File: 1652719199311.png (129.34 KB, 672x456, FS32wxXWYAIrWr2.png)
No. 5493
File: 1653735755945.png (45.64 KB, 938x535, Eco.png)
>>5309This is such a tricky topic. While I don't believe that feminism is inherently left wing there's also no reason to believe that it can be right wing. Am I less of a feminist if I don't want my country flooded with muslims, south american gangs and chinese bazaars? I'm anti-globalization and try my best to reduce my enviromental impact (is that how you call it in english?). If only ecofascism wasn't a meme hijacked by men.
No. 5496
>>5493its complex, I consider myself a conservative but I'm mixed race and I have had my fair share of racism from both sides
>>5494Just anti-immigration from Muslim countries, for those already here, ask them to integrate or leave, anti-degeneracy(no kinkfags or bdsm feminists), I think you can hold these views and still call yourself a feminist
No. 5497
>>5495This is it really. Some nona was quoting Dworkin the other day: "To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things."
>>5496That would also open de debate: Is racism inherently a right wing thing? Is it possible to be anti-racist and right wing? Because the left can surely be racist.
No. 5507
>>5500How could I've forgotten about this? Yes
>>5502Can't agree with you. I'm not quitting the political system because I don't vote the main left wing or right wing two parties or simply because I don't want to associate with them. I think that's such an american thing to believe.In my country we have several different parties, and although until now only the two big have ruled the highest positions in our country, coalitions are powerful in that high level and third parties rule capital cities and different middle and small grounds of administration. My take in my previous posts was merely theoretical and doesn't mean I've stopped participating directly in politics with my vote.
No. 5749
I don't know if this counts or not but its a shame Eugenic feminism died off, it really had a lot of potential to create a superior form of the human race
>Eugenic feminism can be characterized as a branch of the early feminist movement >that made >use of some of the core principles of eugenics, such as the notion of human betterment through placing restrictions on who could procreate and raise children. The central argument of eugenic feminism insisted that “better breeding” and child rearing conditions could only come about if women achieved social and political equality. Thus for eugenic feminists, women’s equality was a necessary condition for “racial” improvement, and it was paramount that eugenic science and law promoted women’s rights.
>Eugenic Feminism: Key Components
>A key component of eugenic feminism purported that women were essential to ensuring human progress. British eugenicists such as Caleb Saleeby, Karl Pearson, and Havelock Ellis, held that women were essentially reproductive agents. In other words, as mothers and potential mothers, women were held to be in a unique position to advance eugenic social engineering. To the extent that eugenicists viewed women and girls as mothers or potential mothers, women were held to be the bearers of the future of humanity. Proponents of mainstream eugenics and some early advocates of women’s rights found common ground. Not all early feminists supported eugenic practices, but the notion of social advancement as intricately tied to reproduction was central to both eugenicists and early feminists.
>Some suffragists advocated for staunch immigration policies and eugenic practices such as mental hygiene and the social segregation and sexual sterilization of the “feeble-minded.” Canadian suffragist Nellie McClung was one of the most prominent advocates of women’s rights in Canada in the early twentieth century. Among Canadian feminists, McClung was also one of the most vocal proponents of eugenic feminism. In addition to strongly campaigning for the provincial (in Manitoba) and federal vote, she fell in line with aspects of the mainstream eugenics movement through her support for sterilization and mental and social hygiene. McClung’s promotion of eugenic ideals survived past the legalization of women’s voting rights. Early feminists such as McClung supported sterilization legislation (viz., the 1928 Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta and the 1933 Sexual Sterilization Act of British Columbia). Feminist organizations that advocated for eugenic legislation and social policy included the National League of Women Voters and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union among others. The integration of the eugenic political agenda with feminist campaigning allowed early feminists to make use of the core principles of both political campaigns and identify the women’s movement with the eugenic movement and vice versa.
>Women, Reproduction, and Traditional Gender Norms
>Eugenicists’ views on marriage and divorce laws were also directly opposed to feminist views on marriage. Feminists held that women and girls ought to be subject to less social pressure to marry and have children, and instead should have the opportunity to pursue life goals and ambitions outside of or in addition to marriage and childrearing. Feminist advocates such as Victoria Woodhull strongly objected to the sexual moralism that mainstream eugenics imposed on women by requiring “fit” women to direct their life goals towards only marrying and raising children. In addition, Woodhull argued that restrictive divorce laws and stringent social norms on marriage and women’s sexuality were detrimental to human flourishing insofar as abusive marriages and the norms of male sexuality led to the births of “defective” children. Woodhull contended that women’s sexual liberation and freedom from oppressive marriages would promote a “fitter” human race and the well-being of individual women.
>Birth Control and Sex Education
>In addition to advocating for higher education, better employment opportunities, and the elimination of restrictive marriage norms, eugenic feminists emphasized the importance of birth control and sex education in bringing about the advancement of women and humanity. Women’s access to birth control was a moral imperative and would enable women to pursue aims outside of childrearing and marriage and would also prevent “overbreeding” among the working class and ethnic minorities. Birth control would also prevent the births of children who might be deemed as “defective.” Eugenic feminists such as Margaret Sanger supported access to birth control to better enable “fit” women to pursue more advantageous employment and education opportunities, yet they purposed that birth control would enable fit women to have more children than unfit women. Eugenic feminists also proposed that unfit women have access to birth control to limit their reproduction. Although eugenic feminists aimed to promote a degree of reproductive autonomy for individual women, the reproductive rights of those women and girls who were deemed socially unfit were not championed.
This is exactly what I believe in, we need to bring back this thought for modern Feminism in the 2020's
No. 6084
File: 1656440584802.jpg (35.33 KB, 512x512, image0-6.jpg)
>>5749This is some creative psyop good job kek. Anyway eugenics is just men trying to control reproduction and projecting their own fucked up mentality. Depression and anxiety pills already have tons of fluoride and make you sterile so I guess they succeeded some.
If these retards wanted actual eugenics then 90% of men would have their balls cut off at 18 when they were deemed unfit. Fit and unfit is so retarded, considering pollutants shitty nutrition and early childhood experience decimate a person's health and opportunities.
No. 6207
>>6137I think that anti-degeneracy is a pretty fair point of contention though. Especially given that if you express the opinion that changing sexes is physically impossible, or that gender is a meaningless construct which no one should use to define themselves by, or that sex work is harmful - leftists will push you out of their sphere immediately. They will call you 'conservative', 'rightoid', '
terf' etc etc even if you align with leftist politics on most other fronts. The left is great at eating their own & disallowing any opinion that goes against the party line.
But besides genderspecials & sexual degeneracy, there's also the encouraging of domestic production of oil/minerals & supporting pipelines. Vs the alternative, which is propping up patriarchal middle eastern governments. Everyone loves to shit on the o+g industry, but we all keep using o+g no matter what. Far better to produce it domestically than to keep funneling money over to degen Saudis.
No. 6377
File: 1660072639595.png (418.73 KB, 750x857, literally_why.png)
I don't think this is specifically a right wing view(but I don't know where else to post this) but I despise this era of bimboesque me-first faux empowerment that has ruined western feminism to it's very core, it's an obsession with being "iconic" or being "girlboss" or other shit, materialism and individualism is encouraged, no one cares about the collective, the greater good for women everywhere, its not built to last and will never make any sort of positive change
No. 6501
File: 1662619800192.jpg (121.59 KB, 546x800, 1621685268.jpg)
I have been a feminist since college, I was into riotgrll and used to read both the SCUM manifesto and listen to Le Tigre, but over the past decade my views have evolved, I don't consider myself conservative but I have come to realize that many of things I used to believe were either pointless or actually harmful, for starters I now finally realize that radical feminism is also just another face of liberal feminism, it only exists due to neoliberal system and works with in it, it has the same issues with liberal feminism and is kinda pointless in the grand scheme of things, I now am aware that not all cultures are actual and those fucked up cultures should be forcefully eradicated, I have become more patriotic and since becoming a mother, I have become hyper vigilant about pedophiles, not just harming my child but all children, I have become more critical regarding gay men and their fucked up behavior
No. 6619
>>5506Politics society follows in a left/right view were constructed by men. The categorization of what is viewed as something left and right is essentially made up as much as religion is. Politics doesn't cater to humanity, it only is there to please moids socialized in this patriarchy, give them something to act competitively on, guide them on how they feel they should think, and make them feel secure in their thoughts and views.
Humans are complex, politics are not.
Overall, both left and right wing have authoritarianism, it is made to give power to men, because they're the ones socialized to flaunt the views they hold and how much better they hold these views compared to other men, hence why majority political leaders are male and the more popular philosophers people rally behind are male.
Finding radical feminism made me more anti-state and anti-authoritarian and it confuses me on why more women are not on the same boat yet. We should not collectively give opportunities for positions of power, because they will eventually end up being taken over by corrupt men like we see all over the world.
