/ft/ - Feminist Theory

Feminism general discussion

Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

Captcha
Options
Password

Used to delete files and postings

Misc

(25.58 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
Anonymous 07/25/2020 (Sat) 00:22:02 No. 218
(25.59 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
(25.80 KB 515x271 idr.PNG)
Some of the phrasing I take issue with, but the quiz was surprisingly somewhat okay for an almost quizilla style deal
(406.65 KB 1080x2220 Screenshot_20200724-212918_Brave.jpg)
I don't know much about Marxism or "cultural feminism" but scored high kek
(25.33 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
(25.62 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
Don't know if I agree with the results, but I'll take it. >>226 You good?
(25.83 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
I'm also not totally on board with cultural feminism, but I'll take this I suppose
>>226 Electric chair.
(113.52 KB 1080x691 results.jpg)
What does this say about me?
>>230 Either male or tradthot
>>228 Yeah, same, mostly because I dislike the fact our being better people in general is said to be definitely linked back to our biology. I really think it's mostly that basically any subjugated class or persons has to undergo a lot more emotional maturation and awareness, empathy, etc, than their oppressors that are allowed to be blameless, do-no-wrong peter pans.
>>234 Without being biologically determinist, it's all biology (for the most part).
(25.30 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
>>236 Personally, I've met too many shitty women for that to be the case. Anyone, when presumed to be "the greatest" or inherently deserving of power and prestige thanks purely to luck, ends up being an evil piece of shit. Men have granted themselves this status and so they're very prone to being dangerous and entitled walking garbage. Evolutionary biologists and sexologists see what they want to see. This is why they sincerely and publicly believe stupid shit like that male rhesus monkeys prefer toy cars and female rhesus monkeys prefer stick dolls. It's all too tainted. If women had both the brute force, AND an entire paradigm as long as human history on their side encouraging them to believe they're superior to men, animals, anything else, etc, they'd act incredibly shitty too. Maybe not quite as bad, but they'd be pretty bad. I don't think women are intrisically that much better due to biology.
(60.88 KB 896x533 IMG_9666.PNG)
I guess I'm fairly normie feminist compared to most of this board
(25.37 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
>>249 Nice
(26.02 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
I kind of take issue with 'cultural feminism' because it kinda ties with benevolent sexism. Women aren't inherently/biologically good people, it's just that we were raised differently than men. And the goal as gender abolitionists is to make sure that socialization shouldn't be gendered. BOTH men and women should be raised to be respectable, and empathetic beings instead of making it seem like those are "exclusively female traits" or relating it with "healthy masculinity" for men. Though again, cultural feminism exists because of the oppression women experience culturally. It totally justifies and makes sense for women to claim traits of empathy, fellowship, kindness and the like, because statistics do show how evil and lacking men are in decency or humanity. The idea of women having the capability of being equally as evil as men (without justifications this time) is still light years away.
>>252 >The idea of women having the capability of being equally as evil as men (without justifications this time) is still light years away. I'm waiting for research on infanticide and child abuse to grow a bit and, hopefully, we'll eventually realize as a society that women are the worst offenders on that matter. Maybe then it'll change.
>>256 Even if this is true, there is a much greater expectation for women to keep an unwanted child, men can just abandon the child far more easily and an absent father won't show up in the statistic you're still waiting for.
>>259 It's true, at least where I live. It's still a bit taboo because of the Mother-Madonna complex or whatever it's called. People have a hard time spoiling the image of the perfect mother (or rather, they want to believe mothers are Mothers). But it's true: women are more often stuck with kids, so it'd make sense they're more often the perpetrators. The absent father is absent but not a murderer or a child beating guy.
>>264 NTAYRT but what about molestation? men are more likely to molest their own children, and I believe that in itself is one of the worst things a parent could do to their children than any other forms of abuse.
>>264 Most people are completely delusional about parents - it isn't just mothers. People assume that parents necessarily care about their children and aren't negligent and abusive, etc, with nothing but "they're your father/mother", same goes for basically any family, really. Most single parents are mothers. 3 in 10 single mothers in America are living in poverty, a much higher statistic than those who are married or cohabiting. In America, .13% of men have children die under their care, compared to .12% in women, and men are dealing with 200x fewer obstacles complicating their lives. There is a difference between total fatalities and filicide though. Most men that have murdered their children haven't been struggling to cope in a single parent household, either. It should also be recognized that it's much more likely for women to kill their infants, where men kill older children. The fact that women are the ones sacrificing their physical health for their children and are often afflicted by postpartum shouldn't be ignored. Men murdering their sons is the most common scenario when it comes to actual filicide, not general fatalities under care. 57% of filicides are committed by fathers, and again, there are far fewer complicating factors or motivating factors in their cases. They have far fewer excuses and these filicides are rarely ever 'altruistic murders'. Wrt abuse, women are simply put into the role of the caretaker way, way more often and are under incredible stress. Men are not the caretakers anywhere near as often, and certainly aren't the caretakers in a single family home anywhere near as often. This is why women not being complicit in their own oppression and unhappiness by purposefully having (especially biological) children under these systems that do literally nothing to help them or their children, is so important to me, personally.
