Feminism discussion thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I know I'm going to sound like a conspiracy theorist right now but I genuinely wonder whether some male "thinker" introduced the concept of intersectionality at a point along the way.
It was Kimberle Crenshaw, and it was never supposed to be about making the mainstream movement take on extra baggage, it was supposed to be about black feminists identifying issues that come with being black and female at the same time.

I blame the intersectionality creep on third-wavers for being overrepresented by privileged white women who take any excuse to show off how enlightened and full of white liberal guilt they are.
 
"Intersectionality" is one of the main dillutions. Special/divergent interests hijacked the women's movement. A lot of women wound up pulling an ox-cart full of issues that don't directly impact them.
This is a good point. The original notion of acknowledging that all women do not have the same set of experiences as women, due to other factors beyond merely being a woman (i.e., intersectionality), was a good add for a nascent or evolving philosophy, but those competing special interests have seemed to have come to dominate and obscure - or, as you said, dilute - the core message.

A philosophy that tries to be all things to all relevant people is trying to do too much, and will wind up being a constant battleground and getting nowhere.

Though I think it is good to remember that feminism applies to women from all walks of life and with a huge range of experiences and priorities, you have to be content with broad strokes rather than trying to account for every special interest. Feminism as a philosophy/activist effort should stop trying to add what amounts to legislative pork to the philosophy. It doesn't need special call-outs or excessive accommodation for three-eyed bisexual disabled indigenous autistic women who love Fortnite. I think it would be better served by agreeing on some core principles and advocating for those. They won't benefit every single woman in every single case, but I'm invoking Reagan's riding tide here.

An example: I think feminism would be better served putting aside lifestyle questions. Having a career, working as a homemaker and mother, living a maverick solo existence - these are all fine: choose your path. The key feminist point should be access, power, equal rights, and safety on every path. Squabbling about which path is the "best"/morally correct/ideal one for women is a distraction. And, it should be noted, it is a distraction that is leveraged by anti-woman efforts, both on a societal/institutional scale and on an individual/familial/community one.

The fact that some feminists have different emphases or theories doesn't or shouldn't dilute core principles. It's tedious hearing "radfems" decry "libfems" as women's own worst enemy, just as it is hearing "libfems" scold "radfems" as abrasive prudes. Why do that? Your vision of an ideal world, or how you want to live in this one, may be different. In some ways it's not much different than the more general liberal vs progressive divide. Failure to find points of common cause dilutes the power to impact anything beyond your personal reach. And it makes the main, core point - women as a class having the same full-person status in the world as men have - that much weaker.

On that note, feminists need greater resilience to charges of irrelevance merely because not all feminists think the exact same in the details or have the same theoretical construct of male-female dynamics. They need to state and support their common cause. Internecine disagreement isn't inherently a death-knell, and feminism overall should make sure it doesn't become one. Because when even women won't stand up for other women or advocate for women as a whole, all women are negatively impacted.
 
What do feminists here think of the emergence of things like the fresh and fit podcast? Run of the mill misogyny or a special kind?
 
three-eyed bisexual disabled indigenous autistic women who love Fortnite
This made me laugh, thanks 😊

That said, I think it might be a bit idealistic to think that liberal feminists and radical feminists will/can come together on some sort of common ground. They're so different that the things they disagree on go past politics and into morality. Something as big as "I think prostitution isn't a big deal, and in fact I think it should be fully legalized everywhere" is a pretty big thing to overlook.

This kind of reminds me of men who tell feminists to "stop hating 50% of the human population" and that "men and women need to join hands and work together to cure society's ills!" I just don't think it really works like that. You're right that, at its core, there are certain things that are good for all women without involving lifestyle choices etc. But when there is a "feminist movement" that vocally supports things that are--objectively--bad for women, I think it's fair game to bring it up. Two groups with such vastly different, and often directly opposing viewpoints/ideologies/endgames usually don't "join forces" unless something external forces them to.

The only thing coming to mind for me right now is abortion, in terms of things that the 3rd and 4th waves do agree on. It might be interesting to put together a list of the things they have in common.
 
What do feminists here think of the emergence of things like the fresh and fit podcast? Run of the mill misogyny or a special kind?
I don't follow any of the new redpill or whatever dudes so idk if they say anything different than all the others for the past few decades, but they're mostly just looking to profit of angry kids and don't actually help anyone, at least it doesn't seem like they do, the kids watching that shit just become even more angry and feel victimized. At least the old redpill places used to say "we don't want you to hate women you just need to get angry first to stop putting women on a pedestal and make changes in your life", and had some reasonable advice but now it's just constant anger cause that gets the most views. I think the more reasonable ones probably made some improvements to their life and left leaving the place to become more and more extremist. I saw some brief bits of these podcasts and they're all incredibly materialistic, you need x expensive thing and this car and women only want money etc. If that's the kind of image you portray that's all you will attract anyway. They should teach men to find meaning in something other than material things and the number of women they fuck. Doesn't seem like they are anything new though, Just more widely known now, redpill used to be niche.

And since someone will say they are more angry now because women are so much worse now, a lot of those angry people are kids way too young to even have dated.
 
I consider myself an individualist/equity feminist.
LAME
What do feminists here think of the emergence of things like the fresh and fit podcast? Run of the mill misogyny or a special kind?
it’s just basic shit. I think alot of women wanna pretend that certain forces in society or trends in the world or outside influences make men hate women. The real blackpill is that men’s hatred of women is innate and born, not learned. Men like fresh n fit have existed for centuries just women didn’t know because social media didn’t exist, but make no mistake, just because we get to hear it doesn’t mean it’s new. This is just what men think of us and there’s nothing to change that. It’s something that women grapple with a lot because I don’t think we wanna come to the conclusion that if something terrible were to happen rn, like a legitimate war that left America significantly fucked, that men would enslave women again easily. The only thing stopping them is themselves. If anarchy happened rn and laws were lawless do women really think men would spare us, do you think they wouldn’t immediately rape and torture and keep us tied in homes forcing us to birth their children?The same people doing this shit now even with laws in place? Trust me, they would. It’s in their nature to defile and oppress. I treat men like a loaded gun. I’m never at ease around them
 
It might be interesting to put together a list of the things they have in common.
That's really what I'm asking for. Whether a woman can have a penis or sex work being work aren't discussions that are going to inspire teen girls to rally around a banner.

I'm not a feminist b/c I'm not a woman. I think the most fundamentally unfair practical issues (in the US) are total abortion bans, taxes on period products, and the lack of societal support of mothers and families. Specifically I think we should pay women for their traditionally unpaid labor. Including elder care.
 
What do feminists here think of the emergence of things like the fresh and fit podcast? Run of the mill misogyny or a special kind?
Men genuinely need better "role models" as those men are just trying to trick them into having miserable lives while sprinkling in normal good life advice, women also fall for listening to these men telling them older men is better than the men around their age and they'll tag those men as immature and disloyal and "wont take care of them well".

Or, they need to start thinking for themselves rather than basing their beliefs on what an influencer says. The whole "needing a role model" thing is very alien to me. (:_(
 
The problem with feminists is they're handcuffed to the traditional Marxist academic gobbledygook and are terrified of throwing it out even after its passed it's usefulness. Ever notice how in general there aren't 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th wave, radical, liberal, etc. etc. black civil rights activists or gay right activists any other contingent like that? Ignoring a few outliers, the message was kept simple, they had goals, and they achieved them because stuff was articulated in a simple way that people on the street could understand and connect to because it was based on logical arguments. With feminism, you basically have 50 year old professors telling girls and people in general, "Here, read these 200 journal articles in this dense incomprehensible language meant to gate-keep out plebs as well as these 40 books by other professors to understand feminism and gender theory. This is your new hobby now." Then you start spending time reading that crap, and eventually it dawns on you that this was a big grift to keep those professors employed.
 
Last edited:
In theory, intersectional feminism is a noble cause. In practice, however, all you need to do to be an intersectional feminist is use the phrase "especially trans women of color" in a sentence. It's essentially slacktivist feminism now.
 
In theory, intersectional feminism is a noble cause. In practice, however, all you need to do to be an intersectional feminist is use the phrase "especially trans women of color" in a sentence. It's essentially slacktivist feminism now.
It just leads to people narcissisticly collecting as many labels as they can so they can fight their way to the front of the progressive stack. Which is the exact opposite of what any social movement should be encouraging, you get shit done through collective action and self sacrifice. Not encouraging people to constantly jostle for position to see who has more woke points that who.
 
So simply stated, what is wanted?
What is feminism?
Feminism is a social movement that promotes the liberation of women from our current patriarchal system. Feminists campaign for the full enfranchisement of women’s rights.

Which rights?
In our current system, men enjoy more rights and freedoms than women do. Women are discriminated against in the job market and socially because of their position as caregivers and the biological necessities of childbearing. We don’t have full control over our bodies (especially with regards to reproduction), we can be forced to babysit a destructive man and the consequences of his behavior (see: Ethan Ralph, Ralph’s mom, and Ralph’s wives) and we are economically discriminated against and even legally disadvantaged to discourage us from leaving dysfunctional men.

