698,118 posts

A pro-equality, leftist here.

Reddit View
June 4, 2019
66 upvotes

I am on your side and I want to raise the point on this sub to right wing people (I don’t want to start a political argument). Radical feminism/ 4th wave feminism is NOT true leftism. True leftism fights for actual equality, which is what 1st wave and 2nd wave feminism, but not this misandrist, stupid SJW bullshit today. The concept of a ‘patriarchy’ is what socialism fights against, because it is merely a rumour caused by feminazis who want to use this idea as a means and justification for equality, which is ridiculous because equality isn’t only a problem because of men. I am happy to write more on this subject, and while being politically opposite to people like Ben Shapiro, I agree with his points on feminism and the dumb concept that ‘holding a door open for a woman’ isn’t ‘mocking their honor’, and an 8 year old dressing up as Moana for halloween isn’t cultural appropriation, and I want right wing people on the anti feminist side to understand that this radical, 4th wave feminism, fact-denying bullshit isn’t what leftism and socialism stands for

tldr: radical feminism and most cases of 4th wave feminism is not true leftism


Post Information
Title A pro-equality, leftist here.
Author travis-scoot
Upvotes 66
Comments 64
Date 04 June 2019 07:26 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/708056
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/bwsutz/a_proequality_leftist_here/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
feminazisocial justice warriorfeministfeminism
Comments

[–]vSkyy1231 points32 points  (10 children) | Copy

The issue is, the screaming radical feminists have tarnished the name of feminism so much, that everyone associates todays feminism with those people who scream and cry about every little thing.

What feminism was, is no longer what it is today in the eyes of a lot of people, hence why I think people who believe in what feminism was need to separate them selves from the screaming crybabies.

[–]StaticDashy7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy

It’s sad, these people ruined such a good movement that accomplished many goals

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

Wrong.
Feminism never had laudable goals.
That's why women were against the ERA - they didn't want to get drafted and sent to Vietnam like men.

[–]StaticDashy0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

I don’t think anyone did

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

That's because you probably don't have the moral foundation of loyalty in your makeup.

Some people volunteered for Vietnam. Some fled to Canada. The anti-war movement was part of what caused Nixon's victory in 1968 (as well as the debacle at the convention in Chicago).

It is always easy to see narratives promoted by (((the media))), and assume everyone agrees. Not so.

While you are correct that many didn't want to go fight in Vietnam (either because they were not loyal to America, or they felt it wasn't worth the cost), plenty did. Not as many as in WWII or Korea, but not none.

The sad thing is, Vietnam was about offshore oil and a false incident (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident) to kick things off.
If you look at American wars, you see a lot of contrived incidents used to fool actual patriots into supporting them:

  • The sinking of the Lusitania to get us into World War I
  • Roosevelt engineering the attack at Pearl Harbor to get us into World War II when Hitler wouldn't bite on his provocations against Germany
  • The Gulf of Tonkin Incident to get us in to Vietnam
  • The attack on the USS Liberty by Israel, halted when it was apparent there would be survivors and they wouldn't be able to blame Egypt (to trigger a US war in the Middle East).
  • Israel and Saudi Arabia engage in a lot of cooperation on defense and intelligence (google it if you don't believe me). The Bin-Laden family is highly connected and influential in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Afterwards, the US invaded an enemy of Israel who wasn't even involved in the attack. Kinda makes you wonder, did Iraq and Afghanistan fit the pattern? It is also true that Saddam was threatening the petro-dollar, planning to trade for oil in Euros - a dire threat to the Saudis and to the US. (Also reminiscent of Gaddafi's planned gold-backed currency; another threat to the dollar's status as world reserve currency makes attacking Libya during the Arab spring, but nobody else, much more comprehensible.)

EDIT: More come to mind -

  • The USS Maine's boiler explosion was falsely attributed to a torpedo and used to launch the Spanish-American war. (And now we're stuck with a bankrupt Puerto Rico, but I digress.)
  • Saddam had no WMDs, no mobile labs, no nothing.
  • The poison gas attack in Syria was staged, not an attack by Assad.

I should probably read up on the circumstances of Ft. Sumter ...