(23.00 KB 692x161 severity.PNG)
>>266 That's another thing. There's a huge difference between being stressed, overworked, unsure and terrified of supporting yourself, or maybe addicted to drugs, whatever, a combination of stressful factors, and not being an ideal parent partially as a result, and what fathers do, molesting and raping their own children, for no fucking reason at all except that they're evil and disgusting. "Abuse" is so vague, too. When we're talking about parents who are more likely to severely injure their children (men), vs women hitting them with a chancla, the likelihood of severe vs more mild is extremely relevant. (Not that either is okay at all, obviously, but let's be real about who is physically more imposing and incapable of self-control.) It's like those stats where women are a million times more likely to be severely brutalized by their male partners, but the stats say women are "just as abusive" because the likelihood of a woman slapping a man is almost as high as men slapping and/or beating, choking, threatening, shooting, stabbing, etc, women.
>>270 Can we not go here, like please for the love of God, I had an abusive mother and I don't care what the stats aor whatever cause she beat with me her shoe for no reason and used to make me apologize afterward for "ruining" them In terms of child abuse a mother and a father are both in a dominant position over their children, like I'm not one to sound like some idpol Tumblr user but this is triggering to me cause it's bringing back bad memories
>>271 If you can't handle these topics due to your abuse, no offense, but I would suggest you stop reading and honestly, not insert yourself into spaces where these topics are likely to come up until/unless you can stomach it - not demand that people neuter important conversations at your request. That's really demanding a lot of others to be quiet about a much neglected and overlooked topic, literally just for you. Just hide the thread, anon. Absolutely no one is saying mothers can't be severely abusive, but you demanding that people be quiet because it upsets you is helping uphold the status quo, which already wrongly promotes the idea that mothers are more often the perpetrators of similar levels abuse as fathers, and wrongly promotes the idea that mothers often so much more evil than fathers, despite fathers more frequently murdering their children and severely abusing them than mothers.
>>275 No one but rabid MRAs brings this mother abuse children stat, most normies don't personally care, regardless people who abuse children no matter what ever shit they went though My mother had her fair share of problems that didn't give her or anyone else the right to beat me
>>276 >No one but rabid MRAs brings this mother abuse children stat, most normies don't personally care, regardless people who abuse children no matter what ever shit they went though I haven't personally found that to be true, but you're right that rabid MRAs definitely bring it up. I do hear it from male normies though. I also hear the "look at all the female pedophile teachers!!!!" thing and "the system is biased against men and always gives children to the mother!" from normie males now. Manospheric rhetoric is reaching normies a lot more than people realize. And no, people discount the frequency with which males murder their children, AND annihilate their entire families. Mostly because people like Andrea Yates have left such an impression on the public despite cases like that being relatively uncommon. Casey Anthony also comes to mind. These women draw a lot of ire while men are more frequently committing these crimes in the background. >My mother had her fair share of problems that didn't give her or anyone else the right to beat me No one is saying it's ever okay. It's not, but to generally put female and male perpetrators on the same level when there are totally different motivating factors is remaining ignorant to the cause, which eliminates the ability to address causes and prevent child abuse and/or murder.
>>270 You addressed my question, thank you! Though I feel like the stats of women being abusive to their male partners is kinda skewed.
>>281 I think there are rare like 1% of cases where a woman can abuse her adult male partner, if he's disabled physically, a dwarf or a semi vegetable, these are exceptions not rules and If a dwarf would say that he got abused by his female partner id believe him personally
>>282 Okay let's not pretend that women are angels and that all power derives from physical strength alone or that emotional abuse isn't abuse though. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying, at all, that 'women are just as bad', but your post seems to miss the mark.
>>267 These are very good inputs. I'm learning a lot from you guys. Also, I just realized how Munchausen by proxy is also more common among mothers, never heard of a case committed by a father. Would be cool to *really* dig deep in to what other social factors result in abusive motherhood.
(255.10 KB 1046x1599 1595642992789.jpeg)