No. 6651
It's incredibly discouraging to me how up until a few decades ago, for the most part, all aspects of culture (literature/music/art/philosophy etc.) were determined by men. Obviously, for every virtuoso male, there are a thousand worthless, parasitic scum, but it seems like there is some sort of innately male propensity to genius. The Paglia "the reason there is no female Jack the Ripper is because there is no female Mozart" thing gets thrown around a lot (usually by misogynists). I don't agree mainly because male violence isn't proportional at all to male achievement but it's hard to stare down the vast majority of recorded history. Mozart himself was a child prodigy. Incidentally, Beethoven was deaf. Despite these obstacles, they both rose to greatness. There don't seem to be as many instances of women overcoming misogyny (for instance, George Sand) to produce things of value proportional to what men have done, or perhaps I'm just ignorant or falling prey to male erasure of female accomplishments. F. Scott Fitzgerald famously pilfered and took credit for the innovation of his abused wife Zelda Fitzgerald, maybe there are more instances of this occurring than history shows.
Also, I'm not at all trying to defend male depravity by insinuating that the male influence on civilization is somehow compensatory. Tolstoy was a great novelist but that doesn't make him not an abusive POS.
Honestly, I think we have this attitude in our culture that people are entitled to reproduction and it's bogus. We ought to let natural selection take its course, meaning stop socializing women to accept male entitlement. Is there a type of female separatism-adjacent philosophy centered around what I'm talking about - limiting reproduction to proficient males, and taking other measures to exterminate male degeneracy from civilization without incurring total separation?
I'm new to pinkpill ideology, if this is a reflection of my internalized misogyny please tell me how I'm being retarded. Sorry for the sperg I hope this belongs here.
No. 6655
>>6651Idk, I want to tangent a lil. When you hear rhetoric like that, what it is, is a self-eating, near hivemind-like obsession with status and fronts - like making up the most dramatic one-liner ever with the implication that male evil is why male greatness exists - over authenticity, one (most?) men are socialized into believing in…and one that functions similarly to a pyramid scheme; those in it maybe get come semblance of community, but few actually truly succeed. The ultimate carrot on the stick. It's telling a brick in the wall that he's the main character. He fixates on ideas of value and depends on people overcompensating on his behalf as a result.
Sex and the idea of lording over a woman baits weak men into ignoring how they're being abused and exploited by men in power…so, a lot of people want to use women like sacrificial sheep and junk to throw at such men. Because otherwise there's a good chance they will fade away without a vaguely feminine anchor. In between laughing at middle-aged single women, massive amounts of men are killing themselves in middle age and after divorce…and male conditioning insures the majority of men will inevitably (if not now) blame this epidemic on women somehow.
Upkeeping homosocial values and getting in on the scheme, externalizing ALL issues, at all costs…parasiticism instead of, y'know, teaching men love, tenderness, and the joy of connecting to other people. Imagine if the script was flipped and women had a house slave and were galvanized to be great.
Sorry about the tangent. It's just I'm saying it because you should really take the rhetoric about status with a grain of salt. I've seen a lot of men just be outright psychos about the subject and literally act as if men are some hivemind/unified tribe.
No. 6728
>>6651> It's incredibly discouraging to me how up until a few decades ago, for the most part, all aspects of culture (literature/music/art/philosophy etc.) were determined by men. That's because male "genius" is subsidized by female work. Women were forced into marriages because otherwise they couldn't get enough work to keep themselves alive. Once in marriages they had to have children, and then they had the sole responsibility of taking care of the children, as well as the husband. And this is before getting into the internalized self-hatred of women who tried to break out of boundaries. Clara Schumann clearly couldn't reconcile her societal role as a woman with her desire to compose. Fanny Mendelssohn's father wrote to her "perhaps music will be [your brother's] profession, whereas for you it can and must be an ornament, and never the fundamental bass-line of your existence and activity.” It's a numbers game, men have a massive pool to choose from because men are subsidized by women, while women have an extremely small pool to choose from because most women were too busy to dedicate themselves to music, and the few who were lucky enough to have the resources to were relentlessly ground down by gender roles.
There's a lot of feminist literature on how and why women creatives are both gatekept out of creative positions and how the few that do make it through end up erased.
"Why have there been no great women artists", only 26 pages:
https://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf"How to suppress women's writing", 170 pages, more in-depth, applies to fields besides writing:
https://urmishreeb.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/how-to-suppress-womens-writing-joanna-russ.pdf"Women of ideas and what men have done to them", 500~ pages, but also touches on women in academia:
https://archive.org/details/womenofideaswhat00spen
> Paglia "the reason there is no female Jack the Ripper is because there is no female Mozart"Funniest thing I ever heard was a friend saying Paglia should transition since she's obviously so desperate to be a man. If she was a zoomer you know she'd be saying she's "malebrained". Ultimately don't worry about trying to achieve "genius" level work because that's not something anyone can decide to do, it's a label other people bestow for political and cultural reasons. Do your best work, remembering that society is maintained and moved forwards by its billions of members.
No. 6734
>>6651>Honestly, I think we have this attitude in our culture that people are entitled to reproduction and it's bogus. We ought to let natural selection take its course, meaning stop socializing women to accept male entitlement. Is there a type of female separatism-adjacent philosophy centered around what I'm talking about - limiting reproduction to proficient males, and taking other measures to exterminate male degeneracy from civilization without incurring total separation? Either let them die out and just do parthogenisis (it's real, just suppressed, don't even need a lab to do it).
Or unironically stop birthing males, let their numbers go down to 10% (only need 7% to avoid genetic disorders). Off them at 30 when sperm quality tanks. Anything less is just women deluding themselves that men will go along with an "equality" compromise.
No. 6738
>>6734won't the exact opposite happen, cause I mean you'll be the one's dying out, conservative religious people will way more kids and you all won't and your ideas will die with you
again this is problem with RF, its so focused of retarded hypothetical which pretend it has more power and relevancy then it actually as, its the whole thing separatism, going off to the woods to live doesn't really change anything, in fact when RF tried this in the 70's, the end result was unprepared getting poison ivy and not much else
No. 6750
>>6738Spoken like an room IQ scrote. Tons of women are single mothers nowadays it's not much of a stretch for women to platonically marry eachother and raise their kids together in female centered communities. When those young traditional women come across these types of communities, most won't hesitate to join up. Outbreed = win is short term dumb, just look at how quickly birth rates dropped after women had the choice not to.
>>6747Yeah bc scrotes sabotaged them. Literally poisoned the well in one case.
No. 6759
>>6758These cells aren't fully sperm cells, they lacked fertilization function (was not performed in this paper), and the Stra8+ BMCs into germ cells with retinoic acid treatment (the method used for rats) besides not, unless they make significant advances in the field. the sperm cells created aren't new telomeres which means that they will be the age of the person they took them from genetically, so the children will have a much shorter lifespan(if it was possible in the first place)
again why are you asking this question in this thread ?
No. 6761
>>6759nta, dunno who you questioning, me or the anon that replied to me. asked since
nonny seemed to know about it and might see my question if she came back here. was assuming biology anons arent gonna scroll up the stupid questions thread and answer a niche question, would probably get bumped away.
No. 6899
>>6564>to be accepting of both violent immigrant malesI know this was months ago, but I'm echoing it because everyone seems to think it's some sort of controversial right-wing view when I say the same thing irl and it's annoying - you know, the whole "m-muh not all muslim b-but the women are in charge of the house aychkually so it's progressive!"
I have a lot of left-leaning political views but this is something I've been firmly adamant and consistent on for years and it's that I really do not want immigrant males from extremely misogynistic and violent cultures coming to western countries and then not even
trying to adhere to the policies, rights and rules here.
Isn't it funny how when the women of these cultures immigrate to western areas, they almost always seem to just get on, get jobs contribute to society and are generally pleasant people? I know a lot of them and they're pretty generous and kind, and you can tell they're happy to be here.
The men are a completely different breed, and I don't trust them the same as I don't trust any other moid but at the same time, I'm even more distrustful because they clearly cannot adhere to the fact that women have more rights over here. More specifically, they cannot fucking keep their hands off young white girls in particular because they're look at as whores or "slags" as they like to call them.
I don't want men like this in my country, they are a danger to women and girls - of all cultures and races. They should be forced to stick to the values of this country or they can fuck off back home - the women and girls seem to follow it just fine and are nice, so what's stopping the men? Oh right, the fact that they're degenerates and when they're caught out trying to molest children or organise the grooming of poor/working class white girls they want to cry racism or Islamophobia.
It feels like you can't even mention this shit though because then every libfem and every scrote in a 5-mile radius will bring up the one Token Nice Immigrant man they know and how that must disprove the multiple child grooming scandals and high sexual assault rates perpetrated by immigrant men. Didn't they even have some sort of "lessons" in Norway that were teaching these immigrant moids that rape is actually a bad thing? Why the fuck are we letting these scrotes come over here? We do not care about the safety of women and girls at all and it's infuriating.
I've been spat on by these disgusting pigs, my friends and I have been fondled and circled by them in nightclubs like they were a pack of vultures that can barely speak a word of English and when I tried to talk about how fucked up it is that, hm, coincidentally - there's a pattern of assaults from these men - suddenly it's "nazi rhetoric" like shut the fuck up.
Please don't report this for racebait, I'm just fucking tired of it. I'm tired of women and girls in their own religion/country/culture being abused and being forced to cover up and being forced into marriage. I'm tired of them coming over here and thinking they have instant access to the "white slags" they watch in porn. I do not want them here if they cannot even bother to have basic respect for women.
No. 7891
It sucks that modern-day feminism is shoe-horned into left-wing narrative with the rest of leftie garbage that it is nowdays. Sure, if you are veeery right-wing (basically traditionalist), you can argue that feminism is one of "degenerate" movements like troonism, inceldom and people who lick migrant asses. But adhering to right-wing values and treating women as human beings is not mutually exclusive. My right-wing feminism is basically an idea that women of my community need to be protected from dangerous migrant men and low-value men in my community. By low-value I mean troons, pedoes, rapists and incels. Additionally, it's common sense to speak of every women as a future mother or at least as somebody who can control her reproductive rights and exclude low-value males from genetic pool. So, by being a right-wing woman, I mean somebody who believes that some degenerate scrotes should do an hero or at least be completely ignored by women and the society at large. Moreover, women need to be protected from those dangerous scrotes (incels) who will try to take an advantage over women by force.
So, my variety of feminism is basically pinkpill, but with a nationalist tilt lmao.
Anyway, I think that all RW feminists need to brainstorm some sort of manifesto because a lot of people are confused that feminism - gasp - can be targeted against specific groups of men (and it's based partially on race).
No. 7894
>>7891Interesting, I'm not personally a nationalist but I agree that associating the basic idea of feminism with being left-wing is a bad idea, especially seeing the negative associations people have with left wing politics today.
In a similar vein, it's eyeroll-inducing to watch most 'radfems' be against the gendies but then still hang on to all of the other idpol horseshit, even though idpol is what caused this in the first place.
No. 7895
>>7894Radfems are libfems when it comes to race and it’s fucking annoying. Only a select few actually have the guts to talk about how disgusting Latino, Arab and black men are (it’s always white man bad) and are willing to call out the retarded woke shit infecting our society, shit like “fatphobia” (there is so misogynistic elements to it but it is mostly just lazy people wanting to be oppressed because liberals made being oppressed fashionable)
And there are seriously not enough radfems that talk about how gross drag queens are and how nasty gay scrotes are. Only a few based lesbian radfems are brave enough to say how degenerate gay men’s behaviors are pushing back any and all acceptance of homosexuality and how gay scrotes are pushing pedophilia
No. 7900
>>7895>>7896Immensely based, nonna. On topic of hay scrotes, the slippery slope applies here too. Some people warned us, that it would be gays first and then, when we accept gay scrotes, trannies will follow. After that, who knows? Pedos, zoofuckers? As I say, slippery slope. For some reason a lot of radfems (and on this very imageboard too) refuse to accept that there is little difference between a gay moid and a tranny. The difference is that one of them wears dresses. Lesbians, it's another story. Female family units is natural and based, lesbian women actually can form meaningful connections among themselves which is good for society. Gay scrotes, on other hand, can only spread STDs. I'm not talking about uwu cottegecore sapphic girls, I mean that lesbians have some common sense in them.
>>7897Same as alt-right moids, who only got into RW discourse because their favorite gamedev added black people and women in their vidya games. They don't follow these view because they believe in them, they follow them cause women in vidya makes them slightly uncomfortable and now they can't play with their toys.
I feel a lot of radfems come from the same stock. As in, their favorite fasion subreddit was overrun by tranoids or their nerdy husbando youtuber trooned out.
No. 7904
File: 1673816209387.jpg (52.94 KB, 612x408, istockphoto-532119994-612x612.…)
>>7895>>7891Very good points nonnies, something I am sick of seeing too in regards to not speaking up against non-white scrotes because of the fear of seeming racist. Doesn't matter what shade the scrote is or what culture he hails from, at the end of the day he is still male and thus insanely likely to be a piece of shit, even more so when they come from backwards regressive religions and cultures that treat women like objects and/or walking incubators.
>>7896There was a retard in the tinfoil thread the other day who was crying about "western imperialist mindsets" when nonnas mentioned the fact that a lot of male Muslim immigrants are incredibly violent and unable to integrate into western societies when they move here and thus the mass uncontrolled flow of migrants into the west is a bad thing - and I'm not even against immigration btw, but when you come here you should respect the rules and rights of the country especially when it comes to the safety and protection of women and children. This is consistently supported with plenty of evidence especially when it comes to sexual violence and yet it feels like a lot of them still just want to look the other way because of muh racism. It shouldn't be deemed racist to point out that Muslim moids are shit and literally kill women because it says so in their Big Book, or that black men routinely shit on and look at black women like they're trash and then pull the racism card as a defense.
And I'll be blunt, if you - generally speaking - call yourself a radfem but you keep your mouth shut every time the topic of non-white moids misogyny comes up, you are not a radfem at all, and it's clear that you do not stand for women as a sex class. You're no better than liberal twitterfags at that point if you want to ignore the plight of other cultures/religions/races of women because you fear the dreaded racism card, it's pathetic and spineless. It's literally on the same level as the retards who say that the hijab is empowering or that black women should always stand by their men purely because they're of the same race.
Silly picrel I know, but I honestly don't think we will achieve true liberation until we collectively decide to stop shilling for moids based on any attributes/religion/skin colour and instead focus on our grouped strength as women from across the globe with different experiences of life, womanhood and misogyny.
No. 7908
>>7906I said today for a reason, I'm not accountable for the other conversations people choose to have ITT. I don't take issue with your statement's content, I just find it interesting that you felt the need to post "reminders" for something that wasn't mentioned at all in the conversation.
>>7907Why are you mad? I'm not even right wing myself, I just find this thread interesting. If you don't like talking to conservative women then just go to the other 100000 threads that lean to the left, it's that easy.
No. 7914
>>7911Fair enough, I got confused and thought that
>>7901 was a reply to the ongoing conversation. Wasn't the eugenics feminism tardpost like half a year ago?
No. 7915
>>7912And tbh saying racist tradthots aren't feminists isn't shitting on other women at all, but there is one person doing that here
>>6377 (honestly she's right as well)
No. 7918
>>7908You’re an actual legitimate retard. When (real) conservatives look at you, all they see is a confused woman with little life experience they can manipulate for nefarious purposes. Your political stance is nothing more than a joke for any of the groups you try to associate with. All of your “patriotic heroes” are men or serve ideas created by men for male benefit. You’re a tool to be used and disposed of. You will never be more than a baby factory in the eyes of ANY world power, and the fact that you claim to recognise the dire situation of women globally yet still only want change that for women with pink skin or Hebrew speaking Cambodians speaks numbers of your selfishness.
Men have created the ideals you worship and you will never “belong” among them. They laugh at you- not behind your back but to your face, and always will. 2X is for feminists, go back to Christian Mingle or wherever you came from.
No. 7920
>>7918Wow this alogging is actually hilarious, idk what I even said to
trigger you this badly. I already just stated that I'm not right wing or a nationalist/patriot, but since you want to assume things about me I guess you should know that I don't interact with men ever except when obligated to and I don't belong to any religion, so there go all of your arguments. I hope you can learn to read someday, it's a very useful skill. 2X is for women with feminist ideas from all sides of the spectrum, not just people that agree with you.
No. 7924
>>7922I already adressed this here
>>7914, it was a misunderstanding on my part.
No. 7926
>>7904>I honestly don't think we will achieve true liberation until we collectively decide to stop shilling for moids based on any attributes/religion/skin colour and instead focus on our grouped strength as women from across the globe with different experiences of life, womanhood and misogyny.Based
All problems in the world originate with men. Problems in the west are caused by western men, problems in muslim countries are caused by muslim men, problems in Asia are caused by Asian men, etc. Adding muslim men to Europe just means that women now have to deal with problems caused by both European men and muslim men and the same goes for any combination of country and imported men. Women are 50% of the population and without us men are nothing. They know this which is why they spread whatever bullshit they can to keep women from acting as an organised group in politics.
>>7918Everything you said about the right can be said about the left. Do I really need to post the Dworkin quote? Both sides are shit for women and that's intentional.
Don't want trannies molesting girls in the women's bathroom? Better vote for the right!
Don't want your reproductive rights taken away? Better vote for the left!
It doesn't matter who you vote for, as a woman you are not voting for you're own interests, you are voting for you think is going to do the least harm to you.
No. 7931
>>7926>They know this which is why they spread whatever bullshit they can to keep women from acting as an organised group in politics.Exactly, right wing men and left wing men both have an interest in discouraging free exchange of ideas among women. They want you to listen to them and nod your head silently to their oh so genius ideas but god forbid you speak to women from the 'other side'. This is at the core of the '
terf' label, it's all one big divisionary tactic.
No. 7942
>>7897You're basically describing all of /g/ right now and crystal cafe.
My only gripe ITT is embracing anything 'right wing' is retarded and nebulous at best. American right wingers are not the same as Europol right wingers so the title of this thread is a misonmer. Ultimately there is no place for women in politics it is strategically made as such.
The left want to use women as public property right as private property. I had some confused cringe with anons here claiming to be 'conservative'. And railing on gay moids saying they're no different from trannies. Trannies are far worse than gay scrotes. Gay scrotes are the typic variety of scrote misogyny without worser moid behavior. Trannies ARE sissy gay behavior and it's specific variety of misogyny PLUS the typic rapist scrote behavior. Trannies are much worse than gay moids, they attempt to skirt laws to infest women only spaces.
No. 7945
>>7942>My only gripe ITT is embracing anything 'right wing' is retarded and nebulous at bestI understand anon but if you remove the labels and negative connotations associated with left/right all that remains is ideas. Ideas you can judge objectively for their own merit and without the stigma associated with the division tactic that is the political system.
>The left want to use women as public property right as private propertyHard agree.
No. 7953
>>7926>>7931Both based.
Honestly at this point I think "right" and "left" should just be used in the context of discussing who we vote for and other such practical matters.
Actual ideas should be debated for what they are, separated from the petty right vs left battle when it's not truly relevant. Least we forget that feminism and really just being a woman makes all of us closer to each other than we will ever be to any moid of whichever end of the political spectrum we consider ourselves closest to.
No. 7956
>>7937Using your post as more of a jump off point to sperg.
A lot of problems people have with conceptualizing conservative women come from their understanding of conservative men's views (the "right wing") and that's their error. Being a conservative woman (to me) means being a type of humble and reserved woman while still in control of my life; remember the conservative stance of being anti or minimum government involvement in our lives. Don't let it just be an illusion while moids pull your puppet strings and keep you ignorant and subservient to them. Perhaps a poor example, but if you remove the "for the males" motivations or XY religion as the glue from gatherings of self sufficient Amish women or Hassidic women, you can just have the female comradery and gatherings of women passing down skills to benefit themselves and their children and that's my idealistic hope of the kind of things I want to see in gatherings of conservatives women, not vitriol for other women who've made choices we don't like. Conservative doesn't automatically mean patriarchal. You can vehemently disagree with another woman but still seek to help her and teach her. Same logic with peaking other women and getting them out of gender shit.
You can be a conservative woman in favor of pro-choice while also preaching against the "sex is empowerment" bullshit and loose sex life habits that often result in a lot of unwanted pregnancies, you can be for providing growing girls with all the healthcare education that they lack right now so they don't end up in a horrible situation like being pregnant while too young with
abusive moid bastards. You can tell them to value their virginity not because it makes them pure or something retarded, but because it's their body that they should value and should evaluate their choices with. (Being anti hormonal birth control is the only based answer though, that shit is poison.)
I don't need to elaborate on being a conservative women and being pro gun or pro self defense, pretty self explanatory. Why should conservative women care what lesbians do either, they don't hurt anyone and are still women. Stop assuming conservative means anti homo/bi, we just don't want fucking kink parades that moids push.
Reject welfare programs because it pushes poor women to pop out more babies than they can reasonably care for that burden the state and set up both child and parent to fail and or struggle in life, aggressively proselytize for law changes that hold moids accountable in finances at very the bare minimum and do not allow for any loopholes whatsoever. Go as far as possible with this; guilty until proven innocent, one woman seeing him walk away with another woman is worth 5 men's words that he didn't. If he refuses to work with pay deduction for his child tax, send him to prison and slave labor him, give 50/50 to the state for housing and feeding him and the rest to the mother. I don't give a shit if there is one crazy woman out of thousands that would abuse a man financially for this, he didn't have to fuck her to begin with. (They don't even need to cum, precum passes along sperm.)
No. 7958
>>7956>Stop assuming conservative means anti homo/bi Tell that to
>>7900 lel
>Reject welfare programs because it pushes poor women to pop out more babies than they can reasonably care for 'Conservatism' is a fucking joke. When success of the collective and lending a helping hand to others is so thoroughly entrenched in your culture that it is personified by a literal mother like in Scandinavian cultures you have an expanded welfare state and systems that actually do push success in child rearing like Danish Flexicurity and Nordic models. Other forms of Social insurance virtually unknown to American fags outside of brainwashed 'muh socialist' fox news ramblings. SI is the de facto standard in the developed world and most countries of the OECD that aren't shit (U.S isn't part of the developed world in this context because maternity leave is pathetic to nonexistent at best and socialized health care is also nonexistent). Even British people have better public healthcare than Americans and you've made me feel like a retard for defending the NHS. Even the Scandinavian models aren't enough for women to child rear while holding down a career let alone retard american shit.
Strangely, despite promising emerging documentation of social insurance in general (not even Nordic models and flexicuty just welfare states) and how they actually encouraged people to have nuclear families in the late 20th century during the previous dominant economic landscape of global Keynesian economics before full globalisation (which is actually conservative) welfare is seen as a 'leftist' thing now by libertarian regards and American conservatism. Strange how times change and framing by pundits manipulates one into voting against their own will like women intentionally crippling themselves and others by voting against things like expanded welfare support for women including maternity leave, and widowers pension.
Oddly and all of the sudden the new 'conservative' is tossing welfare so that it will be more difficult for women to child rear and they have no option but to be stay at home or work indefinitely to fit the mold of a moid while simultaneously having no moid benefits ergo the glass ceiling.
But rather than accepting that welfare could be improved and expanded upon to reflect the importance of child rearing and the flexibility of the labor market with emergent precarity caused by globalization you'd rather go full retard and abolish welfare states, cut social support by cutting taxes and mindlessly repeat the same message for years exhaustedly, penny pinch, and call people bludgers/lazy fucks for being Injured, laid off, fired, giving birth, having disabilities like a dumbfuck American. Left and right whatever you call it progressive, conservative both are shit at the present for women, but conservative ideology is zombie politicking with nothing new to offer. It's doubly bad for women than stupid libfem shit. Libfems can be convinced, lesbians and mothers will only be whisked away under conservatism and used as pawns if not discarded.
This is the most misogynistic spew I've seen in this thread so far thinly disguised as feminist, lel. 'welfare states make women pop out babies' this is some Tucker Carlson shit.
Since when is wanting to be treated with common decency and having bodily autonomy 'conservative' kek. Criminal justice can slant either way, yes kink shit is retarded unambiguously but moids need there coom and conservative moids are no different. The difference is conservatism pundits actively froth at the mouth at the existence of gay people and seek to curb stomp lesbians for existing. Radfem needn't conservative bullshit like this.
Well at least we have learned that conservatism and feminism are completely incompatible. In a world where there is no sane side to pick for women; it's either death by trannies or death by forced birthing.
I had a inkling that conservatism was completely dogshit with no redemption and continuously blames women for men's failings in policy making historically while also banging women over the head with the idea that they have no purpose other than incubation of future moids, thank you for solidifying that.
No. 7959
>>7958Nice misrepresentation and deflection, you completely misunderstand the point of reframing issues to provide perspective. This is probably moid bait and I'm ashamed to reply, but by the way take your meds. This pretentiousness and know-it-allness is why everyone hates europeans and shittalk you openly and behind your back.
>Since when is wanting to be treated with common decency and having bodily autonomy 'conservative' kek.Since when is it not kek.
No. 7961
Most of the ideas here don't even sound rightwing nor conservative tbh.
>>7949Like the plastic surgery debate?
No. 7965
>>7961Don't really read that thread but I was moreso thinking of the unconventional attractions thread in particular when I wrote that post.
>Most of the ideas here don't even sound rightwing nor conservative tbh.That's the thing, there are no spaces for women with these ideas online. You either have to be super pozzed or a tardwife, even among radfems, there is no in between. These ideas are only in this thread because their "radicalness"/right wing nature is largely over-exaggerated by people who have a vested interest in not allowing women to have these conversations.
No. 7966
>>7958>Well at least we have learned that conservatism and feminism are completely incompatible. In a world where there is no sane side to pick for women; it's either death by trannies or death by forced birthing. NTA but I'm pretty sure that anon is against forced birthing, she did say
>Reject welfare programs because it pushes poor women to pop out more babies than they can reasonably care for Regardless of whether or not you agree with the American conservative view of welfare/social security (I personally don't), conservative women can still agree with many of the core feminist principles. Perhaps not with your or my perspective of what makes a 'good' or legitimate feminist thinker, but there is still a universal essence of feminist thought that women from either side of the spectrum can both agree on. For instance, a libertarian woman would generally be for abortion, because they are against intervention of the state in the personal lives of citizens, meaning that she is still a valuable ally when it comes to the cause of bodily autonomy. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to look at things on a case by case basis to get as much support for women's causes as possible.
No. 7967
>>7958agreed.
>>7959this IS a cringe burger moment, even though i am one myself. Living in europe for five years made me realize that many of the feminist things you hold dear in
>>7956 are made possible in common villages/cities across europe. Women live, provide, and work for themselves outside of scrote violence with easy access to reproductive rights, education, equal pay, and familial parameters. All while holding their traditions close.And yes, they have a welfare state. the US's welfare program is meant to reproduce harm/cope, rather than actually provide comprehensive care and autonomy.
I know you said this is what "conservative" means to you, but that's an annoying post-modernistic perspective that ignores how that term carries a real colloquial implication/definition. All of the following things that are mentioned in
>>7956 :
>pro-choice>guilty until proven innocent, one woman seeing him walk away with another woman is worth 5 men's words that he didn't.>child tax on men (while still anti-government/minimum government???)>a system that can technically allow a woman to financially have leverage over a manhave never been held in practice historically through a conservative/traditionalist view. These are radical. They're good radical things, but still can never be congruent with the term "conservative." Words have meanings. Yes we can change them to some extent, but it just sounds like you're desperately trying to change the framework of something into something else that it isn't. As long as your version of conservative values are incongruent with a man's, then in what world are these things possible through the general conservative lens? And if you're not trying to fit into that lens, then why are you so desperate to stick with the word??
No. 7968
>>7967NTA, how would you define the word conservative? I would generally say that it describes those who want to maintain a somewhat traditional status quo. I suppose it is post-modernist to use the term in the way that you describe, but it's difficult to not use it when you, like I said here
>>7965, are pigeonholed by others into the 'conservative' box for not subscribing to mainstream narratives.
Unrelated, but do any of you have any author recommendations for writers who explore the views discussed ITT?
No. 7970
>>7969Bingo, that's what I'm getting at. It's part of the "zomg literal fashizum!!" tactics that are used by certain groups to push an agenda that most reasonable people would normally disagree with. Our collective consciousness, even decades later, is still scarred by WW2, so most people run the opposite direction of whatever is labeled as fascist without giving a second thought as to whether or not it actually is fascist. The whole
TERF debacle is a great example of that, they get called fascists despite generally being left leaning and many of them being gnc lesbians, and having none of the core tenets of fascist rhetoric present in any of their ideas.
No. 7975
>>7974nta but why do you retards always put words in peoples mouths before they even have a chance to reply to you
>then you genuinely believe white straight men just aren't likely to be pedophilic rapists and are more trustworthy? why?why do this? you look retarded, just wait for her to reply with her thoughts? have you ever considered the alternative of both cracking down on straight white moids
and moids who immigrate here? like you don't have to choose one or the other kek
No. 7976
>>7904>>7895>>7896I think what i find interesting in these discussions of "huur duur you all don't want to discuss race because of idpol" is that you all
are engaging in idpol. Men all around the world are heinous, and certain cultures right
now run the gambit of
having access to commit even more harm against their own women (i.e. muslim countries, undeveloped countries, etc). This is not inherent to their identity, which is what you all end up claiming, but it's because this is what always happens when men realize they do not have global power: They kill and subjugate their own women. I just wonder if anybody has picked up a history book based on these convos, what's with the exclusive current news analysis? The same things happened all across europe not too long ago, and it definitely isn't because of european genetics, identity, religion, or enduring "european" cultural values. Ukrainian women are being raped and killed as we speak by people of the same race, and the once "civilized" men they went to school and worked with are also taking up the opportunity of chaos to rape. Men are OPPORTUNISTS!
I find it far more in line with radical feminist theory and traditional perspectives to recognise how the pendulum swings throughout time based on proximity or access to power. The Public vs private property point about leftist/right-wing men is incredibly poignant.
>>7968To me, conservatism has always been about discernment, and is separate from traditionalism. Tradition involves bringing down culture and values based on a shared lineage and/or sense of legacy. Conservatism is suspicious of the new, but it does not always condemn it. Just because mainstream narratives want to pidgeon-hole you doesn't mean you need to work within that paradigm, which is essentially what happens when people attempt to re-write definitions. It's like how gendies say "well i don't fit into the exact standard of what a (insert sex) is, so i guess i'll make my own definition!" kek. You do not have to believe in ideological packages.
No. 7982
>>7966American women have little to no maternity leave and wanting to cut welfare is a thinly veiled argument to cut support to pregnant and child rearing women.
>>7959Criticising someone's words as being 'too pretentious' while ignoring the history of the world that led to the point of sudden change in conservatism being a thing just makes you look like a dumbfuck and is not an argument. Similarly arguing misrepresentation with no ryme or reason is also retarded.
>>7966I didn't mean to imply the anon agreed with force birthing I only used it as an example of twisted shit conservative Muricans pull as being 'conservative'. The lack of maternity leave in the U.S is not fucking normal OECD wise though and rather than being deemed 'conservative' I'd argue it's more antiwoman and inhuman lel
>>7976>which is essentially what happens when people attempt to re-write definitionsRoe V Wade was overturned, I'm honestly baffled as to how any woman could identify with a side that wants to actively control your bodily autonomy, and reduce your role to baby making by weaponizing pregnancy and gatekeeping fucking abortion.
I don't want to defend trannys but laws should be malleable while certain rights should remain untouchable without some extreme changes in democracy. The U.S is not a democracy so it's hard to say how such system would be put into place, it's a false federated pseudo-democracy.
No. 9259
>>9253Ntayrt but these posts
>>7950 >>7940
>>7897 seem to be alluding to it. The last one saying "left wing radfems" as if there's any other kind of wing lol
No. 9271
>>7897>left wing radfems I'm an ecofem and I don't get what the fuck you are saying. Radical feminism is INHERENTLY left-wing because its rooted in Marxism.
Just stick to conservative feminism, that would suit women like you who can't actually read feminist books and have never performed activism in your life.
No. 9276
>>7984What is "left" and what is "right" has changed with time. Some of what Marx was advocating for would now be considered right wing and the social policies of Soviet Russia resemble a Trump manifesto more closely than anything from a "left" political party. Anyone against the intrusion of men into women's spaces is now labelled as a
TERF and right wing bigot because women's rights is no longer a part of the leftist agenda.
The left is not about working class solidarity and rights for the marginalized in society. Right wing populism is increasing all over the world for that exact reason. It's identity politics instead of class politics.
Left and right are arbitrary terms and the current political climate is better thought of as being globalism vs nationalism than the people vs corporate interests because all major parties serve the interests of the corporations and the elites. Any difference is surface level.
TL;DR Step outside of the moid construct of left and right because these terms are self limiting and are irrelevant to women.
No. 9280
>>9270Kek you're forgetting anon her Nigel is better than the all the other moids. All scrotes are bad and all but not my Nigel he'll never dehumanize me or any other women despite everything In his socialization teaching him otherwise lel.
You see it's not moids fault somehow it's always women's fault for trannies being degen and not men's because Nigel creampied in me, he picked me so he's special and the exception of all moids.
No. 9281
>>9277I'm not OP so I don't know
>>9278>doesn't mean we have to go along with itIt is what it is and it's the creation of men. Defending the rights of women against trannies, immigrant moids and predatory businesses like Only Fans shouldn't be considered right wing but it's where we are. You either stay silent so you can be considered left wing or accept the right wing label, shrug and keep going.
No. 9289
>>9276retarded take. you could go and have nice conversations about words, changed meanings etc with troons.
"man and woman are arbitrary terms what is man and what is a woman has changed with time they have third gender cultures" etc like do words mean things or not
No. 9292
>>9287A marriage is a partnership and an exchange of services. If a woman is getting what she wants out of a marriage then is she really a handmaiden? Women are never going to stop being heterosexual but they can get some standards and stop enabling worthless low value men.
>>9289Biological sex is observable and not a construct. There is no choice involved in biological sex and it can not be changed. Women have two X chromosomes and men have a Y chromosome.
The left right political spectrum is an entirely man made construct that only exists because of the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly during the French Revolution.
No. 9298
>>9292Marriage is a patriarchal institution for transferring ownership of women and that’s why it’s seen as an exchange of services. How is upholding that
not playing into patriarchy? God why are y’all so fucking stupid?
No. 9304
>>9300Polish nationalists pushed for full women's rights some 37 years before the average adoption in the developed world, right after independence, and were the only ones to have female representatives to the parliament first time around. Now neomarxian feminists want to tear down statues of the father of Democratic Nationalism, because something something patriarchy.
>>9302Family abolitionism is very old by now and unfortunately it was baked into most modernism. There is no shortage of ideologues who want to take humanity in hand and boil it down to concrete hives full of vat-grown drones a la Brave New World but with even less pretense.
>>9298Patriarchy itself is a hijacked term. It literally just meant "pater familas/analogue is the political head of the broader family unit." The idea society was ordered to be some kind of old boys' club for every joe average to oppress women never held any water. Men usually got chucked into the grinder first. A model where society is supposed to primarily benefit men over women would had the later "volunteer" in the suicide squads. Norms weren't morphed around men but communal/administrative utility and provided a stick and a carrot. Marriage existed for the benefit of children, and ultimately, the elderly parents, if any individual at all. It certainly didn't enrich men directly as a class to til the land for extra mouths to feed. It's near ubiquity shows it must've been a result of cultural selection on a wider than individual level.
IMO the rigidity and authoritarianism in social norms of the past was the result of the brutality+instability of primitive existence. Things weren't allowed to fail, otherwise community would starve/lose coherence and dismantle itself. On the other hand people also had to compensate for the feebleness of law and order. Men had more incentives given not because they were the ruling class (just like the current trashmen and ditch diggers aren't) or because the ruling class was identifying with the average lowly cottar. They were given more incentives since they possessed more brawn and thus had more bargaining power. Otherwise everyone was under extremely rigid systems of customs.
No. 9316
>>9304>Men usually got chucked into the grinder first. Is this somehow women's problem? Do women have to solve the problems of war caused by moids and the patriarchy?
>Norms weren't morphed around men but communal/administrative utility and provided a stick and a carrot. Which was created originally by moids, handmaiden. This is some strange moid cope.
Marriage existed for the benefit of children, and ultimately, the elderly parents, if any individual at all.
No, marriage existed for the benefit of moids and elderly moid parents. Moids will eat their young and need women to take care of them because women are superior child rearers who don't regularly eat their young and abuse them like savages. Women are exploited and used in marriage as pawns for political control historically. I'm curious what your opinion of modern women's life satisfaction plummeting after marriage while moids increases exponentially is. Marriage is a tool to dispose of women out of the workforce so that they know their place so they may be dependent on a moid bread winner. Your weak assumption that patriarchy doesn't exist because 'muh moid dictionary definition' is shit. Call it by any other name, claim it was highjacked like a retarded conservative moid, like a autistic Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson seething at post modernism and muh cultural Marxists take. The phenomena that is being described here is patriarchy; a universal control over women by moids, there no other way you slice it men receive a collective benefit from marriage, women don't.
It certainly didn't enrich men directly as a class to til the land for extra mouths to feed.
Yes it did. And still does. Some of those 'extra mouths to feed' are moid mouths and future birthing machines for moids to shape and brainwash into incubating their moid young. These moid young are made up of half of their own moid DNA.
It's near ubiquity shows it must've been a result of cultural selection on a wider than individual level.
This is a reach, many cultures don't practice marriage but have stable partnerships and roles instead. I believe your confusing monogamy with marriage, monogamy is probably universal in humans but marriage is an invention. Aside from this even if it is 'universal' this is a shit fallacious argument appealing to nature.
Patterns change over time and influence/colonization affects those patterns. It's characteristic of indigenous cultures, that they may still be violent and exhibit typical patriachical shit sometimes extremities due to less resources but they may also have polyamorous fags and unconventional matriachies.
But rather the more obvious evidence that marriage is shit in the vein of Occam's razor is people telling us that marriage is shit. Men seem to think they are being 'tied down' despite its benefits to them and womens quality of life drops from moid abuse and being treated like a broodmare with no independency. Moids will still cheat on women In marriages exponentially, it's a performance, the veneer of moid loyalty lel. Marriage rates are dogshit, women initiate divorces at a far higher rate because they hold everything together in families but eventually implode from insufferable moids they put their hope in. I want to make it clear that evidence points to monogamy as the norm but not marriage. Marriage is a far later invention that coincided with retarded moid controlling mechanisms in European history.
Patriachichical norms and marriage being the modern norm in European places predominantly doesn't prove shit but that men can beat women into subjugation, through propaganda, gas lighting them en masse into marriage control, controlling their behavior so that they fit rigid societal expectations and stereotypes and continuously manipulate them. You attempting to justify subjugation of women is disgusting.
Maybe an anon more versed in harems and the real sick moid history can provide a better answer that will highlight the double standard based depravity of moids, but to be honest you don't really need one because your argument is retarded. Are you going to argue that harems, and FGM are also the norm because some moid history says so?
No. 9318
>IMO the rigidity and authoritarianism in social norms of the past was the result of the brutality+instability of primitive existence. Things weren't allowed to fail, otherwise community would starve/lose coherence and dismantle itself. On the other hand people also had to compensate for the feebleness of law and order. Men had more incentives given not because they were the ruling class (just like the current trashmen and ditch diggers aren't) or because the ruling class was identifying with the average lowly cottar. They were given more incentives since they possessed more brawn and thus had more bargaining power. Otherwise everyone was under extremely rigid systems of customs.
I actually agree with this to some extent, the basis that when times are tough, resources scarce and inevitable moid squabbles ensuing because they can't control moid rage, leadership may be needed. But women are never seen as an option because of the amazing scrote 'brawn' you're hailing here. You just had to put it in such a pickme way lel really fucking brawn? Are the brawn of moids crime stats anything to be proud of?
'Brawn', is one way to frame domestic violence, homicide, murder, child abuse, torture, and all the dehumanizing shit moids engage in lel. Consider a hypothetical world model where we didn't glorify 'brawn' and abusive moids like we still do under patriachy anon.
No. 9321
File: 1674295640934.jpg (75.68 KB, 900x558, 1659817666772.jpg)
Being nationalist isn't necessarily right or left wing, it was the foucaultites and post-marxists that tried to make that connection, fun fact the CIA intentionally introduced their rhetoric into leftist groups to destroy those from the inside and the sad thing is these "intellectuals" that the CIA used didn't even realize they were being used
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/why-the-cia-cares-about-marxism/ No. 9322
>>9318>the basis that when times are tough, resources scarce and inevitable moid squabbles ensuing because they can't control moid rageDid you miss women fighting over toilet paper in marts 2 years ago? Do you think that if your family members and the rest of your sole support structure were dying of famine you wouldn't raid and steal from another community because you'd pull a feminist na'vi mind meld with them instead? And what, you'd achieve a parity of kids starved to death for equity's sake? In so far as they were allowed, women raided on viking trips–inb4 they wuz forced to do a vaunted profession because moids are sadistic and wanted to tarnish their sainthood.
>You just had to put it in such a pickme way lel really fucking brawn?How is brawn not a neutral word? Never heard "brains over brawn"? You clearly have problems, not even joking. You attached an emotional charge to this where there was none.
>Brawn', is one way to frame domestic violence, homicide, murder, child abuse, torture, and all the dehumanizing shit moids engage in lel.Now you're conflating physical strength with abuse. Stop.
And stop hyper-focusing on your favorite subject. I explained patrilienarity with strength, because that gave men a better position that then landed them the leadership role as familal roles bubbled up into state ones. I'm trying to explain why patriarchy as formulated by the 2nd wave rads is wrong and you come at me screeching about rape. Radfems were copying Marxism wholesale, just replacing the classes with the genders. It was dumb then and it is dumb now. Origin point is not class-based, it's proximity-based communalism of family-community-tribe/state that in fact generated the traditional structures.
So, again: men have more strength, they can reliably clear fields, drive the plough and fend off ravenous bandits and foreigners from beyond the next hill in a situation when upper body strength and mobility decides nearly everything in combat. Authority is weak, initially it's just some old community members, sometimes already mostly men, with women playing second fiddle, sometimes both - it makes little difference in how they enforce conformity. They only have so much strength as the community lends them and so they build consensus. Gender roles and family unit grow out of these conditions + land inheritance + sex drive. Men become the economic and political (outwards directed potential for violence, basically. All law is violence-backed still, we just delegate it now, don't try to be smug.) axis of the family, women become auxiliary to that, especially since in a systemic viod they can't negotiate on an equal footing (no systems of oppression! How wonderful!). and the children are usually functionally slaves to both parents until married off or until the previous head dies. This is usually how things look like for agrarian societies ~3500-2600 years ago, almost across the board.
>hypothetical world model where we didn't glorify 'brawn' and abusive moids like we still do under patriachy anon.We literally don't. Main power structure is softboi Woody Allen emulators now. Wow, they still abuse power–just like Woody Allen!/surprised pikachu face
Only macho types are on the working class outskirts and niches catering to them. Everybody up the ladder sings your song now on their way to the rape island, anon. Enjoy your nu-"patriarchy".
Also I hope you don't glorify law and order, anon, and don't hope to end violence that way. Cause that requires whole oceans of hired thugs to operate.
No. 9324
>>9322I didn't say women weren't incapable of violence, and yes I did miss the toliet paper shit cause I'm not a Burger so your strange meme reference shit isn't really convincing me of anything. Women fighting over toliet paper rabidly one time does not make thousands of years of subordination null. Women being capable of crime doesn't make them commit crime en masse like strong 'brawny' moids, you haven't countered my point. Women commit far less crime then men en masse. What do you call a system that gas lights women into fear of the repercussions for being abused and assaulted?, what do you call a system that permits the rape of an entire people because it gets dicks hard? But strangely it's only one people there's no inverse.
What is strength and brawn if not physical control and domination? Brawn is not a neutral term in my opinion and you choosing a single idiom doesn't say much, a man having brawny features is considered good. It isn't a neutral descriptor anon, it's generally positive indicating assertiveness and control. Even in the idiom you used to discredit this idea it's an untypical subversion of what is typical, that's what makes the idiom meaningful and effective at conveying it's message. It subverts what is common knowledge and expected. It's no different than the 'pen is mightier than the sword'. But within the topic of physical control a sword is obviously better than a pen and brawn is better than brains.
I have no idea how you can twist male physical violence and strength as only being synonymous with men. Obviously shitty moid violence is but not strength. I don't understand how brawn can be argued as being a positive thing and that you'd use it to justify any of your pickme logic about men being superior because of physicality. In the modern era women are capable of fufilling those roles, technology and automation will continue to make these jobs easier, and less strenuous reducing the need for hard manual labor needed for people in these jobs. And even if they weren't male violence and physicality is still a fucked up thing to prop up.
Manual labor jobs may have historically been suited for brawny individuals but in the future they will and present they are becoming less and less relevant.
Shouldn't we be striving away from moid brain violence? You haven't really explained why you disagree with 2nd wave feminism other than it co-opting ideas from Marxist school of thought which I don't really care about your Marxist sperging, nor Marxism tbh; like I said, you don't need a dictionary definition like an autist to know moids will violently destroy everything that they disagree with.
>And stop hyper-focusing on your favorite subject. But you're hyper focused on your Jordan Peterson tier take on Marxist shit lel
>Radfems were copying Marxism wholesaleI'm glad that you did the write up and am critical of this but I personally don't give two shits about Marxism, the origins of it and have no strong opinion one way or the other. A lot of Marxist thought is utopian shit to me that assumes moids can be people. I can be critical of a system like the patriarchy and consider the ideas it represents but not ascribe it to 2nd wave feminism and/or the retarded aspects of radfeminism. In essence you are arguing we need to maintain patriachy like a libfem (whether you want to believe it's real or not) and moid based violence for some reason because the illustrious history of moids and you don't like Marxism. Okay. While libfems want to ignore patriachy it seems you want to maintain it by this logic whether you want to call it real or natural moid rage.
>Also I hope you don't glorify law and order, anon, and don't hope to end violence that way. Cause that requires whole oceans of hired thugs to operate.I don't understand what relevance this is to the discussion but there's no clear answer to this because law and order is complex and theory differs greatly by country. I live in a country where I respect the police force, and my country does very well on the corruption index but now that you randomly mentioned it law and order is hopelessly weak in my country, constantly aiding in moids crimes while women get fucked over. I respect the police because they do the best that they can under the piss weak system of law in order in my country but I respect that many laws are too optimistic and lenient in my country, despite this I still respect what they are trying to achieve despite moids making this vision nigh impossible. I don't understand why this was brought up were you expecting me to be a anarchist or something because I am critical of violent moid patriachy shit? Moids may have made rape legal in many places and used law to subjugate women but I don't live in a shit hole like Iran that tortures women for dissenting beliefs.
I'm baffled by what you even are political stance wise since you seem angered by the sheer reference to patriarchy and radfeminism, defend moid violence as 'natural' and allowed to proceed since 'it's moid history' but strangely anti law and order because thugs? I can't tell if the law and order thing is just a gotcha question though. Are you some sort of hybrid anarcho-conservative?
No. 9333
>>7984>>9289Rightwingers talk about class way more than leftwingers today. Many leftwingers get angry and dismissive if you talk about class over their vacuous racial diatribes. In fact both have always taken rhetoric from eachother, right more so from the left. Some rightwingers even consider most of the right to just be leftwing with different aesthetics and different faction, because they are thinking more in a rigid centuries past sense and clearly defining the term. Unlike any current political context where it is not clearly defined and you are forced in one or the other for no reason rather than arriving here or there or somewhere from well thought out views.
And left and right exist in the same political context. More alike eachother in a given place and time than not. Because both in the past would be at odds with the commonalities of the present. Samew with political context in each country. But even ignoring that there's the fact that what you identify as leftwing or rightwing is vague and constantly changing. Your idea is not the same as another. Dominantly it cannot be said that leftwingers are for women's rights given they are aggressively for trannies, prostitution, immigration of men who openly despise women's rights and abuse women, etc. Or rather being against these things makes you a pariah in the narrow environment they have made. Whereas most rightwingers will defend women's rights to some extent because it is institutional and theirs. Or out of reaction. Or because it aligns with their interests. Leftwingers and some but not most rightwingers strangely negate themselves by denying that their own tradition and institutions is a tradition and institutions. Pretending it is the universal immortal truth and not a blip in history. Same with freedom and democracy. It is both imperialistic and suicidal. And explains the contrasts in what they support. Because they believe it is the universal immortal truth they deny all others. But at the same time don't realise that it's categorically the same as any other and can change or die.
And people shit on nationalism but then see the corporate news lay out the context with some propaganda about China and suddenly they don't think it's bullshit, they even warmonger.
Labels are first and foremost a matter of identification and grouping. Most people have labels before they have any understanding or opinions, so the content of the labels is not fixed. Groupings can easily be imposed by setting the stage too. People really feel this is my team that is enemy team, on the basis of nothing but how it is presented to them. Anything they personally like or dislike, any hang up, is leftwing or rightwing.
See here people getting angry over someone having a family. 'Not my feminist'. This is exactly why people are saying rightwing because the whole game is about egotistic hostility and tribalism, almost always along vague lines that have no clear political characteristics. No, you hating people who value family does not mean it translates to a political characteristic. Unless having a stronger community and being less mentally ill is a political characteristic. People feel fed up but they only know this paradigm. Certainly it is almost universal that being against mass immigration, even certain immigration, will be taken to be rightwing, regressive, even fascist by just about everyone identifying as leftwing. Yet this is actually imperative for women's rights, not to mention safety, and the survival of institutions that uphold it. Not to the mention the tradition at large that birthed it. All political parties universally have this policy, because they are corporate lapdogs, but only self-identified leftwingers totally disallow any mention of it outside of praise and demand for more.
No. 9341
>>9337>>9338There's more to women's rights than simply abortion. Also there is no current threat that I'm aware of to abortion in most of Europe.
>>9340Without women there is no nation, so women's rights or the lack of them is an innate part of nationalism. Hitler was popular with women. He ended the rampant sex trade in the Wimar Republic and introduced welfare programs and protections for women. He advocated for women to be respected and implemented social programs to ensure the health and fitness of women. He also believed that women should receive a high quality education equal to that of boys. Hitler did this because he recognised that women are essential to a strong nation. The context of women's rights is so much more complex than current political terminology.
Here's the Dworkin's quote
>To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are thingsThe left wants me to be an independent girl boss that makes coin by posting my asshole to twitter and I must suck the tranny dick. The right wants me owned by a single man in marriage so I can stay at home without education or a career because I need give birth his children. Neither is acceptable which is why feminism needs to ascend beyond left and right.
No. 9345
>>9342>so instead of addressing the very first thing I saidMaybe I didn't address it because I agree with it, who knows
>If Hitler was so kind to womenMy point was that Hitler was not kind to women yet he still considered women's rights to be an integral part of National Socialism. The German women of the time found Hitler preferable to the Weimar Republic.
>None of you are feminists.The no true Scotman fallacy.
No. 9346
>>9333Exactly when do right wingers talk about class kek? No seriously because I can’t think of anything aside from like, complaining about small business tax which affect upper middle class. Or trying to get rid of anything that helps the poor or disadvantaged.
>casual racism>le one dworkin quote>bringing up hitler You clowns write the jokes for us kek
No. 9351
File: 1674424948794.gif (645.6 KB, 295x221, Q9Tb.gif)
>>9341>>9345>bringing up hitlerkek this has to be bait. thread's over everyone, pack it up.
No. 9394
>>9333>Rightwingers talk about class way more than leftwingers today. No they don't. Marxism is rooted deeply in class structures and is considered a left wing ideology, a lot of posts in this thread actually mention that.
>And people shit on nationalism but then see the corporate news lay out the context with some propaganda about China and suddenly they don't think it's bullshit, they even warmonger.Lol who? Tucker Carlson? Not in my country at the very least. China is a valuable trading partner for most of the developed world, it's "the factory of the world", for better or worse. Also taking a stand against a corrupt dictatorship like China is not xenophobic nor pro nationalism of your own country if that's what you're implying. China is shit right now, so is Russia these things are indisputable and unanimous, not right wing. The entire world Is laughing at the destructive forces of China and Russia and the fragile egos of their leaders, and the sad game of ego they have going on.
>Unless having a stronger community and being less mentally ill is a political characteristic.Lol fuck you, choosing not to be married to someone doesn't make you mentally ill or make a stronger community, male pleaser.
>No, you hating people who value family Hahaha you know radfems aren't hating people who value family disingenuous retard. The entire thread has been revolving around the basis of various arguments within this thread of which some have been based around marriage and patriarchal structures not an individual woman's right to choose, that's unquestionable. You can value a family that isn't an idealized moid tradthot nuclear family too btw.
>Certainly it is almost universal that being against mass immigration, even certain immigration, will be taken to be rightwing, regressive, even fascist by just about everyone identifying as leftwingNope. Moids do this, certain brainwashed women only follow the moids. Women don't generally commit mass shootings though. And shoot up mosques and gay bars because of this.
>Yet this is actually imperative for women's rights, not to mention safety, and the survival of institutions that uphold…Oh yes the larping kekistan fascists will certainly protek all the good white women and not sit on their asses and call those women roastie bitches who deserve to suffer. Fuck off with your pro fascist bullshit. See the problem with fascism is it's always looking for the next target, moving the goal post, white woman are safe but
PoC lel nah. Even if you are a white woman of a certain age you'll be discarded but even as an ideal you're next on the chopping block if you don't squeeze out 10 fasci moid babies for your moid fasci army. Disgusting inhuman shit, I've never seen a retard defend fascism as protecting problems rights and paint it as feminism lel.
>Not to the mention the tradition at large that birthed it.Abort yourself.
>All political parties universally have this policyIn a fascist country perhaps but I don't know much about American politics, I can only assume a failed coup is a sign of some home grown fascism though. So there's your group anon to protect you, the wominz! Qanon and kekistan fags.
Pls stop fasci-non
No. 9497
>>9394My god this post is incredibly based. Thank you
nonnie.
>See the problem with fascism is it's always looking for the next target, moving the goal post, white woman are safe but PoC lel nahExactly. Fascism has always and will always only serve those in power, nobody else. It's a foolish cope to think that voting right wing conservatards, either male or female, will liberate and protect you from le evil immigrants or whichever scapegoat they're using, when the entire movement is literally controlled by those who are factually the biggest threat to you - powerful, wealthy Y chromosome havers who see women as second class citizens. What they consider "protection" is making you stay indoors taking care of them, their children and their property. Right wingers hate interracial relationships not because they think you'll be treated badly, but because you've had the freedom to pick someone that makes them insecure.
No. 9539
File: 1675006086069.webm (12.57 MB, 576x1128, BraveDown.Com-greenscreenvideo…)
something tells me these are the type of ''women'' in this thread.
No. 9560
>>9516Oh yes it's the evil immigrants that, for example, took away the rights to abortion in the US or Poland. Not crusty old men in power. And as for the "muh immigrants raping women" claim, the vast majority of rapes happen in private residences committed by someone the woman already knows. Seriously anons, stop being gaslit into believing that all of the society's problems stem from immigration. Misogyny and sexism predates that.
>>9547If you followed sources other than cherrypicked blue haired feminist boogeyman own the libz pages you'd know that non-conservatives fully acknowledge the problems with immigration, but instead of just throwing them into an oven or drive them into the dregs of society to serve massah and radicalize they know the better option would be to integrate them with proper tools and help. Humanitarian refugees are an extremely small percentage of all immigrants to begin with, and the majority of them return back to their countries once the situation has stabilized enough to stay safe.
No. 9563
>>9547To contextualise, I will first say that I am French. Indeed, I think that the possible problems that immigration can cause vary from one country to another depending on the number and origin of the immigrants, as well as the reasons or duration of their arrival. I think it is quite possible that immigration could be no problem in some places.
In France, it is simple: there is an uncontrolled and unlimited flow. This causes obvious problems on a national scale, not just in the very large cities.
I could quote you the list of cases in the last week alone where women have been harassed, raped, killed by mainly Arab Muslim or African immigrants. It would not be exhaustive, but would already be distressing in terms of the proportion in which these occur. It is true that Asian immigrants (East Asians, not Pakistani Asians like they say in the UK), for example, do not behave in such a way. When you invite yourself to a country, it seems to me that the least you can do is to behave properly. These people are doing the opposite of that. Worse, when they are sometimes several generations removed, they often behave worse than their grandfathers, who showed more willingness to integrate into society.
Nevertheless, here are a few:
>Caen: a woman student offers a sandwich to an Arab migrant, he assaults her sexuallyVerdict: 8 months suspended prison sentence, so no actual time in prison.
>Antibes: a North African, already convicted 4 times, sexually assaults his disabled neighbourVerdict: 2 months suspended prison sentence, so no time spent in prison.
>Limoges: A woman killed by her partner, of Arab origin>Moselle: a man of Arab origin poisoned his former girlfriend (he committed suicide in prison)>Vitry-sur-Seine: an illegal immigrant, already targeted by a deportation order, disfigures his ex-girlfriend with a cutter>Sannois: an African immigrant convicted 21 times and who has already spent 19 years in prison gets 20 years more for kidnapping, confining and raping a student>Saint-Ouen: a 21-year-old woman driver was dragged along the road after a carjacking by a man of Arab origin already known to the police>Étampes: a 15-year-old girl with severe mental retardation raped by a 12-year-old Afghan immigrant>Sartrouville: a delivery man sentenced to 6 months in prison for sexually assaulting a customer whom he asked in Arabic if he wanted to marry her>Cheptainville: "In the Muslim religion, one does not divorce. There is no rape, the man has access to the woman when he wants": a woman testifies and tells the ordeal of her ex-husband's violence>Nancy: a 28-year-old Afghan migrant on trial for the rape of an 18-year-old woman>Rennes: Arab immigrant convicted of raping 19-year-old homeless woman>Lyon-Grenoble train: an illegal Algerian immigrant rapes a 19-year-old passenger>Saint-Brieuc: a Tunisian man kills his wife, his 3 year old daughter and injures his mother-in-law before committing suicide>Blois: hit by her ex-husband when she had just alerted the police, despite witnessing an altercation, a woman in a coma. He had asked Chloe to convert to Islam and had spread the idea that the Koran authorises hitting one's wife>Ecquevilly: Melanie massacred with 80 stab wounds by her African ex-boyfriend, who claimed to be a "seduction coach"; her little sister seriously injured while trying to protect herAll this in less than a week, and I'm definitely missing some.
It should also be noted that in France, convictions are derisory. A rapist (even on a minor) will sometimes barely go to prison, some criminal records can be filled with dozens of convictions for different reasons. A criminal illegal immigrant will very rarely be sent back. He may even accumulate several deportation orders without ever actually being deported. Prison sentences of 2 years or less are almost never carried out and longer sentences are almost always shortened. Sentences of 100 years or more in we see sometimes in the USA do not exist here; it is very, very rare that an individual is sentenced to a real life sentence. You now have an idea of the general laxity in this respect.
To illustrate this with a fact: a few days ago, a Tunisian illegal immigrant who WISHES to be sent back to his country occupied the home of a woman (who is now afraid to go back home), the police took him into custody before releasing him because "there is not much they can do"; the man has already said he would do it again.
This does not mean that we do not have problems with white men whatsoever. On the contrary: men on the left are promoting transsexualism and this immigration to the hilt; men on the right are saying that women are the cause of all evil and that we need to return to a hard patriarchy. We also have white men who rape and kill their wives. The question is: why should we add other, even even more serious, problems coming from immigrants in whose countries women have practically no rights, can be beaten, and are even convicted in case of rape in the place of the rapist?
The reality is that in France, interestingly enough, there is no gender gap in voting, unlike in the United States or, as we saw in the last elections, in Sweden for example. Women vote about as much to the right or 'far right' as men. Yet this rhetoric exists anyway, because men use libfem personalities as scapegoats when there are just as many men saying the same things. There is absolutely no questioning of their own responsibilities.
This creates a tedious situation for feminists with anti-immigration stances, who exist, but whose groups are widely reviled in mainstream libfem movements, so when they try to join a demonstration, they are violently chased away, by antifa men who escort these groups, without them being bothered about it, apparently.
There is also, on the right, a kind of Christian nostalgia for a patriarchal order that I don't share at all either. I don't have a religion and I feel quite comfortable with the idea of secularism which has existed in France for over a century. I feel quite politically homeless even though I'm lucky enough to have friends who think like me on these issues.
I would add in conclusion that I would absolutely be in favour of taking in refugees, especially WOMEN refugees fleeing Iran, Afghanistan or other oppressive countries, but it is exactly the opposite that has been happening in France for years.
Aaand this post was much longer than I thought it would be but I really wished to elaborate further.
No. 9571
>>9564Unironically the only true answer.
Pro immigration for all but moids. Deport all shitty moids brown or otherwise kek
No. 9611
>>9564>>9571I keep on seeing this take but how would you enforce that, like it or not most muslim women will not abandon their families(young Muslim men will though)
>>9563Arab Muslim men rape non-muslim women cause its considered a form of Jihad, Muhammad and all his Sahhbah did the same thing and they are the greatest human beings who ever lived according to his Islam, from an Islamic moral perspective you being a non-married kafir woman are "fair game"
No. 9617
File: 1675247458116.png (282.8 KB, 2296x1456, 4.png)
>>9563>>6883Looked up the groups name on reddit out of curiously and found a r/AskFeminists thread about them, first they insist that the group is actually just filled with men(ironic) then they completely denounce these women and claim they aren't "real feminists"
No. 9618
>>9617Men cannot be official members, some other right wing groups such as Action Française or La Cocarde sometimes help them with security stuff. Source : friends with a former squad leader.
Of course being a "real feminist" now require licking trannies' and non-white moids' asses so they aren't, but they try their best to shed light on violence against women, even when french white dudes do it, and they do it a lot.
They're way too focused on islam I think but it still is a real problem in europe and a threat to women as a whole.
No. 9620
>>9618Focusing on Islam imo is a good thing, cause that's the ultimate test for neo-liberalism, The Quran states that Islam is a religion for all of eras and all people. You can't just "modernize" Islam. It's not a sandwich that you can take apart the parts you don't like. for true believing Muslims its either all of it or nothing
so the question for the liberals in France and in Europe is are they willing to accept that, cause Muslims will wish to spread Shariah and hope their host nation becomes Muslim, they will groom and rape kafir girls cause its allowed and even a form of Jihad