[–]StaticDashy0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

So you are saying that things such as the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, and others were staged to get Americans to fight a war

[–]User-31f64a4e-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

Yes.
Americans have little taste for conquest or Empire.
If you can make us feel threatened or attacked, however, all bets are off.
If an intervention takes more than just sending a few troops for a short while ( Steven Decatur to Tripoli, our little adventures in Central America, etc.) then you need to manufacture an incident.

I left off the whole USS Maine and the Spanish-American War; that belongs on the list as well. The boiler explosion may not have been deliberately staged, but it was certainly used as a pretext for war.

Also, Pearl Harbor was not staged, it really happened and the Nips really did it. But, they were pushed (oil embargo) and duped (communication to Portuguese Ambassador; Roosevelt knew Japan had broken Portugal's cipher) them in to it.

[–]StaticDashy-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

So e plain to me then why every single article book etc I’ve read on Pearl Harbor says it was a suprise attack

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Either you want for reading comprehension, or have merely confined your inquiries to sources in the establishment.

The Japanese 'purple' cipher system was broken before the war; look up the fact that there was some advance notice that something would go down on 7 December, that the warning to the Japanese Ambassador was intercepted, etc. etc.

Appeals to your own ignorance do not form the basis of a winning argument.

PS -
There were also no WMDs in Iraq
The poison gas attacks in Syria were fake
The attacks on tankers this week in the Gulf of Oman are probably fake as well.

[–]StaticDashy-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Ok then I’ll leave you with your conspiracies then

[–]Virtual-Knight7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy

I could never see how people could see feminism as left wing since feminism is a hate cult. My mother hated me because she's a feminist. Any excuse to beat the shit out of me, she snapped it up like a shot. I'm not a misogynist just because I'm a victim of misandry, am I? I owe my life to a girl who showed me true kindness in the beginning.

[–]AlicornGamer5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy

if you dont mind me asking, what triggered her to hate her own child? because of feminists hate their own kids then thats such a low blow... my god

[–]Virtual-Knight2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

The mother's a feminist and the child has a penis. It happens a lot, sadly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7eG-AuzW4&t=

[–]AlicornGamer2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

ohh i heard about that actually... i hopethat chikld is taken off that monster... like how tf did she get pregnant to begin with, she must have had a guy inside her somehow, probably filed a falce rape accusation to him and the kicker is that she has a male child? fuck is wrong with that woman

[–]Virtual-Knight1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

There was another video I saw about a year ago. Have you heard of Clementine Ford? She's an Australlian feminist who gained infamy for saying all men deserved to be killed. She has a son and she spoke about him like he wasn't even human.

[–]AlicornGamer1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

never heard of her... glad and kinda desgusted about the fact i now know about her... that son's going to grow updepressed and fucked in the mind tbh... i hope he gets out of there. TBH, suprized she hasnt killed him yet. Not saying i want her too, just kind of suprized it hasnt

[–]Virtual-Knight0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

[–]AlicornGamer1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

that's all i need from her to know how she is. fuck this lady and i hope she never has a nother child, no matter what gender, and the one she currently has is taken away from her.

[–]ass-my-eat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Feminists have killed 60million of their own babies since Roe V Wade. Does that clear things up?

[–]User-31f64a4e-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Feminism is identity politics, just like the rest of the left.

[–]ChucklesTheWerewolf14 points15 points  (10 children) | Copy

I’m pretty centrist, but right leaning. I don’t have a problem with reasonable people of either side. It’s the fanatics like SJWs and Feminazis, Antifa, on the left, and hardcore racists & homophobes on the right that boil my blood. The moment you stop respecting those whose opinions simply differ from your own? You lose all respect from me, no matter your outlook.

[–]daniel133248 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy

I’m a centrist too, but oftentimes the label “homophobe” is applied to Christians merely acting on their religious convictions. It’s not okay to sue Christian bakers and try to force them to accommodate you. Which is why I side more with the homophobes than the other side.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Being critical of sodomy does not make you afraid of sodomites. Don't even use the word "homophobe", use "anti-sodomite".

[–]ChucklesTheWerewolf-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

That’s not homophobic, that’s just respecting your boundaries. Christian here, but sometimes I hate how bigoted some of us who are supposed to ‘love thy neighbor’ can be.

[–]daniel133240 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

I don’t know about that. Don’t confuse “loving thy neighbor” with approval of sin.

[–]ChucklesTheWerewolf2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Luke 6:41-42 41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Calling people derogatory slurs and encouraging violence whilst spewing hateful rhetoric sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me. The LGBT community is guilty of this as well. Just trying to point out terrible people.

[–]daniel133241 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I’m aware of that parable, and it is hypocritical to act like an ass while feeling holier-than-thou, but most Christians don’t act like that, do they? But the mere disapproval of homosexuality is enough to get a person attacked these days. That’s why I said what I did about this topic.

[–]ChucklesTheWerewolf1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Disapproving of something and acting out hatefully are two different things. I can see what you’re getting at, though.

[–]daniel133240 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah what I’m saying is lots of Christians are pressured into compromising their beliefs because they don’t want to be called homophobes. It’s better to just ignore them, and if you do somehow end up in an argument about it, don’t compromise.

[–]User-31f64a4e-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

False equivalence.
Cake bakers are refusing to aid and abet. They aren't criticizing specks; that would mean acting like muzzies - throwing sodomites off of buildings, hassling their parades, and what not.

whilst spewing hateful rhetoric

Note the leftoid tendency to psychologize one's opponents? "Hateful" is just a guess at the motivation of one's interlocutors. "Phobic" (transphobic, homophobic, Islamophobic) is another leftoid ploy, again based on psychologizing.

You can always tell when the left is full of this. It's when they are saying something.

encouraging violence

You mean, Antifa, that speck in YOUR eye?

Just trying to point out terrible people.

Sure. It's not a rhetorical attack, why, you're too NICE to do that! Like I said, talking leftoids are lying leftoids.

[–]travis-scoot0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I agree on you with antifa, it is just I’m the wrong solution to the right problem

[–]correcting_dyslexics2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I used to think like this, that the 3rd/4th wave are the crazy parts of feminism, but that earlier feminism was actually a great movement for equality. But then I realized that literally all of it has been terrible. Actually you could argue that the 1st wave was the worst one since it's the one that started it all.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm pretty far to the left and very much against feminism.

I believe the crazed SJW/feminists glomming on to movements that want better worker protections, environmental laws, safety nets, etc are kinda like the "gay marriage and abortion causes hurricanes" evangelicals glomming on to genuinely small government balanced budget type conservatism.

They have absolutely nothing to do with the original movement but their votes and energy can be helpful.

Personally though I think the left is shooting itself in the foot by allowing the misandrist crazies a platform. They aren't winning over more people than they lose with that.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

While I have walked away, I still carry with me to the right the concerns about fairness and care which are the moral foundations of the left.
Here on the dissident right, I find those as well! Tucker Carlson is hardly agitating for open-loop corporations, outsourcing jobs, or dumping toxic waste on the people! But I also find the other moral foundations as well, and I buy in to that. Loyalty, Respect for (legitimate) authority, Care, Fairness, Disgust/Purity, Liberty - the dissident right has it all!
Now the pseudo-right, the cuckservatives, the Ben Shapiro/Dennis Prager crowd (to say nothing of the Libertarian apologists for corporatism and the Koch Brothers; their only moral foundation is liberty, that's it) - the movement conservatives, the National Review crowd - they are just grifters, following the progressive left with a 20 year delay while they shill for corporations, and wars that only benefit Israel (if that).

The left has drifted into crazy-town, identity politics, globalism, immorality, tranny children, infanticide ... all manner of crazy.

Now that I have gone over to the dark side, I find it isn't dark at all and there is no way in hell I will ever go left again.

[–]ILOVHENTAI1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I would still like to call second wave feminism bullshit

[–]User-31f64a4e1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It was.
What were women being liberated from, exactly? Responsibility, is all. Second wave feminism was called "women's liberation", and it liberated them from:

  • the consequences of indiscriminate sex (abortion, the pill)
  • the burdens of commitment (no-fault divorce)
  • the need to actually deliver value to employers (affirmative action quotas)
  • the need to prove yourself to obtain a job (again, affirmative action)
  • decorum
  • responsible sex (the whole "sexual revolution")
  • taking responsibility for their part in domestic violence (they took over the shelter movement and made them for women only)

The whole "great society" tied in - providing support to single mothers, encouraging the destruction of the family, etc etc.

[–]the-southern-snek1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy

Still socialism doesn’t work it’s been tried and failed

[–]travis-scoot-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

So has everything else

[–]the-southern-snek0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Capitalism has worked and is working and you admitted you want a system that doesn’t work

[–]travis-scoot-2 points-1 points  (6 children) | Copy

Capitalism is based on growth, and we can’t keep on growing forever, so it won’t work eventually. Also capitalism under the rain of the Tsar was worse than it was under the Soviet Union

[–]the-southern-snek1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Actually it was the opposite at conditions were starting to improve because communism stopped it

[–]Dogedoomofinternet1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

No it wasn't. People were fighting about the food on streets of Petrograd.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Yes, it was. The last Czars were reformers, limited in scope by the aristocrats.

Shortages in Petrograd pale before the famines Stalin created in the Ukraine. Look up "holodomor" and educate your self.

[–]Dogedoomofinternet-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I know the holodomor, but i was speaking the 1920's, on Lenin's reign, not Stalin's 1930's.

[–]markrod4201 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And socialism is paying failed genetics to propagate and will ALWAYS collapse, even if it works exactly as you all want it to it will eventually collapse under the weight of the parasitic population that it has enabled to expand exponentially while simultaneously hampering the growth of the capable contributing population by stealing from them. One thing leftists REALLY dont want to accept, intelligence, temperment, and general ability to contribute and participate in society are all largely genetic traits. In evolution "if you dont use it you lose it". By removing the filter of being able to provide for yourself and your progeny, you allow inferior genetics to propagate into our gene pool rapidly, reducing our avg genetic quality. Done for long enough this system will ALWAYS end up inundated with useless parasitic breeders and it will always collapse.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Capitalism is based on growth

Typical left misuse and redefinition of terms, trying to win arguments by playing word games.

Capitalism is NOT based on growth. It is based on private property, free exchange through markets, voluntary exchange and profits.

Corporatism and banking, those are perhaps based on growth. To conflate those with capitalism is like pointing to a Hayden piece and saying "That is the nature of Western Music" - conveniently sweeping everything before or after the Baroque era under the rug.

As far as I know, rain in the time of the Tsars had no special effect, other than wetness.
Capitalism in the reign of the tsars was limited (because it was an Aristocracy, not an industrial democracy) and at any rate, Russia was by far the least industrialized nation (and so not a good place to examine the economic effects of government types in the modern world).

Still, the Communists killed hundreds of millions in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc - so at least they do that better than anyone. (You can also throw in Hitler's death toll here too - like Stalin, Hitler was a socialist.)

-==-

I do agree that endless growth is impossible, so the current GLOBALIST system will have to come to an end.

[–]kekeface123451 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

There are no leftists in America. Starbucks chugging, illiterate crybabies that drown in their first world problems and vote for vaginas and darker skin tones isn't leftism. It's American.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

/s

[–]markrod4202 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Its not what YOU stand for. It absolutely will be what leftyism stands for entirely very shortly. The reason for this is that left wing ideologies are based in the denial of reality in favor of a more emotionally satisfying fake reality. It is not grounded in rational assessment of the facts and so it is subject to even more significant slippery slope effects than most things. Sure it starts with "let women vote and pay them equally". Both of those original feminist concepts still deny reality. Women think more emotionally and they vote more in-line with the african american population than white males, who vote in line with the principles that founded this nation and made it so prosperous. So women voting is generally harmful. And the idea that women deserve equal pay is laughable in any physical field and nearly as laughable in any STEM field. And thats before we even go into the increased healthcare and maternity costs that reduce their value as a worker.

Its not just modern liberalism that is founded on denial of reality in favor of feeling good. Its nearly all liberalism. The reason the left is happy to slide further into delusions and degeneracy is that their belief structure never centered around objective assessment of the facts anyway.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

left wing ideologies are based in the denial of reality in favor of a more emotionally satisfying fake reality

Which is why the must use fake news to spread it, and censorship to suppress the truth.