>>283 I personally don't really believe the "wife emotionally abuses husband" stories at this point. Because in order to emotionally abuse someone you need an ounce of power over them and for them to give a flying fuck about what you think. In many countries, even not strictly third-world ones, a wife doesn't have any tangible power, or protection may he "return the favor" tenfold. And more importantly, most husbands don't actually give a flying fuck what does the woman he lives with think, especially about him. Every man I've known whose wife is a real piece of work wouldn't even think to leave, but not because his self-esteem is systematically destroyed, but because he can't be assed to cook and clean for himself, remarrying is too much work even if he has a 20yo lover or two. It's just the body his p*ssy is attached to makes unpleasant noises constantly, so he'll sit it out in the garage until dinner. A lot of times it is also an excuse to beat the shit out of her and/or a result of his past bullshit. I know an old couple or two where the man is a laid back friendly guy and the woman is a nasty control freak. And then it turns out he cheated, beat her, neglected responsibilities etc. when younger and more energetic, back when she couldn't really leave too. Grand-kids love him and hate her, and one can't blame them now, of course. A child and a dependent is a whole other thing, of course. The worst case of grown female-on-male abuse I've seen is an alcoholic old woman who was a legal caretaker of a nearly paralyzed young man. Physical, emotional abuse, neglect, drinking the money away, all of it. It's a miracle he outlived her by far. And unless a father is actually making an effort to limit an abusive mother's access to the kids, he's an accomplice in my eyes anyway. In 95% of the cases he's got the power to do so, and in most of those cases, he won't. He'd rather just do something nice so the kids know he's the best daddy and just leave the kids for mommy T-Rex to torment. And then, MRA's have no fucking business using abusive mothers to their defense, since so fucking many women have kids they hate just because they "must" and because it increases their social status, and many are obsessed with their sons because they want the man's power. So, plenty of abusive moms make their daughters into servants and punch-bags for their precious boys. Feminists aren't the ones who made this happen. Girls typically suffer more at the hands of abusive mothers to begin with. Girls don't even typically outgrow their mothers enough to punch back due to puberty. Abusive mothers and wives aren't a problem to MRA's at a social level, they want you to breed rabidly if you're correct skin-color no matter who you really are. MRA's don't want to ensure children's safety, or care about their own kids. Or, you know, care what their wives think if they get their dinner and status. MRA's are full of shit. Those women are a problem to us, but a tool to them.
>>267 Family is pretty medieval. Parents have all powers over their kids. I don't think it's possible to be a good ruler for 18 years and not abuse your power once in a while. You're right though, mother infanticide is linked to post-partum. I also suspect (but that's just me) that there is a link with pregnancy denial (or whatever you call it), since most infanticide by women are directed at newborn.
Here's a take: Infanticide of newborns is morally equivalent to late term abortion. And I don't have a problem with abortion.
>>288 Why are you doing this? everyone here already here supports abortion, we don't need a debate about the ethics of infanticide
>>287 >I don't think it's possible to be a good ruler for 18 years and not abuse your power once in a while. What about Marcus Aurelius?
>>291 Umm well he rushed his daughter into a political marriage to a man more than twice her age after less than 15 years so there's that.
>>287 I do think that having a child should be a privilege not a right, not everyone is fit to be a parent and there should be psychological screenings and a background checks to see if one can actually be a parent
>>291 He did abuse his power and proclaimed his son his political heir (which wasn't common then), and Roma had then to deal with Commodus. Other than that, he was good, yeah.
>>293 I've thought about this before but how could you possibly enforce it. People are going to have sex and that's going to lead to pregnancy so how would you deal with 'unlicensed' pregnancy? All the scenarios I can think of are insane human rights violations.
>>303 Heavily incentivize them not having kids, decentivize having them and they'll at least try to work it out themselves. That'll never happen though, most economies rely too much on cheap labor and need obviously need loads of future adults/children (though good luck getting people to accept immigration in racist countries no matter how it affects the dwindling support for their aging population [looking at you, Japan]) to keep it going. No one cares about improving the living conditions for children, preventing child abuse, and creating happy, sane adults.
>>305 >Heavily incentivize them not having kids, decentivize having them and they'll at least try to work it out themselves. Will also cause lots of deprived children of people who couldn't follow the rules being punished for their parent's mistakes, which also seems to not care about improving the living conditions of children.
>>293 And you trust the big daddy state to do that? Kind of a fast track to totalitarianism. >>301 The only alternative would've been killing his son himself.
(33.04 KB 551x290 fem.png)
(25.68 KB 500x275 small-chart.png)
>>293 How about "my body, my choice"? Are YOU going to be digging out the babies out from the bodies of the woman unlicensed to become mothers?
>>550 No, but it's often other people's money that ends up paying the balance.
>>550 >>550 The difference when using abortion as a parallel is that the embryo or fetus isn't conscious. Abortion is a fairly neutral action, for all intents and purposes. You don't remember not being born, do you? The difference in forcing people into being is that it isn't neutral. You have no ability to actually guarantee that child safety, security, a life free from disease, happiness, and you certainly aren't able to ask that child whether or not they'd even like to be born. An abortion, in practical terms, doesn't affect another person the way forcing a child into existence does. It makes matters much worse when an ill-equipped person forces a child into existence because "they want to". What about what the child deserves?


Delete
Report

no cookies?