[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / gyaru / miku / say / tf / vichan / wooo ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 9e96a6f8f378bd5⋯.jpg (76.28 KB, 640x1055, 128:211, 8z6xoqtsowq11.jpg)

 No.120643

Stop shitting up other threads and make your arguments for or against antifeminism here you chucklefucks

 No.120654

Urban dictionary to the rescue, once again (LOL). https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chucklefuck


 No.120663

The feminism containment thread already exists to contain anti feminist incel retards too.

Reported.


 No.120664

>>120663

Antifeminism isn't just about being against feminism. It's also about hating women and about lowering the board quality by derailing threads on completely unrelated topics.


 No.120665

>>120664

>Antifeminism isn't about being against feminism it's about misogyny as well.

Ok buddy.


 No.120667

>>120665

Why are you pretending to speak for all antifeminists?


 No.120668

>>120667

I'm not 04 apparently is. That's why the greentext is there.


 No.120669


 No.120670

>>120668

>>120669

Yeah, you're saying he can't be an antifeminist if those are his reasons.

That's literally gatekeeping.

Why are you doing that? Who died and made you the antifeminist leader?


 No.120671

>>120670

Misogyny isn't anti feminism.


 No.120673

>>120671

>>120667

Why are you pretending to speak for all antifeminists?

You're saying you can't be antifeminist and misogynist.

You're clearly a woman and a feminist trying to ruin the thread and make Antifeminism look bad.

Fucking whore.


 No.120674

>>120673

I'm not a woman, I'm saying you can be antifeminist and not misogynist.

If you want to be misogynist and antifeminist then okay but some of us aren't since feminism has a million more aspects than just "Rights for women." 664 was the one speaking for all anti feminists by accusing us of being "Woman hates who shit up the board" as well. At this point you'd have to be shitposting if you can't see that.


 No.120675

>>120674

*Woman haters


 No.120677

>>120674

>>120675

You're the only one ITT crying about "muh soggy knees" bitch

You're trying to make us look bad by saying we capitulate to women

It's not going to work

Feminism doesn't work

We tried to let women vote and be people and make decisions for themselves and it failed

>inb4 real feminism hasn't been tried yet

Maybe you'd feel more comfortable on Twitter, slut. This isn't a website for women.


 No.120681

File: a3506b4377f57a4⋯.png (14.24 KB, 300x300, 1:1, (you) 2.png)

>>120677

Nigger are you fucking deaf blind and retarded?

>You're trying to make us look bad by saying we capitulate to women

Never brought that up.

>Feminism doesn't work

Agreed.

>We tried to let women vote and be people and make decisions for themselves and it failed

Fully agreed.

>Still calls me a woman.

I'm literally not and if I were I'd probably be more masculine than you since I'm not as retarded or insecure over what I'm arguing about. Although you did mention Twitter so why not go there since apparently you know it's a website for women. Go back.


 No.120682

>>120681

>enters thread about antifemism to insult antifeminists and make us look bad

>not a woman

Even if you have a penis, you might as well be a woman since you sound exactly like a whiny bitch

Go make me a sandwich, cumguzzler


 No.120683

>>120682

>enters thread about antifemism to insult antifeminists and make us look bad

Holy shit you can't be this much of a fucking idiot.

Read what >>120664 said and tell me what you think he was saying.

>you might as well be a woman since you sound exactly like a whiny bitch

>He said being the whiniest bitch in the thread.

I bet even a woman would have a bigger clit than whatever you call your cock since right now you're the biggest cunt in the thread.


 No.120684

>>120683

This isn't your safe space sweatie

We don't need your triggered tantrums

If you want to promote feminism and talk shit about antifemnists or wave your vagina around go do it on twatter

This thread is for real men only

Tits or gtfo


 No.120685

>>120684

Post your dick to prove you're a guy then faggot, go ahead and validate your masculinity before you try validating mine, if not I don't need to enter a dick measuring contest with someone who doesn't even have a dick.


 No.120686

>>120685

You're asking to see my penis just like a woman would.

I knew you were just some dumb bitch.

Did you really think you could outsmart a man with your little girly brain?


 No.120687

>>120684

Also hold on

>Sweatie

Literally no one but shitposting teenagers on /tv/ or actual women have actually used that word.

>>120686

If you want a dick measuring contest I'll give you one, unless of course you're too much of a chicken, or an actual woman behind that screen faggot.


 No.120688

>>120687

Listen up you dumb thot

You only get the dick when I say so

What you say doesn't matter

You only exist to please men, so no one gives a shit what you think

Now shut the fuck up and sit down quietly like a good girl before a man has to put you in your place


 No.120691

>>120688

>He's still deflecting the challenge.

Lmao okay I'll level it down for you, post your arm size with a time stamp. It should be at least 18 inches before you can even be considered a man right? You can crop out your face, just do it to prove you're actually a man and not a woman pretending to have a enlarged clit like you have all thread.


 No.120704

File: 293613ae1684eab⋯.jpg (201.69 KB, 717x880, 717:880, back to reddit.jpg)

There is a thread for this already >>116447

Argue about this shit there.

>>120670

>gatekeeping

>>120684

>sweatie

>>>/go/

>>>/back/

>>>/to/

>>>/reddit/


 No.120705

>>120691

Only a hopeless thot only good for taking cocks would believe the only difference between a man and a woman is skin deep

How about to rotate some three dimensional shapes for me to prove you're a real man? Or you could always just post your tits for me bb

>>120704

This bored is not for triggered feminists like yourself

Did you misclick on your way to /safespace/?


 No.120707

>>120705

>didn't even try crossboard linking.

>still deflecting like women do instead of proving he's a man, the equivalent of being called a virgin by women online.

Anyday pal.


 No.120708

>>120707

I don't give my dick to just any diseased thirsty slut on the internet

If you need some dick there are plenty of men out there for you bb

I'm still waiting on those tits, you dirty whore


 No.120709

>>120708

You don't give your dick to anyone because you don't have one.


 No.120710

>thots thosts fucking thots!

Actual incels don't talk like this, OP. Protip: If you want to do a convincing false flag you have to learn how to realistically imitate people.


 No.120711

>>120710

What's wrong feminist? TRIGGERED?

Maybe you got hit in thot patrol?

>>120709

That's rich coming from a pinkhaired feminist apologist with milky cow tits


 No.120712

>>120711

Still haven't proven you're a guy bud and quite frankly I don't have all day like you probably do, being a woman or effeminate dickless tranny so you get to sit on the computer all day. Men actually need to go out to work.


 No.120713

>>120712

What's with all the penis envy baby? I'll be back to fuck you real good tonight if you just learn to talk less and have my lunch ready before I wake up.

Surely you're capable of doing what you're told without forcing a man to slap you around a bit right?


 No.120714

>>120713

>trusting a woman to cook for you

This is how I know you're a woman pretending to be an incel.


 No.120716

>>120714

>projecting this hard

Only women tip their hands like this. It's how I know you're the type that can't keep your mouth or your legs shut too

Didn't you have to go to work, stupid bitch? Or did you just have to tell daddy to have a good day?


 No.120718

>>120716

It's been 5 minutes since I said I had to go to work retard. But you're right I do need to go soon.

>projecting.

Nice buzzword there dipshit.


 No.120719

I hope that this thread is a ban trap.


 No.120721

>>120718

Cry moar my little pussy bitch

I know it's making you wet since you keep replying

Don't forget the timestamp


 No.120726

File: 80981c9ec3c03e1⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 20.62 KB, 480x360, 4:3, mfw.jpg)

File: e249f2959ab33b3⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 170.57 KB, 458x1278, 229:639, mdw.png)

>>120721

I actually need to go now but I don't want to leave anything unresolved so here's a old photo of my cock. Literally all you had to do and you still couldn't because you're a woman pretending to be male. Don't worry though Fem Anon one day you'll be able to get through your gender dysphoria just not here. Go back to your friends at Twitter since you apparently know that's where women go online.


 No.120728

>>120726

>she actually posted a dick

wow, so this is the power of the female mind


 No.120729

>>120728

>I followed through while you still haven't.

>That's bad.

Ok bud.

Hey mods can we ban this guy if he doesn't follow through? He's starting to annoy me.


 No.120730

Either way I need to go now so have a nice day Ma'am.


 No.120733

>>120729

Look bitch, if you want some of this dick you're going to have to work on your etiquette.

I don't send dick picks to slovenly whorish landwhales who post other people's dicks without their permission.


 No.120742

File: 42f118ec4cef8b0⋯.png (21.92 KB, 1000x872, 125:109, Trolling101.png)

ITT


 No.120744

>>120742

Antifeminism is not a troll weak Mom


 No.120747

File: f88a979707c769a⋯.jpeg (57.09 KB, 442x650, 17:25, DvIi3PXX4AAx9aP.jpeg)

>culture war thread

<40 replies in a few hours

>theory threads

<lucky to get over 25 posts, most are shit anyways

chans were a mistake


 No.120753

>>120747

>I dislike this thread

>better contribute to it


 No.120755

File: fa6086c0e345c2a⋯.gif (1.91 MB, 360x203, 360:203, Kill Everyone.gif)

File: 2802ece9b2b1d2b⋯.png (10.9 KB, 445x154, 445:154, sage lenin.png)

>>120747

>>120753

It's mostly two people, and sage next time you reply, fuckers. Don't keep bumping the thread to the front.


 No.120756

>>120755

t. feminist subversive


 No.121313

Why no pp touch

:(


 No.121316

>>120643

>feminazi gets triggered /leftpol/ gives the middle finger to idpol.

You're lucky mods are anything but that. All idpol threads should be deleted and their creators banhammered.

Sage this already.


 No.121317

>>121316

Age lol


 No.121346

Why do people keep sageing my threads???


 No.121398

>>120643

if you are the one who screencapped that incel dont ever hide them. always expose them thanks.

incels will be gulaged, literal psychos dont belong in fair society


 No.121426

>>120664

>>120667

>It's also about hating women

anti-feminists on /pol/ are misogynists. Anti-feminists on /leftpol/ are egalitarians who realize that supporting gender equality makes you anti-feminist.


 No.121427

>>121426

>who realize that supporting gender equality makes you anti-feminist.

LOL go back to whichever internet shithole you crawled out of.


 No.121436

>>121427

Feminism pretty broadly denies the agency of women and reduces them to objects. Any time someone tries to discuss what actions a woman might take some liberal feminist screeches about victim blaming, as if being a victim necessarily makes a person blameless. The idea that being victimized necessarily removes a person's agency is one of the most hateful ideas imaginable to me, and reinforces the dynamic of "oppression" by telling someone they have no power to do anything about the bad stuff happening to them. It's exactly the kind of shit a would-be rapist says to intimidate the intended victim into compliance.


 No.121439

File: e72760af46e4d7d⋯.jpg (37.19 KB, 494x497, 494:497, 9kavox6xhja21.jpg)

>>121436

>all feminism is liberal feminism


 No.121461

>>121439

There does not seem to be any difference between socialst feminist theory and liberal feminist theory. All forms of feminism seem to have the same suspect underpinnings. Differentiate between socialist feminist theory and bourgeois feminist theory, and don't just say that one wants socialism and the other doesn't. Where does the theory diverge?


 No.121467

File: 3a279026b2f76d5⋯.jpg (120.34 KB, 1280x1153, 1280:1153, lob7djd30ob21.jpg)

>>121461

>all feminism is either socialist or liberal feminism

Why opine about topics you don't even have a basic familiarity with?

Is outing yourself as the dumb guy your hobby or something?


 No.121471

>>121467

And an angry deflection. Of course. I would be disappointed, but my expectations were already low.


 No.121473

File: c648c05d9a54e1e⋯.jpg (16.57 KB, 601x242, 601:242, su9aidltvia21.jpg)

>>121471

Yep, that was anger. I'm definitely not laughing at you, Mr galaxybrain.

Why should you have high expectations when our society neglects your special needs and no one bothers to spoonfeed you?

I wouldn't expect much help reading wikipedia if I were you either.

Here's a starting point though, since I'm not a monster that wants to see you put in an oven like your Nazi friends.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism


 No.121478

>>121461

>>121439

>>121467

>>121473

The difference between liberal feminism and marxist feminism is that the latter butchers class analysis by declaring the nuclear family a feudal society where the man-wage-laborer is a lord and the woman-homemaker is a peasant, even though it's the wage paid to the man for his labor that sustains the house, which is completely different from the economic basis of lordship. It's idealist analysis based on the rhetoric surrounding the nuclear family rather than examining the material relationship.

There are relevant points in marxist feminism, like the dependence of women on men, but most of it is largely irrelevant now, but it has always ignored the fact that supporting a family on a single income is a privilege. Poor working class families had the women working too. And the children, let's not forget.


 No.121480

>>121473

>fuk u fuk u fuk u fuk u

>everyone who does not immediately accept my argument as is without any explaination or stated rationale is a nazi

>wikipedia link

Wow, yeah, you're so different from liberal feminists.


 No.121481

>>121480

Facts don't care about your feelings

>>121478

>I will never read Engels


 No.121483

>>121481

Do you have a counterargument or are you just going to appeal to authority?


 No.121485

>>121481

>Facts don't care about your feelings

That doesn't even apply to this discussion.


 No.121487

>>121485

I'm sorry you feel that way

>>121483

Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence


 No.121493

<Hey, Mr. Left-Communist, what makes you different from Leninists?

>We left-communists reject opportunist adventures as being idealist in nature and thus doomed to failure. The contradictions of capitalism must become fatal before bpurgeois class rule can be dismantled.

<Hey, Mr. Ancom, what makes you different from ancaps?

>We recognize that capitalism requires a state to function and, as such, there can be no capitalism without a state. We are also materialists whereas those halfwits are idealists. This means… (long speech)

<Hey, Mr. Nazbol, what's the difference between you and nazis?

>Our memes are dank, and their memes stank.

<Hey, Mr. Socialist Feminist, what's the difference between you and bourgeois feminists?

>Fuck you, you stupid nazi! REEEEEEEEEEE!


 No.121499

>>121487

>Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

So are you denying the central thesis of marxist feminism while also defending it as important?


 No.121542

>>121493

<hey Mr. Flag, what makes you different from Mr. Flag?

>We make sweeping generalizations based on our limited knowledge and tribalisms

>>121499

That's an interesting way to indicate you don't understand where you are in the discussion anymore


 No.121548

>>121542

>I don't have a response to a specific question, what's the vaguest thing I can say to assert dominance?

If you can't either defend marxist feminism or correct why the given description is wrong, you dno't have an argument here.


 No.121599

>>121548

>things that I say are true until someone proves they aren't

So how long have you been fucking your underage dog?


 No.121606

>>121599

>>things that I say are true until someone proves they aren't

Don't bring up a topic if all you're going to do is say another person's definition is wrong while never providing your own definition. You're the one saying it's true that Marxist feminism is good and we have to agree until you're proven wrong, then ignoring all criticism.


 No.121616

>>121606

Can you cite where I said that? It should be pretty easy, since all you need to do is scroll up.

Or are you completely full of shit or something?


 No.121622

File: 4e07793e57feb64⋯.png (937.27 KB, 706x766, 353:383, Feminists.png)

>>121606

Feminists are the only ideologues I know who get upset when asked to explain their ideologies. People generally jump at the opportunity to talk about their respective passions, but for whatever reason feminists refuse to subject their own views to criticism. It is like they know that it does not stand up under critical examination and so hide it away while calling everyone who doesn't profess devotion to it nazis.


 No.121627

>>121616

Ok I'll point it out.

Here's the distinction being made from liberal feminism >>121439

Here you're asked to explain the difference >>121461

You don't, instead deflecting >>121467

Some time passes

I post here, >>121478 differentiating between liberal and Marxist feminism

Then you just spout a bunch of barely related catchphrases

>>121481

>>121487

>>121542

>>121599

Did you think I couldn't be bothered to point this out or what? Like you said it's all right there.


 No.121633

>>121606

>You're the one saying it's true that Marxist feminism is good and we have to agree until you're proven wrong, then ignoring all criticism.

<Can you cite where I said that? It should be pretty easy, since all you need to do is scroll up.

<Or are you completely full of shit or something?

>>121627

Literally zero posts you linked have anything like that in them. So I'll reiterate. Can you cite where I posted that? Or do you need some help reading those posts you linked?


 No.121637

File: ff2186d95f55879⋯.png (8.04 KB, 239x67, 239:67, communicating badly.png)

>>121633

So if we've misinterpreted your posts are you going to articulate your actual position or just act superior for being misconstrued?


 No.121639

>>121637

I'm not trying to communicate with you.

I'm just being polite since it seems like you don't have any friends.


 No.121687

>containment thread for MRAs

>feminists show up and do their usual arguing in bad faith interspersed with angry declarations that everyone else is nazis

>posters turn on them

>thread that was intended to bash anti-feminists becomes another kick-the-feminist game

This is why feminists can't have nice things.


 No.121690

>>121689

>wahhhh incel incel incel incel

lol why are feminazis so retarded? They think calling people incel automatically wins the argument. That may work on reddit but not here, whore.


 No.121695

more sliding… yay. Why don't the mods just anchor one of these stupid threads


 No.121696

>>121695

fuck forgot to sage


 No.121698

>>121696

sage negated redditor. sage is not a downvote.


 No.121700

Combat Feminism


 No.121762

>>121695

We should have an idpol containment thread on cycle tbh


 No.121774

>>121762

Yes, that will definitely stop me from making posts that trigger you, white snowflake


 No.122018

File: d0127626fc7a001⋯.png (49.99 KB, 500x652, 125:163, Everyday Feminism racist.png)

File: 94b228459c377c8⋯.jpg (108.75 KB, 640x744, 80:93, feminist vs humanist.jpg)

File: 069e06373caeac3⋯.jpeg (14.53 KB, 300x225, 4:3, Free Slaps green party.jpeg)

>>121439

>>121427

name a feminist who supports equality anon. Because we can name plenty that oppose equality.

>>121473

>b-but Wikipedia articles that were created by feminists say that feminism is good! This totally contradicts the millions of examples of feminism being against gender equality!

Fuck off and don't come back until you bother doing some actual research on feminism.


 No.122025

>>122018

super based and redpilled

death to the feminazis


 No.122028

File: 73d8caa3dcc72f5⋯.jpg (8.51 KB, 269x369, 269:369, SCUM_Manifesto_cover.jpg)

>>122018

>>122025

Kill all men

(good dicking will cure that attitude)

 No.122039

>>121473

>muh dictionary definitions

Unfortunately for you, even rationalwiki, aka the regressive left wiki, acknowledges that using dictionary definitions to support your arguments is utterly flawed:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium#Feminism


 No.122041

>>122039

>Argumentum ad dictionarium is the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions.

So where did this happen, and with which assertions?

You're also aware that that's a joke article to make you look stupid when you try and win an argument with it, right?


 No.122087

>>122018

Your post sucks but on the topic of feminism talking about men the way white racists talk about black people…

A lot of feminists early on were awful racists and you can see the influence of racist rhetoric on feminist rhetoric. Pointing out the similarity isn't a "haha gotcha, you're like this bad thing!" it's just observing the ideological genealogy.


 No.122110

>>122087

>All feminism is white girl feminism


 No.122274

>>122087

Feminism is reactionary.


 No.122284

>>122110

All feminism is derived from white girl feminism so kind of.


 No.122291

>>122284

It's not though

Women's liberation didn't begin Anglo suffragettes.


 No.122308

File: cdce158dd69b3ef⋯.jpg (64.56 KB, 604x340, 151:85, 1387863489193.jpg)

>>122291

>women's lib = feminism


 No.122378

>>122308

>arbeit macht frei


 No.122488

File: c13b2dcea299f7d⋯.jpg (426.75 KB, 800x1000, 4:5, 1537295362069.jpg)

File: 729ec4ab365ac92⋯.jpg (8.47 KB, 392x370, 196:185, 1536452782742.jpg)

File: 3a6e689c4a926cc⋯.jpg (30.75 KB, 474x354, 79:59, 1531726023103.jpg)

File: c061e1679f2a9af⋯.jpg (254.54 KB, 2002x3000, 1001:1500, LMAO2.jpg)

>>120664

>It's also about hating women

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOOK AT THIS TOP MONG


 No.122501

File: 57b68bd9e56c3c0⋯.jpg (86.19 KB, 769x960, 769:960, 50892396_148311302827727_5….jpg)

File: 5565a76890a48de⋯.jpg (46.15 KB, 601x635, 601:635, 49472202_1053796784803349_….jpg)

>>121382

"people who have a hard time getting laid need hard labor because they're aren't normal and that's bad because bleep bloop"

year zero can't come soon enough.


 No.122502

>>122028

death to fembots.


 No.122506

>>122488

Why use that flag if you are a misogynist? Zapatismo is feminist.


 No.122510

>>122506

Nothing should be feminist


 No.122513

>>122510

Cry more virgin


 No.122514

>>120643

Anchor this fucking worthless mangina thread already. Ban any feminist faggot coming here.


 No.122517

>>122514

Every socialist is necessarily a feminist.


 No.122524

>>120643

>I build a feminist bot, the tweet


 No.122527

File: 18a1f9d7830c76b⋯.jpg (53.26 KB, 464x618, 232:309, 1539676492409.jpg)

>>122513

>Calls him a virgin

>Supports feminism

Oh you poor poor man


 No.122530

>>122517

>I don't know what either of these words means


 No.122532

>>122530

It's nice that you admit it, but we can tell.


 No.122533

>>122532

>I know you are but what am I

Most people are rightfully not feminists because they don't see women as retarded children.


 No.122576

>>122514

>I need the state to enforce my social mores on others

Cry more babby man


 No.123167

>>122517

>Every socialist is necessarily a misandrist

Source? Why do you think that hating men is a necessary part of socialism?


 No.123169

File: bd8f792a6c8a9a4⋯.png (178.45 KB, 1190x906, 595:453, you.png)


 No.123186

File: 6ffc318e15cf6cd⋯.jpg (154.58 KB, 941x1300, 941:1300, mary parade.jpg)

Anyone notice how variation of the word "virgin" keeps cropping up? Manchild, neckbeard, MRA, willful cuckold, permavirgin, and now incel. They have to keep hopping from term to term because the last one loses its punch from overuse.

On topic, the duty and roles of women should be encouraged by social etiquette, but physical force is too far. The asians who live in my city all have traditional gender roles, and help family out when someone needs help. This goes beyond the nuclear family, it is small scale communism where they freely share resources and assist one another. I've seen hispanics do it as well and with great success. On the other hand, women are encouraged to get educated and go to college, where they basically throw their lives away for their supposed liberation. They get a degree that won't get them a job, they aren't encouraged to find a partner, and they have a lot of student debt, making them eternal debt slaves and workers. I'm not blaming them, they were sold a lie about liberation and college. That lie did irreparable damage to their lives that honestly, no one is sure how they will recover. So I wouldn't have police on thot patrols, preventing women from voting/driving/whoreing, but everyone should just admit the truth that being a bitchy whore isn't liberation at all.

<incel neckbeard misogynist

Some societies in the past have put the feminine as divine, and honestly women fared a lot better back then. If there is some crisis, women and children always come first. How is that not a distinct advantage over being a man? Men go off to war so that women don't have to fight in a battle and get stabbed, men work at their jobs to provide food for their kids and wife. The women serve the education role, they have a monopoly on how children are raised in these older societies. Men can be aggressive brutes, but they listen to their wives' requests. It is often said that they husband may be the head of the household, but the wife is the neck that turns the head. This gender war is garbage, men and women are different, and should work together like a good team, rather than gender sectarianism.

Capitalism seeks to erode differences between the genders, to make a more homogeneous workingclass. The steel mill needs workers, and the workforce can double if women are included. I seriously doubt working 12 hour shifts at the steel mill is somehow liberation. Many ancient religions and cultures have this concept of a mother god, a caretaker and a mother of all life. It puts the matriarchal figure as the divine feminine, and celebrates women being mothers. In the feminist world, the woman is now a female, the man is now a male. Both male and female work for MegaCorp, are alone without partner, and are stuck paying debt/rent until they die from alcoholism or suicide. The males sit at home masturbating, the women bitch about the patriarchy and drink boxed wine. TERF's will forever be stuck with cognitive dissonance, because they want to keep men outside of their gender, but that forces them to admit that the genders are inherently different on a biological level.


 No.123187

>>123186

I'm definitely going to read a wall of text after it begins with a scizophrenic paragraph about being "unfairly" maligned as a virgin


 No.123189

>>123187

>schizophrenic paragraph about being marginalized as a virgin.

Seemed fine to me. Also he's talking about virgin being used as an insult and he's not even really talking about that. Virgin marginalization is also a real thing.


