Feminism

>
> living in a flat with two women
>they almost never talk about getting the head of john the baptiste
>what does that mean lads???

Also I would add something from Andrea Dworkin

Attached: Non-tumblr_tier_feminism.jpg (1090x1389, 261K)

thanks for the first real answer in this thread

>/leftypol/

This, Wollstonecraft didn't write much, but her Vindication of the Rights of Women was great work. Her daughter was Mary Shelley, who she actually died right after giving birth to, so Frankenstein is also often read as a feminist text.
Also this guy's recs are good

A lot of ((())) on that list. Really makes one ponder.

Attached: 1492117337334.jpg (563x279, 22K)

Just take the talmud and shake it on your head like a salt shaker
>basically how feminism was created

Stop bumping the thread and fuck off back to /pol/ you stupid jewspotter. This is a literature board

Just listen to your vagina, and remember that you're always right. That's it.

Maybe you should go there.

After moving to Asia I've realized that feminism has completely ruined western women. Asian women are so unlike white women it's beyond compare. They act like actual women, while white women are like counterfeit, inferior men, not even men but like boys, but not even that. It's like night and day. And it isn't just the women that have been destroyed, it's their families, and all of society. Picturing all the millions of lives that have been ruined by this poisonous shit is so depressing.

>Asia
Which countries have you been to? Asia is a pretty big continent, and I doubt women are the same across the entire thing.

Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Phillipines.

Not sure about most of those countries, but Japan did have a massive and influential feminist movement, so if you don't like Western women it might be something else.

>Japan did have a massive and influential feminist movement
No. I live here and the only time I've ever heard feminism or feminist talking points mentioned was by insufferable expats.

>No
Japanese feminism isn't exactly the same as Western feminism, but it does exist. They probably just don't talk about it as much.

Same guy. I mean Japan had a women's suffrage movement, and protests in the 70s surrounding employment and access to birth control. What else would you call it?

lol you guys are totally clueless about what daily life and people here are like

I never claimed to know what Japanese people are like (though I suspected as much from the other guy). I just said Japan had a feminist movement, which doesn't mean very much. Every civilized country has one, its a natural consequence of educating women.

Victorian England had a feminist movement too. You aren't arguing anything.

Read the thread moron. The guy implied there was no feminism in Asia.

>I never heard anyone talk about it therefore it doesn't exist

I am that guy and I have read the thread.

Then why did you respond as though you hadn't?

What EXACTLY do women want?

Hard mode: No buzzwords

everything

You can tell that feminism has no influence on the way people here speak or behave, and you never hear feminism or feminist talking points ever mentiomed in conversation. I'm sure that other ideologies like say fascism exist or existed in the past here but fascism hasn't overtaken and totally destroyed present society like feminism has in the west. I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt now.

Freedom and happiness :)

Because you misinterpreted what I'm saying because you're an idiot.

Pretty much nobody in my family brings up feminism at the dinner table, or politics at all. It depends on what kinds of people you talk to, and as an expat, who does a lot of extracurricular traveling anyway, you're experience of Japan is necessarily very limited.

You don't know what you're talking about.

In the context of the argument, this guy was arguing that feminism didn't exist in Asia so I pointed out that it does then you showed up and told me I wasn't arguing anything because "the victorians had feminism" which doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. Basically, you've confused me what are you doing here?

Women have education and jobs in Japan, how can you claim feminism had no influence there? Maybe they simply don't talk to foreigners about their political views

They just want to be. Whatever is given to them, whatever they accomplish, they always feel like they aren't. And to tell the truth, good old Sartre had very relevant words of wisdom on the matter. A woman, he said, is essentially a hole. Not long before he died, he even added in an interview that women will be free when they won't have the will to be raped anymore. Each of these bold statements can find thousands of pieces of evidence today.

This. As an American, most foreigners couldn't point to the state I'm from on a map, so I simplify things a lot, often to the point of being reductive. I assume most people do the same.

>Before reaching a state of "equality" there needs to be "inequality" first.
Wow literal genius.
You get the impression of getting a pat in the back and go all foward for their ideas. Keep in my that im not trying to shit or praise feminism, just explaining how dumb all that presuation sounds to me.

Attached: 1508630278005.jpg (1280x1024, 218K)

Here is my original post. Pleae read it this time:

>After moving to Asia I've realized that feminism has completely ruined western women. Asian women are so unlike white women it's beyond compare. They act like actual women, while white women are like counterfeit, inferior men, not even men but like boys, but not even that. It's like night and day. And it isn't just the women that have been destroyed, it's their families, and all of society. Picturing all the millions of lives that have been ruined by this poisonous shit is so depressing.

