. That alone guarantees belonging to the human species.
Problem is, inside the species there is a lot of variation and on an intellectual and cultural level, some people are very familiar and close to you, while others are nearly alien.
Also, being a human alone does not guarantee you any rights or privileges, as it's obviously visible from various wars and historical state oppression of groups they dislike, which continues to this day.
Being strong and a great warrior also does not guarantee anything, as you will get old and careless, and you will face annihilation eventually. It's an endless cycle of competition, people rising to the top, and people failing.
I think this is all that matters in the end.
BTW, I don't "believe" in hierarchy, I just notice that it is inevitable. There is no society without hierarchy on the planet. Even the communist society that I was born in and which allegedly pursued the uprooting of unjust hierarchies only placed different people on top.
It's obvious that once it's clear that hierarchy is inevitable, you want to end up as high as possible, but more importantly, you will struggle to never, ever be at the bottom where anyone can shit on you.

 

[Mukhrani]

thats cool. are you saying there were more female artists in like, the middle ages?

Probably. A lot of art back then was in things like illuminated manuscripts, and one of the most famous of those, Scivias, was created by a woman: Hildegarde von Bingen. She also wrote amazing chants called the Canticles of Ecstasy, medical/botanical treatises, & poetry.. Because art was largely the purview of the Church, that meant monks and nuns.

 

[Group Project Carrier]

Can't reply to Starbucks directly but yeah, I think you sort of hit on what I was referring to. I'm not saying that a 5th-wave feminist movement would be literally a right-wing movement, but rather that it might be motivated by a kind of nostalgia for traditional values. The theoretical "5th-waver" is someone who is repulsed by--and thus reacting to--the sex-related tenets that comprise much of the 3rd-wave belief system (e.g. porn, polyamory, "sex work is work"). This same repulsion, however, might also fuel a desire to return to monogamy and the "nuclear family ideal" that is not really present in 4th-wave belief. These would be women who, ideally, might want to marry men and/or have children, but still hold men to much higher standards than a 3rd-wave women. My guess would also be that 5th-wavers wouldn't be as strongly against female beauty standards as 4th-wavers are, since this is something that conservatively-inclined women tend to see as particularly radical within radical feminism.

(By beauty standards I mean things women are expected to do, appearance-wise, that are never requested, required, or even encouraged from men--wearing makeup, wearing heels, shaving etc.)

 

[starbies]

Can't reply to Starbucks directly but yeah, I think you sort of hit on what I was referring to. I'm not saying that a 5th-wave feminist movement would be literally a right-wing movement, but rather that it might be motivated by a kind of nostalgia for traditional values. The theoretical "5th-waver" is someone who is repulsed by--and thus reacting to--the sex-related tenets that comprise much of the 3rd-wave belief system (e.g. porn, polyamory, "sex work is work"). This same repulsion, however, might also fuel a desire to return to monogamy and the "nuclear family ideal" that is not really present in 4th-wave belief. These would be women who, ideally, might want to marry men and/or have children, but still hold men to much higher standards than a 3rd-wave women. My guess would also be that 5th-wavers wouldn't be as strongly against female beauty standards as 4th-wavers are, since this is something that conservatively-inclined women tend to see as particularly radical within radical feminism.

(By beauty standards I mean things women are expected to do, appearance-wise, that are never requested, required, or even encouraged from men--wearing makeup, wearing heels, shaving etc.)

absolutely this 200%. I do think most women ITT will be loathe to call this a feminist movement. The influencers themselves don't call themselves feminists. but their ideas are built on feminist ideas such as, like you said, anti-porn, anti-sex-work, holding men to higher standards, expecting respect from men etc. They are also massively apolitical, so they don't call themselves conservative either. I find this group refreshing as they mostly talk about self-love, confidence (also about "how to make him feel loved" etc but you can ignore those kek) this is largely thanks to tiktok as they blew up thanks to posting there

but one thing you didn't mention is the growing number of women of all ages that are vocally choosing to stay single and childless (I referred this to WGTOW for lack of a better term also I think someone else mentioned this term with irony?)

this woman is a good example of this. I used to feel that they're a bit fringe but I think the number of women in this group is growing, from all age ranges as especially older women are divorcing in higher rates. They are more inclined to call themselves feminists. I do like them a lot because they make conservatives reee

 

[skekChuck]

3rd-wave belief system (e.g. porn, polyamory, "sex work is work").

So what is with the trend of polyamorous women who “date” multiple men all at the same time?
Is it a reaction to past men having multiple wives or is this a fetish emerged from modern lunacy?

The reason I ask is because at a game store I was at, this women (had a kid too, didn’t know who dad was) had about five “boyfriends” that all lived together in one apartment. They all “date” her and simultaneously “date” each other. I know for a fact one of the men went to prison.

The reason I’m repulsed is because they’re literally exposing a kid to this and it seems the kid (who looked about 7) was already struggling with mental illness. I was told by a CPS person that it’s not enough to investigate but this child is considered vulnerable to grooming in the eyes of the state.

This isn’t the only polycule I’ve come across irl either where there is one sole woman at the center. Is it a simp culture?

 

[Group Project Carrier]

Yeah the WGTOWs/separatists are generally 4th wave. But the fiddly thing is that not all WGTOW women are 4th-wave across the board, and not all 4th-wavers go so far as to be separatists--the institution of marriage, I would say, is actually one of the touchiest topics within radfem discourse.

 

[Stan]

Problem is, inside the species there is a lot of variation and on an intellectual and cultural level,

I disagree that there are races of people that are inherently smarter than others. You can find people with high IQ in any racial group.

Also, being a human alone does not guarantee you any rights or privileges, as it's obviously visible from various wars and historical state oppression of groups they dislike, which continues to this day.

I guess not if you want to go all total war/law of the jungle, no, human rights doesn't exist. But the main purpose of civilization and society and law is to temper the urge to steal your neighbor's wife by force of arms. This is evident as early as Ancient Sumer, where laws stipulated 1:1 punishments (as opposed to overkill punishments)

There is no society without hierarchy on the planet. Even the communist society that I was born in and which allegedly pursued the uprooting of unjust hierarchies only placed different people on top.

The way you keep using the word hierarchy makes me a bit nervous. It's as if you're implying there's a natural hierarchy of men > women > children, and that it would be just and "natural" for women to revert to being submissive mates to their men. And if we lived in the stone age maybe that would be true, but we live in modernity. Medicine (your field), engineering, sanitation, and agricultural advancement have upended this natural hierarchy; people who might have died in childhood live, and grow up to become the US Senate majority leader (I'm referring to Mitch McConnell, who contracted polio at age 7.)

I'm also suspicious that when you say "hierarchy", you're getting at a popular man-cope talking point: "you women need good men (like me) to protect you from the bad men (like them.)" Quis custodet ipsos custodes? And when most DV and rape and assault isn't the result of stranger-predator men, but the men you know and trust, I become exceedingly leery that "hierarchy" isn't just a byword for male control, a justification to give men back the authority and leeway to hush up beating their wives/gambling the family fortune away/raping their stepdaughters/etc., like they used to do before, and still do in places like Saudi Arabia.

It's obvious that once it's clear that hierarchy is inevitable, you want to end up as high as possible, but more importantly, you will struggle to never, ever be at the bottom where anyone can shit on you.

The hierarchy of modernity is anything but inevitable, it's a total roulette spin. Our society is more democratic in every sense of the word, which means proles and foreigners can attain high social status if they're a combination of lucky and smart. So it follows that there's no persuasive reason a woman couldn't be US President, a five-star general, CEO, etc. And it just seems stupid to me that if women are equally capable in leadership roles as men, and men can be as capable at caregiving and homemaking as women are, that your "hierarchy" is necessarily one of men > women. Which is what I think you're getting at when you talk about "biological difference" and "hierarchy" like you've been doing.

TL;DR: you're using "hierarchy" as a byword for "patriarchy" and I ain't buying it.

 

[AmberHeardSupporter]

Lol, lmao even

Yes tradthot a movement based off taking away women’s rights is anti feminist truly can’t believe this needs to be explained

 

[AgendaPoster]

I disagree that there are races of people that are inherently smarter than others. You can find people with high IQ in any racial group.

Marge stop this dumb BS for heaven's sake.
First there are no races cause it's a construct; then there are races and blacks are oppressed; then the oppression is akshually, economic; but akshually, medically they need same racial group transplants.
And ooops, turns out radiological AI can tell your race from the skeleton, something that I can only dream of once being able to do accurately enough.
But above all else, remember that people that invented nukes and submarines, went to the moon and made Americans fat and dumb with scientifically approved cheap food are the exact same IQ and capability as the tribes shooting arrows and hunting in the jungle.
Absolutely no difference. Notice anything, and you're a horrible bigot.
What did I say earlier, in this thread and others?
Discussion and compromise, reconciliation etc. MUST start from truth.
No more pie in the sky "in the other life" Jesus will save us/we're all equal religious, conservative or liberal lies. End all this idiocy so we can move forward based on data, measurements and objective reality.

Also, "you can find people with high IQ in any racial group", while a true statement, it's the dumbest non-argument you can make. You know very well what statistics are and what a gaussian distribution looks like.
Imagine if I tried to make the "argument" that there are men that are not violent to women in this thread. @Lurker already penalized me for a very mild pseudo-version of that.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

You’re just a retard whose only argument against degeneracy is “no u” and want to set up a “women all secretly want to be raped” debate

I mean ... romance literature is a huge market, and the Fifty Shades movies didn't make or watch themselves. I wouldn't trust a coomer to tell me about healthy sex any more than I'd trust a Feminist.

Yes tradthot a movement based off taking away women’s rights is anti feminist truly can’t believe this needs to be explained

Youre right, let's be smart and support Democrat pro-tranny Feminism. You know, the one that's currently in power and actively oppressing women. Smart Feminists Vote Blue No Matter Who!

 

[Stan]

And ooops, turns out radiological AI can tell your race from the skeleton, something that I can only dream of once being able to do accurately enough.

I think this is some discredited pseudoscience... I think it's called phrenology? The discredited 19th-century "science" of measuring criminals' skulls with forceps to find some physical attribute that would predict future criminality. What you're doing is that, sped up to the 21st century.

And yeah, you can assess someone's race by skeletal features, but the useful application of this is in forensics (cops find a skeletonized corpse in the woods, don't know who it is, but they want to get some demographics on it to narrow down possible missing persons. How do? Analyze nasal bridge length and whatnot.) I'm not going to deny that whites have rounder eye openings and Asians have more almond-shaped ones.

But you are using this data to assert that because whites are taller than pygmies, QED they are smarter than pygmies as well.

You know I am a strong believer in geographic determinism. Das heisst: People all came out of Africa, essentially equal, settled in various places with various resources. Some of the most important of which are:

1.) How many staple grains are available to you and their relative protein content (more protein = ability to grow taller). Example: The Han tribe in northeast China could grow wheat and rice, their neighbors to the south being limited to only rice. The Han grew bigger, faster, stronger, and wiped out their non-Han neighbors for the most part.
2.) How many domesticable animals are available to you. The native americans and subsaharan africans had very few (tbh none), Europeans and Northeast-Asians (Han Chinese) had several (i.e. cows, ducks, geese, sheep pigs, chickens, HORSES.) Again, more available protein in the diet -> Adult height and strength. Also, transportation, down/wool/fiber to make clothing. Etc.
You can see this effect when analyzing the Mayan empire. They had a halfway decent draft animal - the llama- and they had three good staple grains, quinoa (high in protein), amaranth, and potatoes/sweet potatoes (rich in vitamins and carbs.) Their more northerly and southernly neighbors were not so blessed, and as a result the Maya ran roughshod over them for nearly a millennium.
2b.) When you're dirt poor in winter, you will actually end up sharing quarters with your livestock. (Just ask a Pole lmao.) That gives the cultures who have livestock an immunological privilege against those who don't, because they've been exposed to these zoonotic pathogens. Many, if not most of the natives in America were wiped out by smallpox from the white men well before the white men actually made contact.
3.) Metal ores. If you don't have metal ore you can't practice metallurgy. This is why Abos are physical Chads who can live in 115F heat but they live a Neolithic lifestyle (well that, and Australia has no native staple grains, nor native livestock animals.) It's why bronze is a strategic resource in the bronze age, with people trading and killing each other for tin.
4.) Momentum. If you can sort out 1-3 in a timely manner your society is free to invent other things.

I think the four above points can easily describe why some cultures remained "primitive" and others advanced to form worldwide empires, like the English. But even despite all that I'm going to call your bluff on intelligence. Micronesians had very little of this (I think they had pigs and chickens) and they still got themselves off Taiwan and all over the Pacific with minimal tech and maximal courage. White scientists didn't even believe it could be done until some guy in the 70's demonstrated it using a replica boat.

Now that I got THAT out of the way. Can you please explain to me why I shouldn't search-replace "hierarchy" with "patriarchy" in this stuff you are writing?

TLDR: Guns, Germs, Steel, now let's get to my main point.

PS also I guess Native populations were/are highly succeptible to alcoholism because alcohol was introduced to them by Europeans, whereas the Europeans spent thousands of years drinking terrible beer and wine and developing appropriate pathways to processing alcohol and blunting its addictive potential.
But back to feminism, please.