 No.123206

>>123189

nah bro, he was totally a virgin

that's the only reason he'd say anything negative about virgin shaming men

also i'm a feminist, which means i support gender equality


 No.123207

>>123206

>that's the only reason he'd say anything negative about virgin shaming men.

So if I'm 7'0, built, and good looking, but am a virgin I should be shamed for never giving enough of a shit to spend five minutes having sex with a girl?

Seems pretty illogical to me man.


 No.123209

>>123207

No, it's actually more virtuous if you lose your virginity to a man, so you shouldn't be shamed.


 No.123211

>>123209

Oh ok we're shitposting now.

It's actually more virtuous to lose it to yourself.


 No.123224

>>123169

Not an argument. Explain to me why I can't be a socialist just because I think that male victims of abuse deserve support, or because I think that sexism against been is wrong.


 No.123225

>>123224

We'll kick you out of the party for being a wrecker


 No.123258

>>123224

Those are feminist positions, retard.


 No.123260

File: 114909118911cf4⋯.png (1.23 MB, 1192x897, 1192:897, chapotard.PNG)

>>123258

>>123225

Why do emotional spergs even bother posting here, if they get triggered by the slightest disagreement


 No.123261

File: 4d2948342f58f76⋯.jpg (96.65 KB, 711x733, 711:733, beating a dead ideology.jpg)

>>123258

>policies that explicitly discriminate against men are feminist

>removing those policies is also feminist

>but mra are muh soggy knees even though the men's human rights movement was literally built by former feminists excommunicated from feminism for the specific crime of warning against reverse sexism and preaching egalitarianism


 No.123299

File: b0a4475fc7a3295⋯.jpg (270.96 KB, 600x1700, 6:17, Duluth Model in Navy DV Tr….jpg)

File: ce582fa8f616f49⋯.png (468.31 KB, 1105x663, 5:3, The Red Pill movie DV.png)

>>123258

>those are feminist positions even though feminists fight against them!

Do you have trouble with english? If feminists fight against support for male victims of abuse and if feminists say that sexism against men isn't real and we shouldn't talk about it, then how are those "feminist positions"?


 No.123321

I've been on here since 2015 and I get the GG stuff but people on this board who are "anti-feminist" come off as buttmad redditors who got kicked out of /r/socialism for some dumb reason.


 No.123325

>>123260

<they get triggered by the slightest disagreement

>he's angrily replying to the one shiposter baiting this thread


 No.123355

File: a1216334178b187⋯.jpg (112.36 KB, 560x235, 112:47, stop_hitting_yourself.jpg)

>>123322

>which LITERALLY revolves around condemning the "suck it up and quit whining about those things" position.blaming men for everything bad that happens to them, absolving women of any responsibility whatsoever, and bending the knee to feminazis as their only possible saviors.


 No.123390

>>123258

>Anti-feminism is a feminist position

No

>>123321

People who unironically support misandry come across as people who have no business on the left. And people who claim feminism isn't anti-male come across as either lying or really really stupid


 No.123400

>>123390

>unironically support misandry

Where have I stated such? Feminism can be "anti-male" and it can also not be "anti-male" its not a uniform ideology just like how one sectarian socialist doesn't represent the views of every other socialist.

Really getting sick of this childish gatekeeping and reactionary rhetoric about feminism. You literally sound like a /pol/tard screeching about some invisible cabal of jews.

Your internalized sexual failures are not leftist in any way, you are a reactionary in red paint.


 No.123406

File: 0b0fd5ffbe54195⋯.png (602.98 KB, 584x552, 73:69, 73379188d02e716d7b13766ff5….png)

File: 2fb60b39d9bafb8⋯.png (771.91 KB, 760x386, 380:193, ClipboardImage.png)

>>123258

>male victims of abuse deserve support

>feminist position

>>123322

>words mean what they were originally coined to mean, NOT what people currently use them for

Not even going to argue that "toxic masculinity" sounds like it's referring to masculinity in general, but that phrase gets used today to refer to male "problem" behavior like boys roughhousing at a cookout. That's wildly fucking different from the original meaning which was supposed to be about helping men express themselves. Similar attempts today are met with the "male tears" thought terminating cliche. Like the work of egalitarians, socialists, anarchists, suffragists, and so on, the work of the mythopoetic men's movement gets misattributed to and colonized by feminists wokescolding men for doing things they don't like.

It's like if you took shitty standup about gender differences and added a manipulative, moralizing element.


 No.123428

File: 90be329eae09d89⋯.png (785.3 KB, 1450x466, 725:233, rent free.PNG)

>>123325

Wouldn't call it "baiting" desu, baiting implies getting the most replies possible to derail a thread. Honestly it's not worth responding to angry erratic posts.

>>123400

Referring to men as "males" dehumanizes men unless in a scientific setting, same way that referring to women as "females" aligns them more with animals.

>feminism can be anti-male or not anti-male

It is sectarian by nature, referring to only one gender. If feminism is explicitly about empowering women, that is juxtaposing half of the population to the other half.

>reactionary rhetoric about feminism. You sound like a /pol/tard screeching about jews.

/pol/tards must enjoy not having to pay rent considering how much they live in your head. Criticism of liberalism != reactionary politics. And yes, feminism is a form of liberalism.

>internalized sexual failures.

Trying to call other people losers on a chan of all places, lol

>You're reactionary with red paint.

At some point you have to make an argument, social shaming on the internet lasts maybe one post before it stops meaning anything.


 No.123432

>>120643

Jesus tittyfucking christ. Idpol threads tend to get the most replies.

Get your lazy asses to work, mods, and ban every single idpol thread, for fuck's sake.


 No.123433

File: 459c21e7af33ae7⋯.png (73.09 KB, 640x608, 20:19, 1548297614254.png)

>>123400

I didn't necessarily say you supported misandry, I also said

>And people who claim feminism isn't anti-male come across as either lying or really really stupid

You might not be a misandrist you could also be lying and/or really really stupid.

>and it can also not be "anti-male"

source on the non anti-male feminism? Give examples.

>its not a uniform ideology

there are differences in feminism but not when it comes to men's rights. 99% of feminists oppose men's rights and the 1% who support equality are irrelevant fringe feminists who are hated by the rest.

>>123406

>>123322

also this, "toxic masculinity" is just feminists shaming men. Remember pic-related from a couple weeks ago? Feminists using the Gillette ad to talk about "toxic masculinity" sounded like /pol/tards hating black people. Nobody who talks about toxic masculinity cares about men, it's just a way for misandrists to hate men while claiming they want to help us

>suck it up and quit whining about those things

is what feminists say to MRAs all the time.

Also notice how the anti-feminists have given actual examples of feminism being anti-male while the misandrist-apologists have nothing to support their claims?


 No.123440

>>123428

>feminism can be anti-male or not anti-male

Feminism can also be extremely toxic.


 No.123452

>>123433

>Also notice how the anti-feminists have given actual examples of feminism being anti-male while the misandrist-apologists have nothing to support their claims?

>actual examples

wew lad where have you shown me any evidence to support your views, have you even read feminist theory, I read theory from the left and right because I at least want to understand the opponent but like jesus your persecution complex is immense.


 No.123453

>>123449

The discussion of "toxic masculinity" is about what the signifier signifies. I'm saying that what the signifier signifies has changed, even if the signified things are not different. I'm not making an argument that the signified follows the signifier. It's one of the tasks of the left to reclaim words like "communism" to mean something specific and concrete instead of merely being snarl words for enemies of the political establishment.

>>123452

>actual examples

>have you even read feminist theory

Theory and praxis are two different things. You learn at least as much about someone by looking to their actions as you do by listening to their ideas.


 No.123457

File: b51e05fcce8d40c⋯.png (1.26 MB, 1026x587, 1026:587, mattress.PNG)

>>123452

>be whore

>invited to have sex

>say yes because you're a whore

>later regret consensual sex

>falsely accuse guy of rape, ruin his reputation because "muh rape culture muh womyn'z liberation"


 No.123463

>>123457

>bonus points if the man who raped you is black, because the entire community will lynch him for you


 No.123590

>>123463

>>123457

Don't forget

>Be honored as a hero by the largest feminist organization for harassing an innocent man

>Be invited by a US Congressman (and now Presidential candidate) who joins in your harassment of an innocent man

>Have brainlets on /leftpol/ insist that harassing innocent men and branding them rapists is a necessary part of socialism, and that can't be a socialist if you don't think all men are rapists


 No.123592

>>123463

Saw something like this firsthand. Friend is a dealer, gets invited over by white girl. He brings the goods, they get high together and fuck. While he was coming off the high, he was being yelled at by the girl, soon after police arrive. White girl accuses black weed dealer of rape, he winds up arrested, but he eventually got off because a lack of evidence.

but #believewomen amirite?


 No.123599

>>123189

> Virgin marginalization is also a real thing.

nice fuckin spooks nerd

lmao is the materialist analytical power of leftpol?


 No.123605

>>123599

WTF are you talking about. How is being a virgin, then being ridiculed for it not a material condition? You saying this type of thing doesn't happen?


 No.123621

>>123599

>nice fuckin spooks nerd

You're right, virginity is a spook. Why you support social punishment for it is beyond me.

>lmao is the materialist analytical power of leftpol?

Sure is pal, you can always go back to >>>/leftypol/


 No.123635

>>123592

r/k selection in action.


 No.123710

Are virgins actually ridiculed in the USA? I always thought it was just some Hollywood bullshit, like people actually enjoying fast food.


 No.123711

>>123710

>people actually enjoying fast food

It depends. While the average Amerifat does spend $500/year on fast food, just 14% of them account for half of fast food sales:

https://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/study-says-fast-food-remains-popular

Much more ominous is the encroachment of restaurants as a whole, delivery, takeout, and pre-prepared food on home cooking itself. Each generation of burgerlards is getting worse and worse at cooking, and doing less and less of it:

https://porch.com/resource/cooking-nightmares


 No.123746

>>123710

I honestly think people care less now than they did in the past.


 No.123790

>>123710

Yeah but like >>123746 said it's not as common as it used to be. Nobody gives a fuck if a woman is a virgin, and not many care if a man is. Mostly you see this shit with "party" people who go to clubs and don't want someone else's lack of a sex life to put their own very active sex life in a larger context where they have to self-reflect. The whole point of that lifestyle is to escape self-reflection (and is mostly engaged by bourgeois kids who have a lot to reflect on).

People do actually enjoy fast food though. It's not just that it's addictive, it's loaded with stuff that makes your dopamine surge (which is why it's addictive) and that does make it feel good to eat, even if later you're vomiting or getting diarrhea.


 No.123795

>>123790

little caesar's $5 Hot N' Ready diarrhea


 No.123819

https://feminsttheoryreadinggroup.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/one-is-not-born-a-woman-by-monique-wittig-1981/

> Simone de Beauvoir underlined particularly the false consciousness which consists of selecting among the features of the myth (that women are different form men) those which look good and using them as a definition for women. What the concept “woman is wonderful” accomplishes is that it retains for defining women the best features (best according to whom?) which oppression has granted us, and it does not radically question the categories “man” and “woman,” which are political categories and not natural givens. It puts us in a position of fighting within the class “women” not as the other classes do, for the disappearance of our class, but for the defense of “woman” and its reinforcement. It leads us to develop with complacency “new” theories about our specificity: thus, we call our passivity “nonviolence,” when the main and emergent point for us is to fight our passivity (our fear, rather, a justified one). The ambiguity of the term “feminist” sums up the whole situation. What does “feminist” mean? Feminist is formed with the word “femme,” “woman,” and means: someone who fights for women. For many of us it means someone who fights for women as a class and for the disappearance of this class. For many others it means someone who fights for woman and her defense– for the myth, then, and its reinforcement. But why was the word “feminist” chosen if it retains the least ambiguity? We chose to call ourselves “feminists” ten years ago, not in order to support or reinforce the myth of woman, nor to identify ourselves with the oppressor’s definition of us, but rather to affirm that our movement had a history and to emphasize the political link with the old feminist movement.

feminism is good actually


 No.123820

>>123819

>[…]Thus it is our historical task, and only ours, to define what we call oppression in materialist terms, to make it evident that women are a class, which is to say that the category “woman” as well as the category “man” are political and economic categories not eternal ones. Our fight aims to suppress men as a class, not through a genocidal, but a political struggle. Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well, for there are no slaves without masters. Our first task, it seems, is to always thoroughly dissociate “women”(the class within which we fight) and “woman,” the myth. For “woman” does not exist for us: it is only an imaginary formation, while “women” is the product of a social relationship. We felt this strongly when everywhere we refused to be called a “woman’s liberation movement.” Furthermore, we have to destroy the myth inside and outside ourselves. “Woman” is not each one of us, but the political and ideological formation which negates “women” (the product of a relation of exploitation). “Woman” is there to confuse us, to hide the reality “women.” In order to be aware of being a class and to become a class we first have to kill the myth of “woman” including its most seductive aspects (I think about Virginia Woolf when she said the first task of a woman writer is to kill “the angel in the house”). But to become a class we do not have to suppress our individual selves, and since no individual can be reduced to her/his oppression we are also confronted with the historical necessity of constituting ourselves as the individual subjects of our history as well. I believe this is the reason why all these attempts at “new” definitions of woman are blossoming now. What is at stake (and of course not only for women) is an individual definition as well as a class definition. For once one has acknowledged oppression, one needs to know and experience the fact that one can constitute oneself as a subject (as opposed to as object of oppression), that one can become someone in spite of oppression, that one has one’s own identity. There is no possible fight for someone deprived of an identity, no internal motivation for fighting, since, although I can fight only with others, first I fight for myself.


 No.123822

>>123819

>>123820

sounds pretty idiotic, tbh fam


 No.123828

>>123819

>>123820

This is the ideal solution to pretty much any identitarian issue other than feminism. While there are various kinds of non-universal culture-specific gender (ugh) spooks that need not exist, in the case of feminism, it can only go so far. Because, of course, sex isn't a spook, and many nigh-universal cultural adaptations to that fact have a firm basis in biology.

As long as we remain human, those need to be acknowledged in the structure of society, not denied and suppressed in a masochistic game of pretend.


 No.123849

>>123828

>sex = gender

okay shapiro

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507973

>biological essentialism

QUICK REFERENCE

>The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture). The concept is typically invoked where there is a focus on difference, as where females are seen as essentially different from males: see gender essentialism. The term has often been used pejoratively by constructionists; it is also often used synonymously with biological determinism. See also essentialism; compare strategic essentialism.

humans are humans from ability to need.


 No.123895

>>123849

>sex = gender

Not at all what I was saying

>biological essentialism

Yes, obviously. While obviously far from 100% deterministic, attempts to pretend it has no or insignificant impact on different behaviors of the sexes is overwhelmingly disproven. Probably the most infamous example is the "Nordic paradox" whereby countries with strong laws to accommodate fairness between the sexes actually have even greater sexual disparities in outcomes than countries that don't.


 No.123962

>>123895

>Probably the most infamous example is the "Nordic paradox" whereby countries with strong laws to accommodate fairness between the sexes actually have even greater sexual disparities in outcomes than countries that don't.

capitalism doesn't reproduce the conditions for its existence its hyoooomun naaaychur!!


 No.124359

>>123962

Both sets of countries are capitalist (in fact, the Nordic countries in question are arguably somewhat less capitalist due to their uniquely strong socdem reforms). Brush up on your philosophy of science and try looking for another control factor.


 No.124370

This thread is absolutely worthless. We already have a feminism containment thread to keep at check all this /pol/fags LARPers.

This is not r/socialism. Anchor this goddamn thread already.


 No.124376

File: 31ea968c0d813f0⋯.png (106.12 KB, 500x1238, 250:619, ironic shitposting is stil….png)

>>124370

>anyone who is against feminism is /pol/


 No.124382

File: e51afea4bab8bb4⋯.jpg (41.71 KB, 750x747, 250:249, fe9y2k4kuje21.jpg)

>>124370

>waaaahhhhh I need a strongman to protect me from the wimminfolk


 No.124427

>>124376

>Implying I'm defending feminism

>>124382

No. We are so goddamn tired of you, /pol/ LARPers shitting our board. Femicunts do not belong on the left and they'll be the first to go when the revolution comes.


 No.124430

>>124427

>they'll be the first to go when the revolution comes.

Addendum: feminists will be the first to go because they'll voluntarily leave to join the counterrevolution.


 No.124445

>>123710

A lot of women still reject men for being inexperienced. Some of them pretend they don't care about experience and are just rejecting guys for being bad in bed even though 99% of the time if a guy is bad in bed it's just lack of experience.


 No.124450


 No.124625

>>124450

Feminists will be the ones demanding that men do the fighting for them, while also claiming that it's "toxic masculinity" and the patriarchy backfiring that demands men do the fighting for them.


 No.124774

>>124625

that would backfire as an incel opportunist would use it as a way to kill women. not that I care.


 No.124776

>>124445

>99% of the time if a guy is bad in bed it's just lack of experience.

I don't know about that. A lack of effort or just not understanding what the other person is feeling seem to be common complaints, and those are not just a lack of experience. Experience does help, though.


 No.125419

>>124776

Experience with someone who actively participates and gives feedback. A lot of people suck at sex from not knowing much. A lot of men just thrust until they cum and a lot of women just lie there. Neither of those kinds of people is the kind of experience that will help you be better at sex. More of sex is bad because people treat each other like fuck toys than because lack of general experience.


 No.125428

Feminism means self servings scolds, emasculating lezzas and rapist troons. Kill 'em all.


 No.125432

>>122028

based mods


 No.125471

>>122028

If you like dicks so much, why don't you choke on one, Mr. Mod?


 No.125554

>>125471

>wokescolds using dick sucking as an insult

you are cancelled for homophobia


 No.125566

>>125554

Cuntzi's despise femininity in men.


 No.125569

>>125554

You're the only one wokescolding, retard

When do you plan to shoot up a planned parenthood?


 No.125573

>>125569

Do you usually not understand sarcasm or are you just that mad? You can't cancel some poster on an imageboard, retard.


 No.125587

>>125573

You're the only raging here bucko.

I'm going to keep posting things that you hate, and there's nothing you can do to stop me. I'm completely confident that I will win a war of attrition with you, because virtuous people don't believe the things that you do.


 No.125593

Feminism is inherently eugenic, bigoted, Malthusian and sexist in genocidal way.

The Patriarchy is literally a one for one copy of the Jewish Conspiracy that Nazis peddle. All men are collectively working together to oppress women either knowingly, or implicitly through inaction. I mean just replace "men" with "Jews" and it's literally the "Protocols of Zion" but with dicks.

Feminists will cite very really statistics that show women being disproportionately effected by things like the pay gap as evidence of a Patriarchy, but somehow men being thrown in prison far more and for longer is somehow not evidence of a Matriarchy.

Laughable a lot of things they cite like the pay gap are actually problems of race and not sex. White women get paid something like 2% less then white men, not nothing, but the gap between Black women and White men is something like 40%. But this is all averaged among all women to get the infamous 20% figure.

I suggest leftists use the term "women's issues" instead of feminism, since it leaves open the possibility of there being "men's issues" as well.

Regardless, I think women are becoming more proletariat and will become more and more reactionary and violent and be at parity with men soon.

Capitalism gave women special consideration to women because they needed them to have babies. That's not true anymore between automation and outsourcing. We're already seeing falling rates of marriage and even sexual activity in all first world countries.

I think being married, or even being in a relationship will be a status symbol soon. In the same way having a nice car is today. Most female proles will, for lack of a better term, ride the cock carousel until they are past their fertility window, then die alone. While most men will have sex with a sex robot until they are too old to be interested in marriage and die along as well. I think with the internet and social media and men growing up in single parent households, men will not be willing to enter into relationships or marriage in the near future.

It will become the norm to live your whole life without a partner in the same way it's normal to be divorced at least once now.


 No.125595

>>125587

>virtuous people

spooked moralfag detected


 No.125609

>>125595

>spooked moralfag detected

>implying I care about your galaxy brain takes on how people should think, feel, and act


 No.125615

File: e6a8d6c74225c6b⋯.gif (740.42 KB, 400x220, 20:11, 2spooky4me.gif)

>>125609

>implying anyone "should" think, feel, and act any particular way


 No.125617

>>125593

This is the correct answer.


 No.125618

>>125593

>the women will have sex with men and men will have sex with robots

This makes perfect sense.


 No.125621

>>125615

>implying you're not implying they shouldn't be moral or base their behaviors off of reasons you don't like

Can't tell if you're legit retarded or just a troll at this point


 No.125667

File: a1bfa244000f7c6⋯.png (528.28 KB, 774x429, 258:143, unrelenting spooks.png)

>>125621

>morality

>reasons


 No.125694

>>125587

lel I'll just stop replying to you

>virtuous people don't believe the things that you do.

Virtue ethics may be nice for giving normies useful self-help guidelines but it's shit for dealing with actual questions of ethics and morals. Virtuous people still struggle with hard questions because there aren't necessarily right answers. So chew on that. Peace.

>>125593

Pretty much any critique of feminism is true for some version of feminism, because feminism includes so many different belief systems.

>I suggest leftists use the term "women's issues" instead of feminism, since it leaves open the possibility of there being "men's issues" as well.

How about just "gender issues" then? Inclusive of everybody by default.


 No.125796

>>125593

But have you considered anon, bisexuality?

You're viewing the world through a primitive heterosexual lens


 No.125850

>>125796

The post you're replying to is much more about society having a "heterosexual lens" than that poster having one.

t. bisexual


 No.125862

>>125850

Primitive minds, smh


 No.125886

Economics, climate change and overall meaningfull threads get barely 30 replies, yet shitty idpol threads like this get 100+ replies. The current state of /leftpol/.

Why do you insist on flooding /leftpol/ with cringeworthy feminist threads? This is our board, not yours, femifaggots. Just go away, for fuck's sake.


 No.125896

>>125886

I made this thread in response to the five incel threads on page one.


 No.125936

>>125896

They get completely ignored, anchored sometimes. Nobody here gives a shit about incelfags not getting laid. Most of their threads are "tfw no qt 3.14 azn gf" garbage.

Bottom line: idpol does not belong here in leftpol. Whether it's M.R.A./incels/M.G.T.O.W. or feminism they are absolutely shit tier threads and ideologies.

Also, there was already a feminism containment thread. This one was merely set up because feminazis want to seize our board, somehow.

Incels & feminists: Same turd, different asshole.


 No.125937

>>125936

>there are good people on both sides

Fuck off nazi


 No.125959

>>120643

Why did you protect their identity?

Seriously.

Wtf


 No.125963

File: d08f37407b61ce3⋯.png (243.59 KB, 500x285, 100:57, meme centipede.png)

>>125959

It's probably via Twatter, censored on Feddit, originally from Cuckchan.


 No.125964

>>125963

Eh,

The trick is to just batter through their defences on that regard. If it gets censored, who fucking cares? the right guys will save it and circulate it.

You always have about a 10 -30 minute window on these jokes sites, get in, do your damage.

I know from experience that redpills can circulate even though you get our account locked. It's just part of the job at this point. The good guys will always save your shit and circulate it.


 No.126100

>>125937

Red herring. I never once made an appeal to rationality on my comment.

Both the manosphere and the feminists are full of shit.


 No.126101

>>126100

You made a false equivalence between leftists and reactionaries. It's the exact same shit. Your playbook is garbo, and your intentions are obvious.


 No.126106

>>126101

No that anon made a fair comparison between two groups of idpol retards


 No.126116

>>125896

"incel", is an ad hominem


 No.126117

>>125618

women will be dead, anon.


 No.126119

File: 5f943f75e07c246⋯.png (37.63 KB, 896x275, 896:275, male feminist killallwhite….png)

>>125963

desu in this picture I want to be Digg…

>>124774

some would but there will also be plenty of white knights, happy to fulfill their traditional gender roles while pretending to be against traditional gender roles.


 No.126126

>>126106

No, it was a false equivalence.


 No.126128

>>126101

>You made a false equivalence between leftists and reactionaries

No, I didn't. I am left wing myself and I can see through the divide and conquer tactic of identity politics, both from reactionary shitbags and feminist whiny fags. Besides, there can be feminism without socialism (the clintoncrats, socdems and neoliberals) and reactionaries are both left wing and right wing (nazbols, tankies, strasserites, /pol/ retards, nazis, fascists, etc).

Idpol is neither left or right, but rather plain garbage.


 No.126131

>>126126

What exactly do you claim is false about it, because it certainly appears apt to me.


 No.126136

>>126131

Everything. Nothing is true about it. Anyone can adhom two groups and then say they are the same in that the adhom both applies to them. Real galaxy brain analysis. The problem with arguments from analogy, which is what this is, is they're never conclusive. If they don't appeal to the intuitions you already have, they won't convince you.

>>126128

The divide and conquer tactic of identity politics is reducing a legitimate struggle for liberation to identity politics and comparing it to a reactionary movement intended to dismiss that very struggle. Identity politics is a glittering generality. It's reactionary propaganda, and serves no other purpose than to dismiss the struggles of minority groups within the left in order to divide and conquer. Economism and reductionism are false. You aren't a leftist, but you pretend to be one online.


 No.126139

There hasn't been a need for feminism in the first world in a very long time, at least since the 80's. Feminism for at least nearly 40 years has been about making men a caste under women.

I know I'm going to be accused of being an incel for saying that but just look at what modern feminists are advocating.

Suspension of due process with regard to sexual assault, i.e. the whole #metoo hysteria.

Preservation of special property rights like Child Support and Alimony.

Preservation of debtors prisons for men that don't pay these.

The destruction of marriage and sexual morals. Before you call me spooked, realize that these social pressures gave many low class, ugly men a good faith chance at finding a partner. This free sex isn't good for women either. All it does is open them up to being used for sex by the most desirable men during their prime years, then leaves them scrabbling to build a relationship with someone at the last minute.

Feminism in it's current for is only there to push down wages by widening the work pool, and make men more precarious. Making both sexes more vulnerable to capitalist exploitation and deepening divides in the proletariat.


 No.126141

>>126139

>There hasn't been a need for feminism in the first world in a very long time, at least since the 80's. Feminism for at least nearly 40 years has been about making men a caste under women.

Ah yes, the 80s, when you were considered a dyke if you wanted a career instead of being some dude's wife and baby factory.

>Suspension of due process with regard to sexual assault, i.e. the whole #metoo hysteria.

Due process unfairly benefits those in power. Due process NEVER indicts rich men like Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. The ONLY way Weinstein was brought down is through an extrajudicial angry mob.

>Preservation of special property rights like Child Support and Alimony.

These aren't special, and receive FAR less resources than abortion. Nevertheless, men also receive child support and alimony, and your assumption that they don't is a sexist one based on ignorance.

>Preservation of debtors prisons for men that don't pay these.

If you don't take care of your children within the current system, you should be ostracized.

>The destruction of marriage and sexual morals.

Good. Fuck both of those things. Read Engels.

>blah blah blah workerism won't you please think of poor white men muh left unity

If you really cared about left unity your goal wouldn't be to expel women and women's issues from leftism.

You think everything is hunky dory now that women have suffrage, but suffrage does nothing because bourgeois electoralism is a scam.


 No.126145

>>126141

>a bunch of strawman statements


 No.126152

File: a5b6f61d5130257⋯.png (510.21 KB, 599x599, 1:1, tumblr_nxlqg6Bjqo1ui9bilo1….png)

>>126141

>These aren't special, and receive FAR less resources than abortion.

What does abortion have to do with the state taking money from men by force or enslaving them if they don't.

>Nevertheless, men also receive child support and alimony, and your assumption that they don't is a sexist one based on ignorance.

So does that fact that men get raped to mean that it's sexist to think sexual assault isn't a women's issue? I never said men never get child support or alimony, but it's rare especially in the case of alimony.

<In 2014, about five of every six

custodial parents were mothers

(82.5 percent) and one of every six

were fathers (17.5 percent), proportions

that were not statistically different

from those in 1994

>Table 2:

>Men receiving child support: 2,350,000

>Women receiving child support: 11,069,000

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/P60-255.pdf

Alimony

>Of the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/

>Ah yes, the 80s, when you were considered a dyke if you wanted a career instead of being some dude's wife and baby factory.

That's nowhere near the violent state repression of men on behalf of women that I'm speaking about in this post.

>Due process unfairly benefits those in power. Due process NEVER indicts rich men like Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump.

There's no evidence that either party sexually assaulted anyone. Just because a woman says a man raped doesn't prove it.

You're point is well taken, but rich people escape justice often because Due Process is subverted. And they have the resources to successfully hide their crimes. You due realize that idea behind Due Process is to allow some guilty people to get away to prevent innocent people from being persecuted by the state. And you do understand people besides rich people get away with crimes.

And that women often willingly sleep with rich men like Trump and Weinstein for social mobility.

>The ONLY way Weinstein was brought down is through an extrajudicial angry mob.

Neither man has been taken down as of yet. This shows how myopic you are. Not only are you endangering scores of vulnerable young men without the power of a Trump or Weinstein, it failed to prosecute them anyway.

>If you don't take care of your children within the current system, you should be ostracized.

Wow….mind blowing….you are literally a fascist. Being thrown in prison in American means literal slavery.

IT IS NOT SIMPLY "OSTRACIZATION"!!!!

>Good. Fuck both of those things. Read Engels.

Engles didn't argue that the nuclear family was inherently bourgeoisie. He said the BOURGEOIS nuclear family was, and it was largely due to how they used marriage to organize and maintain property. He would have probably been against property rights like Child Support and Alimony that the state gives women.

>If you really cared about left unity

It's clear by "left unity" you mean "compromise with liberals until your politics are neutralized.

>your goal wouldn't be to expel women

>Women = Feminists

No

>and women's issues from leftism.

How is having women able to throw men into slavery over false accusations (which is what suspension of due process allows) or debt (child support) a women's isuse?

Please explain why women need to be able to wield state violence against men so disproportionately this way.

No


 No.126153

>>126152

*reposting this table because I messed up the formatting

<In 2014, about five of every six custodial parents were mothers (82.5 percent) and one of every six were fathers (17.5 percent), proportions that were not statistically different from those in 1994

<Table 2:

<Men receiving child support: 2,350,000

<Women receiving child support: 11,069,000

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/P60-255.pdf


 No.126157

>>126152

>What does abortion have to do with the state taking money from men by force or enslaving them if they don't.

The state owns all the money. It's undemocratic, but of the state didn't force you to take care of your kids, someone still would.

>That's nowhere near the violent state repression of men on behalf of women that I'm speaking about in this post.

The state is primarily comprised of men. It isn't on behalf of women, it's men oppressing men. The numbers are like that because more men abandon their children. It's a biological fact that when a man knocks up a random woman, the woman is left with the bill.

>There's no evidence that either party sexually assaulted anyone.

Testimony is evidence. It's often the only evidence, and it's generally permissable. People are executed by the state on testimony alone regularly.

Due process is a farce. It's interesting how you love the law and the state when it benefits rapists, but you despise it when it's used to force accountability out of fathers when they shirk responsibility for a child within a system designed to make women and children completely dependent on them.

>Wow….mind blowing….you are literally a fascist. Being thrown in prison in American means literal slavery.

>IT IS NOT SIMPLY "OSTRACIZATION"!!!!

Due process is fascism to the same degree. The difference is that I'm being consistent, while you aren't. You love the courts when they favor men, and despise the very same courts when wielded against them. Just because I understand the ideal situation is quite different than the actual situation doesn't mean I can't believe that remediation from the state is proper in situations like this. Similarly, serial rapists should be quarantined for the very same reason, and it isn't fascism.

>Engles didn't argue that the nuclear family was inherently bourgeoisie. He said the BOURGEOIS nuclear family was, and it was largely due to how they used marriage to organize and maintain property. He would have probably been against property rights like Child Support and Alimony that the state gives women.

No he wouldn't, because Engels was literally a feminist. The nuclear family itself is a patriarchal institution. This includes the trailer park nuclear family. It arises from the capitalist mode of production, and it serves to socially reproduce capitalist material and social conditions by commodifying the bodies of women and children.

>It's clear by "left unity" you mean "compromise with liberals until your politics are neutralized.

You are a liberal. I'm not asking for compromise, I'm telling you that you're wrong entirely. You haven't posted a single discussion point that isn't reactionary agitprop intended to discredit feminism and divide it from socialism. Unfortunately, the ahistorical liberal gibberish being posted here is entirely yours.

>How is having women able to throw men into slavery over false accusations (which is what suspension of due process allows) or debt (child support) a women's isuse?

You can throw any poor person in jail with false accusations because of the bail system. It isn't a unique feature of rape accusations. Child support is substantiated with paternity tests.

You're just an angry incel Nazi from /pol/ trying to turn this from a leftist space into an MTGOW outpost in order to completely push away anyone who would actually consider coming here to contribute something of value because leftists are living rent free in your mind.


 No.126159

>>126157

>It's undemocratic, but of the state didn't force you to take care of your kids, someone still would.

You're man hating is showing. No gender needs to be forced to take care if their kids.

>The state is primarily comprised of men.

Hahahahaha so because the majority of people who hold power have penises this consistutes a patriarchy.

This is literal "Protocols of Zion" tier. Hey /pol/ can tell you all about the correlation between finance and Jews as well!

No one called me up when they invaded Iraq.

>It isn't on behalf of women

My stats show the majority of people getting child support and alimony are women. I'll have to find it but even when women do pay Child support its lower than men's. Men pay 80 percent of all child support. So yeah, its on behalf of women.

>it's men oppressing men.

So when a female cop shoots a man does that at least in part consistute a matriarchy.

>Testimony is evidence.

Yes, so does the testimony of Trump and Weinstein denying it.

>People are executed by the state on testimony alone regularly.

More people are let off when there's only testimony.

> It's interesting how you love the law and the state when it benefits rapists

Yawn, Tumblr tier. Tons of people like you got black men lynched all the time during Jim Crow. This #believe her stuff is just an attempt to return to that.

>but you despise it when it's used to force accountability out of fathers when they shirk responsibility for a child

Whoever has the kid pays, simple as that. All child support does is incentive women to have children to subsidize their own living expenses. Once again your rank bigotry is showing, most men would jump at the chance to take full custody and not pay child support, and support their children their way.

>make women and children completely dependent on them.

Lol no, your the one that wants to make men depend on the happiness of their former lovers or face enslavement. Women shouldn't be depending on child support at all and supporting themselves. Its called CHILD SUPPORT, if a woman can't support herself she shouldnt be able to get a man to.

>Due process is fascism to the same degree.

Lol Due process is a bulwark against fascism. The state would just persecute all its political enemies under false pretenses if it never had to prove anything.

In fact that's exactly what of does, with stuff like enemy combatants. The state relieving itself of the burden of due process. You want men to be treated like Guantanamo prisoners of war.

>Just because I understand the ideal situation is quite different than the actual situation

You don't though, due process has successfully protected countless lives from wrongful state persecution. There's millions of cases going back to medieval times proving it. You just want everyone to accept your bigoted feminist theory that patriarchy has subverted due process so bad that it needs to be suspended.

>It arises from the capitalist mode of production, and it serves to socially reproduce capitalist material and social conditions by commodifying the bodies of women and children.

Yeah the institution of marriage does that via property rights it grants spouses and children. Those same property rights you want to preserve. Being able to enslave someone if they don't pay a debt makes them your property.

>Unfortunately, the ahistorical liberal gibberish being posted here is entirely yours.

Lol, the stats regarding child support and alimony aren't ahistorical. And even you concede men go to jail for failing to pay child support. You haven't backed a single one of your claims with evidence. You don't even get basic facts like Trump or Weinstein suffering exactly no consequences so far right.

>You can throw any poor person in jail with false accusations because of the bail system

So because poor people get thrown in jail for other reasons you should be able to thrown them in jail over unsubstantiated sexual assault claims. Sorry, that's just rank oppression.

>Child support is substantiated with paternity tests.

No in general its not. And there's plenty of cases where men were ordered to pay CS even after a paternity test showed negative.

>You're just an angry incel Nazi from /pol/ trying to turn this from a leftist space into an MTGOW

Hahahaha I may sympathize with Men's Rights activists but your the Nazi. You literally want debtor's prisons because of your ugly feminists belief that men are inherently deadbeats.


 No.126164

>>126159

>You're man hating is showing. No gender needs to be forced to take care if their kids.

Wrong, everyone should. Your sociopathy is showing.

>Hahahahaha so because the majority of people who hold power have penises this consistutes a patriarchy.

It literally does. You don't have to step very far back into the newspaper archives to see how women were considered property a few weeks ago, and 100% of US Presidents have been male. It's not a coincidence.

There's no conspiracy, because there's no cabal. It's a social fact that women have been oppressed by men for most of recorded history. There's no conspiracy, and it doesn't require intent or believing racist lies.

>No one called me up when they invaded Iraq.

They probably called your dad.

>My stats show the majority of people getting child support and alimony are women. I'll have to find it but even when women do pay Child support its lower than men's. Men pay 80 percent of all child support. So yeah, its on behalf of women.

It's on behalf of children, retard.

>So when a female cop shoots a man does that at least in part consistute a matriarchy.

No.

>Yes, so does the testimony of Trump and Weinstein denying it.

Right, and it's one to many, which is why Weinstein is going to prison.

>More people are let off when there's only testimony.

Wrong. When it's a rich man or a cop against a poor black man, they're as good as dead.

>Yawn, Tumblr tier. Tons of people like you got black men lynched all the time during Jim Crow. This #believe her stuff is just an attempt to return to that.

No, that was the Klan, your homeboys.

>Whoever has the kid pays, simple as that.

Go fuck yourself. Whoever makes the kid pays. BOTH PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE KID. If you make a baby, that kid shouldn't have to have less than half the resources of every other member of his generation just because you think you're a fucking snowflake and want to larp as James Bond.

>Lol no, your the one that wants to make men depend on the happiness of their former lovers or face enslavement. Women shouldn't be depending on child support at all and supporting themselves. Its called CHILD SUPPORT, if a woman can't support herself she shouldnt be able to get a man to.

If you want to continue living in a society still based on institutions created to treat women and children as property, you will take responsibility. Sure, I'd rather there be no property, so we could just take you out back and shoot you in the head when you're a deadbeat dad, but we do have laws, and we will turn them against you instead until we don't.

>Lol Due process is a bulwark against fascism.

Due process is the instrument of fascism. Fascists have never risen to power through revolution, always through the formal political process and existing government framework.

>You don't though, due process has successfully protected countless lives from wrongful state persecution. There's millions of cases going back to medieval times proving it.

It kills innocent people more often. If you love the law so much, then enjoy your alimony, shithead.

>Yeah the institution of marriage does that via property rights it grants spouses and children. Those same property rights you want to preserve. Being able to enslave someone if they don't pay a debt makes them your property.

For instance giving them a baby and making it so they can't work and are totally dependent on you for months at a time, and using that financial advantage to control the dynamics of the family, but actually you should be allowed to do this with five women at a time and not take care of any of the children because you're such a victim

>You don't even get basic facts like Trump or Weinstein suffering exactly no consequences so far right.

Losing your company and no one working with you, as well as the indictments ARE consequnences

>So because poor people get thrown in jail for other reasons you should be able to thrown them in jail over unsubstantiated sexual assault claims. Sorry, that's just rank oppression.

It would be very strange to give rapists a free pass. Why would you want to do that? Are you a rapist?

>No in general its not. And there's plenty of cases where men were ordered to pay CS even after a paternity test showed negative.

Demonstrate one (1), liar.

>Hahahaha I may sympathize with Men's Rights activists but your the Nazi. You literally want debtor's prisons because of your ugly feminists belief that men are inherently deadbeats.

Not men, just you. You're a rapist and deadbeat apologist, and any community, especially a leftist one, will be better off without you.


 No.126168

>>126164

>It literally does.

The chief of police in Phoenix is a woman. Is Phoenix a matriarchal city state?

>You don't have to step very far back into the newspaper archives to see how women were considered property a few weeks ago,

I guess nothing bad happened to dudes in that time huh?

>100% of US Presidents have been male. It's not a coincidence.

No its not! Men have penises….all the presidents have penises! They all worked together to keep women out of office! even though women have had the right to vote for 100 years

>It's a social fact that women have been oppressed by men for most of recorded history.

Its not though, you do realize there have been female rulers in history too right..

>They probably called your dad.

Nope didn't call him either.

>It's on behalf of children, retard.

No its not, why should men have to be forced to pay someone else to care for their children. And CS doesn't make you report a any receipts. You have no idea where that money is going.

>No

Well why not? Its a female from the state shooting a man?

>Right, and it's one to many, which is why Weinstein is going to prison.

Its not though, each woman's testimony is a sperate charge, that his testimony invidually rebutts.

>When it's a rich man or a cop against a poor black man, they're as good as dead.

In your mind has a white woman or rich woman ever accused a black man of a crime falsely?

>Whoever makes the kid pays. BOTH PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE KID.

So their equally culpable, so why are men paying women anything then?

>that kid shouldn't have to have less than half the resources of every other member of his generation,

How would they have half the resources if each parent if fully supporting them when they are caring for them.

>If you want to continue living in a society still based on institutions created to treat women and children as property, you will take responsibility

Its men that are getting treated like property with the threat of slavery. Children are just avenues ri grant women property rights over the labor of men.

>Sure, I'd rather there be no property, so we could just take you out back and shoot you in the head when you're a deadbeat dad,

Lol your fascism is showing again. You want to be able to murder someone for not paying you a debt. You couldn't be more cucked to capitalism if you tried.

>Fascists have never risen to power through revolution, always through the formal political process and existing government framework.

So because the government appointed Hitler makes Due process, something that was never evoked, at fault.

You do realize Hitler took away due process from jews by shunting them into a different court system right?

>It kills innocent people more often.

The state has a have greater capacity to kill then any criminal. Look up "The innocence project" for a long list of people that were jailed but then released after DNA evidence proved them not guilty. An avenue they have because of due process.

>For instance giving them a baby and making it so they can't work and are totally dependent on you for months at a time

Pregnant women work all the time. And women earn at parity to men now. So there's no dependency on men anymore.

>and using that financial advantage to control the dynamics of the family,

Sorry but this kind of manipulation isnt common place. Sorry you have such shit taste in men.

>but actually you should be allowed to do this with five women at a time and not take care of any of the children because you're such a victim

Lol more male bigotry. Again both genders want to raise their children, a small fraction don't.

>Losing your company and no one working with you

Wasn't aware he lost his company, I meant state persecution anyway.

>It would be very strange to give rapists a free pass.

It would be strange to let a select group of people proclaim others rapists with no obligation to prove it. That kind of power might be abused!

>Demonstrate one (1), liar

https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.html

>Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

>You're a rapist and deadbeat apologist,

Ad hominems, the last refuge of a scoundrel.


 No.126172

File: 26d29a658caffde⋯.png (219.89 KB, 200x204, 50:51, americlapping.png)

>>126141

>>126157

>>126164

>laws and bodies of legal precedent explicitly biased against men are patriarchal

>witch hunting lynch mobs constantly making up imaginary definitions for imaginary crimes are antifascist

>#boohoo has actually brought porkies to "justice"

>friedrich engels, a man who ejected 1st-wave feminists from the socialist internationale on grounds of class collaborationism, was feminist

9/11 bait, this is some top-tier prime choice shitposting you've got here. Glad to have you aboard.


 No.126175

>>126168

>The chief of police in Phoenix is a woman. Is Phoenix a matriarchal city state?

Are women in control of all aspects of society? Do women comprise most of the police force? Does the city if Phoenix have women in the vast majority of leadership positions within the government, passing laws funded by lobbying groups comprised largely of women and bankrolled by corporations owned and operated by men?

>I guess nothing bad happened to dudes in that time huh?

Yep, that's right men were considered property merely by virtue of their sex at birth 100 years ago. Good thing the women doctors don't rape men for their own good like they did 50 years ago. What's that? Women at google approving apps for Matriarchs in Iran to track their husbands and sons as property…

…looks at notes…

…yesterday?

>No its not! Men have penises….all the presidents have penises! They all worked together to keep women out of office!

That's definitely not a straw man.

>Its not though, you do realize there have been female rulers in history too right..

Yeah, weird how the vast majority of rulers in history were women

>No its not, why should men have to be forced to pay someone else to care for their children. And CS doesn't make you report a any receipts. You have no idea where that money is going.

Because you created the child. You pay for it. Women aren't property, so they aren't required to submit an expense report to you, jackass. If you want the child do bad, win custody. Oh right, you can't because you're a deadbeat and a monster.

Not to mention the vast majority of the time custody and visitation rights are revoked it's because of domestic abuse.

>Its not though, each woman's testimony is a sperate charge, that his testimony invidually rebutts.

Nice, so a rapist gets a voice for every woman he rapes.

>In your mind has a white woman or rich woman ever accused a black man of a crime falsely?

In my mind, you're a rapist since your bread and butter issue is how rapist should have more rights than everyone else.

>So their equally culpable, so why are men paying women anything then?

Women pay men when men are awarded custody. It just so happens it's easier for men to disappear after knocking a woman up. In fact, it seems men are deadbeats and abusers at about five times the rate of women.

>How would they have half the resources if each parent if fully supporting them when they are caring for them.

They aren't. You think men should be able to move across the country and never pay a red cent to the raising of the child. That's less than half, since women make less than men on average.

>Its men that are getting treated like property with the threat of slavery. Children are just avenues ri grant women property rights over the labor of men.

If you create a child, you owe that child care until the age of majority. If you don't provide it, you're a child abusing scumbag and you deserve no sympathy.

>Lol your fascism is showing again. You want to be able to murder someone for not paying you a debt. You couldn't be more cucked to capitalism if you tried.

Yeah, murdering someone for abusing children is the same thing as murdering someone for missing a credit card payment, dumbass.

>So because the government appointed Hitler makes Due process, something that was never evoked, at fault.

>You do realize Hitler took away due process from jews by shunting them into a different court system right?

Nice, here comes the Hitler biography no one asked for, straight from the crusty keyboard of the Nazi rapist.

>Pregnant women work all the time. And women earn at parity to men now. So there's no dependency on men anymore.

Lies. The wage gap has not closed, and the glass ceiling is still a thing.

>Sorry but this kind of manipulation isnt common place.

It is.

>Sorry you have such shit taste in men.

You don't get to choose your father, but your father made a choose when he disappeared across the country and left your mom with nothing.

>Lol more male bigotry. Again both genders want to raise their children, a small fraction don't.

You're stupid. Most married couples get divorced now.

>Wasn't aware he lost his company, I meant state persecution anyway.

It's almost like you were wrong. He also has been indicted.

>It would be strange to let a select group of people proclaim others rapists with no obligation to prove it. That kind of power might be abused!

Dang, that freeze peach sure disappeared quickly when it was no longer being used as a defense for spamming hate speech. So you think you shouldn't even be allowed to accuse a rapist? That kind of power might be abused!


 No.126179

>>126175

>Are women in control of all aspects of society?

But men aren't either.

>Do women comprise most of the police force?

It doesn't take the entire police force for one female cop to shoot one man

>Does the city if Phoenix have women in the vast majority of leadership positions within the government, passing laws funded by lobbying groups comprised largely of women and bankrolled by corporations owned and operated by men?

So is patriarchy defined by a majority of men in power. Or the most powerful being men? Seems like you move the goal posts in this a lot

>That's definitely not a straw man.

Its not, what difference does it make that all the presidents were men to the rest of men? And against explain all the WOMEN voting for these men for the last hundred years. Let me guess, men's fault too.

>Yeah, weird how the vast majority of rulers in history were women

If its a patriarchy when men rule, was it a matriarchy when women ruled. I'm just asking you to define patriarchy.

>Because you created the child. You pay for it.

So why are men paying women then. Men can buy the child's needs themselves

>Women aren't property, so they aren't required to submit an expense report to you, jackass

How am I supposed to know if the money is actually supporting the child then?

>If you want the child do bad, win custody.

I think a child should have both parents in their lives, making the parent with the kid pay incentives BOTH parents to share custody with each other. Instead of having them fight.

>Oh right, you can't because you're a deadbeat and a monster.

Who determined that?

>Not to mention the vast majority of the time custody and visitation rights are revoked it's because of domestic abuse.

Citation needed

>Nice, so a rapist gets a voice for every woman he rapes.

Having state power checked is really nice isn't it.

>In my mind, you're a rapist since your bread and butter issue is how rapist should have more rights than everyone else.

Has a rich woman or white woman ever accused a poor black man falsely of a crime or not in your mind?


 No.126180

>>126175

Continued..

>Women pay men when men are awarded custody.

Only 17 percent of men with primary custody get child support from women.

>It just so happens it's easier for men to disappear after knocking a woman up

Lol, only in your man hating mind. And do women have any responsibility to have a child with a man that's interested in raising a child?

>. In fact, it seems men are deadbeats and abusers at about five times the rate of women.

Think that may have something to do with women getting CS at six times the rate of men?

>They aren't

Sure, most people with children support them fully.

>You think men should be able to move across the country and never pay a red cent to the raising of the child.

I think men shouldn't be enslaved over debts. And I think the vast majority of men want to be in their child's life.

>That's less than half, since women make less than men on average.

Lol so men should have to pay their baby mamas child support because their employers pay them less. Wage gap is a myth anyways

>If you don't provide it, you're a child abusing scumbag and you deserve no sympathy.

Not paying your ex lover is not child abuse.

>Nice, here comes the Hitler biography no one asked for, straight from the crusty keyboard of the Nazi rapist.

Poor baby, tried to conflate due process to the rise of fascism even though due process is one of the first things fascists try to dismantle.

>Lies. The wage gap has not closed

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

It is, men earn more because they work more hours of overtime.

>and the glass ceiling is still a thing.

So is the glass floor

>It is.

Its not, but women can go out and work now, so there's no dependency on men for money.

>So you think you shouldn't even be allowed to accuse a rapist? That kind of power might

I think someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

>Dang, that freeze peach sure disappeared quickly when it was no longer being used as a defense for spamming hate speech.

>Accusing people of criminal offenses is a free speech issue


 No.126184

>>126180

>men earn more because they work more hours of overtime

Lie.

http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c

>Not paying your ex lover is not child abuse.

Using your child's financial support as a bargaining chip is.

>And against explain all the WOMEN voting for these men for the last hundred years. Let me guess, men's fault too.

Suffrage doesn't do anything because bourgeois electoralism is a scam. We do not have a democracy, so your vote does nothing. You can predict with near certainty who will win an election based on campaign spending, and guess which group has hundreds of years of head start accumulating capital to invest in campaigns?

>So why are men paying women then. Men can buy the child's needs themselves

Not when you aren't allowed to see the child, for instance after having your visitation privileges revoked.

>I think a child should have both parents in their lives

There are plenty of cases where a child should have one or neither. Unfortunately, people who shouldn't have children often do. There's no means testing for making babies. If you're incapable of providing for a child, you can still have them to your heart's content. If you have a babyfucking paraphilia, you can still make 5 of them.

>Who determined that?

I'm guessing the courts

>Having state power checked is really nice isn't it.

It's actually preferable to get out the torches and pitchforks when porky rapes every woman he sees.

>Sure, most people with children support them fully.

Willful ignorance. Child abuse and neglect are incredibly common. Maybe in your bubble they don't exist, but the rest of us live in the real world.

>I think men shouldn't be enslaved over debts.

Men shouldn't have children if they can't take care of them. If you lived in a small village commune and had a bunch of children that greatly burdened everyone else with new mouths to feed and refused to do any work, we'd still put you in chains and make you work, of we'd make you leave. You can skip the country on your responsibilities to your children now too.

>Poor baby, tried to conflate due process to the rise of fascism even though due process is one of the first things fascists try to dismantle.

Due process is a legalism. You can suspend any legalism once you control the legal framework of government, entirely legally.

>Its not, but women can go out and work now, so there's no dependency on men for money.

Children ALWAYS require money, and we don't live in a society where normal people can raise them on a single income without subsidy. If you have children, it is your responsibility to pay. If you don't like it, don't have children. If you don't want to pay alimony, don't trick a woman with less means than you into signing her life away on a vestigial ceremonial holdover from when women were property.

>speech isn't a speech issue


 No.126218

>>126184

men don't even have a say in whether they have children, all they can do is hope their contraception works and if not they can be legally on the hook for a kid they never wanted and thrown in a debtors' prison.

Feminists can call themselves "left-wing" when they stop defending female porkies (vote Hillary!) and stop fighting to roll back hard-won rights as long as they perceive men as the victims.

Every idpol movement criticizes the harms capitalism does to their identity group, even nu-nazis. But if you're not willing to fight how capitalism hurts people outside said group, and adamant in defending your own group's privileges under capitalism, you're not a leftist.


 No.126299

>>126218

>men don't even have a say in whether they have children, all they can do is hope their contraception works and if not they can be legally on the hook for a kid they never wanted and thrown in a debtors' prison.

There is male birth control, and the fact that there wasn't until recently, despite the systemic effects of female birth control by comparison, is indicative of the systemic bias against women and women's interests.

>Feminists can call themselves "left-wing" when…

No one needs your permission.

>Every idpol

Right wing propaganda term that demonizes liberation movements and minimizes their concerns


 No.126309

File: b51060773247b6a⋯.jpg (333.02 KB, 1000x562, 500:281, proxy.duckduckgo334.com.jpg)

>>126184

>Lie

Did the study you link take into account that men work more hours and more overtime like the more recent Harvard study did. Even the Bureau of Labor statistics hold this up

<according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2017, men worked an average of 8.05 hours in an average day compared to 7.24 hours for women.

<Non-linearity helps explain why most of the gender pay gap occurs within professions, Goldin adds. The distribution of men and women in different occupations accounts for only 15 percent of the gap, and the remaining 85 percent arises within occupations. (For college graduates, those numbers are 35 percent and 65 percent, respectively.) In science and health professions, though, workers are more likely to be compensated at a constant rate for additional time worked, and the ratio of women’s earnings to men’s is higher—about .892. For occupations in business and finance, the ratio is .787, and for lawyers, .815, closer to the national gender wage gap.

https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

Can you please sum up the pertinent information in the study instead of just throwing a huge paper at people a bunch of which is not empirical evidence but thing like Congressional hearings.

>Using your child's financial support as a bargaining chip is.

Yes, which is what women are doing. Women are the state don't offer men the chance to take custody six time less then women.

>Suffrage doesn't do anything because bourgeois electoralism is a scam.

Lol, electoralism has gotten plenty changed. Capitalism is far less exploitative in the first world then it was in the 1800's.

I don't want to quibble about this but suffice to say plenty of great scholars have thought this including Marx himself.

>We do not have a democracy, so your vote does nothing.

So all those women didn't pull the lever for all those men? Those votes from women were completely fraudulent LMAO.

>You can predict with near certainty who will win an election based on campaign spending,

Lol no, Hilary Clinton outspent Donald Trump 2 to 1.

>and guess which group has hundreds of years of head start accumulating capital to invest in campaigns?

That'd be the bourgeois. Again with this "Protocols of Zion" non sense.

>Not when you aren't allowed to see the child, for instance after having your visitation privileges revoked.

Mostly men have their visitation rights taken away because of gender bias in the family courts

<The U.S. Census Bureau reports that nearly half of the fathers without any visitation rights still financially support their children.

You can't reconcile this without recognizing misandry. If the courts weren't favoring women, visitation rights would be roughly equal.

Also, somehow a man's labor is good enough for his child but not the man himself. This sums up the ugly misandry in your ideology in a nut shell.

>Unfortunately, people who shouldn't have children often do.

Hahaha more of your Nazi eugenic believes emerging. There's not endemic of people having children that "shouldn't", whatever that means protip it means poor. We have a welfare state, if a woman OR a man can't or won't support their child, have the welfare state do it. Women are not thrown in jail for not being able to support children they birth, but men are.

>I'm guessing the courts

Only in your mind filled with spectures of evil men ready at at moments notice to rape you lol.

>It's actually preferable to get out the torches and pitchforks when porky rapes every woman he sees.

Hahaha there's tons of sexual assault cases far less contentious then Trump and Weinstein. Only difference is those women were poor, and often so were their assailants.

Where were your feminist pitchforks for them? This isn't whataboutism, feminists exlude these cases to endless caterwaul about high profile ones. Shouldn't it not matter if the rape victim and rapists were rich?

Liberals like you have NO interest is ending sexual abuse against women. You are only interested in social climbing and ending Due Process so you can use it as a kludge to exploit men.

Pic related on why we need to keep Due Process in the cases of sexual assualt


 No.126310

File: 7857e6a7c94895f⋯.jpg (87.75 KB, 421x767, 421:767, R2ORfPpwSi9Y6SvG4mqwYw_J7J….jpg)

>>126184

Continued…

>Willful ignorance. Child abuse and neglect are incredibly common.

Citation needed. And prove how many times visitation rights were revoked because of PROVEN allegations of child abuse. Child abuse is a criminal offense, but often visitation is revoked solely on the word of the mother.

>Maybe in your bubble they don't exist, but the rest of us live in the real world.

nice strawman

>If you lived in a small village commune and had a bunch of children that greatly burdened everyone else with new mouths to feed and refused to do any work,

LMAO, there's more then enough resources for people now. Your Nazi Malthusian beliefs are showing again.

>we'd still put you in chains and make you work

NO IDIOT! That's slavery, and a fucking slippery slope. No one should get the labor of someone eles for free. And it takes two to tango, what is it about this idealist completely non existent commune that makes women have children with a guy that already has other neglected kids.

>or we'd make you leave.

Lol, agreed, but your obviously more interested in enslaving men.

>You can skip the country on your responsibilities to your children now too.

So we should enslave all men that can't pay a woman that had their baby because an a vanishingly small amount of men are assholes. And what about women that abondon their children? Should they owe child support into perpetuity to whoever adopts their child?

>Due process is a legalism. You can suspend any legalism once you control the legal framework of government, entirely legally

And enslavement or debt isn't? And Due process is a check on state power, while slavery empowers the state.

>Children ALWAYS require money,

Which we have a welfare state for

>and we don't live in a society where normal people can raise them on a single income without subsidy.

Okay, so that justifies slavery? Also is this the fault of prole men that can't pay CS? Oh in your mind it is because most of the bourgeoisie have penises.

>If you have children, it is your responsibility to pay. If you don't like it, don't have children.

Agreed, which is why WOMEN shouldn't be paid child support. If WOMEN can't support the children they have and the MAN can, they should fork over the kid. No one should be paying anyone else for their failure to sujpport their kid.

>If you don't want to pay alimony, don't trick a woman with less means than you into signing her life away on a vestigial ceremonial holdover from when women were property.

LMAO, what exactly in a marriage keeps women from continuing to work?


 No.126312

>>126299

>There is male birth control, and the fact that there wasn't until recently,

There's not male abortion. Hell I'll take a legal financial abortion.

>despite the systemic effects of female birth control by comparison,

They could just not have sex outside of marriage. This goes for men as well. But this really gets to the heart of your backward beliefs, that the sexuality of women is sacrosanct even when it harms the welfare of children.

Having sex outside a committed relationship like marriage because you can always have an unplanned pregnancy. Telling women that is literal rape to you and you prefer men be literally enslaved instead lol.

>No one needs your permission.

Yeah, you do.

>Right wing propaganda term that demonizes liberation movements and minimizes their concerns

What's right wing about due process?


 No.126316

File: a9036eb024e3c09⋯.jpg (220.18 KB, 898x1097, 898:1097, IdPol triggered.jpg)

>>126218

>Every idpol movement criticizes the harms capitalism does to their identity group, even nu-nazis. But if you're not willing to fight how capitalism hurts people outside said group, and adamant in defending your own group's privileges under capitalism, you're not a leftist.

Great insight, our universalism and systemic thinking is what separates us from them, both ideologically and as people. Bravo anon.


 No.126318

>>126218

>>126316

>Every idpol movement criticizes the harms capitalism does to their identity group, even nu-nazis. But if you're not willing to fight how capitalism hurts people outside said group, and adamant in defending your own group's privileges under capitalism, you're not a leftist.

Nailed it. Funny how the idpol folks will (correctly) point out that bringing up socialism at an idpol organization is offtopic, but will endlessly derail a socialist org with idpol.


 No.126322

File: 4f88b7039623549⋯.pdf (723.55 KB, Friedrich Engels Origin of….pdf)

>>126312

>They could just not have sex outside of marriage. This goes for men as well. But this really gets to the heart of your backward beliefs, that the sexuality of women is sacrosanct even when it harms the welfare of children.

>Having sex outside a committed relationship like marriage because you can always have an unplanned pregnancy. Telling women that is literal rape to you and you prefer men be literally enslaved instead lol.

what the fuck lol

individual choices to have sex or not do not harm children.

capitalism, private ownership of the means of production, and wage labor alienate humans from the material conditions of their production and reproduction, harming the welfare of our children

read a book

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf


 No.126324

>>126299

If you support slavery (to literal capitalists, at that! under threat of debtors' prison!) why call yourself a leftist? The left's fundamental project is the emancipation of all humanity, so all you'll do is confuse people. FitzHugh may have used the word "socialism" to describe his proposed system but he's hardly anyone's example of a left-wing thinker.

You'll find a lot more people who share your perspective on the libertarian or even the fascist right.


 No.126339

>>126332

>It does when said mother cannot provide for their children. Which is what the moral rational is behind Child Support.

No, child support cuts both ways. Women are also convicted of neglect all the time, and plenty of women have been jailed for refusing to pay child support. You just want to go back to a time when you could treat women and children as property. That time is never coming back, and your attempts to stop us from progressing toward gender equality and women's liberation will do about as much as pissing into the wind.

By all means, paint a giant target on your back and get kicked out of every leftist organization you join though. If you actually wanted to false flag you could learn a few things from COINTELPRO and divide from further left rather than bringing your Asserism and Dugin dicksucking from /pol/. I'm guessing that's all you've read though.


 No.126348

>>126322

>individual choices to have sex or not do not harm children.

on a psychological basis yes they do


 No.126351

File: 2218241631586f1⋯.png (61.53 KB, 209x300, 209:300, ClipboardImage.png)

>>123186

lol he said a lot of dumb shit, and I was pissed no one called him out.

>wah wah feminist call me names

lol

>all women who go to college become slut, liberal art graduates, and failures

He must have never heard of a successful woman in his life or his sister is a college slut.

>men are oppressed because muh war and muh work

implying women not having the ability to be the breed winner is an advantage, yeah now all a women has to do is force herself to stay with a husband or if she doesn't than she better have a good Dad or she starves. Yeah it must feel so good being a women where your life depends on if the men around you want you alive or not.

>monopoly on how children are raised

actually good point, but the reason why is because men are not trusted with children and women like being around kids more than men, this is just a society and I don't think it will change unless we allow more men to act feminine.

>men listen to their wives

except for all those men who abused and raped theirs

>capitalism prospers from gender equality in the work place because it doubles production

So his communist society wont take advantage of x2 output, that seems like a waste.

>goes on about fertility god and how the only good woman is mother

this is just objectification of women as having only one use, to make babies, and that summarizes all you see women as, baby making machines. I disagree with that, I feel as if the woman wants to be a full time mom we should let her but if another woman wants to be the town slut and work as doctor then she should. And this may surprise you but not all mothers are happy only being a mother their whole life, the ones I've spoken with feel as if they wasted all their potential and they envy the women who got to explore their choices. Your assumption on these modern women sounds like you have never talked to a older childless women outside the internet and you can't accept that a life outside of the traditional family is a happy one. You need to go out and actually talk to woman and ask them what makes them happy rather than wrongly assume.


 No.126359

>>126351

I can't tell if some one is LARPing as a stereotypical feminists with daddy issues or real feminist with no self awareness and completely unaware how bad she's projecting her own insecurities.


 No.126361

>>126360

>>126359

Proof repealing prohibition was a mistake

The FAS is real


 No.126364

>>126351

>yeah now all a women has to do is force herself to stay with a husband or if she doesn't than she better have a good Dad or she starves.

Wow, I’m seriously wondering if you are schizo anon. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women.

>Yeah it must feel so good being a women where your life depends on if the men around you want you alive or not.

This reeks of some kind of past trauma from an abusive relationship or parent. Come on anon, you having a laugh?

>except for all those men who abused and raped theirs

Men are raped more than women because of our prison system, and men who are raped are mostly raped by women

<But among men reporting other forms of sexual victimization, 68.6% reported female perpetrators,” the paper reports, while among men reporting being made to penetrate, “the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime … 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

>>126361

>You’re retarded

Well at least I’m happy, can’t be spooked if I’m to stupid, you on the other hand….


 No.126366

>>126359

I'm leaning toward the middle possibility of "milquetoast Reddit feminist flustered at the number of MRAs here, pretending to be a radfem", because most of their arguments are just off the cuff mirror images of MRA arguments they see in the thread, rather than the mostly much different though equally insane arguments I usually see feminazis using in the wild.

>>126348

>>126360

Oh dear, not you lot again. Go back to trolling Dysnomia with your extensive collection, or maybe try our AoC thread: >>107828


 No.126368

>>126366

>That feminist was just pretending to be retarded.

But she’s so convincing.


 No.126405

>>126351

>lol he said a lot of dumb shit, and I was pissed no one called him out.

You mean that people didn't reply to a stupid statement on the internet? ZOMG alert the sisters!


 No.126561

>>126359

Speaking from experience, it is impossible to make a parody of feminism so ridiculous that there isn't someone who really believes that shit. Tbf, this goes for a lot of ideologies.


 No.126623

File: 6fb08a0fe605fa5⋯.png (255.73 KB, 628x514, 314:257, Screenshot from 2019-02-15….png)

File: 709f7e1e35d5e96⋯.jpg (97.57 KB, 904x506, 452:253, 709f7e1e35d5e963dfa9508f41….jpg)

File: f6cff31d079af26⋯.png (514.07 KB, 1153x794, 1153:794, Mary P Koss_ rape.png)

File: c6d33bd034e9145⋯.png (318.03 KB, 525x586, 525:586, Bernie Bros Vox.png)

>>126561

>Tbf, this goes for a lot of ideologies.

the difference is with feminism it's the norm, and even leaders of the movement sound like parody. While other movements it's just a few extremists who reach that point.


 No.126627

File: 016d401a9a8b7e0⋯.jpg (6.67 KB, 300x195, 20:13, feminism.jpg)

>>121427

>LOL go back to whichever internet shithole you crawled out of.

Refute anything he said. You can't.


 No.126633

>>126627

Anti-feminism can't be egalitarian by definition


 No.126641

>>126623

Only thing with feminism to set it apart that I can figure is not enough people willing to call bullshit on bullshit with feminists, so the echo chamber intensifies worse than other idpol.

>Lena Dunham is slated to throw her weight behind Hillary Clinton

There's no way that's not an edit. In all seriousness though, people like her and Amy Schumer getting to represent feminism is actually kind of good in the same way as Trump being open about America's shittiness is kind of good.

>it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Putting aside that the sentiment here is abhorrent, this is ignoring cases where a woman uses her fingers or an object to penetrate someone, i.e. most cases of women raping women.

>>126633

Can you define feminism, anti-feminism, and egalitarian then?


 No.126647

>>126641

>Can you define feminism

female supremacy morally rationalized by the "Protocols of Zion" tier Patriarchy theory.

>anti-feminism

One that critiques this paranoid conspiracy, also MRA's that use the same rational that feminists used in the past that to address their issues. That disproportionate oppression by the state or society proves the existence of a bias to that gender.

>egalitarian

Some one willing to address issues of sexism on a case by case basis. Recognizing that each gender can be oppressed in different ways, but that doesn't necessitate the idea that one gender is conspiring against the other.


 No.126663

>>126641

Feminism:

A social theory or political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women must be removed in order to bring about equality of the sexes in all aspects of public and private life.

Antifeminism:

Opposition to feminism

Egalitarianism:

The political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth.

>>126647

Patriarchy:

A power structure in which men are dominant

Hey look, no conspiracy!

If that's too vague for you:

Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.[1][2]

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[3] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.[4][5]

Wow, still no conspiracy! Read a book.


 No.126670

>>126663

>A power structure in which men are dominant

>The bourgeois are all men, so men are dominant

Bourgeois ain’t even all men anymore. You’re accusing someone of something based on an inalienable trait, litterally what Nazis do.

>Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership,

Replace men with Jews…..see how crazy this sounds.

>and control of property.

How much property do prole women own compared to prole men. You don’t even know because your sisters never look at class. They just average all the property male bourgeois have with ever male and BAM! The patriarchy!

Oh shit, the this old ass banker is Jewish! See! Proof that Jews control the world!

>Sociologists tend to see patriarchy as a social product and not as an outcome of innate differences between the sexes and they focus attention on the way that gender roles in a society affect power differentials between men and women.

Anything bad that happens to men more like the glass floor where men work the most dangerous and lowest paying jobs, isn’t blamed on a social system where women hold power, it’s blamed on men lmao. You’re patriarchy theory litterally holds men culpable for their own oppression, even if women are spared.

Listen if men hold such dominate power, why would they use it to get themselves killed more lol.

>Wow, still no conspiracy! Read a book.

You just outlined a case conspiracy. I’d tell you to get laid but I know that ain’t happening.


 No.126672

>>126663

>Men are in power.

Hillary Clinton embezzled 100s of millions intended for Haitian relief. Margaret Thatcher began the neoliberalization of the UK. Did they do this because of patriarchy?

>When bad shit happens to women it’s men’s fault because men hold powerful positions.

>When bad shit happens to women when women are in power it’s mens fault because they wouldn’t have done it unless men made them.

>When bad shit happens to men it’s men’s fault because they follow other men cause they got dicks too.

This is patriarchy in a nutshell.


 No.126673


 No.126675

>>126663

How has all these men in power helped men out of power? Property is mentioned, but if you do realize this is more a issue of race and a result of the historical material legacy of slavery that white women like you are trying to Coopt in a naked power grab.

<African Americans, despite making up 13 percent of the population, own less than 1 percent of rural land in the country. The combined value of this land: $ 14 billion.

<White Americans, by comparison, own more than 98 percent of U.S. land amounting to 856 million acres with a total worth of over $1 trillion.

https://inequality.org/research/owns-land/

That 98 percent number for whites is lobsided by the fact that the bourgeois are mostly white as well, but poverty is still disproportionately concentrated in minority communities because of the long history of slavery and genocide that continues into this day.

Slavery that you want to persevere via child support debtors prisons.

>>126673

Spooked.


 No.126715

>>126675

>MUH IDPOL


 No.126719

>>126633

Why should it be?


 No.126731

File: fa3756353881158⋯.gif (4.87 MB, 562x317, 562:317, MicDrop.gif)

>>126715

>I have no argument, so I must meme

Pwned


 No.126740

>>126633

>anti-misandry can't be egalitarian by definition

lol wtf are you talking about? Most egalitarians are anti-feminist. Most feminists are anti-egalitarian. If you hate men, you are not an egalitarian.

>>126663

>Feminism

You forgot the other half of the definition: A movement which argues that men's issues don't deserve to be addressed and which fights against people who want equality for men.

>Antifeminism

Because feminism is both pro-female and anti-male, anti-feminists can be either anti-woman or pro-equality. You know which kind is more common on /leftpol/

>Egalitarianism:

so anti-feminism, since most feminists are against men's rights.


 No.126790

Feminism: Cancer


 No.126792

>>126790

epic, simply epic


 No.126796

>>126794

Reported, enjoy your ban.


 No.126798

>>126797

Lol butt mad storm cuck


 No.126800

>>126797

I reported you again, my jimmies are throughly rustled by you autism that keeps you from have white babies with a white woman. You can leave anytime now, mission accomplished.


 No.126801

>>126799

More like anyone that’s clearly a sociopath is a storm cuck. If only you could hold that crazy in long enough to get laid, oh well I guess the white race dies with you.


 No.126802

>>126797

Anon why post that? Don’t you know that disturbs people. Seems like your relishing the suffering of people your posting. You ever torture small animals growing up?

You ever consider a career in the CIA?


 No.126806

>>126803

>>implying I'm white

>Implying you have to be white to be a class cucked Nazi

>>anyone I don't like is an ebul nazee

>Anyone that calls me a Nazi is just a dumb dumb

>>lol, I suppose your childish worldview needs boogiemen to work.

>Implying Nazis are boogiemen


 No.126807

>>126805

>muh edgelord hug box

I ain’t going no where, you’ll tucker yourself out eventually.


 No.126809

>>126805

Okay okay I’m really the pussy for being disturbed by actually human suffering, you got me. But do you have anything to say about the subject at hand i.e. anti feminism


 No.126812

>>126810

>Your still a faggot though

Straight men don’t keep catalogs of dick sucking videos and erect penises like you do sweaty.

And why isn’t sage working for me!?

Anyway as anon clearly demonstrates feminism is an ideology of fascists.


 No.127056

>>126812

Wew lad


 No.127057

>>126731

Like your gay mum


 No.127058

>>126675

>white

No. Jews are not white. Some of the rich are white but it's 50/50


 No.127068

LOL at the feminists getting butthurt over a chan board, explicitly opposed to the weaponization and slacktivism of identity politics, that opposses first worldist feminism.

Look, ladies. Caring about women means actual mobilization and involvement in politics, humanitarian aid and abolishing the very system that exploits you: capitalism. You sure as fuck love counting far more enemies on the left, even potential allies, under your moral purity test, than actually getting involved in political/social movements that benefit your sex/gender. All you like to do is massive virtue signalling and throwing bitchfits over meaningless shit like "muh sexist media" and "I'm gonna moan and cry because some random asshole on twitter/facebook/(insert random social media) called me a bitch".

And no. Class is not all that matters, but it's what matters most. Your so called "problems" are merely first world problems. I'm pretty damn sure over 90% of internet feminists live in 1st world countries and already enjoy legal equality. You're just making a tempest in a teapot. If your biggest issue as a woman is some random incel dipshit spewing misogynist garbage, then you´re the textbook definition of bourgeois and your struggles does not matter, at all.


 No.127069

>>127068

Who are you talking to?


 No.127075

>>127058

Yes they are. The belong to precisely the same phenotype as other white people. The only way that you could rightly cliam that jews aren't white would be to divorce the concept of race from genetics. Would you do that?


 No.127080

We shouldn’t even allow one thread of feminist idpol on this board. /leftypol/ literally has tranny and woman threads up right now and is letting them go untouched. It’s one step away from that. Feminism is NOT leftism, gender delusions are NOT Leftism. No one cares about muh vagina.


 No.127127

Feminism is a capitalist ploy. More women in the workforce means more potential workers competing with each other, which keeps wages low


 No.127171

>>127069

The feminazi retards on this thread.


 No.127197

Why do I get the feeling the anti /leftpol/ thread on /leftypol/ was made by the same feminists that got destroyed in the anti feminist thread we have here?


 No.127229

>>127197

Because they are the same /pol/ retards that now want to seize /leftypol/. Given that /leftypol/ loves nazbols and tankies, I'm pretty sure they'll enjoy a warm welcome.


 No.127261

File: 7ae27f45818017b⋯.png (299.16 KB, 999x345, 333:115, LateStageCapitalism.png)

File: 608166cbef2a686⋯.jpg (50.94 KB, 522x554, 261:277, DNC white men.jpg)

File: c6d33bd034e9145⋯.png (318.03 KB, 525x586, 525:586, Bernie Bros Vox.png)

>>127197

>>127229

Feminists have total control of the Democrats and liberal parties in other countries. The only thing that threatens their power is an actual leftwing movement. It's why feminism has destroyed every leftwing space and why they went after Bernie so hard. They've already infiltrated /leftypol/ to an extent, which is why the mods banned everybody before /leftpol/ was created.


 No.129035

Smelly, dumb, cuntzi scum


 No.129964


 No.129972

File: 064e59308a0ea7c⋯.jpg (41.33 KB, 625x484, 625:484, torture.jpg)

>>127127

it also means higher rates of inflation.

>>127229

no they actually don't. no one likes us. and with statheists like you, how the hell is communism even gonna happen? most lower class people are religious. either accept that or kys mah man.


 No.129974

>>127075

"asian heretics are white folks you guise!"


 No.129975

>>127127

almost like society is constantly evolving, i wonder if there were any 19th century philosophers who wrote about that

>>127261

>total control

the dnc immediately denounced the "no white guys" ad, and more generally speaking feminists still have to compete with other idpol factions (blacks, queer activists etc) who don't always get along with them

>>129964

>the sheer number of gifs in that piece

my eyes


 No.130614

File: bb299b99f46f629⋯.jpg (52.09 KB, 800x720, 10:9, FB_IMG_1547749400448.jpg)

>>127261

This is why I think rape and domestic violence is funny


 No.130695

File: a6fe6c04f0ea632⋯.png (50.21 KB, 896x370, 448:185, Trudeau feminist plan.png)

File: fe7c169b8b93ebf⋯.png (499.46 KB, 544x960, 17:30, woman card.png)

File: 4929cb3c06f3e82⋯.png (82.4 KB, 735x543, 245:181, mansplaining Ontario Liber….png)

>>129975

>total control

literally the last Democrat President was a feminist and at least half the current candidates are feminists. The PM of Canada is a feminist. Feminists have way more control than any other idpol factions, and those idpol factions are at least legit. There's a difference between "gays should have the right to marry" and "men's lives don't matter"


 No.130712

>>130695

>the last Democrat President

you mean the guy who kept back a lady president for at least 12 years

>at least half the current candidates are feminists

>total control

>way more control than any other idpol factions

>men's lives don't matter

the concept that men are replaceable drones who exist to keep women making babies is basically the definition of patriarchy, yeah the selected elite of feminism are bad but that's true for all the colours of the idpol rainbow, all of which wield varying degrees of power inside modern left-liberal politics. the hegemonic ("third wave") feminism in particular is especially weak right now because of the internal debate over gender


 No.130744

File: 0459a71ff31d5a0⋯.jpg (127.45 KB, 683x767, 683:767, 4n0n2agd9lk21.jpg)

>>130712

>the concept that men are replaceable drones who exist to keep women making babies is basically the definition of patriarchy,

Wew, seems like there's a different definition of patriarchy every week. How are men making women have babies particularly in the first world.

If anything women are getting state mandated fathers and husbands via state violence. If a man wants to leave his wife, it's extremely difficult to impossible to do financially because the divorce laws favor women so much. Which is also why women initiate the majority of divorces.

Men have to pay child support for children when when a DNA test can prove it's not his.

No the only people being made to do anything is men.

And how the fuck is being a drone "patriarchy". You idiot feminist label ANYTHING bad that happens to either men or women patriarchy. Even when it hurts men. How does prole men being disposable because of bourgeoisie a patriarchy. If anything that show a matriarchy since these male porkies are acting in the best interests of women, at least relative to prole men.

Can you know the thoughts and motivations of male bourgeoisie because they are all male LMAO. The fucking protocols of zion make more fucking sense then your patriarchy since Judaism is a religion that DOES advocate it's followers as "The Chosen" people.


 No.130752

>>130744

>How are men making women have babies

didn't you learn this in school

>the only people being made to do anything is men

the point is that under patriarchy men are the ones who provide for and protect the family

>You idiot feminist label ANYTHING bad that happens to either men or women patriarchy

nah only when it's due to traditional gender roles

>The fucking protocols of zion make more fucking sense then your patriarchy

and there it is


 No.130761

File: 1d3319e877fa0fc⋯.png (96.76 KB, 720x340, 36:17, 1d3319e877fa0fc7e05c00fc51….png)

>>130752

>didn't you learn this in school

No I didn't go to man hating 3rd wave feminist school that taught me that all sex under patriarchy is rape real thing feminists believe

>the point is that under patriarchy men are the ones who provide for and protect the family

How is that oppressive to women? Wow, having the most dangerous and alienating responsibilities foisted on one sex is sooo oppressive. It's not even the case anymore regardless.

>nah only when it's due to traditional gender roles

Which are patriarchal

>and there it is

Yeah, I'm saying feminism is more unhinged then even Nazism. Ohhhhh you're implying that I'm secretly a fascists right? Oh right, because Nazis are well known for wanting to DISMANTLE traditional male gender roles right?


 No.130764

>>130752

>Nah only when it's due to traditional gender roles

How do you explain the autistic under feminism who only want the best for women and could care less for traditional male gender roles.

What about when they call for the abolishment of more than roles.

>And there it is

The protocols of Zion are a forgery, you calling him a Jew or something? He's saying a fabricated document makes more sense than feminism a real ideology.


 No.130765

>>130761

>real thing feminists believe

only a few crazed lesbians would actually claim this, but anyway you clearly don't get what im saying which is that men get women pregnant by blowing loads in them, consensual or otherwise

>How is that oppressive to women?

because while it might not be particularly fun, being the provider entails an economic advantage

>Which are patriarchal

now you're getting it

>>130764

>the autistic under feminism

what did he mean by this


 No.130766

>>130765

Sorry I mean't

>the autistic women under feminism


 No.130770

>>130766

bourgeois society naturally promotes a type of feminism that isn't threatening, which then becomes the only type in the mind of the casual observer


 No.130771

File: 011953545fe3e75⋯.png (87.83 KB, 816x689, 816:689, FeminazisAreFemaleBetas.png)

>>130766

>>130770

Legitimate feminist egalitarianism in the 1st-world concluded decades ago. The windmill jousting of turd-wave feminazis IS autism.


 No.130773

>>130771

>reddit post about muh betas

read a book


 No.130774

>>130770

>No Anon it's just bourgeoisie feminism that's the problem!

Literally the same as "Muh 3rd wave" meme. It's ignorant of historical context which clearly shows no matter how much people want to admit it or not that from the justified origins of feminism it was destined to turn into what it is today because feminism began as the movement of getting women's rights in a male dominated society with the belief that men are inherently privileged and women do not need to fix themselves, they only need to fix society, this has been around since 2nd wave feminism and it is certainly not the work of the bourg or even the jews. It's a miscalculated approach by women. Anyone who actually wants women to be free is not a feminist as feminism is only gynocentric.


 No.130775

>>130774

>the justified origins of feminism

so what's your point, that people shouldn't agitate for equal rights because the movement might be later co-opted

>or even the jews

>actually equating the critique of political economy with nazi shit

try harder next time


 No.130776

File: bdf06d594ee2329⋯.png (69.83 KB, 255x252, 85:84, (You) fascism.png)

>>130775

>so what's your point, that people shouldn't agitate for equal rights because the movement might be later co-opted

No tard my point is feminism was never about equal rights it was about right's for women.

>But because they wanted to be equal!!!11

No, that's your assumption but feminism means rights for women not equality for women, a woman can choose to keep the privileges she has while also taking all the privileges men have. It does not have anyone else's interest in mind but it's own.

>But feminism helps men too!

It really doesn't, women only attack male issues that affect them. Men are forced to dig into their own issue's to solve them, women don't even dig into their own issues to solve them just those perpetuated by men.

In many ways feminism ironically does too much while also never doing enough to truly change women. And the sad thing is the psychology feminism as a movement promotes will never allow it's followers to see this in their nature.

>Guy mentions Jews in order to show that's for once not what's behind it.

>U nazi

Maybe get some better reading comprehension for once, you'll see why anyone with an Intelligence Quotient above 74 disagrees with feminism.


 No.130778

>>130776

>that's your assumption

really just a matter of historical fact

>feminism ironically does too much while also never doing enough to truly change women

what a load of gibberish, the bottom line is that certain types of feminism equalise the material differences between men and women therefore advancing the cause of proletarian solidarity

>for once not what's behind it

the implication being that jews are responsible for other social movements

>Intelligence Quotient

imagine thinking this makes you sound like less of a fascist


 No.130780

>>130778

>Really just a matter of historical fact

By all means give me a citation of women giving up a privilege and saying they want to be equal to men.

>certain types of feminism equalize the material differences between men and women

I thought that anarcho communism and other systems were supposed to inherently do that, when done outside of those then it becomes liberal tier.

That said the wage gap for the same amount of hours and same profession does exist but that's become less of a feminist issue as time goes on and more of an economic one since men can't deny it.

>The implication being that jews are responsible for other social movements

You saying they're not? Way to discredit the efforts of out comrade you anti semitic piece of trash. I was saying that to debunk /pol/ hijacking. :^) I need to post the shitpost face because you probably wouldn't have been smart enough to recognize that was a joke.

>Imagine thinking this makes you sound likes less of a fascist

I said it to avoid the board filter

IQ (Autism points, mods may have removed the filter.)

IQ

Intelligence Quotient

I have no clue what the fuck you mean when you say I'm trying to sound less fascist, I was just insulting you. IQ is meaningless. It's just a more complex way of calling you a tard.


 No.130924

File: 362a83f0b5ccf40⋯.jpg (160.32 KB, 1242x697, 1242:697, cassie jaye feminism.jpg)

>>130778

>the bottom line is that certain types of feminism equalise the material differences between men and women

The bottom line is that those types of feminism are so tiny that they don't matter, and whenever a feminist actually tries to fight for equality she stops being a feminist. Pic-related is one of those types of feminists who wanted to equalise the material differences between men and women. She's not a feminist anymore, because she can't be.


 No.130929

>>130924

Nobody knows what is actually meant with feminism, everyone familiar with it knows what its not. It's one those most meaningful feats of language, the signifier without signified, the names of the social under-currents into which we are too deeply emerged too be conscious of anything of its bubbles.


 No.130930

>>130929

*but its bubbles.


 No.130940

>>130780

>saying they want to be equal to men

always a good time to post barbara ehrenreich

https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/ehrenreich-barbara/socialist-feminism.htm

>>130924

>so tiny that they don't matter

stop trying to rationalise your ignorance


 No.130942

>>130929

No, feminism is just whatever the intellectually dishonest need for it to be at a given time.


 No.130955

I hate womans, but I'm communist… Marx was traditional around the woman taking the production class, so, why I'd support femmist, womans are evil and a real communist country should be remplace them with androids.


 No.130958

>>130780

Autism means you're demigod.


 No.130959

>>130712

Muh Hillary


 No.130973

File: 56accd6bc350602⋯.jpg (289.72 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1493377329649.jpg)

>>130765

>only a few crazed lesbians would actually claim this

The "all sex under patriarchy" theory is theorized by more than one academic feminist. So no it's not really that fringe.

This "sex is rape" theory is what underpins feminists saying things like sex with a drunk woman is rape, even though they don't say sex with a drunk man is. And all the other grey areas when it comes to non-consentual sex that feminists reflexively define as rape regardless of circumstances.

>because while it might not be particularly fun, being the provider entails an economic advantage

What's stops women from being the provider? Women can enter the workplace, so the only reason that they aren't there is because they choose to not be.

>>Which are patriarchal

>now you're getting it

No I'm not dummy. I'm trying to highlight your own hypocrisy back at you. You claim gender roles that negatively impact men are patriarchal while roles that BENEFIT women are patriarchal as well. The only way you can win is by labeling LITERALLY EVERYTHING with regards to gender norms patriarchal.


 No.130974

>>130959

>H-h-h-h-h-hilary is the only woman that's ever been in power and killed and impoverished other women. So there's still a patriarchy!

Imagine believing this.


 No.130975

>>130940

>always a good time to post barbara ehrenreich

Post some quotes instead of throwing books at people.

>stop trying to rationalise your ignorance

Projection


 No.130976

>>130765

>because while it might not be particularly fun, being the provider entails an economic advantage

Being the sex that is expected to die and be maimed in all the wars and jobs isn't "not fun". Nice try in trying to diminish men's oppression, I guess I shouldn't have expected less.


 No.130997

>>130974

Totally over your head and missing the point of anything I said. Is there anyone in my perception of doubts, desire, love, or fear (all avatars) willing to engage with in the world God created for me? This is hell. Literal. God send death.


 No.130998

>>130973

It's nice to know how deluded these avatars of doubt are.


 No.131115

>>130959

completely missing the point

>>130973

>more than one academic feminist

drop some names then

>stops women from being the provider

a lot things historically, and the pay gap is still a thing so it makes more financial sense for the man to work and the woman stay home

>gender roles that negatively impact men are patriarchal while roles that BENEFIT women are patriarchal as well

and vice versa, the point is that both have their pros and cons but at the end of the day its still the men who are supposed to be in charge under patriarchy

>>130975

>books

its a short essay anon, i believe in you

>Projection

epic comeback

>>130976

it's an imageboard dude, stop crying


 No.131153

bump to trigger the roasties on this board


 No.131161

>>131115

I didn't make one. I just said that so people would respond to trollbait


 No.131167

>>130973

>Women can enter the workplace, so the only reason that they aren't there is because they choose to not be

Can we get some kind of autoban for pol posters?


 No.131169

File: 2b08e492597806b⋯.png (143.42 KB, 500x566, 250:283, ilovethe-sound-of-liberals….png)

>>131115

>drop some names then

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MacKinnon-Sexuality-Pornography-and-Method-Pleasure-under-Patriarchy.pdf

>A theory

of sexuality becomes feminist to the extent it treats sexuality as a social

construct of male power: defined by men, forced on women, and con-

stitutive in the meaning of gender. Such an approach centers feminism

on the perspective of the subordination of women to men as it identifies

sex…

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MacKinnon-Sexuality-Method.pdf

>This approach identifies not just a sexuality that is shaped under conditions of gender inequality but reveals this sexuality itself to be the dynamic of the inequality of the sexes.

Also this theory underpins things like objectivfication and "Male Gaze" and the never ending Reeeeing about men expressing some sort of sexual attraction to women. Since sex itself, even consensual, is oppressive, then it's easy to extend this logic to the simple act of sexual attraction from men.

>a lot things historically,

But nothing now

>and the pay gap is still a thing

No it's not

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs

Men are paid more because they work more hours. Something that WOMEN put them under pressure via state violence, or Divorce laws for the lay man.

https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

>>gender roles that negatively impact men are patriarchal while roles that BENEFIT women are patriarchal as well

>and vice versa,

What's visa vers

the point is that both have their pros and cons

There's not "pros" to being maimed and dying more under capitalism you little bloodthirsty liberal.

>but at the end of the day its still the men who are supposed to be in charge under patriarchy

How can they be in charge when they are dying and being hurt more? Again with this "Protocols of Zion" shit. You can't know the thoughts of the male bourgeoisie because they have penises and their thinking is inherent to their sex. This is seriously disgusting, can't wait to see you feminists starve in the streets when the next economic depression occurs. You're literally Nazis.

>its a short essay anon, i believe in you

Concisely make your points or fuck off. I believe in you.

>epic comeback

Thanks!

>it's an imageboard dude, stop crying

I don't take advice from the fash.


 No.131170

>>131169

*reposting because the messed up formatting muddles my points

>drop some names then

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MacKinnon-Sexuality-Pornography-and-Method-Pleasure-under-Patriarchy.pdf

>A theory of sexuality becomes feminist to the extent it treats sexuality as a social construct of male power: defined by men, forced on women, and con-stitutive in the meaning of gender. Such an approach centers feminism on the perspective of the subordination of women to men as it identifies sex…

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MacKinnon-Sexuality-Method.pdf

>This approach identifies not just a sexuality that is shaped under conditions of gender inequality but reveals this sexuality itself to be the dynamic of the inequality of the sexes.

Also this theory underpins things like objectivfication and "Male Gaze" and the never ending Reeeeing about men expressing some sort of sexual attraction to women. Since sex itself, even consensual, is oppressive, then it's easy to extend this logic to the simple act of sexual attraction from men.

>a lot things historically,

But nothing now

>and the pay gap is still a thing

No it's not

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs

Men are paid more because they work more hours. Something that WOMEN put them under pressure via state violence, or Divorce laws for the lay man.

https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

>>gender roles that negatively impact men are patriarchal while roles that BENEFIT women are patriarchal as well

>and vice versa,

What's visa versa?

>the point is that both have their pros and cons

There's no "pros" to being maimed and dying more under capitalism you little bloodthirsty liberal.

>but at the end of the day its still the men who are supposed to be in charge under patriarchy

How can they be in charge when they are dying and being hurt more? Again with this "Protocols of Zion" shit. You can't know the thoughts of the male bourgeoisie because they have penises and their thinking is inherent to their sex. This is seriously disgusting, can't wait to see you feminists starve in the streets when the next economic depression occurs. You're literally Nazis.

>its a short essay anon, i believe in you

Concisely make your points or fuck off. I believe in you.

>epic comeback

Thanks!

>it's an imageboard dude, stop crying

I don't take advice from the fash.


 No.131171

>>131115

>drop some names then

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Andrea-DWORKIN-Intercourse-1987.pdf

Andrea Dworkin

FTA:

>She may not have been saying all sex is rape, but clearly she was suggesting that most sex is something damn close when you live in a patriarchy…


 No.131172

>>131115

Can you please produce some MATERIAL proof that there's a patriarchy. That women have it worse under the MAJORITY of life under capitalism and that it's due to collusion of men.


 No.131173

>>131172

That's not what patriarchy is, though.


 No.131175

>>131173

Yes it is.


 No.131176

>>131173

Do women EVER oppress men in anyway in your mind?


 No.131183

File: 95af60e188552e7⋯.png (21.4 KB, 845x1023, 845:1023, anchor.png)

Time to nuke this useless thread already. Identity politics have no place here.


 No.131210

>>131183

>I don't know what a containment thread is

hownew.ru


 No.131223

File: e7641d36abf6737⋯.jpg (45.56 KB, 720x814, 360:407, 53389186_10157083039044181….jpg)

misogynist syndicalism is the way to go


 No.131335

>>131169

>awful meme

did you get lost on your way to facebook grandad

>>131170

show me where mackinnon claimed that "all sex is rape"

>No it's not

of course google is going to try to downplay accusations of underpaying women when they're facing a class action lawsuit about it, as for the harvard article it seems like typical one theory to solve the world shit you see so much of in academia and that the author's agenda is more "flexibility" in the workplace which is pretty suspect, moreover the argument is based on women being more likely to leave their jobs in order to fill societal expectations of raising a family

>What's visa versa?

google it

>you little bloodthirsty liberal

if you can't see how being the earner of capital in a capitalist system comes with advantages then idk what to do for you

>they have penises

as do i

>>131171

andrea dworkin wasn't an academic and as you acknowledge, she didn't claim that all sex is rape

>>131172

>collusion of men

patriarchy doesn't mean that all men are secretly plotting to keep women down, it's that both genders have certain expectations put on them and that in the binary opposition this creates men are the "dominant" party, it doesn't mean bad things happen to men for being men just that it happens because of patriarchy not in spite of it


 No.131337

>>131223

wow edgy a take that was already stale in the 1890s when Proudhonism was shitty old news.


 No.131382

>>131337

>Soy response

Reddit. Go there and don't come back.


 No.131393

>>131335

>show me where mackinnon claimed that "all sex is rape"

Lol, I guess you bad faith arguing ass missed the whole sex is "defined by men and FORCED on women". Isn't forcing women to have sex uhhhh rape?

>of course google is going to try to downplay accusations of underpaying women when they're facing a class action lawsuit about it,

Admitting to under paying men opens them up to lawsuits from men. You know that discrimination based on sex includes the male sex right?

>as for the harvard article it seems like typical one theory to solve the world shit you see so much of in academia and that the author's agenda is more "flexibility" in the workplace which is pretty suspect,

Pure conjecture, can you back this up with anything? Because you sure as fuck demand that from your critics.

>moreover the argument is based on women being more likely to leave their jobs in order to fill societal expectations of raising a family

>Implying they do this because men don't want a dual income and not because working sucks and women CAN leave the work force because of gender roles they IMPOSE ON MEN WITH STATE VIOLENCE.

>google it

No what are you saying is visa versa nimrod

>if you can't see how being the earner of capital in a capitalist system comes with advantages then idk what to do for you

Wage labor isn't capital you fucking moron. And now earning a wage DOESN'T confer any advantage over men since

a) Women can earn at parity to men

b) Property rights granted by divorce laws wildly favor women.

And the threat of being ruined by divorce is implicit violence.

>andrea dworkin wasn't an academic and as you acknowledge, she didn't claim that all sex is rape

She's one of the most influential modern feminists that plenty of academic feminists study. Also EVEN THE WOMAN WHO WROTE HER FORWARD SAID SHE SAID ALL SEX IS RAPE UNDER PATRIARCHY.

>it's that both genders have certain expectations put on them and that in the binary opposition this creates men are the "dominant" party,

Show how this dominance manifest materially. Pretty much anything you can cite can be counter with something women are spared from and men are subject to that's waaaaayyyyy worse.

>it doesn't mean bad things happen to men for being men just that it happens because of patriarchy not in spite of it

Yes it does, if I dominate someone I'm not going subjugate myself lol.


 No.131394

>>131335

>as for the harvard article it seems like typical one theory to solve the world shit you see so much of in academia and that the author's agenda is more "flexibility" in the workplace which is pretty suspect,

What universe does coming to a shitty conclusion make your empirical finding invalid?

Can you produce anything that undermines the actual data?


 No.131466

>>131393

>uhhhh rape

pretty clear that she means sexuality rather than just sex itself, and anyway this is only one nutty radfem whose ideas are becoming increasingly out of favour in the relatively broad church of feminism, which was my initial point

>opens them up to lawsuits from men

except this was only in one small aspect of google's very large operations and is likely the exception to the rule given than the women's lawsuit hasn't been thrown out of court

>what are you saying is visa versa nimrod

have you legitimately never heard the term "vice versa" before

>Women can earn at parity to men

not according to the data

>Property rights granted by divorce laws wildly favor women

speaking of empirical data, is there anything to support this or is it just based on anecdotal shit from mras and hack comedians

>one of the most influential modern feminists that plenty of academic feminists study

maybe in the 1980s, and being studied doesn't mean someone necessarily agrees with you

>EVEN THE WOMAN WHO WROTE HER FORWARD SAID SHE SAID ALL SEX IS RAPE UNDER PATRIARCHY

it very clearly says "She may not have been saying all sex is rape"

>this dominance manifest materially

more likely to hold high paying jobs, positions of power, murder their spouses, etc

>>131394

>anything that undermines the actual data?

as far as i can tell there isn't any methodology cited in it so that's a red flag right there


 No.131469

>Reee muh child support payments

Get a vasectomy and this will never happen, the alternative for women is much more invasive and birth control sucks for a lot of people.

When you get your dick wet you have to accept the risks and prepare for them.

If you don't, the consequences are your fault, not some men's rights issue.


 No.131473

>>131469

>Get a vasectomy and this will never happen

That's victim blaming you retard.

>the alternative for women is much more invasive and birth control sucks for a lot of people.

And that's justification for saddling (mostly working class) men with payments that it would make much more sense to handle through universal childcare, when he didn't consent to having a kid?

>When you get your dick wet you have to accept the risks and prepare for them.

>If you don't, the consequences are your fault, not some men's rights issue.

Same shit christfag fundies say about women having abortions.


 No.131474

>>131473

Also, that line of apologia implicitly assumes that the father didn't want custody, and that the mother is incapable of supporting herself, neither of which are true in all too many court decisions that are automatically "settled" with tremendous bias against the father.


 No.131503

File: e93c94c9ae39bf7⋯.jpg (87.95 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1493377094459.jpg)

>>131466

>pretty clear that she means sexuality rather than just sex itself,

Pretty sure sex is a fairly large component of sexuality. Other people that have read her work said she means sex as well.

>except this was only in one small aspect of google's very large operations

Lol, PAYROLL is not one small aspect of google's operations.

>and is likely the exception to the rule

Only because it doesn't reinforce your confirmation bias.

>given than the women's lawsuit hasn't been thrown out of court

Completely irrelevant to the findings of this study.

>have you legitimately never heard the term "vice versa" before

The way you throw that term around makes it a non sequitur. WHAT are you saying is visa versa with regards to gender relations?

>not according to the data

Yes according to the data. What part of the Harvard study don't you get. The wage gap is explained by OVERTIME!

>speaking of empirical data, is there anything to support this or is it just based on anecdotal shit from mras and hack comedians

See

>>126153

>>126152

Let's not forget that at least 83% of child support is paid to women. Also since the average amount of child support women get is higher than men's, it's closer to 90% of all child support moneies are paid by men.

>and the aggregate amount of child support received was $22.5 billion. In 2013, almost 83% of custodial parents were mothers.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22499.pdf

>it very clearly says "She may not have been saying all sex is rape"

She also very clearly says,

>"but clearly she was suggesting that most sex is something damn close when you live in a patriarchy…"

When the most charitable people analyzing your work say "She pretty much says that" it means you said that. And plenty of other people have said that's exactly what she said.

Anyway, moving the goal posts, you said to produce some academics that said sex is rape and I did.

And sorry, her work is not studied with scholarly detachment like something "Mein Kamph" is, so yeah the fact that her work is so widely studied DOES imply agreement with it to some degree.

Before I go any further I've materially proved that men suffer state oppression and this it at least tangentially effects women.

Can you produce something other than idealism.


 No.131505

>>131503

>Other people that have read her work said she means sex as well

always best to go off what someone themselves said, but leaving that aside for a second, the initial point was that "more than one" feminist academic said all sex is rape yet all you've presented is one who was never actually on record as claiming that

>not one small aspect of google's operations

the article says this "mostly applied to one group of software engineers" without much more information, for all we know they might have deliberately done this to ward off the lawsuit and parallel investigation by the dept of labor

>irrelevant to the findings of this study

not at all, the lawsuit would have to have a legitimate claim if it was going to proceed through the courts, especially with high priced google lawyers looking for any excuse to get it chucked out

>WHAT are you saying is visa versa with regards to gender relations

that gender roles oppress both men and women

>child support

which isn't directly related to divorce like say, alimony, and again, what this reflects is that men aren't socialised to be the parent, so they either don't want to get custody in the first place or lack the skills to be awarded it. moreover child support isn't just free money, you do actually have to spend a significant portion of it on the kid, what's also interesting is in the study you linked is that it says the average custodial father gets about an extra thousand compared to custodial mothers and that less than half of people owing child support actually paid in full, which is something of a challenge to your narrative of feminazi tyranny

>it means you said that

no it doesn't, words matter

>produce something

i literally did in my last post, you just didn't acknowledge it


 No.131521

>>131505

>the article says this "mostly applied to one group of software engineers" without much more information, for all we know they might have deliberately done this to ward off the lawsuit and parallel investigation by the dept of labor

>The story we’re used to hearing is that women get paid less than men. In Google’s case, according to its own internal pay audit, it turned out male-identified Level 4 Software Engineers received less money than women in that same role. That led to Google paying $9.7 million to adjust pay for 10,677 employees.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/04/google-found-it-paid-men-less-than-women-for-the-same-job/

10k+ employees is a big sample, and an internal audit suggests that this audit looked for pay discrepancies throughout the entire company and didn’t find women getting paid less. And yes this type of auditing is done to avoid lawsuits. But in this case it’s from men.

This combined with the Harvard study, the glass floor and all the other studies emerging paint a picture more and more of not just there being no pay gap, but women actually being paid more then men. Women already graduate from college at higher rates then men, so it’s not unreasonable.


 No.131525

>>131521

yes and a company would never lie to save money

>the Harvard study

that acknowledged the existence of a gender pay gap but disputed the reason, it didn't claim it was against men

>glass floor

isn't that a cum town bit


 No.131527

>>131525

>yes and a company would never lie to save money

How does showing your violating Civil Rights laws save you money?

>that acknowledged the existence of a gender pay gap but disputed the reason,

Yes it disputes the wage gap. Getting paid more because you worked over time isn't a wage gap. It's literally getting paid more because you worked more.

>it didn't claim it was against men

Yes it did, since the average hourly wage is lower for men then women. This brings me back to the "glass floor" that show men doing the lowest paying and most dangerous jobs. You'd think with a patriarchy they'd make women do those jobs.

>>131505

>i literally did in my last post, you just didn't acknowledge it

You last post didn't contain any links to empirical scientific findings. Much less enough studies to show something as sweeping as a patriarchy.

Such wide scale oppression should be able to produce SOME material evidence. Instead you struggle to produce anything.

>>glass floor

>isn't that a cum town bit

No it's a very real thing.

>>131505

>that gender roles oppress both men and women

Sorry toots that's not what the definition of patriarchy is. Like you know patriarchy means patriarchs? Not, gender roles, patriarchs are men lol.

If were really against oppressive gender roles you wouldn't need constant proof of men's oppression, you would have already known about it since you're so concerned with gender roles regardless of sex. lol


 No.131528

>>131505

>>child support

>which isn't directly related to divorce

Child support isn't directly related to divorce?!?!?! Oh, my sides.


 No.131529

>>131505

>not at all, the lawsuit would have to have a legitimate claim if it was going to proceed through the courts

You're saying google opened themselves to lawsuits from men for pay discrimination to get out of a lawsuit about pay discrimination against women.

Lol, were the Jews behind this as well. You're talking about collusion and obstruction of justice that would get every lawyer involved de-bared. Oh this is all being done with tons of public scrutiny as well.

Produce some proof to back up "the moon landings were faked" tier conspiracy theory. Other than DA PATRIARCHY.


 No.131530

>>131529

I'll even be nicer, produce one person with any sort of legal authority that believes your crazy theory.


 No.131531

>>131527

>save you money

im sure if there was anything to it then the male employees would have their own lawsuit, the bottom line is that the cases are proceeding in both civil and criminal court. google even tried refusing to hand over its pay figures, which isn't exactly the behavior of an innocent party

>disputes the wage gap

i said pay gap, the point is they don't dispute its existence, they just contest why it exists as opposed to claiming it goes against men

>men doing the lowest paying and most dangerous jobs

all i could really find for "glass floor" (apart from the cum town bit) was about men not being in healthcare or primary education, hardly the upper strata of employment

>with a patriarchy they'd make women do those jobs

like i have said multiple fucking times, that's not what patriarchy means. it's not about all men colluding to "make" women do things, it refers to a societal attitude which assigns predetermined roles to both genders and divides the working class so must be opposed on principle. this doesn't mean you have to agree with all feminists, partly because it's literally impossible to do so and partly because it's really just a meaningless label at this point in which the loudest voices are naturally those who don't fundamentally challenge capitalism

>material evidence

at this point it's pretty much accepted fact that occupations dominated by women (like nursing) are underpaid, meanwhile if you look at positions of power there are clearly less women. you could maybe dispute politics as a meaningless sideshow but if that was true wouldn't they have achieved a 50-50 split a long time ago

>Sorry toots that's not what the definition of patriarchy is. Like you know patriarchy means patriarchs? Not, gender roles, patriarchs are men lol.

read a book

>>131528

>Child support isn't directly related to divorce?!?!?!

you don't have to be married to someone to have a kid with them, especially not these days

>>131529

you seem to have a bizarre faith in the honesty of private corporations and the lawyers who represent them

>>131530

holy shit dude learn to post

>one person with any sort of legal authority

weren't you the one who said feminists had total control over the democratic party, in the specific case of google i already mentioned the presiding judge and dept of labor, so that's your three branches of government right there


 No.131536

File: 28bca5023390cf6⋯.jpg (26.67 KB, 676x447, 676:447, aristotle1.jpg)

Have a single mom work and if she fails it's proof women can't multitask


 No.131558

>>131531

>all i could really find for "glass floor" (apart from the cum town bit) was about men not being in healthcare or primary education, hardly the upper strata of employment

The glass floor isn't about men not being in low-paying or dangerous jobs. It's about women not being in those jobs, and instead those jobs being done only by men. It's the opposite of the "glass ceiling" concept that keeps women out of upper strata of employment - the "glass floor" keeps women out of the lower strata of employment.

>it's not about all men colluding to "make" women do things, it refers to a societal attitude which assigns predetermined roles to both genders

And that would logically assign the "lesser" gender (women, allegedly) to the lower paying jobs, but that's not the case. Instead we see women distributed around the middle and men distributed more to the extremes, because "patriarchy" (gender roles) don't define men as better, but as having more agency and disposability which makes them appropriate for executive positions or dangerous ones. Gender roles are a lot more fucking complicated than "man better than woman."


 No.131561

>>131531

>what patriarchy means

>it refers to a societal attitude which assigns predetermined roles to both genders and divides the working class

If it's not male supremacism, then why call it "patriarchy"? Why not "matriarchy"? Why not just drop the feminazi baggage and call it traditionalism?


 No.131564

>>131531

Enough squabbling with you. You’ve been humored long enough, me and other anons have giving you plenty of proof regarding feminists and proof against the exisitance of a patriarchy. and no, patriarchy doesn’t mean “negative gender roles”. It means women being dominated or subjugated by men. You can’t froth att he mouth tirelessly trying to prove that women are oppressed by men, refuse to believe men are more oppressed in many important aspects of life under capitalism even after being offered proof, then expect anyone to believe when you say patriarchy really mean oppressive gender roles for men and women.

Just prove the patriarchy okay, thanks, bye.


 No.131565

>>131531

>weren't you the one who said feminists had total control over the democratic party,

Nope, now post some proof that the google audit that showed men getting paid less then women, is some sort of plot to discredit their lawsuits from women about pay discrimination.

Or even a single sole with legal authority that has so much as conjectured that this could be possible.

>im sure if there was anything to it then the male employees would have their own lawsuit,

Hahahhahahahahahaha you know nothing about the law. This is just a hard right wing liberal butt hurt about lawsuits.

That there are too many lawsuits, or that we’re an over litigious society.

Quite the contrary, were very under litigious, and tons of strong lawsuits that should see the courtroom never do. The fact that these men hand a strong lawsuit but never suited is VERY plausible.

Anyway prove the patriarchy okay.


 No.131566

>>131565

*The fact that these men hand a strong lawsuit but never filed suit is VERY plausible.


 No.131590

>>131558

>the "glass floor" keeps women out of the lower strata of employment

is there any actual proof of this though, maybe you could make the argument about certain dangerous jobs like mining, but they're relatively well-paid and again, women are kept out of those industries because of gender roles, so we're back where we started

>because "patriarchy" (gender roles) don't define men as better, but as having more agency and disposability

which has been my point this whole time

>>131561

>why call it "patriarchy"?

look man i didn't come up with the term, the word itself derives from "family ruler" in greek if that helps

>>131565

>post some proof that the google audit that showed men getting paid less then women, is some sort of plot to discredit their lawsuits

i'm sorry your honour i didn't know this was a court of law, but you do have to admit the timing is pretty suspect

>Hahahhahahahahahaha you know nothing about the law

yes, whereas you sound like a real expert


 No.131594

>>131590

>i'm sorry your honour i didn't know this was a court of law,

An opressive system that encompasses the entire world and every human in it should produce should be pretty easy to show empirically.

>but you do have to admit the timing is pretty suspect

Not really, the bias against men is so strong they most likely didn’t expect the anti male result, but see this is why we actually go out and empirically measure these types of things instead rely on feels like you.

>yes, whereas you sound like a real expert

Compared to you yes, since my view of the law is informed by actual civil rights attorneys and legal experts working in the field and not fucking Republican Party talking points LMAO.


 No.131596

>>131590

>the word itself derives from "family ruler" in greek if that helps

Just like "matriarchy"

>look man i didn't come up with the term

Then why keep using it if it's inherently dishonest, inflammatory, and spiteful?


 No.131597

>>131590

>i'm sorry your honour i didn't know this was a court of law,

I’m not asking you to prove your “google is conspiring against its female discrimination plaintiffs”. Just asking you to show a single legal expert that thinks this as well. You’d think at least one even feminist lawyer would say something if there really something to your conspiracies.


 No.131604

File: 940c254e03d1409⋯.png (481.16 KB, 965x659, 965:659, 1450561756114-1.png)

What did feminists mean by this?


 No.131627

File: 810da41e71587e5⋯.jpg (99.45 KB, 761x763, 761:763, google lawsuit.jpg)

>>131590

>which has been my point this whole time

so you're an anti-feminist then? Because feminists reject the concept of male disposability

>but you do have to admit the timing is pretty suspect

Are you literally retarded? Google is a feminist company. They discriminate against men because that's what feminists do. It's not a conspiracy it's just their values.


 No.131628

>>131604

They want to be useless instead of useless


 No.131629

>>131628

Useful* but same difference


 No.131655

>>131604

It's the truth


 No.131666

>>131655

I'm sorry you commodified your sexuality and gave it away for free to Chad and never got a wedding ring in return. Causing you to be so alienated from your sexuality that you think pregnancy as punishment for having sex with men. But I can tell you most women look forward to being pregnant and having children.


 No.131692

>>131590

>women are kept out of those industries because of gender roles, so we're back where we started

No we're not. The whole point is that gender roles are more complex than "patriarchy" is supposed to be. The critique is that "patriarchy" is an insufficient understanding of gender roles.

>is there any actual proof of this though, maybe you could make the argument about certain dangerous jobs like mining, but they're relatively well-paid

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/workplace-fatalities-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/

Here's a list of 25 most dangerous jobs in the US. I'll let you cross-reference with the gender breakdown if it's not obvious that these jobs are extremely male-dominated.

And are you actually making the tHeY'Re weLl PaiD argument on a communist imageboard? Those people are all proles. The companies pay the minimum they can get away with, which has to be higher because of the mortality rate. Getting paid """well""" doesn't matter if you're dead, and it often doesn't touch the cost of chronic or disabling injury from doing dangerous work.

>>because "patriarchy" (gender roles) don't define men as better, but as having more agency and disposability

>which has been my point this whole time

Oh fuck off.

>i'm sorry your honour i didn't know this was a court of law

If basic epistemological rigor is too much for you, and you just want to have fun with contentious banter, then try this board >>>/sp/


 No.131716

>>131666

look it up in the bible


 No.131779

>>131594

>encompasses the entire world and every human in it

are we still talking about google here

>not fucking Republican Party talking points

what did he mean by this

>>131596

>Just like "matriarchy"

they just made that up by adding "mater" to "patriarchy" it has no linguistic origin in the original greek

>inherently dishonest, inflammatory, and spiteful

it's just a word man

>>131597

>at least one even feminist lawyer would say something if there really something to your conspiracies

it's not my fault im the only lateral thinker in the entire world

>>131627

>Google is a feminist company

they pay some lip service to others yeah, but they've never had a lady ceo and the workforce is still mostly male

>>131692

>tHeY'Re weLl PaiD

*relatively well paid, most of the jobs on that list make around or above the median annual wage and the ones that don't are typically occupied by immigrants so that intersects another way


 No.131781

>>131716

( ( ( bible) ) )


 No.131782

>>131716

The god damned buy bull was written by jews you unwashed piece of shit


 No.131787

File: c4c1e56a63c0c20⋯.png (1.25 MB, 2104x1512, 263:189, Google IMD vs IWD.png)

File: ffa5367e0bc19aa⋯.png (62.72 KB, 500x548, 125:137, Google lawsuit.png)

File: 62f04ea23c1ac62⋯.jpg (124.39 KB, 500x669, 500:669, Sociology textbook defines….jpg)

>>131779

>they pay some lip service to others yeah, but they've never had a lady ceo and the workforce is still mostly male

The CFO is a woman. And Youtube not only has a female CEO she's literally a feminist.

Plus, it's been confirmed that Google discriminates against men and has countless feminists in management positions. Idk how you can say they're not a feminist company when there's confirmed evidence that their managers discriminate against men.

>>131531

>all i could really find for "glass floor"

try "glass cellar." That's the term I've heard MRAs give it. Men make up 90% of unsheltered homeless and 93% of workplace deaths. So much privilege!

>>131393

>You know that discrimination based on sex includes the male sex right?

Google is a feminist company which means they believe you can't be sexist against men. California has a lot of feminist judges so they might even be right.


 No.131789

>>131781

>>131782

t. riggered


 No.131812

>>131782

The new testament refutes the old testament. Hence, Jesus killed the God of the jews.


 No.131817

File: d8cf5c0d43693f4⋯.jpg (84.71 KB, 480x361, 480:361, 1433188025819-2.jpg)

>>131779

>>not fucking Republican Party talking points

>what did he mean by this

I mean your view of civil law is informed by neo-liberal Republicans. You were incredulous of the fact that men with a strong case for a sex discrimination lawsuit didn't file before Google's internal audit showing that men were being underpaid compared to women.

This is the whole "The courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits" Republican party meme. That everyone who has a lawsuit files, and even people who have bullshit cases file. When the exact opposite is true.

Most people are intimidated out of filing, and legions of valid suits never get filed.

Weren't an under litigious society, not a over litigious one.

>it's not my fault im the only lateral thinker in the entire world

You're by no means the only person looking at this male discrimination case, and by no means the only civil rights legal "thinker".


 No.131850

File: ba7e2ad3ad7318c⋯.jpg (80.84 KB, 675x410, 135:82, motte-and-bailey.jpg)

>>131779

>they just made that up by adding "mater" to "patriarchy" it has no linguistic origin in the original greek

Ooh, a feminist, turning their nose up at a neologism? Also, the feminist sense of "patriarchy" bears no resemblance to the original (leadership by fathers), and other similar formations ("matriarch", "matron") date back quite far. Again though, why use it?

>it's just a word man

But it's a word you've already described as having no relevance to the omni-oppressive force against both men and women that motte-and-baileying feminists (ab)use it in reference to.


 No.131890

File: 93497cf2b9ab710⋯.png (106.45 KB, 659x403, 659:403, Screenshot from 2019-03-13….png)

File: 67c0745b6005dc5⋯.png (268.08 KB, 669x540, 223:180, Screenshot from 2019-03-13….png)

>>129975

>>130712

so are we just going to pretend pic-related didn't happen?

>but muh other idpol!

Obama didn't create a White House Council on Gay People he created a White House Council on Women. Trudeau didn't say that only black people should get foreign aid he said only women/girls should get foreign aid.

Those other idpol factions are also legitimate, whatever you think of idpol in general at least gays/blacks are actually discriminated against and those are one-sided. Whereas men objectively have more real issues than women do, and feminism is a fraud.

> yeah the selected elite of feminism are bad

so are the rank and file. I don't think I've ever met a feminist that didn't think it was misogynistic to support gender equality.


 No.131918

Capitalism trying to recuperate feminism just means that it is a danger to it.


 No.131953

File: 5566f82c152ec71⋯.png (230.9 KB, 566x414, 283:207, bernie mansplaining.png)

>>131918

>distracting people from economic issues is a danger to capitalism

feminism is the reason Bernie isn't POTUS right now.


 No.131954

>>131953

Goldman-Sachs is the reson the Bernie is not POTUS, which is a good thing to be honest. We really are in the best scenario that could have come out of 2016.


 No.131970

>>131953

Blaming it on the evil feminist conspiracy to keep the while male down is really convenient if you are into idpol conspiracy theories, too bad that it has nothing to do with reality.


 No.131986

>>131970

oh it sort of does, but it affects all men, not just white men, like I said in another thread, feminism and women's suffrage led a long line down to a ten fold multiplication of idpol garbage, one even that threatens them, tranny idpol. all sorts of the multiplication of idpol can be traced back to this.


 No.132686

>>131986

this. women are the bourgeois to men.


 No.132741

File: f937d20fcdd17d4⋯.jpg (559.8 KB, 1199x1812, 1199:1812, Rosa - Bourgeois women.jpg)

>>132686

>women are the bourgeois to men.

Depends. Some are. If a woman is a homemaker and lets the man do all the earning she is. If she also works then she's not.


 No.132743

>>131954

This. People can jerk off what could have been with Bernie. HRC can't do what Obama did and distract the libs from imperialism. Trump is making sure everyone pays attention to shitty things the US government does. He's not ideal as far as that goes, but he's far better than Hillary or Sanders who would pacify people on those fronts.

>>131918

Capitalism trying to recuperate feminism just means that it is a danger potentially useful to it in the right context. Anti-idpol is also a danger to capitalism, but that's not being recuperated, just suppressed.


 No.132957

File: fe7c169b8b93ebf⋯.png (499.46 KB, 544x960, 17:30, woman card.png)

File: 6fb08a0fe605fa5⋯.png (255.73 KB, 628x514, 314:257, Lena Dunham DNC.png)

File: 498143fdd05bd9a⋯.png (748.5 KB, 602x1530, 301:765, bernie comic.png)

File: c6d33bd034e9145⋯.png (318.03 KB, 525x586, 525:586, Bernie Bros Vox.png)

>>131970

>muh conspiracy!

yes, all of pic-related is just fake news…


 No.132961

>>132957

Retarded SocJus Chic liberal excrement does not constitute evidence that feminism has power rather than being used a tool of power.

>>131918

It's already recuperated. You're right that it means it was dangerous, but its been thoroughly resorbed and reformed into a useful tool for capital for most of this decade at the least.


 No.132976

File: 0f4c1cfc642633a⋯.jpg (223.51 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, deadhorse_1024x768.jpg)

>>132961

>just because the leaders and rank-and-file of every single formal western feminist org today are unabashed opponents of class consciousness doesn't mean turd-wave feminazism is a capitalist conspiracy

>just because 1st/2nd-wave feminism was once genuinely countercultural, in service of causes that were wholly resolved by them decades ago, somehow means turd-wave feminazis hold any legitimate claim whatsoever to that legacy as an authentic people's movement

Even ignoring the massive false assumptions you're making, what about the countless, proven, direct links between 3rd-wave feminazis and the CIA? Gloria Steinem being a mole, the Ford Foundation's wholesale construction of gender studies departments in schools, the CCF building domination of left philosophical discourse by PoMo continental theory blowhards, etc.


 No.133091

>>132976

still waiting for an answer, feminazis


 No.133103

File: 7e0276a8228587d⋯.webm (13.26 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Unknown Knowns - Slavoj Ž….webm)

Feminism fails to take off the gender role ideology goggles, and this colors how they see gender based issues. This illustrates a certain ideology pattern that we should all be aware of.

Example

Gender roles cast men as subjects and women as objects. Men are valued for what they do while women are valued for what they are. Women are "human beings" while men are "human doings." Feminists point out this ideology but they don't despook themselves before making an analysis. This means topics related to gender (and sometimes ones that aren't) get skewed further according to these traditional gender roles.

Resulting Contradiction

<When women are insecure about their body, it's society imposing unrealistic standards.

>When men are insecure about their body, it's men being immature, self-absorbed, obsessed with sex, etc.

This pattern can be seen broadly in most issues feminists raise. Whether it's a non-gendered issue (like above - specifics of insecurity are different, but otherwise it's the same issue), or something that genuinely affects men and women differently, if you let lie the basic assumptions you will get a fundamentally flawed analysis. Slavoj Žižek has a bit on this that applies (vid related) here.

Beware the failure to despook, in your opponents and in yourself. To paraphrase the foremost feminist of all time: just because you are aware of a bias doesn't mean you're immune to it, and the more you assume that you're immune to it, the more likely you are to reinforce it unconcsiously. You should always try to understand what your basic assumptions are.

Feel free to post your own examples from feminists, radlibs, or actual socialists.


 No.133124

File: a7e402e4ad1aefd⋯.png (652.81 KB, 640x1200, 8:15, Warren Farrell Quotes.png)

>>132961

>the fact that mainstream liberals all support feminism doesn't constitute evidence that feminism has power

>the fact that mainstream liberals pander to feminism doesn't mean feminism has power

>the fact that we literally just had a feminist president in the USA, and most of the current Dem candidates support feminism, doesn't mean feminism has power

>>133103

>Women are "human beings" while men are "human doings."

this is a quote from Warren Farrell btw, an ex-feminist leader who was forced to quit feminism in the 70s because he supports true gender equality.


 No.133135

>>133103

>>133124

This is basically the "Locus of Control" concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

The gist is that you can believe that you are responsible for what happens to and around you, that it's entirely out of your control, or somewhere in the middle. "Locus" as in where control/agency/subjectivity is "located." A misplaced locus of control is an important aspect of capitalist ideology.

>porky doesn't control the business, the business does whatever the market demands!

>workers aren't subjected to exploitation, they have the freedom to self-determine!

Also the first two quotes in the pic >>133124 imply the master-slave dialectic.


 No.133157

>>133124

>the fact that mainstream liberals all support feminism doesn't constitute evidence that feminism has power

>the fact that mainstream liberals pander to feminism doesn't mean feminism has power

>the fact that we literally just had a feminist president in the USA, and most of the current Dem candidates support feminism, doesn't mean feminism has power

Yes to all of these.

You're being fucking paranoid.

Feminism is not a well organized program using business and liberals to its ends. Business and liberals are using feminism to their ends, ie, distraction.

Of course, not consciously, they're distracting themselves too, but thats the purpose it ends up serving.


 No.133174

File: f34468644cb1da8⋯.jpg (342.96 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, the hell of capitalism.jpg)

>>133135

>porky doesn't control the business, the business does whatever the market demands!

This is kinda' true, tho. Less exploitative porkies (or, indeed, porky-less businesses such as coops) are forced out of the market. Porky enjoys the most comfortable position in capitalism, but they are no less slaves to the system than us insofar as they choose to participate.


 No.133181

>>133157

>Business and liberals are using feminism to their ends, ie, distraction.

It’s such an effective distraction because it was made to be that way. Only the most fringe of feminist thought incorporates class, Most of it is third wave feminism and that strain is out right sexist and eugenic.


 No.133276

>>131953

>Hillary did Bernie

Hillary was a terrible candidate and controlled opposition. Bernie isn't POTUS because porky didn't want him to be President. Porky wanted Zion Don to be President. Porkies needed a lightning rod while they plundered public funds for private profit. People in this thread are correct that feminist activism is seperate from Leftism, but feminists unilaterally support leftist causes like socialism. Feminist sentiment is externally contradictive to right wing theology. Leftists gain strength having a strong female membership, and it makes their cause more attractive.


 No.133277

>>133276

Bernie was anti-white, fuck him


 No.133300

File: 0b0fd5ffbe54195⋯.png (602.98 KB, 584x552, 73:69, 73379188d02e716d7b13766ff5….png)

>>133276

>Porky wanted Zion Don to be President.

>feminists unilaterally support leftist causes like socialism.


 No.133336

>>133157

>they aren't real feminists, they're just supporting feminism ironically!

anon you're being fucking delusional. You accuse us of being paranoid conspiracists yet you think that all of the people who openly support feminism are secretly against feminism even though all evidence points to them actually supporting feminism.


 No.133365

>>133336

>they aren't real feminists

Not what I Meant

>they're just supporting feminism ironically!

Didnt say that you dumb fuck.

>you think that all of the people who openly support feminism are secretly against feminism

No I fucking don't.

Brainlet.


 No.133380

>>133300

women support liberalism no matter if its left wing or right wing

liberal vs. authoritarian. women are natural masochists so they naturally default to liberalism, men to authoritarianism. of course one could say "anarchism isn't liberalism" and you'd be right but left liberalism isn't red in any way, and right lib is just milquetoast ancap which women generally stay away from, the latter. left liberalism is identity ridden, socialism (leftism in general) is not, and is purely economic. that would mean the collectivization of labor and disillusion of money (depending on how far left you go, this is anarchist or decentralized leftism I'm speaking of, not authoritarian, that's something else).

the fact is, women thrive off either a) placating minorities with capitalist characteristics or b) placate their own race with capitalist characteristics. they are eternally obsessed with shiny things and brash displays of wealth, and as long as their wishes are fulfilled with the labor earned off the backs of mine workers, factory workers, auto mechanics, etc., which by and far are almost all male centric jobs (i.e., mostly men apply for them) and then wonder why men NEET around and don't want to work anymore its because almost all their labor goes to support unwed mothers who can't keep their claptrap shut and continue to make children who cost more money and feed into an unsustainable welfare system.

men tend to like authoritarianism because they like order and absolutes, this cannot be achieved without centralizing capital to the state to be distributed evenly among the populace, right or left ideology be damned because its pragmatic, whatever gets the job done quicker. women screech at this because it forces them to be more responsible for ahem….fucking and making kids. and we all know how much women hate responsibility. men are only irresponsible because they know they don't own the fruits of their labor. not since the 1950s./60s.


 No.134136

Spending so much time on imageboards and dealing so much with dumbass /pol/tards, for the longest time I somehow thought feminists to be better. However dealing with them lately I've found them to be every bit as petty, unreasonable, hateful, entitled and ignorant. Fuck them.


 No.134183

File: d8ed504c83d5801⋯.jpg (10.36 KB, 255x255, 1:1, e93ed94819449f245f347a3414….jpg)

File: 7075239b83d97b3⋯.jpg (648.03 KB, 1454x1932, 727:966, proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg)

>>133276

>Hillary was a terrible candidate and controlled opposition.

Hilary was not controlled opposition. Hilary literally controls the Democratic party because her and Bill can fund raise more than anyone else by a country mile.

The Dem party bosses aren't stupid, they knew Hilary couldn't win either but capitulated to her demand that she be the nominee. This came out in the lawsuit filed by Berine campaign donors angry that their money went into a "General Campaign Fund" that the Hilary campaign withdrew from. Dem bosses tried to fight her putting Bernie's money in said fund, but guess who overrode them?

> Feminist sentiment is externally contradictive to right wing theology.

It's not unfortunately. Is simply changes the scapegoat from ethnic minorities to the opposite sex.


 No.134185

File: 769b79de30cd1aa⋯.jpg (25.13 KB, 450x360, 5:4, underrattedoverlooked.jpg)

>>133103

Underrated over looked post.


 No.137108

>>134427

wtf


 No.137450

>>134427

heh, who's going to bitch slap me? YOU? I'd like to see you try


 No.137474

File: 809545b36f24cb5⋯.jpg (68.1 KB, 625x626, 625:626, 1443235016454.jpg)

>>134183

>> Feminist sentiment is externally contradictive to right wing theology.

>It's not unfortunately. Is simply changes the scapegoat from ethnic minorities to the opposite sex.

The trans bathroom thing rehashed a lot of the same arguments that were used to defend white and black bathrooms. Rape accusations were a common justification for lynching black men, and are often an effective political tool (see the FBI threatening MLK or the accusation against Julian Assange). The painting of men in general as rapacious and predatory is even using a lot of the same language as the racist narrative. It's sometimes so close it's as if they copied the rhetoric but everywhere it said "black men" they crossed out "black. And let's not forget that "men are rapists" is inclusive of black men. It's less specific, but it's more hateful (especially since the perception of men as rapists is more common if the men are minorities). A lot of the people using this kind of language seem to be either the same people who made the racist arguments or their ideological descendants, and they've figured out one simple trick to escape being labeled as bigots.

>>134427

pic related


 No.137477

>>137474

It never ceases to amaze me how leftists prefer the risk of rape to the risk of hurt feelings.


 No.137478

File: e571265cc0879f3⋯.png (201.66 KB, 474x354, 79:59, ClipboardImage.png)

>>137477

>bathroom signs will stop a rapist


 No.137482

>>137478

Rape is crime of opportunity, separated bathrooms diminish the incidence of opportunity.

To elaborate on your previous post, it's a perfect example of the muh bigotry reasoning at its sublime negation; that there are real and present dangers is rendered irrelevant, everyone is equal, to not believe this makes you a bigot, ergo, knowing that there are people who form a threat makes the observator himself a threat.


 No.137486

>>137483

All this dehumanizing talk against a flourishing racially diverse bondage-queer culture that existed in spaces in the southern united states is nothing but the colonial gaze of the late-capitalist system demonizing those who transgressed its neoliberal moral bounds.

Notice how slave owners are depicted in pop-culture as greedy, grubby, nasty little men who only cared about profit.. just like the nazi's portrayed the jews..


 No.137506

>>137491

>>137483

>>137479

‘’’This mutt is going nuts!’’’


 No.137522

>>137506

t. Eurofag

bomb Europeans. hail Rockwell


 No.137523

>>137483

this is true.


 No.137527

>>133380

what none of you anfems gonna bite?


 No.137553

>>137522

tut tut, mutt don't go nuts


 No.137555

>>137478

>preventing sexual assault is the only reason to have separate bathrooms.

Most straight people feel nudity and genitalia is sexual, so being around the opposite sex while reliving themselves is highly uncomfortable.

It's hilarious how virtue signalers like you insist that viewing trans women as men is just an old social construct, but making the vast majority of people uncomfortable to accommodate less than one percent of the population insisting that they are physically something they are not isn't a social construct as well.


 No.137556

>>137522

>I'm white if you're not.

Imagine believing this.


 No.137558

>>137555

>Most straight people feel nudity and genitalia is sexual

Burgers are retarded and this is a sign of profound alienation from being human.

>being around the opposite sex while reliving themselves is highly uncomfortable.

Being around any other people while relieving yourself is also uncomfortable, especially in America where they save money on bathroom stalls by leaving a half-inch crack between the wall and the door.

>It's hilarious how virtue signalers like you insist that viewing trans women as men is just an old social construct,

I didn't say that, because that's not how social constructs work.

>but making the vast majority of people uncomfortable

If you're uncomfortable being around another person, that is your problem. The exception is if they are accosting you in some way.

>to accommodate less than one percent of the population

I would propose universal gender-neutral bathrooms since it's extremely wasteful and inefficient to have them separate to begin with.

>insisting that they are physically something they are not isn't a social construct as well.

For a lot of trans people, you would never know unless they told you. Even the ones who don't pass aren't necessarily distinguishable from a feminine man or masculine woman. There have been cases of masculine women beaten up because someone assumed they were transgender.

The only pervert in any of this is the person whose concern while in the bathroom is other people's genitals.


 No.137562

>>137558

>Burgers are retarded and this is a sign of profound alienation from being human.

Lol proof? I can prove on average that men are stronger than women.

>Being around any other people while relieving yourself is also uncomfortable, especially in America where they save money on bathroom stalls by leaving a half-inch crack between the wall and the door.

Lol, t soy boy that's never done any construction work.

>I didn't say that, because that's not how social constructs work.

Then why do you insist on desegregating gendered bathrooms. The vast majority of the public was perfectly happy with it. And it forces porky to build more bathrooms.

The only reason to not do it is is because of twisted liberal idealism regarding gender.

>I would propose universal gender-neutral bathrooms since it's extremely wasteful and inefficient to have them separate to begin with.

t. money grubbing porky. Having more bathrooms is more convenient, fuck your efficiency.

>For a lot of trans people, you would never know unless they told you.

Haha keep telling yourself that.

>Even the ones who don't pass aren't necessarily distinguishable from a feminine man or masculine woman.

There's men that are as weak as women. You want to upend an entire social paradigm to address your pet edge cases.

>There have been cases of masculine women beaten up because someone assumed they were transgender.

So you want to endanger millions of women to protect your precious trans people.


 No.137563

>>137558

>There have been cases of masculine women beaten up because someone assumed they were transgender.

>beaten by women=raped by a man


 No.137565

>>137562

>I can prove on average that men are stronger than women.

What has that got to do with what bathroom you use? There are men in the bathroom who could beat me up and men I could beat up.

>Lol, t soy boy that's never done any construction work.

If you're more comfortable with your dick out around men than around women you might be gay, son.

>Then why do you insist on desegregating gendered bathrooms.

I already told you. It's wasteful and unnecessary.

>The vast majority of the public was perfectly happy with it. And it forces porky to build more bathrooms.

People are happy with lots of things that could be improved, and encouraging capitalist waste isn't good.

>The only reason to not do it is is because of twisted liberal idealism regarding gender.

"Everyone is an ideologue except me." Go back to watching Sargon videos.

>t. money grubbing porky. Having more bathrooms is more convenient, fuck your efficiency.

You can make the one bathroom the same size as both combined and still save space, moron. Obviously you've never worked in construction.

>There's men that are as weak as women. You want to upend an entire social paradigm to address your pet edge cases.

The social paradigm is a lot less fixed than you think, and I already told you it's not just about trans people.

>So you want to endanger millions of women to protect your precious trans people.

Using the same bathroom doesn't endanger women any more than having separate ones next to each other. If anything, having more people in a bathroom at once is going to make it more difficult to assault someone.

>>137563

>>beaten by women=raped by a man

I didn't say it was women who beat them or that it was in a bathroom. The point is that fears of bathroom rape are nonsense hysteria while violence toward trans people (and people assumed to be trans) actually happens. Nobody ever substantiates the bathroom rape thing. It's always just a spooky ghost story about muh ebul males.


 No.137570

File: 634154f61b7325e⋯.jpg (245.6 KB, 764x1106, 382:553, 1553097880315.jpg)

>>137565

>What has that got to do with what bathroom you use? There are men in the bathroom who could beat me up and men I could beat up.

Most men are straight, and most men are stronger than most women. While only a small portion of men are stronger than most other men.

>If you're more comfortable with your dick out around men than around women you might be gay, son.

And? Would you feel comfortable if your fat hairy boss whipped his dick out in front of you, OMGZZZ U GAY XDDDD

>I already told you. It's wasteful and unnecessary.

To who? Not me, I don't think having more restrooms is wasteful at all. Maybe to porkies that have to pay for additional restrooms.

>People are happy with lots of things that could be improved, and encouraging capitalist waste isn't good.

How is the majority of women feeling a dull sense of danger an improvement. How is men having to tip toe around the restroom so as not to inadvertently flash a woman better?

>"Everyone is an ideologue except me." Go back to watching Sargon videos.

The very bones of women is different than that of mens. You're getting called a dumbass idealist because you are.

>You can make the one bathroom the same size as both combined and still save space, moron

Lol, who gives a fuck about saving space except porky.

>Obviously you've never worked in construction.

Obviously you think a couple dozen square feet you might save is worth the steep hit to quality of life.

>The social paradigm is a lot less fixed than you think, and I already told you it's not just about trans people.

Oh yeah, it's about "saving space" LMAO which is soooo important when we literally have a glut of commercial space.

>Using the same bathroom doesn't endanger women any more than having separate ones next to each other.

Yes it does, it puts weaker women alone with stronger men. It's just dialectics.

>If anything, having more people in a bathroom at once is going to make it more difficult to assault someone.

Lol, no, if there's a dozen male friends in a bathroom with a woman that's alone.

Let me ask you this, how would this improve anything for men and women.

Saving space doesn't, that only helps porky. And it makes it less safe. And it makes it more inconvenient since porky will build one smaller bathroom to save money.


 No.137571

>>137565

I didn't say it was women who beat them or that it was in a bathroom.

SO WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BRING IT UP Why are you bringing up shit about trans people that has nothing do with bathrooms you bad faith arguing dick weed.

>The point is that fears of bathroom rape are nonsense

No, women getting sexual assaulted while they are vulnerable, like say….. when they're along taking a shit, is not nonsense.

Women don't want men peeping on them, or listening to them, because they are straight.

>hysteria while violence toward trans people (and people assumed to be trans) actually happens.

So does sexual assault toward women. And you seem to be under the impression that transsexuals don't perpetrate sexual assault themselves.

And also transsexuals suffer disproportionate violence because they kill themselves.

>Nobody ever substantiates the bathroom rape thing.

Nobody ever substantiates the trans violence thing? Some how trans suffering violence is proof that is was because they were trans, but women suffering violence is just arbitrary and had nothing to do with their sex.

> It's always just a spooky ghost story about muh ebul males.

Men being stronger than women, and straight women being uncomfortable around straight men while going isn't a spook.


 No.137572

>>137571

*misformatting

>I didn't say it was women who beat them or that it was in a bathroom.

SO WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BRING IT UP Why are you bringing up shit about trans people that has nothing do with bathrooms you bad faith arguing dick weed.


 No.137574

File: ea4d9d8bf9eeb71⋯.png (4.73 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 1553458095194.png)

>>137565

>Nobody ever substantiates the bathroom rape thing. It's always just a spooky ghost story about muh ebul males.

>Segregating by Sex, and objective inalienable trait, is a spook. But insisting that persons with hairy balls are women and should be treated as such completely regardless of consideration to objective women isn't a spook.

Nigga do you even know what a spook is? How does unisex bathrooms everywhere help trans people anyway. Will their feelings stop being hurt if they know that either men or women can share their bathroom? How is that even consideration for trans people?


 No.137611

File: 455b12ed536259c⋯.jpg (37.66 KB, 720x692, 180:173, 54518339_2563178680423450_….jpg)

Transgender people will be the fall of feminism I can't wait


 No.137623

>>137570

>Most men are straight, and most men are stronger than most women. While only a small portion of men are stronger than most other men.

Only a small portion of the people in a women's restroom are trans, so that's not a refutation at all.

>How is the majority of women feeling a dull sense of danger an improvement. How is men having to tip toe around the restroom so as not to inadvertently flash a woman better?

These hangups about nudity are an historical anomaly and being around other people more will make people less hypersensitive (moreso than cultural drift already is).

>And? Would you feel comfortable if your fat hairy boss whipped his dick out in front of you, OMGZZZ U GAY XDDDD

I really don't care if he's having a piss in the place where you piss. The "ew hairy" thing makes it even more apparent that your argument's coming from a place of discomfort with and alienation from the human body. That kind of shit is your problem and society shouldn't try to accommodate it.

>The very bones of women is different than that of mens. You're getting called a dumbass idealist because you are.

And that's relevant how? What's idealist is believing that people's bones somehow carry a deep essence of a person. This is a couple steps away from measuring skulls to judge character.

>Oh yeah, it's about "saving space" LMAO which is soooo important when we literally have a glut of commercial space.

In part sure. That's mostly to demonstrate that separate bathrooms are because of cultural reasons not practical ones. Yeah commercial space is wasteful too, but that's a different issue. Muh starving african children argument here.

>Yes it does, it puts weaker women alone with stronger men. It's just dialectics.

As if any and all of the men would be rapists rather than fight off a potential rapist. As if a rapist is going to respect cultural norms to not enter the wrong bathroom anyway. As if women are utterly helpless and defenseless and that's somehow not a misogynist thing to say. As if it makes sense to build society around the minority of people who are rapists and to discriminate against a different group of people because of your sexual confusion surrounding trans people and your regressive and dismissive views of women as utterly biologically helpless. As if "dialectics" is a magic word that makes you sound smart.

>Lol, no, if there's a dozen male friends in a bathroom with a woman that's alone.

"All men are rapists and the more men there are the more rape there is." Sounds like projection to me. Women are in the minority around men pretty often without getting raped.

>Let me ask you this, how would this improve anything for men and women.

Less segregation makes people more prone to see each other as equals, i.e. de-spooking right-wingers like you. If you saw women in the bathroom regularly it would force you to see they're animals like you and not some mystical beings with an essence of victimhood. If you were legitimately a materialist you would understand that these attitudes follow from the material conditions people deal with. The justification that bathrooms need to be separate grows from the material separation and once in place the dynamic is self-reinforcing. The more separate people are from each other the easier it is to fear each other or see each other as essentially different.

>Not me, I don't think having more restrooms is wasteful at all. Maybe to porkies that have to pay for additional restrooms.

Was it wasteful to have white and black bathrooms during segregation, or was that also just more money porky had to pay?

>Lol, who gives a fuck about saving space except porky.

Not being wasteful is worthwhile in itself given we have finite resources. Porky caring about something doesn't mean we never should.

>Obviously you think a couple dozen square feet you might save is worth the steep hit to quality of life.

lel you think de-segregating bathrooms is a "steep hit to quality of life." You're an assclown.


 No.137624

>>137571

>>137572

>Why are you bringing up shit about trans people that has nothing do with bathrooms

Because discriminating against trans people has other effects (that hurt cis women in ways that you imagine trans people existing hurts cis women). Why are you fixated on bathrooms?

>So does sexual assault toward women.

>No, women getting sexual assaulted while they are vulnerable, like say….. when they're along taking a shit, is not nonsense.

What's nonsense is thinking that separating bathrooms is going to stop a predator somehow, or that trans people are more likely to be predators. This kind of evasion is the exact same sort of argument racists use. "Crime isn't nonsense!" Yeah but it's not about "crime" but about the argument that black people are criminals. You're doing the motte and bailey thing where you pretend the thesis of your argument is purely about a social problem rather than scapegoating a minority group for it.

>Women don't want men peeping on them, or listening to them, because they are straight.

There are lesbians who do that. Trans women aren't necessarily interested in women, so what's that got to do with having them in the bathroom?

>And also transsexuals suffer disproportionate violence because they kill themselves.

If you exclude suicide trans people still suffer disproportionate violence. Again, this kind of singled-out talking point is straight out of the racist playbook. "Look at this bad thing associated with this group! I want you to see this information and take it to mean they are lesser than you/us!" It's completely transparent.

>Nobody ever substantiates the trans violence thing?

Here's an overview: https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

>Some how trans suffering violence is proof that is was because they were trans, but women suffering violence is just arbitrary and had nothing to do with their sex.

Not even close to the argument being made here. Your side is contending that women are in danger specifically from trans women. I'm saying where are the proofs of that? No shit women get assaulted, which might suggest that the segregated bathrooms and other current "prevention" methods aren't exactly effective.

>Men being stronger than women, and straight women being uncomfortable around straight men while going isn't a spook.

"Strong people will hurt weak people" is a spook. "Women being less strong than men makes them defenseless" is a spook. Being uncomfortable taking a piss/shit around other people (of any identity) is definitely a spook.


 No.137625

>>137574

"Spooky ghost story" doesn't mean "spook" in that quote. It's literally a scary story meant to circumvent rational thought.

>How does unisex bathrooms everywhere help trans people anyway.

By making people less uncomfortable about other people's sex.

>Will their feelings stop being hurt if they know that either men or women can share their bathroom? How is that even consideration for trans people?

Getting physically beaten is not the same as "muh feelings." If there's no segregated bathrooms, there's no "wrong" bathroom to be in. If people are used to unisex bathrooms the aversion to people of not your sex in the bathroom with you will dissolve.


 No.137638

File: 0bdd2f65e38f2bb⋯.jpg (17.62 KB, 255x170, 3:2, 954bc9921c937bde7423c5be86….jpg)

>>137623

>Only a small portion of the people in a women's restroom are trans, so that's not a refutation at all.

If you make bathrooms unisex women will be in restrooms with biological men nimrod. This isn't about trans people at all but the changes their dumbass spooks will cause.

>These hangups about nudity are an historical anomaly

You have to get nude to have sex. Nudity has been associated with sexuality since time immoral.

>The "ew hairy" thing makes it even more apparent that your argument's coming from a place of discomfort with and alienation from the human body.

What dafaq is this arm chair psychology bullshit. Dafaq is "body alienation" define it. Hahaha just because I or the opposite sex, doesn't want to see your dick doesn't mean THEY'RE ALIENATED from their body hahahaha. It just means your a pervert who didn't come into their sexuality peacefully and wants to impose it violently on others.

>And that's relevant how?

WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT, SEGREGATING RESTROOMS IS NOT A SPOOK

>What's idealist is believing that people's bones somehow carry a deep essence of a person.

What idealist believes that the physical biology of a person makes no difference in the essence of a person. You believe in literal spooks, i.e. the soul. This has nothing to do with "the essence" of a person regardless.

>That's mostly to demonstrate that separate bathrooms are because of cultural reasons not practical ones.

Safety is not a "cultural reason". Will having men in bathrooms with women make things more safe for women, or men for that matter. You do know women sexually assault men as well?

How is having men and women share a bathroom because of the feeling of a man that believes he's a woman not a "cultural reason"?

>As if any and all of the men would be rapists rather than fight off a potential rapist.

No, but almost all sexual assaults occur between members of the opposite sex.

>As if a rapist is going to respect cultural norms to not enter the wrong bathroom anyway.

If a rapists doesn't he immediately draws attention to himself. It's a defense and it's by no means full proof. Prove how making all restrooms unisex is better for men and women? The majority of women sure as fuck don't want it. And there's other forms of sexual assault it prevents like peeping. Something it seems like you want to do lol

> As if women are utterly helpless and defenseless and that's somehow not a misogynist thing to say.

That's not what I said. The more deterrents you put up, the less likely it is to happen.

>Muh starving african children argument here.

Lol no, more like you being a cheapskate so porky can save a few bucks.

>As if it makes sense to build society around the minority of people who are rapists

Women are the majority, they are mostly against it. Transsexualls are less than 1 percent of the population. It is you that is trying to build a society around a minority, and to protect their feelings. At least what I'm protecting is material.

>and to discriminate against a different group of people because of your sexual confusion surrounding trans people

Sorry, I'm not confused. They're men, and I am straight. Again this is just ugly projection. Sex isn't a spook, it's determined by what's between your legs. And I am only attracted to people who don't have what I've got. There's not laugh Freudian quackery going on.

And by making men and particularly women who are straight, forced to view nudity from the opposite sex, is a dull form of sexual violence since said nudity is strongly associated with sexuality.

>and your regressive and dismissive views of women as utterly biologically helpless.

No, women have different material conditions because they can have babies. This entails a whole hosts of material differences that we don't even fully understand. A transgendered man is just a man with breasts implants and artificial hormones. We shouldn't discriminated against them, but we shouldn't have to up end society to accommodate their delusions either.

>As if "dialectics" is a magic word that makes you sound smart.

Putting millions of women alone with millions of men is asking for trouble. Yes that's material dialectics.


 No.137639

>>137623

Continued

>"All men are rapists and the more men there are the more rape there is." Sounds like projection to me

No, gender separation is to protect men as well. Women sexually assault men close to parity as men do to women. Contrary to your ugly 3rd wave feminist beliefs, men aren't insatiable horn dogs and can be ever bit as traumatized by seeing nudity or being peeped on by women as women can be by men.

>Less segregation makes people more prone to see each other as equals, i.e. de-spooking right-wingers like you.

Lol this liberal equivalency of the civil rights movement to their hobby horse trans activism. Racial segregation was a continuation of white supremacy and chattel slavery. It's laughable that you would equivocate what blacks suffered through under Jim Crow and into today to transgender struggles.

Transgendered aren't being oppressed by not being let into the women's bathroom, and they are literally welcome in all other businesses and government facilities.

The only right winger here is you, trying to save capitalists money by reducing the overall amount of restrooms because of the delusions of a astonishingly small minority.

>Was it wasteful to have white and black bathrooms during segregation,

Hahaha more trans=jim crow. Open a history book, black people were economically oppressed by a lot more than the restroom.

> or was that also just more money porky had to pay?

The facilities that black people were forced to use were much cheaper and shittier. So porky probably didn't pay much at all. Is there some much shittier bathroom trans people have to use? Oh that's right they use the same restrooms as everyone else.

>Not being wasteful is worthwhile in itself given we have finite resources.

Finite doesn't mean scarce. We have abundant resources, and more than enough space.

Riddle me this Batman, if all the number and quality of facilities remain the same anyway, how is that saving space?

>lel you think de-segregating bathrooms is a "steep hit to quality of life." You're an assclown.

I think having less restrooms for everyone which is what having unisex restrooms will do and having to wait longer to take a shit is a hit to the quality of life yes.


 No.137640

File: 952c47ebb09c979⋯.jpg (4.98 KB, 208x255, 208:255, 3d2534a779132e9aee489d0248….jpg)

>>137624

>Because discriminating against trans people has other effects

How does flouting the considerations of straight people help trans people?

>Why are you fixated on bathrooms?

Because you brought it up.

>What's nonsense is thinking that separating bathrooms is going to stop a predator somehow,

It's called defense in depth. Making something harder to happen, and it happens less. You can stop it with all these utopian logical fallacies now.

>This kind of evasion is the exact same sort of argument racists use.

It's not, racists actually economically and social oppress racial minorities. Having to follow the same rules as other men isn't discrimination.

>You're doing the motte and bailey thing where you pretend the thesis of your argument is purely about a social problem rather than scapegoating a minority group for it.

No you're strawmanning me. I said it a material problem, most people are straight. Most sexual assault is between biological men and women. And trans people are capable of sexually assaulting the opposite sex. You're just upset that people won't accept your ridiculous spook that trans men are actually women and should be considered as such with no reservations.

>There are lesbians who do that

Yes, there are. How many lesbians are there compared to straight men hmmmm….

>If you exclude suicide trans people still suffer disproportionate violence.

And that's due to the restrooms lol.

>Again, this kind of singled-out talking point is straight out of the racist playbook. "Look at this bad thing associated with this group!

No it's not, race was a social construct imposed on black people by the state and reactionary white people. Trans people are attempting to impose their spook on others.

>Here's an overview: https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

I said in restrooms.

>Not even close to the argument being made here.

Yes it is. You cited disproportionate violence to trans people as proof that they are being oppressed. But magically ignore that women are disproportionately sexually assaulted and by men.

>"Strong people will hurt weak people" is a spook.

No it's not, bared out by facts. There's people all around the world being oppressed, you saying that they were actually stronger than their oppressor all along?


 No.137643

>>137624

>Because discriminating against trans people has other effects

Not accepting the delusional spooks of a trans person isn't discriminating against them lol. The restroom they need to use is determined by what's between their legs, and it is something both sexes are subject to. And sex is an objectively determinable trait. And men and women aren't given worse or better facilities.


 No.137645

>>137625

>Getting physically beaten is not the same as "muh feelings." If there's no segregated bathrooms, there's no "wrong" bathroom to be in.

I agree, so how often does this happen in restrooms against trans people? And why does the safety of a handful of trans people over ride the safety of hundred's of millions of women since you're agreeing now that assaults do occur in restrooms?


 No.137659

>>137638

>How is having men and women share a bathroom because of the feeling of a man that believes he's a woman not a "cultural reason"?

Literally any configuration for bathrooms is cultural. Whether a particular configuration is conducive to prosocial or antisocial behavior is the question.

>dafaq

Oh, so you're a redditfugee. That makes sense of your libtard opinions.

>muh nudity is traumatic and inherently sexual

burger hangups lmao

>muh biological difference

So what. How does segregating bathrooms follow from that?

>you're erasing men being assaulted

Now you're really reaching. After all that shit about women being weak and vulnerable inherently because of biology, you're pulling the "men too" card? So if men are so much stronger than women but also assault happens equally both ways, then obviously it isn't a matter of strength and you have defeated your own argument.

>going into the wrong bathroom is a deterrent

It's not. People rarely pay enough attention to notice who's going in what bathroom. What's a deterrent is the presence of other people at the location where the criminal might commit the crime. Increasing traffic decreases obvious crimes like sexual assault, and unisex bathrooms increase traffic.

>women want segregated bathrooms

White people wanted segregated bathrooms.

>Sorry, I'm not confused. They're men, and I am straight. Again this is just ugly projection. Sex isn't a spook, it's determined by what's between your legs. And I am only attracted to people who don't have what I've got.

So just like I said your opinion is based on who you want to fuck. Got it.

>And by making men and particularly women who are straight, forced to view nudity from the opposite sex, is a dull form of sexual violence since said nudity is strongly associated with sexuality.

Nobody is forcing you to see nudity in a modern bathroom. You would have to go out of your way to actually see that.

>We shouldn't discriminated against them, but we shouldn't have to up end society to accommodate their delusions either.

It wasn't upending society to merge white and black bathrooms. It wouldn't be to merge male and female bathrooms.

>Putting millions of women alone with millions of men is asking for trouble.

>>>/christian/


 No.137660

>>137639

>Contrary to your ugly 3rd wave feminist beliefs

lel, I'm anti-feminism. That's why I'm posting ITT.

>men aren't insatiable horn dogs and can be ever bit as traumatized

That's one hell of a pivot from the shit about endangering women by putting them with men.

>traumatized by seeing nudity

fucking lol

>or being peeped on by women as women can be by men.

If you're used to using the same bathroom as the opposite sex it removes the mystery that drives peeping. I've been peeped on in the men's room by other men. I'm sure it happens in women's rooms too.

>It's laughable that you would equivocate what blacks suffered through under Jim Crow and into today to transgender struggles.

It's more like I'm comparing it to how men are treated, and trans people who are seen as men.

>>Was it wasteful to have white and black bathrooms during segregation,

>Hahaha more trans=jim crow.

>The facilities that black people were forced to use were much cheaper and shittier. So porky probably didn't pay much at all.

It's still more wasteful of both money and space. And saying Porky Porky Porky doesn't make you seem more legit.

>black people were economically oppressed by a lot more than the restroom

Not even close to the point I was making.

>if all the number and quality of facilities remain the same anyway, how is that saving space?

I'm not arguing for keeping the number the same. I'm arguing for cutting it in half.

>I think having less restrooms for everyone which is what having unisex restrooms will do and having to wait longer to take a shit is a hit to the quality of life yes.

If you designed a unisex bathroom for a given area, it would take up less space even if it had the same number of toilets, urinals, and sinks as before and would involve less plumbing for 1 room instead of 2.


 No.137661

>>137640

>How does flouting the considerations of straight people help trans people?

muh straight rights lmao

>It's called defense in depth. Making something harder to happen, and it happens less.

>walking into a room is meaningfully difficult

uh huh

>Most sexual assault is between biological men and women. And trans people are capable of sexually assaulting the opposite sex.

Still waiting on that evidence that a trans woman is more likely to assault a woman than a cis woman, whether or not it's in a bathroom.

>You're just upset that people won't accept your ridiculous spook that trans men are actually women and should be considered as such with no reservations.

No, I disagree with baseless assertions that trans women are specifically a threat to cis women, regardless of how you may try to recontextualize that argument. You can say "porky" and "dialectics" all you like but that doesn't make you less of a social conservative.

>How many lesbians are there compared to straight men hmmmm….

There are more lesbians than trans women.

>And that's due to the restrooms lol.

No. I'm pointing out that you're wrong to pin all the violence against trannies on suicide. You're the one inserting bathrooms into every single point.

>No it's not, race was a social construct imposed on black people by the state and reactionary white people. Trans people are attempting to impose their spook on others.

Maybe you should look into the history of religious indoctrination re: gender and non-western traditions of gender. It's very much the same sort of thing, but a lot older than colonial racism.

>But magically ignore that women are disproportionately sexually assaulted and by men.

So I guess you forgot about the whole "men are assaulted at parity" thing lol. Sorry, I guess I assumed you understood math better than you do. Because trans people (MtF) are a different grouping (subgroup) of male-sex people, you can't simply apply the stats for men at large to MtFs. You have to look at numbers that specifically relate to them. Read a fucking statistics textbook before you try to argue about crime rates, Jesus.

>>"Strong people will hurt weak people" is a spook.

>There's people all around the world being oppressed, you saying that they were actually stronger than their oppressor all along?

Wow ok you're actually retarded. Read a logic textbook while you're at it. Strong people not necessarily hurting weak people doesn't imply that weak people will necessarily hurt strong people.


 No.137662

>>137643

>The restroom they need to use is determined by what's between their legs

According to whom, exactly? "dis is da way we do things" is a spook.

>>137645

>since you're agreeing now that assaults do occur in restrooms

The fact that assaults happen in restrooms indicates that separating them doesn't help.

>why does the safety of a handful of trans people over ride the safety of hundred's of millions of women

It doesn't. It would be safer for both to have unisex bathrooms. Allowing trans women in the women's room would make it safer for them and not appreciably affect cis women. In order to endanger "hundreds of millions" of cis women by allowing trans women (handful of people) into the women's room, that would require trans women to be even more rapey than men are supposed to be.

>how often does this happen in restrooms against trans people?

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf

Tables on pages 8-10


 No.137665

>>137662

>In order to endanger "hundreds of millions" of cis women by allowing trans women (handful of people) into the women's room, that would require trans women to be even more rapey than men are supposed to be.

But that's besides the point, it isn't about trans people using the women's bathroom, it's about SJW's like you who try to use this issue as a crowbar to do away with separated bathrooms because its haram according to the laws of 100%spookfree-lgbtbbq sharia that absolutely nobody but a very dedicated movement of sexually frustrated creeps is waiting for.


 No.137670

>>126141

>Good. Fuck both of those things.

The proscription of rape is a sexual moral.


 No.137671

>>137659

>Literally any configuration for bathrooms is cultural.

No it's not idiot. That's like saying locking your doors is cultural. Not everything done is society is a part of it's cultural.

>Literally any configuration for bathrooms is cultural.

Ah, so your politics is determined by internet tribalism and not by your political beliefs, thanks for clearing that up.

>burger hangups lmao

And? Because you're comfortable with nudity everyone else should be?

>After all that shit about women being weak and vulnerable inherently because of biology, you're pulling the "men too" card?

Men are stronger than women. But women can sexually assault men too. Gender segregated bathrooms protects men. It also protects men from false accusations of sexual assault. Contrary to your retarded feminist beliefs women do lie.

>So what. How does segregating bathrooms follow from that?

Because most sexual assault is done between biological men and women. Over all only a small fraction of men find transsexual men attractive, same for women and transsexual women.

>So if men are so much stronger than women but also assault happens equally both ways, then obviously it isn't a matter of strength and you have defeated your own argument.

I said men can be sexually assaulted by women. I didn't say the danger was equal. Women can falsely accuse men as well. It doesn't have to even be conscious, it can be a simple misunderstanding.

>People rarely pay enough attention to notice who's going in what bathroom.

WRONG

>What's a deterrent is the presence of other people at the location where the criminal might commit the crime.

Wrong again, we've had gendered bathrooms since forever and it's been effective.

>White people wanted segregated bathrooms.

White people wanted to persevere white supremacy. You're not going to be able to convince anyone of this baloney trans rights=struggle against Jim Crow, although you obviously want to soooooo bad.

>So just like I said your opinion is based on who you want to fuck. Got it.

No it's based on what both biological sexes want. Trans isn't a sex, sorry.

>Nobody is forcing you to see nudity in a modern bathroom.

I've seen plenty of genitalia in the restroom. It's not done on purpose.

>It wasn't upending society to merge white and black bathrooms.

LMAO race segregated bathrooms were a part of a sprawling state apparatus to oppress black people of which restrooms were only a small part of. And the other facilities were much worse. Transgendered people are simply being asked to use the exact same facilities as every other person.


 No.137673

>>137660

>lel, I'm anti-feminism. That's why I'm posting ITT.

No trans activism, particularly this "Trans must be accepted as women in every sphere" is very much the pet project of feminists right now.

>That's one hell of a pivot from the shit about endangering women by putting them with men.

No it's not, I generalized that men are much stronger than women, and that most women are uncomfortable around men in the restroom. Not that men were rapists.

>fucking lol

I know it's hard for you to imagine men as having vulnerabilities surrounding their sexuality but I can assure you it's true.

>If you're used to using the same bathroom as the opposite sex it removes the mystery that drives peeping.

Lol, no it doesn't. Men don't peep out of curiosity LMAO.

>It's more like I'm comparing it to how men are treated, and trans people who are seen as men.

Because trans men are men, no matter how much you want your spook to be bought into. The bathrooms are divided by what's between your legs, not what a deluded man thinks which sex he is.

>It's still more wasteful of both money and space.

How? More bathrooms means more convenience. What's being wasted? Money? Space? Porcelain? LMAO.

>And saying Porky Porky Porky doesn't make you seem more legit.

Getting a little butt mad that you're little crusade will save Porky billions huh?

>Not even close to the point I was making.

No it was, you keep equivocating Jim Crow restrooms with the fact that a man who gets it into his head is a woman is being oppressed if his delusion isn't immediately accepted without question.

>I'm not arguing for keeping the number the same. I'm arguing for cutting it in half.

Which will fuck over everyone including trans people. Genius! Are you porky? Because you sure do get off on fucking over the working class.

>If you designed a unisex bathroom for a given area, it would take up less space even if it had the same number of toilets, urinals, and sinks as before and would involve less plumbing for 1 room instead of 2.

Lol not unless you stacked the toilets on top of each other. The room would have to be bigger. Also bigger rooms and facilities concentrated in one place are more complex not less.


 No.137675

>>137662

Your study includes less than 100 people.

THIS IS CALLED P-HACKING

You can get any scientific conclusion you want if you make the sample small enough.

And it was all based on their story. There's not even police reports. The violence I'm talking about is groping, peeping etc. Stuff that women actually report to the police at least some what. This is literally based on unsubstantiated claims. And again, why should everyone be forced to use coed bathrooms because a man thinks he's a woman.

>Like the term “verbal harassment”

discussed above, “physical assault” was defined very broadly in this survey to capture a

range of experiences respondents had where an altercation involving physical contact with

others occurred. These experiences could include, but were not limited to, having been

physically removed from the facility (n=4), hit or kicked (n=2), physically intimidated

and/or cornered (n=6), and slapped (n=1).

Lol, so out of all these only 8 said they were hit, kicked or cornered. Being physical removed from a restroom isn't necessarily, and mistakenly kicking out a trans person from the wrong bathroom can be addressed in much simpler way then fucking everyone over with less restrooms.


 No.137676

>>137662

>According to whom, exactly? "dis is da way we do things" is a spook.

It may have started out as a spook, but having more bathrooms very much pleases me as it's more convenient, and safer. So no it's no longer a spook.

>The fact that assaults happen in restrooms indicates that separating them doesn't help.

Lol, doesn't the fact that trans people get assaulted indicate that the current social awareness about them doesn't help and we should just go back to being bigoted toward them?

>It doesn't. It would be safer for both to have unisex bathrooms.

No, because it would allow men right into the space of women.

>Allowing trans women in the women's room would make it safer for them and not appreciably affect cis women.

No it would, since those trans women are still physically men.

>In order to endanger "hundreds of millions" of cis women by allowing trans women (handful of people) into the women's room,

No nimrod it's allowing all the men that aren't trans into the women's restroom that would endanger them. And it would appreciable effect cis women since they've almost unanimously said they don't want it

Even if you limited to just trans men you'd still have a problem because your definition of a trangender male is completely based on idealism and your feelings, all a man would have to do is proclaim they are trans and be in the woman's bathroom.

You virtue signalers just want the social capital fighting for civil rights gives you, but you don't want to fight for the myriad of fucking issues that would actually help oppressed people so you chose this bullshit pet project.

You know there several hundred untested rape kits in the US right now? A literally rapists held down a woman, busted a nut in her, then said woman was strong enough to over come her trauma and not only contact the police but endure an invasive sampling of the seamen in her vagina.

You could be addressing issues like that. But see, those women are poor, and generally not white. So you'd get any likes on Twitter for addressing it. Instead you're going to the ends of the earth to defend the bullshit spooks of some failson white boys that mostly want to escape the gendered societal pressure they face and men, and don't really believe they are women.


 No.137677

>>137661

>muh straight rights lmao

Not right's but straight people, and the working class, who is mostly straight, have interests. Interests you want to destroy for some white dudes that want to deny reality.


 No.137678

>>137677

>"white dudes"

ok the meme is dead and leftpol killed it.


 No.137680

>>137676

*You know there several hundred thousand untested rape kits in the US right now?


 No.137681

>>137680

throw them out


 No.137690

>>137680

Reminder that while this is an injustice, rape is far, far from the only or most severe offense suffering a tremendous backlog in forensic evidence processing, due to both funding/staffing issues, and increasingly trivial uses of forensic scientists' valuable time, which aside from backlogs also increase the chance of technical mistakes:

https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/DOJIG_FBI_Forensics_Lab.pdf

Also, keep in mind that such strains on forensic laboratories not only harms the rights of accusers, but also of suspects.


 No.137699

>>137675

>Your study includes less than 100 people.

93 people is less than 100 but not by much.

Good luck getting a lot of trans people from a given city for any study.

>Lol, so out of all these only 8 said they were hit, kicked or cornered.

8 out of 93 is 8.6%. That's a very high victimization rate for such a specific context as being in the bathroom. And being slapped is obviously assault. Idk why you don't think it is.

>having been physically removed from the facility

If you think this kind of thing is just fine then it seems like you're pretty supportive of private property…


 No.137700

>>137690

Also, reminder that forensic evidence is highly suspect in general. There have been various studies finding many methods to be unreliable, and often in exoneration cases there is an element of foul play regarding the interpretation of evidence and authority of the "expert."


 No.137710

>>137699

Let me ignore

THE P-HACKING

that makes the whole study bullshit. That’s not even going into the the whole unsubstantiated part of it.

Regardless you’d see more physical harassment of women if you got rid of gendered bathrooms. Again you want to hurt or harass 100s of millions of women, many minors or elderly, because a handful of men changed their mind about what sex they are.


 No.137712

>>137699

You ignored my point about you having all this concern about men who think they’re women that got asked to leave the wrong bathroom then got thrown out when they didn’t, but couldn’t give a fuck less about women that

have been raped in nutted it

Hey you know what leads to to oppression of women, even transsexuals,

letting rapists get away with it

Fuck your virtue signaling


 No.137713

>>137700

DNA evidence is pretty damn good and finding out who the sperm in your vagina belongs too.


 No.137715

>>137675

*fucked up the formatting

>Like the term “verbal harassment” discussed above, “physical assault” was defined very broadly in this survey to capture a range of experiences respondents had where an altercation involving physical contact with others occurred. These experiences could include, but were not limited to, having been physically removed from the facility (n=4), hit or kicked (n=2), physically intimidated and/or cornered (n=6), and slapped (n=1).

Lol, so out of all these only 8 said they were hit, kicked or cornered. Being physical removed from a restroom isn't necessarily, and mistakenly kicking out a trans person from the wrong bathroom can be addressed in much simpler way then fucking everyone over with less restrooms.


 No.137716

>>137699

>If you think this kind of thing is just fine then it seems like you're pretty supportive of private property…

You goddamn idiot, bathrooms don’t produce commodities, they aren’t private property.


 No.137730

>>137710

>Let me ignore

>THE P-HACKING

You're not even using that term correctly. Using jargon doesn't make you right. It just makes your argument less accessible and harder for non-specialists to refute. Anything that gets little research will likely run into low sample sizes, and especially if you're studying a small demographic like trans people.

>>137712

>You ignored my point about

I already addressed it. You just keep repeating the same conservatard talking points.

>but couldn’t give a fuck less about women that

>have been raped in nutted it

You've yet to substantiate that letting trans people in bathrooms results in rape. I care about rape victims who exist.

>letting rapists get away with it

Me not believing you when you smear trans people as rapists isn't "letting rapists get away with it" you hysterical idiot.

>>137713

Read the whole context. This anon >>137690 is saying that rape kits are under-tested because of other shit forensic scientists are roped into doing (which is a result of juries thinking CSI is reality), and here >>137700 is pointing out that those methods aren't even reliable.

>>137715

>*fucked up the formatting need to repeat the same argument again and pretend it wasn't addressed

ftfy

Again, an ~8% assault rate is very high. Maybe you should glance over general crime statistics sometime. The general assault rate in the US was about 250 per 100,000 in the US in 2017 (0.25%). 8% of trans people would be higher than the general rate by a factor of 32 times. So again, you obviously have no sense of the scale of these kinds of things (like the feminists who argue that 1 in 5 women are raped). Even if it's exaggerated, (which it likely is) it would have to be monumentally exaggerated to not be higher than typical assault rates. And still, this is a figure for specifically being assaulted in a bathroom (minus certain acts that you disregard as assault like being slapped).

>>137716

Not in the productive sense, but for sure in the sense of denying people access and absentee ownership. Like how an apartment is private property that you have to rent to access, even though it isn't productive.


 No.138259

>>137479

>Now suck the dick of your white master

sorry hon but I can't suck anything that teeny tiny

>>137638

>MUH SPOOKS!

>MUH MEN JUST WANT TO RAPE WOMEN!

kek

>>133365

>>133157

>>132961

>the fact that the people in power do everything feminism wants does not mean feminism has any power

that's literally what power is.


 No.144481

>>120664

Just like modern feminism isn't just about equal rights, it's also about hating men.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / gyaru / miku / say / tf / vichan / wooo ]