You took this to mean that I'm arguing that "feminism doesn't exist in Asia" when really I'm simply saying that feminism hasn't destroyed Asian women like it has western women. The reason for that is because feminism is a fringe ideology here compared to its place of pride in the west. Feminism wasn't a dominant force in Victorian England that shaped the entire society either, despite existing there, which is why mentioned it. Are you catching up yet?

Except they had a feminist movement which led to women's sexual liberation and suffrage around the same time women's lib happened in the US. Hardly fringe if it gave half the population the right to vote. If Japanese women act differently from American women its not because they're all not feminists.

>Keep in my that im not trying to shit or praise feminism, just explaining how dumb all that presuation sounds to me.

>Wow literal genius.

i just selected and rearranged the words you use champ, hope you'll find the obvious answer there

>feminism is a fringe ideology here compared to its place of pride in the west
Japan's prime minister wants to have 30 precent of leadership positions held by women by 2020. How exactly is it fringe?

The same things as men.

Why does it seem that every feminist movement has the low key objective of wanting to destroy the concepts of "family" and "monogamy"?
It seems to be the following of the pink magazine's lifestlye to optimise women for maximum consumption.
Why should i support these movements when they are not within my self-interest?

Attached: 1539032269999.jpg (960x950, 68K)

Adding Olympe de Gouge and Flora Tristan to this nice post.

t. edgy teenager going through the nihilism phase

You don't need to talk to a morbidly obese bulldyke with purple hair and problem glasses to know that she's a feminist. Even with more modest fashion and less fat, you can tell if a woman is feminist or not by her bahavior, the language that she uses, and the way she speaks to men. Japanese women speak and act like women, not feminists. Anyway, you just don't know what you're talking about.

They don't act like that because they're feminists, they act like that because they're Americans you dunce.

Pretty much, Japanese women act in a certain way because they are Japanese, not because they are "real women", whatever this means.

What is even edgy and nihilist in there?
Cant you type anything more than buzzwords with a pretentious touch for an answer?

Attached: 1542224789725.jpg (700x881, 80K)

>men doesn't want to start a family because they rather fuck a bunch of women
>women doesn't want to start a family because they rather fuck a bunch of men
>it's only bad when women do it!!!

Both are childish ways of life, just one still takes much more effort and finesse than the other and woman still glorify these men not just the brodudes

>>men doesn't want to start a family because they rather fuck a bunch of women
Where is it implied that i support such views? Is there any movement, taken seriously, that says that or supports it and tries to enforce it?
In the other hand, you gave me the answer, there is literally no reason to support those movements then.

Once again, you fail to understand, deliberately. My country had a successful women's sufferage movement in the 1910s and was still a fine country to live in for decades after that. That's irrelevant to fourth wave Marxist style identity politics feminism having completely overtaken present-day political discourse and ruining the majority of women. A generation of people has to be raised from birth in a toxic culture to end up that far gone. That hasn't happened in Asia, except maybe in China, and in that case it wasn't feminism at all.

Only 30%??????? The Handmaid's Tale was a warning, not an instruction manual!

bbc

You don't need to become part of a supportive movement to fuck a lot of women, unless you count prostitution rings or swinger's clubs. Otherwise you can just fuck a lot of women anyway.

>He doesnt know that even in this stances its the men who still come on top when they slay and women are still psicologically viewed as the used up and objectified beings in the hook up.

I'm not from America. I've known American girls who aren't like that. Because they're Christian and anti-feminist. The problem is that the majority of western women aren't.

Japanese women aren't feminist, though, which is my point.

>Where is it implied that i support such views
I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting real life. Haven't you ever been around any men? All they want to do is fuck a new chick each week. It's a shame, really.
What I was more complaining about is how society doesn't enforce monogamy anymore and both men and women are effected, possibly by brainwashing conducted by the Jews.

That doesnt even tackle the point in question mah dude.

>Japanese women aren't feminist, though, which is my point.
And you don't have any evidence for your claim.

>Is there any movement, taken seriously, that says or supporst it and tries to enforce it
Yeah I did. This is what I was responding to. Men can already do this, you don't need a movement.

>whatever this means
You're really tipping your hand too much here. A real woman isn't someone who is a degenerate self-indulgent piece of shit slob who hates men while acting like a shitty male impersonator.

You're entire claim is based on an incredibly vague premise, that American women "speak to men and act" in a different way from Japanese women and that you can tell this is somehow a result of feminism, which isn't as prevalent in Japan. You have proved none of this.

Will women cope with the fact many of them will have to be breadwinners and potentially "date down" or we going to face a spinster epidemic. Any books on this?

>date down
Why not just become a better man? :)

And you don't have any evidence for your claim that they are beyond "in the 1970s my feirce Japanese flowers fought to get the vote! All Japanese women are feminist because I say so! Yass queen slay!" Choke to death on shit.

>Why should i support these movements when they are not within my self-interest?

its egocentric nihilism, since this question pretty much tranlates: everything doesnt matter except myself.

Piss off. You're worthless.

The US was founded by hard-drinking, gun-toting penal colony idiots with prairie wives. American women have never had a tradition of being dainty and ornamental like European women. Or at least to a much lesser extent.

>I wasn't quoting you. I was quoting real life. Haven't you ever been around any men? All they want to do is fuck a new chick each week. It's a shame, really.
I dont think you can say about all men, since its false. Same probably to women.

So you are implying women dont want this but need a movement to convince them to? Alright then. I already got my answer and clarification about feminism.

This. This is why people are most attracted to East Coast women because those were the only ones that attempted to stay Europeanesque.

Not my fault you don't understand women in any country

Attached: AD0B6EB4-16EF-44E9-BD28-D75CB3E16F1E.jpg (1050x741, 142K)

>since its false
Shut up, introvert. Your opinion doesn't matter.

>He thinks his actions can be made without self-interest in it
>Its egocentrism so its bad
>Its objectively bad to put yourself first than others
He is right, there is no need to support something that doesnt value its own self-interest. You are outright spooked.

Honestly, when men talk about fucking a new chick every week they never do it and it looks fucking pathetic. Most of the men I'm friends with don't do that, because it looks lame to constantly seek sexual validation from your male peers like that

You don't understand anything. You're a fool.

>And I have anecdotes to prove it
Fuck off man.

You don't even have anecdotes. Kill yourself.

>"All men are X"
>shows counter example
>"S-shut up"
You are the same as the incels who join in the threads to say that all women are whores.

No I have facts. Feminism is culturally relevant and politically influential in Japan, and you can find that out with a google search. Why do you need that not to be true?

Gender Trouble by Judith Butler
How to Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
Debate of the Romance of the Rose by Christine de Pizan
Dialogue on the Infinity of Love by Tullia d'Aragona
A Cyborg Manifesto by Haraway Donna
Persephone Rising by Carol S. Pearson
Women Who Run with the Wolves by Clarissa Pincola Estes

Attached: litkid.jpg (625x466, 53K)

Most people here don't even know what feminism is. You can find that out by talking to them.

Boomers must be stopped

>muh anecdotal evidence
>a real woman
no such thing

>Presents three strawman arguements
>expects answer
yikes

What did you think of the women in the Philippines, user?

>if it finds hidden meanings between the lines then its strawman
They really werent arguements and much less strawman. You have yet to disprove them though.
Even if we take things your way, you also argued to be "nihilistic" when in its probably not.
>"expects an answer"
You already gave me one though. Yikes!

You don't even have anecdotes. All that you've mentioned in this thread amounts to a few marches of a few hundred people in Tokyo forty years ago and a government PR stunt intended to make good press in western countries. You don't live here. You've never even been here. Yet you feel entitled to make declarations that all Japanese people are feminists despite me telling you that most people I've talked to have never even heard of feminism. You're an idiot.

Strong women, not in the western false sense. They'd make good wives and mothers. Too bad they're ugly.

>no such thing
Are you saying that trans women aren't real women? That's transphobic. That kind of hate speech will land you in prison.

>implying women exist
cisgenders are a myth, bigot scum

how is Free Women of Spain?
Also curious is there is any Christian or Asian-religious oriented feminist theory.

Attached: 1273452327985.jpg (1860x2153, 611K)

They simply refuse to date. Women do not handle any kind of living standards decrease for themselves or friends/partners well at all.

As mentioned in this thread already, women in Japan have education, jobs and increasing presence in leadership and military. No need for anectodes, statistics speak for themselves. Meanwhile all you can talk about are "people I've talked to"
>declarations that all Japanese people are feminists
Where?
>playing dumb
I'm saying you don't have to have children or be married to be a real woman

*anecdotes

>I'm just going to move the goalposts by redefining feminism as females going to school or working jobs
Holy shit. You're so transparent.

youtube.com/watch?v=fcqxH6hdOUw
A lot of Japanese people are not familiar with the word "feminism" it seems, but the women in this video all have some idea that women are treated unequally. Feminism's influence is also felt, even in women who haven't heard of it. Pre-feminism would this girl be employed and dressed in a baseball cap and overalls on the street? Not very ladylike if you ask me.

>You already gave me one though. Yikes!
tried to prove your pseudery, sorry for that one in retrospect.

i dont see a connection between your "things to disprove" as you may call it and my arguement that his question implies that he has a egocentric nihilism worldview so therefore called this strawmans. i think you still have to clear up the connection between my arguement and your "things to disprove" (btw what you'd call it, if not strawmans or arguements?)

That only happens in Japan because they had a feminist movement. That's not moving the goal-posts, that's a measurable impact of feminism on a society.

How am I moving goalposts exactly? Education and work are big concerns for feminism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_Japan
wow, one google search renders this autistic screeching fit useless
はい、日本語を勉強していて日本に住んだことがあるよ。うるせえ。

You linked an anecdotal YouTube video with the conclusion that Japanese people don't know what feminism is as part of your "factual" "statistical" argument that that Japanese people are feminists, a video that comports perfectly with my own experiences that you've spent the past two hours denying. Think about that.

Do the women "act more like women" than Westerners? The first one he talks to is wearing overalls.

Alright then, but can you point out something objectively wrong with holding such view?
>(btw what you'd call it, if not strawmans or arguements?)
Probably premises, idk.

It's a different poster. Even in the video while they don't know what the word "feminism" means exactly, they know what inequality is.

Realistically, most Americans still come from nuclear families where the man works and the woman doesn't, or stops working when they have kids. The most common disputes surrounding feminism in the public sphere, at least in my lifetime, have had to do with workplace discrimination, the pay gap, and whether women should work after they have kids. This context seems pretty much the same as the West right now. They just don't seem familiar with the word "feminism."

Females were educated and worked jobs in many societies long before feminism ever existed, including Japanese society. Hastily reducing feminism, which is a distinct intellectual tradition and political ideology, to praxis that does not even correlate with the presence or absence or influence or lack of influence of that tradition/ideology is unreasonable and I take it to mean that you're arguing in bad faith.

Maybe we need to be more specific. Feminism is not just about working, but working under the expectation of a career, and not being discriminated against in terms of maternity leave and equal pay, which are all parts of feminism, and which are relevant issues in Japan.

worst thread I've read in a long time, great job folks
special props to Japanon for being the most retarded of the bunch

>Alright then, but can you point out something objectively wrong with holding such view?
i cant really, objectively theres nothing wrong with it. maybe if it would be true that humans need other humans in order to survive. if that would be something we agree on, then i could argue, that, since theres interdependence between humans, every human is somehow important to another one in some degree. the question poses to what degree ofc and thats purely subjective.

>and not being discriminated against in terms of maternity leave and equal pay
Impossible in a private company. The same way a company employs the people that are better at working based around their skills and capacities the same way it looks down on women, since their maternity leave and other requisites already make her objectively worse for the company compared to any other men.
It would never be in the company's interest to employ a worker that works less and even has to temporarily leave while still being payed with their spot reserved, its just counter productive to them.

I wasn't arguing that it was possible. That's not what this argument is about.

The essence of feminism isn't equality. That has nothing to do with feminism. Feminism is a totalitarian supremacist movement whose only goal is the destruction of or failing that the harming of men at the hands of government terror. You've been arguing from a false premise.

Men can go on a leave too. Also, what about women who don't plan to have children?

Wow. Just wow. You don't know anything about Japan or feminism. Bye

>/pol/tards actually believe feminism isn't about equality

One of the points made in the video was along the lines of, women are supposed to be guaranteed 20 days of maternity leave by law in Japan, but companies will still sometimes withhold this in order to lay off a pregnant woman, so the Japanese feminists allege.

I accept your concession.

You my friend are delusional

Fuck off commi.

Attached: 1424882253329.jpg (450x360, 18K)

>Females were educated and worked jobs in many societies long before feminism ever existed, including Japanese society.
Nominally true, but in Japan at least only the upper class women had access to education, and it was a shittier education then men were able to recieve. The majority of working women were basically sex slaves in brothels, or street prostitutes living in poverty, decent jobs were only available to a select few, circumstantially. Are you going to sit there and claim that after the introduction of feminism during the Meiji restoration, nothing changed?

Feminism is delusion.

>whose only goal is the destruction of or failing that the harming of men at the hands of government terror.
Jesus can you learn to structure a sentence? I had to read this like 3 times to even figure out what the fuck you were trying to say

>Men can go on a leave too.
Not as much as women, men dont have babies and in fact need to earn even more and work harder if they want to (speculation).
>Also, what about women who don't plan to have children?
Cant really say much about it. But the company wouldnt really take her word for it since it doesnt guarantee anything. Only a woman that could work so hard to pay off her maternity leave expenses would be in the ok to the company, but thats humanly impossible.

I think you're misinterpreting, the development of man throughout the generations, while being unequal, was necessary to bring us to a quality of life and security where equality can be achieved. It's not that inequality must precede equality, just that a certain technology level is required to achieve it. It's much easier to employ women when the average family doesn't have 5+ kids because 30% of children don't live to 20.

>Not as much as women, men dont have babies and in fact need to earn even more and work harder if they want to
What if they are the ones raising children?

No, I'm not going to dumb down my wording for you.

>and in fact need to work even harder if they want to
Not really. You can skip town if you get someone pregnant. Or you could just not adequately provide or care for your children. Plenty of men choose this option.

You didn't use any particularly "smart" words here. It's just a syntactically confusing sentence. To be fair, it would probably sound better out loud than it looks in writing.

>dumb down
lmao I'm asking the opposite, that was a sentence written by someone with a 8th grader's command of the English language

no they actually don't, they have 50 threads about alcoholism, fast food and memes
why are you lying

It isn't synatically confusing. It's called a subordinate clause. Or is a conjunction. You would have understood it if you weren't poorly read. But in that case you wouldn't be arguing with me in the first place.

>What if they are the ones raising children?
Dont certainly know, since its never really been tried. But the woman is still the one incubating the baby and needs to be put away from stress and other bad shit.
Psychologically though women are still biologically designed to take care of the baby and breast feed him. Its been proven that no matter how much a father may enjoy to take care of the kid and feed him, its the woman that gets more "pleasure release" from breast feeding and raising him, its really a "natural instinct".

That may unfortunately happen in some countries, but most have laws agaisnt that kind of behaviour. But that wasnt my point.
I was saying that if a men wanted to raise kids in a "normal" non-asshole way, then he would probably need to work and apply a bit harder for it.

While woman needs to be the one to give birth to the baby, a man is capable of taking care of it later. That way, both parents take a leave and there is less inequality

I'm talking about "at the hands of government terror" dumbass, and your subordinate clause is clunky as fuck. Some commas would've helped

>While woman needs to be the one to give birth to the baby, a man is capable of taking care of it later.
True, but the company would still need to give an extra credit to women for her "incubation" time. To achive that level of equality and justice there also needs to be a lot of debate and change even in the legal systems that give women a lot of advantages.
But even if that is assumed, i would still argue that women themselves would be the ones willing and wanting to spend more time raising the kid. Also male and female stigma plays a huge influence in this so people would quickly jump into extremes, imo. But this is all speculation. I dont know what that level of parenting plays in the mind of the growing child and what not.

>That may unfortunately happen in some countries
The government doesn't even stop most instances of child abuse or neglect from happening in any countries. This is common

My keyboard my choice. No brain no opinion.

As far as i know in my country if the child is yours then you (or your family if you are underage) is forced to atleast pay up the child's expenses until their are working or not studying. Lets not forget that most of these cases are still in the fault of both the mother and the father for being irresponsible to bring an unwanted child.

>I can write like shit if I want to
And I can call you a dumbass if I want to, moron

I'm from the US. My understanding is that you have to get caught committing a crime, or reported by a third party for any kind of authority to even look into possibly taking your kids away. If you obey the law, or at least don't get caught breaking it, you can do pretty much whatever you want with your kid as long as nobody finds out. Or, you know, if the people who find out don't care.

Dont US laws change from state to state?
US is shit weird, everything from university to healthcare is uber expensive and the population seems like instable when it comes to politics. Maybe its the outcome of being such a big contry, idk. If the politics of my country were this much discussed on the internet then it would probably scale up to a similar state.
> at least don't get caught breaking it, you can do pretty much whatever you want with your kid as long as nobody finds out. Or, you know, if the people who find out don't care.
That literally happen everywhere in the world, if the force of the law doesnt see it then its free for all.
What else can i tell you? If the state laws are so shit then all responsability lies in women being educated and aware that they will get the short end of the stick in that regard.

I think that those concepts worked perfectly for our mothers' and grandmothers' lives, they grew up just knowing the essential for raising children and serve their husbands, Nowadays women have a lot more of choices, literally A LOT and women now prefeer to form a carreer than raise children at 24.

Sorry for my broken english.

Having a decent career doesnt imply to not be monogamous or wanting to have kids. Many people do it.

The problem with feminism is simply that it is combative. If we’ve proved anything here, it’s that a good relationship is teamwork, that both sides need to contribute for anything to happen, as frightening as that may be. Personally, I feel like I’m losing my balls when I make these posts, emasculating myself. But I do it because I know it’s pleasurable for the other party

Attached: 789C5144-8300-40ED-AA86-5E5354829D4B.png (900x1200, 1.03M)

Oh yeah I forgot :3

And if I want to I can call you a whiney little bitch nattering about nothing, but it'll carry more weight than anything you could ever say, because it's actually true.

This.

Stupid dog.

More like erase the modern concept of “family”, putting in its place a more extensive, old fashioned and communal one. You ever hear of that old small town feel?
And yeah, forget marriage, that legal binding bullshit. Let people fall in and out of love as they please.

>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »
« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »

>putting in its place a more extensive, old fashioned and communal one
Ok
>You ever hear of that old small town feel?
Yeah i do and i live in one, with most of my family close by within 5 min walks or 5 min car drives.
>And yeah, forget marriage, that legal binding bullshit. Let people fall in and out of love as they please.
Lmao, monogamy doesnt have anything to do with legal binding bullshit desu, how do you expect to create a commune family type when everyone is more busy switching partners? How do you expect people to place community first when promoting outright non-commitment and individualism even more so than what you already see today? Or do you think most people still force marry out of the need for money?
If anything, even destroying the legal marrige system is outright gonna screw up more families instead.
Hearing this kind of bullshit from butterfly is really the final nail in the coffin that tells you how shit the far leftist ""humanitarians"" can be. Only some preverted fuckboy or fuckgirl would want to support this kind of shit.

Attached: 1540240154557.gif (350x257, 902K)

>If you read The Second Sex and The Feminine Mystique you will have a very positive and happy opinion on feminism and will understand more about feminism than 99% of self proclaimed feminists

So it's like every leftist endeavor in history, sounds good on paper but is shit in practice.

The Poverty of Feminism

Hypothetically speaking, polygamy could potentially work if children were raised by the community. This would require a strong sense of local identity however.

People fall in and out of love all the time. A legal binding can hurt a family unit, so I'm encouraged to see you think we don't need it.
When the family is considered to be all friends and family, a small community's worth of people, a high separation rate wont hurt the creating of "commune families" at all. A father would likely be allowed/encouraged to stick around to help raise his child even if the match of his youth failed. It's not so different now, just more irksome due to state-capitalism.
This isn't a "destruction of the family" so much as a disrespecting of church traditions and state mandates

Brief reading material
public-library.uk/ebooks/61/11.pdf

Attached: Smiles of a Summer Night.jpg (1280x943, 208K)

If you are an atheist: To get pregnant with a powerful man
If you are a theist: To serve a righteous man

So you simply want the "marrige contract" to end? Or the idea that two have to stay together forever to end of time? Im ok with that and i agree, there are plenty of couples that suffer a lot because of that fixed idea. And it already happens with people having dirvorces and break ups, so there isnt really anything new in there.
But that ideal is only logical in the meaning of some utopic society where money doesnt exist, imo.
What i do not agree is the boogey man talk about "not getting too attached to things" and thinking that love between two people is always a battery that runs out. Or that the moment you slightly love less your partner than before makes up entire reason for breakup.
The papers may have some nice points but i still do not believe that to maintain love union is a rare event or that people need some constant switching of partners or be in open relationships. His ideas of love, imo, dont put into the equation the feeling possessiveness and owness that naturally comes with the attachement of love. In the examples he seems to point out that those people were hold down by the legal and "holy" idea of the marrige but i digress that it isnt as simple as that.
I think he fails to understand that sex and love have also a meaning of power behind it, and its absurd to even think of a human, primal, race without that instinct into the equation.
His narratives that one should never look down on someone for being too promiscuous, ""open"" about having relations seem dumb since most people wouldnt want to be with someone that is so lose, irresponsible and so easily talked into acts of intimacy with strangers. But that seems a whole diferent topic for another talk.
Also:
>When the family is considered to be all friends and family, a small community's worth of people, a high separation rate wont hurt the creating of "commune families" at all.
>A father would likely be allowed/encouraged to stick around to help raise his child even if the match of his youth failed.
That logic seems contradicting, imo. Even more hurtful for the kids to not have a precistent father and mother figure during their development.
Your ideas seem to be part of something that needs a lot of "utopic" changes and ignore some of the most human qualities.

Attached: 1541506823629.png (720x960, 745K)

Love is actually a rarer phenomena than most claim. In the past people married for economic reasons. Now they tend to marry whenever they feel strong lust towards a person (this explains the phenomena of marriages happening mere months after a couple gets together). In our highly commodified dating scene, lust is often mistaken as love. You can lust after someone you love, but it's not love in of itself.

IMO, marriage should be abolished. People who want to form lifelong romantic connections can still do so without marrying, and marriage itself is a massive capitalist institution that profits boutiques and eventually divorce lawyers.

Voltairine is a woman btw.

He probably didnt check the autors name.
>Voltairine de Cleyre (November 17, 1866 – June 20, 1912) was an American anarchist
Colour me surprised, dont know who is dumber here, you for believing the crap she says or him for taking that waste of an article seriously.

Why do I as an individual in the commune society have a personal obligation towards a child I had no stake in creating especially if I had no plans of having one of my own. Just out of the kindness of my heart?

>mfw these old bitches wanted to act pseud and support hot topic individualist anarchism not realising they would be the ones getting the short end of the stick if that ever happened.
This is only slightly comprehensible give the conditions she was razed from. Dealing with shit poor parents that hated each other and catholicism on top of it.

You would be forced to help in some way. Commune fags create an entire new religion out of it. The commune doesnt really care for the individual, thats the biggest lie there is.

Attached: 1511805557511.gif (173x182, 577K)

What imbeciles! Hahahaha

FROM THE FUTURE

Attached: 9781788731577-4f24c93871d376efaf059ac12bc3811c.jpg (450x728, 115K)

it's bad for men to wolf around as well, but not all media ports and news and tv shows and all media are telling men to do that like they are telling women. family destroyed from any angle must be stopped

>And yeah, forget marriage, that legal binding bullshit. Let people fall in and out of love as they please.

if love isn't bound it's worthless. as chesterton said lovers make eternal promises to each other for a reason, to give this up for hedonistic inconstancy is sick and inhuman

the west is really corrupt

Love is a personal bond. Drop the contracts, alter or even forgo the ceremony, you have the lovers bond to be mated.
Some will be perfect for each other, others just fine for the length of a child's life, and sometimes people just make mistakes.
I am against the law, not love.

>What imbeciles! Hahahaha
>t. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
lol. Its ok butterfly, i get what the points you are trying to make, but that only seems a big strom in a cup of water, a minimal thing in a vast ocean of other shit. Today people can already do that and ceremonies and contracts are completly optional, so it still remains in people's choices.
They also make clear points, she is indeed a crazy obsessed bitch and fails to tackle the psycological elements of love in her examples.
Its what happens when a person who has never loved talks about that kind of shit.

The one correct view on gender is the synthesis of Christopher Lasch critique of Narcissism with Shulamith Firestone's Dialectic of Sex

>Firestone’s approach to the question of sex is refreshingly blunt. Sex difference is real. Men and women exist, and possess asymmetrical physical capacities which have historically made existence for women extremely difficult and frequently unpleasant or even lethal. Her particular strand of materialism is therefore not only historical but also profoundly biological, thus material in an older, more classically philosophical sense. We can compare Firestone’s materialism to the explicitly ‘vulgar’ materialism of La Mettrie for whom ‘[t]he human body is a machine which winds its own springs. It is the living image of perpetual movement.’ Firestone accepts that culture and history have played important roles in shaping the way we conceive of men, women (and children) and their differing roles but that underlying all these interpretations are some basic anatomical continuities – unchangeable until now. It is not therefore economic class that underlies oppression but biological and physical characteristics. As she puts it: ‘Nature produced the fundamental inequality’.

>Firestone is unusual in taking the premise so often used by conservative thinkers of one stripe or another – that women and men are recognisably and naturally different both biologically and culturally – but uses this as the background for her projected revolution, by accepting that thus far history has not yet managed to discover a way out of this predicament. For Firestone, it is not the case that anatomy is destiny, but rather that it has been, in fact that for the whole of human history this has been true, but need not be any longer. Firestone can, without too much difficulty, be seen as a thinker belonging to a certain strand of Enlightenment thinking, not the liberal branch that would advocate slow and steady social reform and change within existing institutions, but the kind of thinking that wholeheartedly advocates the integration of technology into human life and the revolutionary potential for its transformative possibilities.but that this is not an inherent feature of technology as such. Her pro-technological approach puts her closer to an Enlightenment thinker such as Voltaire, with his celebration of science, than to many of her 1970s theoretical peers, the latter of whom are more concerned with the horrific legacy of the gas chambers or the impact of human beings on their environment than with a bright new future of machines. Indeed, Firestone’s attitude towards the environment and any negative human impact is arguably rather cavalier. It is probably too late, she says, to redress natural balances. All we can hope for is to establish an artificial, (man-made) balance ‘in place of the natural one, thus also realizing the original goal of empirical science: human mastery of matter.’

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-15 at 10.41.24 AM.png (746x348, 168K)

Source. I've found Nina Power to be pretty insightful in general, I believe she was once linked to the university of Warwick crowd of memetic lore(Sadie Plant, Nick Land, Fisher, Eshwun, etc.).
libcom.org/library/toward-cybernetic-communism-technology-anti-family-nina-power

>As it is, the privatised understanding of contraception (whether you are on the pill, use condoms, do not have sex, are trying for a child) is precisely that – a matter for the individual. Pregnant female workers are pitted against childless women who are asked to resent those who ‘choose to have children. Technologies in which Firestone saw so much potential, such as IVF, are often used as a kind of resort after women have delayed childbirth in order to maintain their position in the workforce and pursue their careers. Here advanced technology and the scientific understanding of complex hormonal processes as Firestone envisaged are put to work in the name of the individual worker and not in the name of women as an oppressed sex-class at all. The idea of regarding one woman’s reproductive choice as any business of anyone other than her and her family is unthinkable as part of a progressive project. Does Firestone allow for the fact that technology could individualise rather than collectively politicise? What would a follower of Firestone have to say about the religious Right’s monopolisation of the collective implications of reproductive technology (especially its profound conservativism)? Contemporary forms of collectivity that involve considerations of the public implications of reproduction seem to be restricted to religious movements and are as far from Firestone’s Reichian reflections as they could be. Again Firestone has underestimated the political implications of technological progress, omitting to countenance the idea of a fierce backlash against the developments achieved by the science of reproduction

Lasch on how the pro life pro choice divide is ultimately based on different conceptions of humanity and the purpose of life
firstthings.com/article/1990/04/conservatism-against-itself
abortion is not just a medical issue or even a woman’s issue that has become the focus of a larger controversy about feminism. It is first and foremost a class issue.
The uneasy coexistence of ethical individualism and medical collectivism grows out of the separation of sex from procreation, which makes sex a matter of private choice while leaving open the possibility that procreation and childrearing might be subjected to stringent public controls. The objection that sex and procreation cannot be severed without losing sight of the mystery surrounding both strikes liberals as the worst kind of theological obscurantism. For opponents of abortion, on the other hand, “God is the creator of life, and . . . sexual activity should be open to that . . . . The contraceptive mentality denies his will, ‘It’s my will, not your will.’”

Attached: Coney-Island-religious-1979.jpg (1200x815, 231K)

So where does this leave gender as a concept?

Are we on a course towards just transcending gender entirely? Can technology really overcome the differences in social expectations between men and women?

You guys obsess too much over this woman/man dichotomy. The Ideal transcends beyond sex

We have a moral obligation to take life seriously and take technology seriously. 'feminism' can easily become another form of corporate social control, a means to promote the atomising individualistic values of the wider society, telling women it is somehow empowering to dedicate their lives to work and consumption, while mending their pain with 'self care'(tm) products generously provided to them for a fee. Liberalism is a full blown antinomian theology, the cult of the sovereign self, unlimited by any and all restrictions, physical, moral, social. To modern progressives, the past is just a bad dream to be forgotten it reminds one of the limits to our freedom and our embededness, even the suggestion that things might have been in some ways better at some point in the past becomes heretical. You are not only free to enjoy but obliged to enjoy, but you can't trust yourself so experts need to tell you how to enjoy the right way. That doesn't mean we should romanticise the past either. The horror and violence of existance is often downplayed, you start understanding why people were attracted to religion and are attracted to woke posturing which is a poor mans religion. /pol/ autists and /lgbt/ tumblr autists arent that different, people who are alienated from any sort of community or living tradition entrapping themselves within a technological fantasy world.

>Also I would add something from Andrea Dworkin

Instead of reading Dworkin, just cut your cock off. Saves times. Same result.

Not disagreeing with anything there, but it doesn't answer the question.

Is technology truly the key to emancipating women and LGBT people? Obviously, romanticism through disassociation that you mentioned is a problem amplified by technology, but an argument can be made that digital technologies also make identities malleable which puts everyone on an equal playing field regardless of gender or biological sex.

As Nietzsche said baby you aint seen nothing yet. Technology has near infinite emancipatory potential but also near infinite potential for slavery and general derrangement

Houellebecq is compatible with firestone and andrea dworkin.

Wow, great responce. As if it changed much.

>thinks de Cleyre was never in love
*sigh*

in what sense?

Particles Elementaires is a xeno radfem tract from the 70s written from the perspective of the male

lel ok
what should women do then?

The book is not agaisnt the rights of women, or has anything in particular to do with women directly. It tackles more the problems and transformations society had after WW2 with the invention of the pill and condom making the rise of the hippies and the "sexual revolution" and how shit that all was.
It talks about how pink magazines "helped" shaping women to maximize consuption and being super promiscuous, always engaging in mutliple flirts with various guys in a young age and then reaching a certain age where they have to "settle down" and marry, etc.
How it was inevitable to kill religion with the humans natural instinct to create tecnology leading people to a more "materialistic" society.
And all this adds up to the main protags of the story that are rased in a fragmented family from a uber hippie mother that didnt care for them. The two half-brothers also show the two complete oposites that spawn from this, with one being almost chaste and emotionless and the other a hyper sexual maniac with an almost nietzschean worldview that sometimes cant control his emotions.

This ofc, is just the background "set" of it, the book still talks about many other points namely how the "Brave New World" society couldnt work and how sex is always gonna be precieved as a display of power, proving some of the socialist's wet dreams about the "redistribution" of sex impossible.
The story is also great, packing many punches, being maily autobiographical from Michel.

Attached: 1541346846214.jpg (680x680, 35K)