What is patriarchy?
Patriarchy is the system by which men keep us in a submissive and disadvantaged position. Patriarchal men are always quick to justify that this is done for the good of women. Men believe we are incapable of any task they want to reserve as a man’s space and designed by God for the chores men don’t want to do. Patriarchy regards women as objects and assets to be traded between other men, instead of persons in their own right. Patriarchy seeks to deprive women of their agency and force them to make choices within the limits of what men find acceptable. (And what is acceptable is always changing, so women find themselves at the beck and call of men.)

All men are taught patriarchal ideology from birth. In order to accept feminism men have to undergo a period of de programming.

What’s in it for men?
Most men need to hear why feminism would benefit them, because they’re selfish children who need to center every conversation around their dicks and what gets their dicks hard. However, feminism does net benefit most men, because patriarchy benefits only a handful of men who enjoy positions of power. Within patriarchy, 99.9% of men are canned labor and disposable fighters. The remaining 0.1% benefit from patriarchy at the expense of these men. Within patriarchy, it’s normal for powerful men to send weaker ones to war, to exploit the profit of male work, and teach men self-neglect and unhealthy coping mechanisms. It’s normal in patriarchy for men to be drinking themselves blotto every night and smashing up furniture in frustration. Patriarchal thought trains men to blame women for the injuries incurred serving the patriarchy and scapegoats women as the reason men suffer.

What do women want?
Nothing less than the same rights afforded to men. Some specific examples:
1) Equal pay for equal work.
Since the women’s US soccer team is objectively better than the men’s (it is) then the women should receive at least the same amount of pay as the men's team does, if not more.
2) right to reproductive decision making. It is immoral and cruel to make a woman have a baby she doesn’t want to have. It’s cruel to make a woman carry a baby with no chance of survival ex utero. Women will avoid getting abortions if effective birth control is readily obtainable to them.
3) right to our own industry and ideas. The number of instances of men stealing women’s ideas and presenting them as their own invention is staggering. These guys need to be persecuted for intellectual property theft but they are not.
4) legal protection from male violence. Men too often get away with physical abuse and sexual assault because other men look the other way. Even men charged with upholding the law and keeping the peace are quick to toss off rape allegations as a “he said-she said” crime. Rape is thereby a process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.
5) when applicable, separate facilities and women's competitive leagues so women may exercise, swim, compete in sports, etc. without the interference of men.

Frequently Yelled Statements
> You slits just want female supremacy over men!
This is a common misconception among anti-feminist men, who fear that if the playing field were leveled women would do them as they have done to women. Thankfully women are less prone to violence and vengeance than males. There is nothing to gain from simply swapping positions with men in the patriarchy - then women would simply face the problems men do.

> Feminism has gone too far!
No, it hasn't gone far enough. Women in first-world western countries may be guaranteed on paper, but in practice these rights are curtailed by men's sexism and male political initiatives seeking to abridge our rights. There are also many countries and places in the world where female enfranchisement is not guaranteed by the law or recognized by men.

> You're just saying this because you're an ugly FAT cow! I wouldn't even rape you!
Well thank goodness for that! Women also live in fear of male violence generally. If they are not thinking about raping you then men are probably thinking about how to steal your purse.

> Well I'm a woman and I don't need feminism because I'm hot/work full time/have a beautiful trad family/am Catholic!
Don't get too comfy. The same antifeminist men giving you asspats and updoots today will turn on you in an instant if you dare to disagree with them, and then they will blame you for making them so angry. Men are not going to respect you more if you pay into sexism to set yourself apart from "the other girls"; you're just reinforcing in his mind that it's OK to be sexist towards you when it suits him. As for skills and attributes like beauty, work, motherhood, religion, that actually do set you apart from other women: you will never win with these. A man will praise one attribute with one corner of his mouth and deride it with the other. Sexist men will never promote women out of being subordinate to them, no matter how many other women they dunk on to grind reputation with the men.

I'm not a feminist b/c I'm not a woman. I think the most fundamentally unfair practical issues (in the US) are total abortion bans, taxes on period products, and the lack of societal support of mothers and families. Specifically I think we should pay women for their traditionally unpaid labor. Including elder care.
I don't see why you shouldn't identify with feminism, then. A centrist could maybe agree with a right to abortion and safe contraception, but the rest of these issues are squarely within normie feminist territory, except maybe the UBI for SAHMs and SAHDs, which is more socialist to my eye.
"Here, read these 200 journal articles in this dense incomprehensible language meant to gate-keep out plebs as well as these 40 books by other professors to understand feminism and gender theory. This is your new hobby now." Then you start spending time reading that crap, and eventually it dawns on you that this was a big grift to keep those professors employed.
I think I summed it up fairly well in just a couple pages. The journal articles and books etc. are there if you want to further examine how sexism has insinuated itself into our media, how men sideline women in service of maintaining social control, why porn makes your stomach turn etc. The core of feminism is that women are human beings deserving of equal enfranchisement socially and under the law. The rest is commentary.
 