[–]ShitPost4450 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Same, I hate how some people say that you have to be one extreme or another

[–]DevilishRogue0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Radical feminism/ 4th wave feminism is NOT true leftism.

Yes it is.

True leftism fights for actual equality

No it doesn't (although there are plenty of leftists like you that intend to, Hell even the radical feminists frequently intend to).

I want right wing people on the anti feminist side to understand that this radical, 4th wave feminism, fact-denying bullshit isn’t what leftism and socialism stands for

I am sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but that is exactly what it stands for. You can believe otherwise all you want but the facts are the facts and the theory and the practice of leftism are so far apart that the crazy radical stuff is what leftism is.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]JayTheFordMan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The 'Patriarchy' is the new Bourgeoisie, effectively with women the Proletariat in the fight against inequity. Lifted straight from Marxist ideology, but the fight is not an economic/social one, but a sexual/social one.

BTW while you are correct that the Nazis were in many aspects a Socialist state political party it would be a stretch to call them true socialists, and thus conflating socialists with the Holocaust is a nice smear . We should never forget that the truer socialists that are Communists were responsible for the deaths of approximately 100 Million or so (Russia, China, and Cambodia) in their efforts to destroy the Bourgeoisie/intellectuals. So yeah...

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

the Nazis were in many aspects a Socialist state political party it would be a stretch to call them true socialists,

What part of National Socialist do you not understand?

I suppose, like in the USSR, Venezuela, Cambodia ... there is never a true socialist. Except in Scandinavia, which is not and has never been Socialist ...

[–]sebasflo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What you describe is being liberal not the current feminism which has been taken over by sjw but I get what you mean

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

True leftism fights for actual equality, which is what 1st wave and 2nd wave feminism, but not this misandrist, stupid SJW bullshit today.

Wrong. Feminism was NEVER about equality.

Feminism came in 3 waves:

  • First wave (suffragettes) wanted male privileges (the vote) without male responsibility (fire brigades, military conscription, etc.)

  • Second wave (women's lib) was about eliminating women's responsibilities - birth control, abortion, affirmative action to remove the need to compete, etc.

  • Third wave feminism is about imposing more responsibilities on men - he for she, no due process for accused males, etc.

Feminism has never been about fairness or equality, it has always been about women getting the best possible deal at the lowest possible cost

You are not "on our side", dude. You are spewing nonsense.
Also, people are never equal, only children and idiots think so. They may be entitled to equal treatment in some limited regards (anyone can request either a jury- or bench- trial when indicted, search warrants are required irregardless of race, etc.) but THAT IS IT. Nobody deserves special treatment because their ethnic group is mostly low-IQ people, nobody deserves special treatment because of what happened to other people you somehow group with them, and quotas are discriminatory and unfair.
Now back to liberal la-la land with you.

[–]ass-my-eat-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

All feminism is cancer. Women have proven that they can NOT be trusted. Sooner or later nature will correct itself to the original and correct societal order which is women serving men.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

Socialists are the reason 4th wave feminism is the way it is. It's purpose is contribute to making society more divisive. Progressivism used to be a good thing before marxist's attached themselves to it in an attempt to make oppression more paletable. Progressive ideas like political correctness, multiculturalism etc when introduced were positive for society. Now leftwing governments have allowed PC laws to diminish the people's ability to so little as discuss a subject of someone else's race, or any problems that may exist in a community that is not their own without being branded a racist. Yet we are expected to consider each other of the same nationality. We were all told to tolerate each other but never to actually integrate seeing as adopting aspects of someone else's culture is cultural appropriation and that would be racist. It's the marxist connotation attached to what would otherwise be good progressive ideas that conservatives oppose.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

It's purpose is contribute to making society more divisive.

How do we know this?
POSWID. The purpose of a system, is what it does.
Universities turn out indebted ideologues, hence that has become their purpose, regardless of what they claim or what their founders intended.
In a similar way, if a movement like feminism is not part of a divide and conquer strategy, then there are enough forces pushing and pulling on every social institution that it would not create such division.

PS - Upvoted. There seems to be heavy leftoid brigade activity in here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

What does POSWID mean?

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The Purpose of a System is What It Does.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ok then. It would appear that you agreed with my point.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter