Q4Feminists: What feminist writings do you wish that RPers would read?

TheChemist158 · 2016-04-12T06:28:11+00:00

There was a thread not too long ago with this in reverse. I found it very interesting to see what writings RPers felt that BPers should read before judging...

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

in an academic context, it becomes "scholarship"

No, it does not.

It becomes a form of cargo-cult scholarship, which apes the superficial form of science, but draws upon none of its essential elements (objectivity, empiricism, testing claims, duplication of results, modern discourse).

Feminism, at its core, is a set of opinions, opinions about what "should" happen, and what people "should" do. There are some assertions of "fact", but these are untested even in the rare occasions when they are not actually untestable.

This is not science, and it is not even scholarship. It's editorialization.

Now, that would be fine in itself. Punditry has its place, and pundits can serve a useful purpose. But the pundit must never be mistaken for a scholar, nor the scholar for a pundit. Otherwise, one pollutes both punditry and scholarship.

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, now, if you're going to be that way, I should stop speaking casually, and be a bit more precise:

I, and many men like me, experience "feminism" as three things, all different, all using the same name, all correlated.

A set of allegations about fact. (Patriarchy Theory.)
A set of alleged moral imperatives, mostly based on #1. (The "shoulds" I just talked about.)
A rhetorical method that goes like this:
1. Think of something you want.
2. Construct an argument, however, convoluted, that links it to sexism.
3. Demand #1 from men as reparations for #2.
4. Repeat until men give you #1.

Women who call themselves feminists seem to do so because they either believe #1 and #2, because it allows them to practice #3, or both.

Obviously, I, and men like me, think that #1 is false, #2 is horseshit, and #3 works, but has disastrous long-term side effects.

So the word "feminist" is a complete deal-beaker for us. Calling yourself one stops conversations, rather than starting them. It's like opening a dialogue about race by asking "What problems do niggers face?" You've just done something so inflammatory that no dialogue or compromise is possible anymore.

Unwillingness to abandon that word demonstrates to us that a woman cares more about protecting and promoting the "feminist" brand than she does about opening a dialogue with men.

Generally, when we point this out, what we get is a condescending explanation of why we "shouldn't" hate that word. Perhaps, for bonus ignorant hubris points, she can even point us to the dictionary definition of feminism, as if we'd never heard it before, or the dictionary was some kind of authority.

And our reaction is "We haven't even started the discussion yet, and already she's telling what to think and say. Fuck a bowl of this. I'm outta here."

And so we go. We make /r/MensRights and /r/theredpill and MGTOW and AVFM. And we run them our way. Women wanna show up there and participate, fine. But it's our shtick, we're gonna make the rules. And one of those rules is "no feminists". Use that word, ejected. Don't like it, bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That goes for feminist writing, too. Sure I've read the Feminine Mystique, and The Second Sex, and whatnot. And you know what? I wasn't impressed. I didn't see convincing arguments. I saw mental illness. And I'm no longer interested in reading whatever new trash this cesspool of misinformation has spit out.

I'm done.

You wanna talk to me, you take off your white robe and pointy hood first, instead of sitting around explaining why I shouldn't care, like some sperg with zero respect for my welfare or my intelligence.

Because the fact is, feminists need men, but men don't need feminists. So I have zero incentive to compromise, even if I didn't have zero faith that anyone who calls herself a feminist was interested in compromise as a real thing, rather than code for "We get all the cookies".

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not so much the conversations that it kills, as it is trust... the sort of ordinary baseline trust that one generally has in others that they are speaking honestly, and communicating in good faith, until proven otherwise.

Many women who call themselves feminists do so because they just sort of took the movement's word for what it said about itself. And so they are puzzled when they are confronted by a white-hot resentment from men whenever the word is brought up.

This is because they have absolutely no clue how the men on the street experiences feminism... what he hears it saying about him, what he sees its influence doing to his legal rights, his reputation, and his life.

And this is not because men aren't saying it, it's because any man who says it is immediately dismissed as a crazy radical... despite the fact that the majority of men actually agree with him, but are simply too scared to say anything out loud.

So he also experiences feminism as a sort of listening disorder resulting in a severe malfunction of the ears. Which, of course, makes him more vehement. Why moderate the tone if only men are going to listen anyway?

So what happens is that feminists try to come to the bargaining table with "cut out all the misogyny, and then we can talk", when the reality is that men aren't interested in talking anymore, because women aren't listening, and we don't really need them for anything besides sex.

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right that you don't need women for anything besides sex. In fact, I'd argue alongside the MGTOWs: you don't even need us for that. Going one step further, we don't need people. It's logical to have trust issues. Humans, as a species, are unpredictable. If you can rely solely on yourself, it saves a lot of heartache.

I don't flatter myself that my male friends and family members need me. I just try to reciprocate the good they do for me. They listen, so I listen back. Confess a sexual attraction; I'll say straight-up if sex is off the table. Give me a Christmas card; I'll get you a birthday cake. Call me out on my binge drinking; I'll talk well into the a.m. on a weeknight when you're relapsing on Norcos. In an ideal world, we could do it on our own, but we can't. As it stands, trust engenders trust. Platonic opposite-sex friendships can be tough to navigate but, in my experience, they're worth it. Men and women don't need shit from one another, but I'm nonetheless grateful for what I get.

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Hey, I read your recent piece on TradCon women. Genuinely, thanks for taking time out to respond.

On the one hand, I like that she's addressing these issues at all. On the other hand, her article does strike me as a little "safe" as far as think pieces go.

It also seems presumptuous when posted in this context, like if I showed up in a foreign country saying, "I'm college educated and a US citizen. Work with me and I'll help you sort out your problems so that you can get yourselves recognized at an international level." It's not my country, my education is of limited utility, they might have valid reasons to distrust the US, and (you're absolutely right) I'm presuming there's no one within this foriegn country who's not already doing some variation on what I'm proposing.

So, I went back and fourth on how to present this article. I didn't want people to assume I viewed it as a solution to anything, or that I fully agreed with the article, but I did hope people would read it and hate on its contents selectively. For example, I liked her point regarding our framing of the abortion debate and about our neglect for men involved; also, the importance of addressing female-on-male assault. It's old news to the RP and MRAs, but it's coming from a surprising source.

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It also seems presumptuous when posted in this context, like if I showed up in a foreign country saying, "I'm college educated and a US citizen. Work with me and I'll help you sort out your problems so that you can get yourselves recognized at an international level."

This is a very eloquent way to put it.

Feminist interference in men's issues not only smells of this sort of colonialism, it also comes off as disingenuous.

Many feminists and feminist groups have tried to open discussion about men's issues for the purpose of controlling the discussion (GoodMenProject, HeForShe, etc), because when "unsupervised" men start talking about men's issues, they very quickly (and correctly) identify feminism as the major enemy.

Trying to talk about men's issues while describing yourself with the term "feminist" is essentially a no-go zone. Call yourself that, I no longer have the slightest interest in what you are saying. That word is a deal-breaker. Anyone doesn't already understand why needs to be listening, not talking.

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess the trick is to listen - I like that you mentioned that.

But, yeah, you might want to skip the rest of this: I'm pretty solidly feminist. I do, however, second your assertion that feminist forums have been doing a poor job of tackling men's issues (in spite of the oft cited assertion that feminism is about gender equality for everyone - which it is, I think, ideally.) Problems arise because both sides keep envisioning gender politics as a zero-sum game. And, in a way, it's become that: it's hard to simultaneously demonstrate compassion toward the accuser and the accused, the prostitute and the john, the viewer and the object of attention, and so on. That's one thing that bugged me about the article I linked to: in talking about the reasons why men's issues are neglected, she never acknowledged the possibility that we might just be reluctant to give space to men for fear it could take space from women. Listening - truly listening and empathizing - takes effort. If I'm annoyed, it's the last thing I want to do. But, once I do listen and let go a little, it clears my mind enough that I can think constructively.

[–]Deansdale0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Good-natured feminists never seem to get that their insider's bias distorts their own view of their own movement. Outsiders look at feminism and see how it has already corrupted the justice system, media, education, academics, etc, and how it is in the process of actively corrupting these even more. (By this I mean making it as openly and drastically anti-male as possible.) It was not you who lobbied for all the anti-male measures, but it was people calling themselves feminists, so you saying you're "a different kind of feminist" doesn't make us less angry at the movement. Instead it confuses us as to why a decent human being would associate with the likes of Marcotte, Hillary, Sarkeesian, etc. To put it bluntly: are you stupid??? We get it, you want nice things, but what the hell made you think joining a hategroup would result in those nice things? If I was a part of a movement and it came to my attention that my fellow activists did things like this, I would quit on the spot. I could never again call myself a feminist in good conscience knowing this is considered acceptable in that movement.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a massive fan of feminist theorists like Sherry Ortner (Making Gender is a goodie) and Lila Abu-Lughod (Writing Women's Worlds is a favorite ethnography of mine), specifically because they have very solid arguments paired with theoretical backup and real-world examples, and have been through rigorous peer-review processes. Louise Lamphere is pretty good, though I tend to disagree with her here and there. Henrietta Moore is another great theorist, though I can't really find much not behind a paywall for you guys. If anyone's interested, though, I can probably scrounge up some examples.

I don't read a lot of popular feminist articles and prefer to inform my opinions from established theorists and academics who are skilled at building arguments and tackling critique. Your average twitter user or blog persona just won't have that, Red or Blue.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points17 points17 points 10 years ago | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lonny_zone11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There are feminists who think porn is bad, but porn stars who call themselves feminists. My understanding of feminism is that it was largely against pornography. When I studied feminism philosophy and feminism in the media while at university, porn (and indirectly all things men enjoy sexually) was not seen very positively at all.

Then there is the hypocrisy of feminism, which says women should have free choice (good idea!) but if women choose not to be feminists or want to subscribe to traditional gender roles, they're lambasted for setting women back decades. But, I thought they had free choice? Then there are women who say feminism means different things to different people. It's very confusing when you get mixed messages like these. They also don't criticise each others extreme views, such as when prominent feminists said hateful things about men, which implies they are implicitly agreeing with their messages.

Have a look at what some celebrities say feminism is:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/121120-11-celebrities-define-feminism-in-their-own-unique-way

Then of course there's the fact that men can't really be feminists, just allies, which makes any men claiming to be feminists sadly mistaken. Men supporting it actually makes little sense because they get no say in what happens. Why men would support an organisation that isn't taking their views into account, I don't know.

This also seems contradictory: if women are equal to men then what more must men give up for them to be equal? If they are not equal then what other rights must they be given for them to feel equal? I am speaking in a western context. I don't see feminists flying to the middle east to protest against the treatment of women there. They usually condemn it from the safety and comfort of their middle to upper class homes.

If women want to be equal to men, then they also have to go through the bad stuff men go through. Feminism has convinced women that working a job is fun, but it sucks! In this paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969 it says that women's happiness has been declining steadily over the past few decades. In the 1970s women were (on average) happier than men, but there seems to be a crossover happening.

In this article by The Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1189894/Women-happy-years-ago-.html it says "'If you enjoy your job and it's a fulfilling career, that is a positive choice.. but if it's not, it's almost in some ways that we got it all, then found that actually it wasn't quite what we wanted.'

Now I am not trying to take away from women who enjoy their careers, but clearly something is wrong. Modern day feminism is just not doing the same things old school feminism has done. They fought for the right to vote, own property, have a job (which sucks but we have to live somehow) but modern day feminists are fighting boogeymen by comparison: manspreading, the patriarchy, slut shaming etc

The thing women are discovering now is that the world sucked for men too and they weren't living this perceived high life at all. Then they attack men even more, blaming men for their unhappiness. I am not saying things were perfect for women before, but there are consequences for your choices. Using feminism to avoid those choices - such as women enjoying a high paying job but still wanting job flexibility men NEVER had - is not realistic. I think the perception men were having a good life is part of the problem.

Heck, even Griffin Hansbury, a woman who became a man and took testosterone injections, explains that the perception he had of men when he was a woman was not true. It seems like feminism is attacking a straw man of the average male's experience when women are actually being hurt by how sucky the world is. Feminists seem to want to be exempt from the bad consequences and experiences while still reaping the benefits of having it all. That never happened for men. They also never had it all.

The world sucks for everyone: men, women and children (except the elite). Men have just had to suck it up longer without being able to complain about it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There are feminists who think porn is bad, but porn stars who call themselves feminists. My understanding of feminism is that it was largely against pornography. When I studied feminism philosophy and feminism in the media while at university, porn (and indirectly all things men enjoy sexually) was not seen very positively at all.

Feminism as a whole is against porn by and large and those that are even for it want to dictate feminist porn which is well something most people do not want to watch/see. Here's a well known female porn star calling out feminists on their bullshit.

Then there is the hypocrisy of feminism

Which feminism is full of and seemingly seems to be their platform.

They also don't criticise each others extreme views, such as when prominent feminists said hateful things about men, which implies they are implicitly agreeing with their messages.

Probably because they don't view such views as being extreme. More so notice the sheer lack of general criticism of others views within feminism is? Outside of general census of being against TERF's they don't question or criticise what others really say. And those that do question/criticise are often labeled as misogynist. More so ever notice when you point out the extreme views feminists often resort to "straw feminist" comments/replies.

Modern day feminism is just not doing the same things old school feminism has done.

Because a lot of the more legit issues women had in the west are well no more or that being dealt with. Modern day feminists are trying to keep up the whole women have it worse and victimhood thing around.

I think the perception men were having a good life is part of the problem.

Agreed. I also think the sheer lack of feminists not listen to or that talking to men is also part of the problem. Notice how much feminism views men and their issues from a women's lens?

Feminists seem to want to be exempt from the bad consequences and experiences while still reaping the benefits of having it all.

Ie have their cake and eat it as well.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I often come here and speak against some idea I have read that many professional feminists agree with and bloops wail "not muh feminism" and "nobody actually believes that" when I see feminists with millions of followers say it.

Yeah, welcome to debating on this subreddit. It's just as frustrating from the opposite end. But I've found it helps to be as specific as possible. Don't attack feminism or the redpill, attack the specific belief of the specific branch, throw in a most or two, and even those who disagree with you on most things, may help you prune the tree.

There is sex-positive feminism and sex-negative feminism. There are feminists that think shaving body hair is oppression and feminists who think breast implants are empowering.

Absolutely. So, what do they have in common? Why are we supposed to only hyper-focus on the manosphere's favorite outrage porn?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You guys still can't decide if Dworkin existed

I can tell this is going to be a productive conversation.

So address what I said. Where does Dworkin fit in feminism?

What is the consensus view that all feminists would agree with?

Given that feminists can't agree on what they stand for

A focus on women's issues, due to it's origins, with other feminists tackling human rights in general?

I thought it was equality? Or that women are people. Or eliminating the patriarchy and gender roles. Or...

You see how feminists can't even agree on this simple thing?

If you want to complain about shitty people abusing the tools at hand to screw everybody else over, feel free. I'm sure it'll be an informative post, just like the millions of other informative anti-feminist posts out there.

Ah, no true feminists. Haven't seen that before.

Great for getting outraged at some shitty people, and absolutely nothing else.

What are your thoughts on the Duluth model? That has had a real impact and was created by feminists.

Is criticizing that from a male victim advocacy standpoint useless?

Or like the other feminist on here are you going to claim it doesn't exist and I'm delusional for thinking it ever did?

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Second wave sex negative radical feminist, and still vitally relevant to manosphere, which passionately fights against her true demon form to this day.

So she was a feminist. Why then do you guys distance yourself from her?

Was she a true feminist?

Shitty people can be feminists. So, already we're up to two dishonest criticisms from you.

But if people claim them to be feminists and condemn them you come back with "gah you just don't understand feminism".

Which is it?

Started with good intentions and bad stereotypes. Despite improvements, primary aggressor models need cops educated about how to actually find out who it is. You won't find it in the crotch.

So then that would be an actual concrete example of how feminism in action harmed real men. It isn't some fictional demon angry men on the internet are railing against?

Also how does that fit with the "feminism is about equality" line? And why aren't feminists today fighting this?

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But if people claim them to be feminists and condemn them you come back with "gah you just don't understand feminism".

If you try to pull a reverse "No True Scotsman" with them?

No true feminist isn't a bigot. Here's a shitty one that proves feminism is

It's not worth taking seriously. People may try to educate you. Some will be more qualified than others.

Was she a true feminist?

Sure. Did she always apply the principles of feminism in ways I agree with? Not even close, and most disagree with her.

So then that would be an actual concrete example of how feminism in action harmed real men. It isn't some fictional demon angry men on the internet are railing against?

Not at all. It was a second wave concept that sometimes went to Hell, fast. It hurt innocent people. It gave extra power to abusers.

It'd be great if the angry men knew it was second wave, and educated themselves more about it - women have been arrested under it too.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can tell this is going to be a productive conversation.

Username checks out.

A focus on women's issues, due to it's origins, with other feminists tackling human rights in general?

They are likely more pointing out how so many feminists today claim feminism is about gender equality but focus on women's issues as well know to well they have it worse no matter what. And since when did feminism ever focused on human rights?

I do find it amusing you think RP should learn what 3rd wave feminism is about. Anyone can see what its about to what it actually does. For example the feminist site Everyday Feminism, which is all told a 3rd wave feminist site as they claim to be about intersectionality. Yet they spend 80% of the time on women 15% of the time on LGBT and the rest of the 5% is on everything else. The sheer lack of intersectionality is beyond noticeable.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Clementine Ford is a vile misandrist and Emma Watson only dates male jocks (proving through her actions endless red pill truths - watch what she does, don't listen to what she says, AF, SMV, hypergamy - all 100% confirmed by observing Emma Watson's life). I have already been exposed to the lies and toxin from Clementine Ford, she has made me more committed to the red pill than any man ever could. So in summary I agree red pill men, read Clementine Ford, even if you are a blue pill male you will be forced towards the red pill view point by her despicable brand of misandry. She believes in rape culture (if you want a rape culture look at the Congo or Boko Haram, not at Australian men). She wrote an article suggesting that white men only believe in rape culture when it is committed by brown men. She is a misandrist, a bigot and a hate monger.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JuniperSunshineWasting my education on my kids2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Jet20 and Bromance946 have already answered you on my behalf and done an excellent job. Emma Watson is a hypocrite, she says that men should be liberated from gender stereotypes yet she reinforces the stereotype by own actions. If someone was a UN advocate for interracial marriage, but they only date people of their own race, that makes them a hypocrite. This is why Emma Watson is a hypocrite and anything she says about feminism or gender issues is invalid. She is further evidence of the overwhelming stupidity amd solipsism of the hampster.

The fact that you still think she is a feminist or someone to look up to is also prima facie evidence that TRP hampster theory is correct. The solipsism and lack of logic employed by feminists and their supporters never fails to amaze me. What is next, a post about the female "survivors" of the Jian Ghomeshi trial and how we need to ensure the justice system is changed so as not to discourage "victims" from coming forward. (Even if you text, fuck, write love letters to your alleged abuser after the alleged abuse). Let me guess, this behaviour is also a result of Ghomeshi's abuse, it is not their fault that they want to get their hands in his deep pockets and manipulate the police and court system. They should not be responsible for their actions, they were raped!!!!!!!!!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

she says that men should be liberated from gender stereotypes yet she reinforces the stereotype by own actions

Attraction can't be negotiated, all women are going to be attracted to masculine men. Feminism simply promises liberation from enforced societal gender roles, nothing more. A man is free to be himself, and be unattractive as a result. Emma is completely within her rights as a feminist to date hunky jocks. And a male feminist would be within his rights to date a woman who adores pink and aspires to be a 50's style housewife. Feminism is about breaking barriers, not imposing new opposite ones. Anti-feminists always seem to want to project imaginary rules onto their versions of straw-feminism, I just don't understand it.

The rest of your comment seems to be a pure stream of gibberish. You guys can't even spell "hamster" correctly. Get it together.

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We have both guinea pigs and hamsters in the US.

Male feminists are as loathed by women as they are by men, they get no sex so they will settle for whoever will take them, pathetic fucking manginas

Hahaha have you even met a male feminist in real life? The average male feminist simply believes that women are equal in value to men, that's it. Most people in liberal areas self identify as feminist, because it's regarded as a give-in that women aren't inferior. There are many, many well adjusted, attractive men who were raised in liberal families and call themselves feminists, simply because they believe in equality. Not all feminists are tumblrinas or manginas, that's just silly.

Explain to me why the man a woman cheats with and moves in with gets to live with the man's children 12 days a fortnight while the father only gets 2 days? Why? Why does the man have to send half or most of his earnings to his ex wife and move out of his house so his wife's new boyfriend can move in?

Easy, the mother is usually the primary caregiver. Biotroofs, baby :P The woman cares for the children, the man provides for them. As for the specifics of the law, you'll have to take that up with the courts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I personally think that most men who are raised in loving liberal families (as I was) do not identify as feminist. We just think it is natural to treat women equally and with respect. I am talking about the manginas you see holding up cardboard signs and standing next to blue haired girls with duct tape around their chests.

The family courts are a joke and things are changing, albeit very slowly. In Australia the default custody arrangement is shifting slightly more towards shared/ joint custody. It is still a long way off and in the meantime men are being screwed over by the courts. In my case I was the primary care giver for my infant kids while she was getting turned inside out by Chad. Fortunately I did not have to go to court to secure custody, but if I did there was a 60-70% chance that I would draw a sexist judge who was so used to just rubber stamping custody for the mother. Then they would just hand my two perfect kids to her and Chad and kick me out of my house. Now I would have appealed and fought to the death, but I have substantial resources, most men do not. The family courts are sexist and it needs to be overhauled. It needs to be changed and we need womens help to achieve this.

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]seeing_red_murky crimson6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JuniperSunshineWasting my education on my kids1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]seeing_red_murky crimson0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!)2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!)6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SepeanMarried RP Man10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!)0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!)2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've skimmed through some of it, and I'm not very impressed. The whole site is a mess that looks like it was made in Geocities.

I don't like how it opens by trying motte-and-bailey me into "if you believe in (very common belief) you are already a feminist!" and then attaching dubious claims to that concept. I also found the "men are stronger than women" article to be pretty strawmanny.

Most of it is just history of feminism, which is neat, but not something that would convince me whether I should be a feminist today.

I liked the rebuttals to some very dumb (but ones I actually heard people make) arguments against abortion like 'aborting Beethoven', but I don't think I ever believed in those anyway.

Either way, you have at least given your opponents something here. You can't be blamed anymore for not engaging in discourse, so good for you (this sounds sarcastic but it's really not).

[–]questioningwomandetached from society-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!)2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]seeing_red_murky crimson12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Leinadro8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I really don't fully grasp this. Please enlighten me!

When I first stumbled across TRP, it basically epitomizes a very cynical worldview - everybody sucks, but especially me.

Women suck for hypergamy and loving Chad. Sure.

But I'm to blame for being a beta male loser who deserves nothing but contempt. I suck for being emotional. I suck for being weak. I suck for being blind. I suck for not spinning plates, not lifting, not being charismatic, not being Chad.

Women suck because it's in their nature, but I suck even more for being a disposal male. Actually, all women are better than beta-omega losers intrinsically because ovaries, so I doubly suck. Life on hard made. Bottom of the totem pole. QQ moar.

TRPs kinda harsh to everyone, and especially betas and incels. The only difference is that I can seek atonement by pumping iron. They offer a way out of being human garbage.

I remember trying to blame women, but found it impossible without blaming myself, and somewhere along the lines all of humanity. Nihilistic cynicism and self-loathing made everything suck.

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]czerdec2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]czerdec0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]czerdec0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]czerdec0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not red, but why don't you tell me the books that should make RPers change their minds?

I'm very curious to know what books a scientifically-trained feminist believes would have that much power of persuasion. What are they?

I've done a certain amount of reading (back when I thought "No way, they can't all be so shallow and transparent yet still have so much influence in academia!". But oh they can) in the field. For every supposedly sound "insight" it was laughably easy to think of several examples that disproved the assertion. Or something was asserted as fact (people worshiped an Earth goddess 40,000 years before written language, which we know because we found statues of curvy women and as you know, female images are only used for religious purposes) when it's blatant that the supporting data is impossible to find.

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]seeing_red_murky crimson2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (190 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (181 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (180 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (93 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningwomandetached from society-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Because males benefit from that power structure. They are given autonomy and allowed to flourish and their intellect to be used in a patriarchal society. For women it's harder. Female DOCTORS who actually knew what they were doing were persecuted and almost not allowed into the profession. Saving lives apparently was less valuable when a female did it. What if you're better at another role than the role society boxed you in? Are your talents you were born with a waste? Should you just perform poorly at your supposed role because you weren't born with those talents and then have society sneer at how bad you are at it? You may as well rebel against society, do what you're good at because they're gonna hate you either way. AND flaunt it so they see they can't stop you. According to you, if a woman's born with a high IQ and is gifted but bad at stereotypical female things, she should be blocked from utilizing her gifts AND judged as someone who has no talent or anything good about her. Why should she care about this society?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are advantaged in every possible way in every possible part of society. Feminists are utterly delusional though and repeat constant streams of lies, outright lies, that are repeated so often that I sometimes wonder if they actually believe them.

But hey if you want to fully withdraw your support from society I am absolutely all for that. From where I sit women have so much institutionalized privilege in every possible way that it's just mind boggling that everyone doesn't see it.

I mean I could try to "discuss" this with you but I've wasted way too much of my time in that delusional belief that any feminist was arguing in good faith. So now I choose rhetoric. That and intentionally treating feminist women like the hate filled monsters, absolutely terrible people, just utter scum, that they are.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh believe it or not I have had many many women friends in my life. I've talked with many women in those tender moments when they'll open up. About their struggles. Very real struggles. And I've done my best to tell them the truth.

Most women don't want to hear the truth. They prefer the lies we're all told. And now the feminists have made commitment a borderline crime, punished far far more severely than a lot of other crimes. Why did they do that? You want us to refuse to commit?

I'm sure that somewhere out there in the world there are girls that aren't liars. But how am I supposed to find one of them? Every girl is going to tell me that she's different. But then lie anyway. Hell somehow women delude themselves into thinking that they aren't actually lying, or its just ok to do it so long as nobody finds out. And now the risks have been made beyond incredible, beyond extreme, so much so that their isn't really any reason to bother to try to find some diamond in the rough. Much better to just take steps so that it doesn't matter what you do. You can do whatever you want to do. I'll just never ever commit to you or ever expect that you're even capable of commitment.

The way I see it is through the prisoners dilemma. There used to be social forces that would push men and women both into a cooperate-cooperate strategy. I'll support and love you even when you get old, and give you my best years, but in return you'll commit to me, not fuck anybody else on the side, and give me your best years and bear children for me. Now? What are you actually offering me?

Not your best years. That's for your career, you go girl!, and fucking Chads. But hey when your best years are all gone and you've proven that commitment doesn't mean shit to you somehow I'm supposed to give you my best years and still love you even when you're all old.

The way I see it is women realized that they could use a defect-cooperate strategy on men and get so much more. The problem is we're waking up to your defect strategy and now we defect back. So we've gone from a cooperate-cooperate strategy, where some people would defect but were punished for it, to a defect-defect equilibrium. Where even if I cooperate and you defect I'm the one who is punished. And if you cooperate and I defect I'm still punished. So why bother to ever cooperate?

You can't commit to me. That shit is illegal now. That's what feminism has done. And they did it on purpose.

I'm very aware that the life of a woman is not easy. And that you have many things in your life to come to grips with, to struggle through, and a whole host of your own problems. We could cooperate-cooperate but life has taught me that women say that's what they want, they say that's what they are going to do, but watch their actions. It's not what they do. And you expect me to risk that again? For what? You can't give me children, it's illegal. I can get sex from young girls who stay young forever and have MUCH less risk! I know feminists are busy trying to increase the risk of getting sex that way with the rise of fake rape charges. Make the risk of getting sex that way even worse and hey? I'll just go mgtow and fuck escorts.

It's like you all don't even realize that the life of a man is also very difficult and we have no support.

Who in their right mind thought that destroying marriage was a good idea? That starting a gender war was a good idea? Oh yeah feminists. And you're still around waging war against us with your hollow words.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningwomandetached from society-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not the current system necessarily but from the patriarchal system they want to bring back.

A) what men want to bring that back? Because as it's worded you seem to think all.

B) the same holds true in that system. A few guys and their wives and kids benefit while most do not and the very worst off are men.

Now it's more or less even but shifting towards the latter for the under 30 crowd.

In no way is it more or less even for the reasons I described.

Women do find themselves homeless

Never said otherwise. But they are the minority of homeless.

and actually make more suicide attempts than men do.

Meaning either they're too dumb to figure it out or they aren't sincere.

Men actually kill themselves more.

Can you accept this?

And when women have "male problems" these days, they're called statistical outliers and their problems are ignored.

Examples?

[–]questioningwomandetached from society1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But this is based on the assumption of there being female doctors, or having to have female doctors. Doctors specialize and most women are usually far better at being generalists: nursing, and being more a generic healer and nurse that has always been part of being a housewife. Nevertheless there are pretty good female doctors - most of my doctors are women, actually.

But my point is that the female specialist = the female careerist = the female doctors is something sort of an exception. Usually men want to be specialists and women generalists.

And feminism / modernity always seems to optimalize for the unusual, special "male-minded woman".

This is not even suprising - feminism and similar political movements show a male mind. Attacking opponents head on. The classic female way to do this is entirely different - my grandma was like, the man is the head of the family but the woman is the neck that turns the head. So this is a typical male thing to fight for rights and all that. The typical female thing is more like being the power behind the throne, charm the king and make him do what you want, be the kings lower kind of thing. The typical female thing is to marry the doctor not be the doctor. And the doctor is usually a huge beta and does what the wife says so is this even a bad deal for her? For 90% of women not, only for the male-minded women who want to have a direct, not indirect career, status, power.

So my point is political battling is in itself a male-minded thing, hence feminism favors the male-minded woman.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]NPIFRed Pill Man11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

You want to have a debate with someone "on your level?" Come at me bro. Minored in Women's Studies in University with an A average.

Believe it or not, you can understand feminism on an academic level and still think it's doing more harm than good to western women in the 21st century. The third wave is rife with disorganized rhetoric. Modern Feminism has become a catch-all that is supposed to include LGBT issues, race, sexuality, and more. And in becoming so, it has lost much of the focus in its origins, which was to seek egalitarian treatment under the law for women. That goal has been achieved. Modern western women have more rights and freedoms than at any time in history, yet somehow this narrative of continued oppression under the "patriarchy" persists.

My belief is that western women, in all their solipsism, have become blind to what a real patriarchy looks like. Go spend some time in Arab countries and then tell me how tough you have it back home.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Leinadro6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]czerdec5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hedonism_bot_69"Human life must be some kind of mistake" Schopenhauer1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except for random trash talking and those who take girl power too literally while screaming how unfair it is that anyone has a problem with AWALT.

Look, I'm not a redpiller and I frequently criticize AWALT. I actually think it's often the TRP's motte-and-bailey, meaning that what AWALT means when you criticize them is frequently a lot different from what AWALT means when they're talking about it between themselves.

So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement. [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]

So I'm not coming at this saying "what feminists do is bad but what TRPers do is A-OK".

But I very much believe that the "girl power!" or "women can do anything men can do, but better!" messages, as well as the general cultural climate where it's a lot more socially acceptable to say good things about women/girls and bad things about men/boys than the other way around, has a negative effect on a lot of boys growing up. If TRP's culture and messages ever came close to what I just described in terms of influence or commonality then it would cause a problem for girls too, but as it stands they're just a medium-sized forum on reddit.

A passage I like that helps explain my point:

Unfortunately, in its earnest quest for female empowerment, America—never quite good at moderation, and always quite good at fighting the last battle—is quietly and methodically marginalizing boys. Every day, through various media campaigns, America’s boys absorb countless messages that girls can do anything—and that they deserve our unending attention and adoration. When it comes to boys, however, the cacophony of “dream big” media encouragement falls oddly silent. The assumption, one supposes, is that the giant, sinister swath of oppressive male “privilege,” supposedly inherited by young boys, speaks for itself.

Spend any Saturday watching the Disney Junior channel—I actually don’t recommend this, as a general life rule—and you’ll see countless reruns of a promotional ad for “Dream Big, Princess,” a new, three-year ad campaign celebrating girls and the thousands of remarkable things they can do with their lives: Science! Karate! Gymnastics! Traveling to the moon! Running for president! Promotional signage for “Dream Big, Princess” has already appeared in some Target stores; in the television ad, as the music swells, triumphant girls are celebrated as “champions.” Any young boys watching the ad, amid its quasi-messianic strains, could be forgiven for thinking they were born into a far inferior, far less magical sex. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/10/defending_boys_in_a_girl_power_age__129930.html]

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But I very much believe that the "girl power!" or "women can do anything men can do, but better!" messages, as well as the general cultural climate where it's a lot more socially acceptable to say good things about women/girls and bad things about men/boys than the other way around, has a negative effect on a lot of boys growing up.

Especially young boys who lack good masculine role models, growing up in toxic/abusive environments, in a day and age when a Sarah Palin or a Hillary Clinton prove that incompetent and corrupt women can rise through the system too! Hooray for equality!

It's a really good point, and a fair one - I wish there was more of a "What can we do for boys too?" alliance to make the world a better place, rather than a growing "We'll make misogyny cool again!" reactionary movement.

But I question your belief that the redpill is a small and harmless crowd. They even admit that they represent success dynamics for a good percentage of the population. Just because their claim that they represent everyone is comical overreach that even they can't always say with a straight face, it doesn't mean they lack all real world power. (Unless we're talking about most of the main redpill subreddit, or as they're better known, Omega Red.)

A typical field report.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (79 children) | Copy Link

I love it when you guys pretend it's such a complicated subject that detractors couldn't possibly understand.

It's exactly like hardcore Christians insisting that anyone who doesn't believe as they do clearly doesn't understand the Bible.

Feminism as a movement isn't complicated.

It's an advocacy group. Except instead of being for a business sector or other demographic it's for women. Radical stuff there.

And like all those other groups they're seeking to push laws that benefit their group regardless of the harm it does to others. But they can't openly say that so they put on a more appealing face.

Coal groups aren't fighting to crush renewables, they're trying to bring jobs back to America! In the same way feminism isn't working to benefit women even at the expense of men. They're fighting to ensure women are treated like equals!

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]questioningwomandetached from society1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Making sure the wage they get is something they can live on.

Why should single people live on a wage? Ideally people should live in families.

Rent control can help that, especially in the cities.

Please learn more economics - it is a fundamentally bad idea, and it is a showcase of fundamentally wrong economic thinking. The problem is the assumption that people just sheepishly conform with control. They don't - it just changes incentives. If you have a flat to rent out and you cannot take the richest tenant, who will you take? The one you like. Then you have discrimination. Or the one who is a reliable friends friend and pays more than in the contract under the table. Generally speaking it is a very bad idea to fuck with markets in such blatant ways because people don't just sheepishly obey, they simply exercise their selfishness in other ways.

But generally people are not supposed to live alone.

Life isn't worth living without personal autonomy.

Tell that to soldiers - they don't have any and have a proud, meaningful life.

If you don't have it, you're essentially a slave.

That is just progressive delusion. If you don't have it, you are a historically normal human being with given roles and duties. In the Middle Ages not even kings were autonomous and that was great.

Having given a role to fulfill is far better because meaningful than the swamp of petty personal decisions. In other words, fuck Immanuel Kant and the Enlightenment sideways with a rake. Have you seen The Last Samurai? That was the good life (if an idealized model if it) - a life of service. Noble service that elevates. Both for Katsumoto and Taka.

Why do males have the right to personal autonomy yet women don't?

Men shouldn't have either - should have a "station and duties", born into a social role to fulfill. Autonomy is poison because your ego is your enemy (think Buddhism, roughly), and mean deal with this poison better than women do but still pretty badly - look at all the fat gamer neckbeards with no life. Look at the ridiculous old charmeurs who want to have washboard abs at 50 - they can't even age gracefully like a father / grandfather of older times. Autonomy poisons everybody.

Just because I have a vagina I have to have other people determine the course of the rest of my life?

It should be the same for people with penises as well. Not "other people" but social conventions. The problem is you are an individualist. (I am dividualist.) It is not other people, other individuals it is society as a collective, a community, its standards and customs and traditions should limit autonomy. On the whole autonomy poisons men too, it poisons women more, not because a vagina but because of the moodiness coming from estrogen - if you are low-estrogen and don't have the typical moodiness (the most striking example is pregnant moodiness as that is when the estrogen is all time high), you may be able to deal with it better, but you would be happier if you was born into a social role. It would give you focus and meaning.

You may be an exception. You may belong to the very small minority who is perhaps better off being autonomous - but society should be optimized for the majority. I think ultimately these people are damaged - they are individualists, not "familial/tribal collectivists" which is the normal human standard.

(This is not terper thinking: this is Reactionary thinking in the de Maistre sense, far more radical.)#

What did this modern autonomy give to us, men and women? We can sit before computers alone and argue with characters on the screen? Have a work we find pointless (see: Fight Club), have maybe a nuclear family but hate our cousins, have superifical contact with neighbors? How much better would it be to be a member of a clan in the old sense, or a member of a feudal society given a station, rank, duties, purpose, focus? Why do people love stuff like Game of Thrones?

The best thing would be to be able to fulfill our gender to the whole - like the Jungian stereotypes. If men could be King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, if women could be Queen, Mother, Wise Woman, Lover - that would be great. Modern autonomy hardly delivers any of it.

Further resources:

https://killtoparty.com/2015/08/27/over-the-rainbow-the-dark-enlightenment-as-anti-choice/

https://darwinianreactionary.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/the-shakers-deathwish-values-and-autonomy/

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The core problem is that humans are pretty bad at knowing what makes us happy. There is a huge illusion in liberalism, namely that free choice is good because we know what is good for us. We don't. There is a huge difference between desire and pleasure. For startes, we may not even necessarily like the things we want. So if free choice is about wanting, it easily ends up with disliked things. Deeper discussion: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1lb/are_wireheads_happy/

More relevant example: can't find the article but US college girls were complaining that all this liberated sexuality is not really working that well for them because they can't find boys who actually treat them well. (Largely because they went for the sexually exciting "alpha" boys.) Doing what you want easily gets you something you don't like.

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This isn't just TRP, it is a far larger Dissident Right in that regard: not about being ignorant of commonly accepted ideas but knowing them well and disagreeing with them because having examined what older books say, these newer ideas and not actually correct, they just won in a social way basically popularity contest.

If you would look into the higher-brow Dissident Right sites, we actually know the history of "progressivism" or "leftism" - which includes feminism - better than most of its adherents. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism this is a 200 years old set of ideas and many modern feminist and leftist ideals are rooted in that: "Transcendentalists believed that society and its institutions ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual, and had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent."

Leftist have actually forgotten their own roots, but the Dissident Right does learn about them, in order to seek how the whole thing could be changed right at its root, modernity as such changed - and the roots are 200 or more years old.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Feminism doesn't exist. If i say some one is a feminist what have you learned? Nothing in fact you have less knowledge than you started with. Which wave of feminism, are they in the esentalist wing (cultural, gender critical) or the non estsentalist wing (marxist, intersectional). Are they swerfs? terfs?

You literally know less about person after stating they're a feminist than if you hadn't stated they were feminist at all.

Which leads me to my next point:

Yes AFALT that, because there is no church or pope of feminism to dictate what is canonical feminism and which isn't canonical feminism. the most a feminist i have see will ever do is say if a person does x they aren't feminist. which is like a christian or muslims saying after one of their cultist kills people they aren't one of them. yeah they were. which is weak fucking sauce. (NTS) Also saying 'feminism is about equality' is a motte and bailey tactic of a rapidly dying ideology that is more and more being shown to be a hate group. Juila bindel a prominent second wave said to put all men in camps. about 2 months later she was no platformed by feminist. not for suggesting we put men in concentration camps (that was perfectly fine and feminist), no she was no platformed for being a TERF. Jessica 'male tears' valenti a syndicated writer for the guardian, whos writing looks like some thing gobells would write if you turn on the mienkampf extension. (same for mandy marcotte). Yet do feminist ever call their bigots out by name? fuck no.

So why shouldn't i use (and assume) AFALT. Saying feminism is about equality is like a white nationalist saying the KKK is about white rights and white nationalism is about making a safe place for whites and white culture. funny both groups pretend not to be agents and pretend to be victims all the fucking time.

Edit more comments on my little post than the entire post... winning

[–]Leinadro3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Leinadro0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Leinadro0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Q4Feminists: What feminist writings do you wish that RPers would read?
Author	TheChemist158
Upvotes	7
Comments	202
Date	April 12, 2016 6:28 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4eewvl/q4feminists_what_feminist_writings_do_you_wish/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4feminists-what-feminist-writings-do-you-wish.275180 https://theredarchive.com/post/275180

Comments