I don't see why you shouldn't identify with feminism, then.
I actually agree with TheBigZee re: "I'm not a feminist because I'm not a woman." I know this is kind of a debated topic (especially in radfem circles, which I know this isn't necessarily), and I would be interested in hearing other people's viewpoints, but to me men can be allies to feminism but not actual feminists.

My reasons for this are that A) men benefit from things that feminism intends to oppose and B) men can't really completely "sympathize", I guess, with the female experience. Most men, if you ask them, would say that men and women are already equal. They don't experience what women experience, so from their perspective it's difficult to see where the inequalities are, because none of it affects them.
A centrist could maybe agree with a right to abortion and safe contraception, but the rest of these issues are squarely within normie feminist territory, except maybe the UBI for SAHMs and SAHDs, which is more socialist to my eye.
Does anyone happen to know what liberal feminists' position on these more legal-type things (particularly UBI?) Do they have one?
 
I think I summed it up fairly well in just a couple pages. The journal articles and books etc. are there if you want to further examine how sexism has insinuated itself into our media, how men sideline women in service of maintaining social control, why porn makes your stomach turn etc. The core of feminism is that women are human beings deserving of equal enfranchisement socially and under the law. The rest is commentary.

I don't buy into the theoretical aspects at all. Most of the time, these are not things tested in a laboratory with a control group. A lot of it is over-intellectualized nonsense designed to fill page quotas and this practice literally brought us people like Judith Butler who paved the way for troons with her gender theories about how being a woman is just a cultural costume, and 2nd wavers insistence on academia being a new Catholic Church that brings us our feminist dogma is what paved the way for that whether they seethe over Butler or not, because she turned that crap around on them in a way anyone with a brain could see coming if you followed the development of these abstract theories over time. People want to act like it's just men responsible for the troon take over, but it was enabled by the theoretical framework of feminism that allowed for these hard right turns to develop in the first place.

IMO, feminism should have been issue oriented instead of "theoretical" so it could be perceived as something concrete by the public that accomplishes goals, and beyond that, certainly not a theory rooted in Marxist thought that most Americans find about as appetizing as eating plate of shit and still find as appetizing as a plate of shit with added gender flavorings. The USA is not South Korea, you need to do things in a way that appeals to Americans. There's a reason why the word "feminism" is still widely unpopular while none of the other social movements produce that knee-jerk reaction with the public becuase they actually attemp to appeal to American ideals regarding fairness instead of the Marxist class warfare.

And since it's a theory instead of a civil rights movement, it doesn't have to be subscribed to, so scores of women and pretty much all men do not have to self describe as feminists because they don't believe in widely circulated theories like gender social constructs, and then when people start explaining them the million subcategories and camps of feminism, they get lost in the weeds.
 
wavers insistence on academia being a new Catholic Church
Episcopal communion caring about what the Catholic Church thinks: 0 fuxx given. 🇵🇳🇵🇳📢📢📢⏰⛪. I love the NZ Prayerbook for the People. It's inclusive and epic and generates faith formation and so on. I should share it with you guys cause of the Kiwi trope, and uh, maybe you might like them.
And since it's a theory instead of a civil rights movement, it doesn't have to be subscribed to, so scores of women and pretty much all men do not have to self describe as feminists because they don't believe in widely circulated theories like gender social constructs, and then when people start explaining them the million subcategories and camps of feminism, they get lost in the weeds.

It's 51% psychological philosophy, where you learn an ideology that isn't self-degrading, and 49% sexist forces directly affecting an individual woman's life, with an 8% +/- margin of error.
 
men can't really completely "sympathize", I guess, with the female experience.
I'll respond more later, but I was 39 when I learned what wings were for. I couldn't wrap my head around it. My gf had to show me. Laughing when I finally understood why it was advertised in the 80s and 90s. Slam dunk viral tik tok content.

Men definitely can only empathize through analogy, metaphor, or fact. They don't have the same feelings, just approximations.
 
Last edited:
I’m more of a complimentarian as opposed to an egalitarian. I acknowledge that men and women are different, but both are necessary for society to function. I do not expect equal outcomes where men and women make up 50/50 in nearly every field. It never has worked that way, even with incentives to get more women into certain professions. I don’t think women should be barred from those professions either. Complete equality is an impossible goal when men and women have obvious biological differences, which affect lifestyle, career paths, health, sports, etc. You can provide equal opportunity, that should be the main goal over equal outcomes. That being said, I’m grateful to live in an era where my possible job choices weren’t as limited compared to what my ancestors had.
 
millennials-pets-spending-tt180813.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom