are you a feminist?
>>43080364Yuck! No!
feminism is a dead political movement in the west, radical feminism even more so. it has been reduced to state mandated industrial laws and norms or an internet signifier that you are nice to whammen / a woman that talks about irrelevant daily social grievances.
>>43080364I don't understand how one can be a woman and fail to be a feminist.The exact moment I accepted my gender identity and I stopped being a man I instantly got hit with the fucking Professor X Holocaust Beam of rape culture. That wasn't pleasant at all. I never understood that shit and then I suddenly understood. All this patriarchy shit made a lot more sense, and I realize that a lot of the pain I used to brushed off was in fact the result of toxic masculinity. It was really eye-opening.Radfems are not real feminists btw
>>43080417radfems aren't radfems, they dont exist anymore. dworkins was an actual radfem though and obviously a feminist
>>43080364Yes.
>>43080417What is rape culture
>>43080364i am a radfem and i find dworkin's work both insightful and engaging. i do not like that she is frequently mischaracterised and strawmanned but i do not find it surprising. i think a deeper reading of her work investigating themes of political construction of subjectivity, ritualised sexual abuse (both direct and symbolic), patriarchal sexuality, and the necessity of political revolution in becoming oneself as a truly free and self-created person would be very fruitful for contemporary discourse; alas i myself am far too lazy
>>43080480you are not a radfem
>>43080504ok whatever u say nona
>>43080464The societal tendency to downplay and minimize rapeTo glorify rapists and demonize rape victimsTo give men power over women via the use of rape as a weaponYou want an example? The main character of the Epstein Files is the most powerful man on Earth right now. He was judged in a court of law to be a rapist. He rapes children. His supporters don't care; that he is able to rape freely is not a detriment to his character at all, but demonstrates his enormous power over both his enemies (men) and his chattel (women, children)I suggest you look into the work of Jacques Lacan, it's pretty fundamental to understanding the nature of Patriarchy
Is this the thread? https://youtu.be/qxOFFbTRFWw?si=NaYZSsxX2FFAcHY4
>>43080512>Lacan, it's pretty fundamental to understanding the nature of Patriarchyelaborate, i am only familiar with lakkklan's work in passing
>>43080364theoretically yes, practically nowhere i live there seems to be a very wide gulf between the ideal of feminism and the Actually Existing Feminism
>>43080510you believe 'The History of All Hitherto Existing Society is the History of Gender Struggles'? Have you thrown all your pomo stuff in the trash? this is amateur stuff bagel, radical isn't actually a synonym for extreme or militant.
>>43080527this is universal unfortunately (unless you live in some kind of radfem commune surrounded by landmines where they shoot moids on sight)
>>43080426dworkin got her shit pushed in hard, bish just got fat uggo and cray due to that probably, and did the jew thing of ruining shit for everyone
>>43080540you can believe multiple things at once anon, being a radfem doesn't mean i think the only valid historiography is one based around the evolution of gendered social relations. my feminism is radical in the sense of critiquing the sex-gender system at its roots, not in the sense of being blindly extreme. i am no less marxist, hegelian, deleuzian, or anything else for having read and found value in dworkin's works, except maybe less ignorant
>>43080523In one sentence, the ultimate wish of men is to own everything in the world, to enforce but be above the law, and treat all women as their property, though this is obviously unsustainable and thus a million micro-scale recreations of this dynamic are built by individual men.Male success is not measured by any one trait, like wealth or attractiveness. Male success is subtle, like a king's power - any king who has to assert his power is a lousy ruler. Men who brag loudly about their power and wealth, or men who are overly vain, or men who bitch about nobody wanting them - they are failures. However, a man who is confident in his ability to project maleness, who can do the things above, need possess no material wealth at all to attract respect.Female success works on a totally different level. Women succeed primarily by being an attractive object. Men own, women are. Therefore, for a man, physical attractiveness is nearly irrelevant, whereas it is almost all that matters for a woman, along with certain other traits which make her a useful servant. It is important for the man in a heterosexual relationship to feel like he is the provider and protector, and it can be upsetting to him if he does not feel this way.Some examples to help you understand:Characters like Jack Reacher, Batman, or The Punisher lay down the law but do not obey it themselves. This trait is heroic among men.Men generally take one wife, who is his property (Consider "husband" in the animal sense) - and, see above, protect her, but as property - against thieves and vandals.Men like Notorious BIG or James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) are not at all conventionally attractive. They are balding and fat. However, they become sex symbols because they are excellent at projecting masculine energy. One might also call this "leadership". Lacan readers know it as "The Phallus".
>>43080364Yes, but also no.I think both sexes should be truly equal. But anything that takes it further from either side is retarded
>>43080580What is it that separates intellectuals from internet shitposters?
>>43080580sounds more like manosphere ideology than psychoanalysis. if this is the way things supposedly are, why?
>>43080603Reading and having a lot of natural intelligence, and also having the wordcel gene, which runs in my family; my sister (whom I am starting to look a lot like!) and my dad both had excellent grades in English, as did I.>>43080606Manosphere ideology is downstream of this.Why is this how things are? I imagine it's something to do with the economic realities of agrarian society. We tend to see this pattern commonly among settled societies and less so among hunter-gatherers and nomadic groups of people. I don't know exactly why, but if I had to offer a guess, it's that the population of the next generation depends solely on the female population of the village. As long as one man remains, the next generation can be repopulated. If a woman dies, she will take many years to replace. That gives you the reason men are expected to go out and fight and maybe die.Women shouldn't really give a shit who they marry, as long as he's strong enough to protect her and her children. Her child will be her child just as strongly. And, of course, a victorious village raid gives you the women of the village as your spoils. Maybe that has something to do with it, too.Outside of war and reproduction, women would be the sex to take care of children because of her natural equipment; this means she is relegated to tasks that take place in the home, such as textile work - this was a lot of work back in the olden days. Cooking, too, and pottery. The men, who are physically stronger, should work the fields. Creating even one shirt would take months. It makes sense that somebody who has to be home anyway to take care of children should take care of household work. It seems reasonable to me that 20,000-ish years of agrarianism could produce some evolutionary adaptation to such a lifestyle.Hunter-gatherers tended to live more egalitarian lives. Both men and women would hunt and gather, and we notice a far greater diversity in gender roles in tribal societies.
>>43080364I describe myself as one but they lose me at "liking skinny women without armpit hair is rooted in patriarchy/pedophilia"
>>43080364No, labels ruined for me now.
