/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

(70.50 KB 650x808 portrait-of-a-girl.jpg)
Radical or just feminist? Anonymous 05/28/2020 (Thu) 06:05:43 No. 85
I get the feeling that not everyone here identifies as a radfem. I'm not sure that I do myself, the feminist part certainly. But I find myself mostly drawn to radfem circles for being the only group to consistently be calling the emperor naked, which means not repeating the lie that 'trans women are women'. But I don't think pointing out that that's obviously wrong is really all that radical! It seems like it must be when it's an opinion that will get you ostracised from most groups, but aside from this issue I tend toward liberal opinions on most topics. I am super about choice and individual agency. Following on from the discussion in the PP thread, I think radical feminism has some strong ideas but a minority appeal. Should we try to reform radical feminism, or define our own feminism? I think liberal feminist ideology has become corrupt with the acceptance of the trans narrative, which upholds and enforces traditional gender roles. But people think that 'terfs' are out to get GNC people. I love GNC people. I am GNC people. Sorry if this is rambling just some thoughts, I found the conversation in the PP thread interesting and want to keep it going. I truly believe our view of gender has the advantage of being correct and talking about how we can show others the light is a conversation worth having.
>>85 Every movement has its core. I don't think it's necessary to "reform" radical feminism, or "redefine" feminism. "feminism" as it is is such a broad term, it could be almost anything to anyone. In my opinion, as a radical feminist, it's essential to understand the foundations and the history of OUR movement, and anything after that like the application of the information we have gathered or what we experience is just up to us since not all radical feminists can always agree on the same things. But what matters is that we know our movement, we know the foundation, we know what we're fighting for. It's okay if you don't identify with our collective group, you don't have to be a radical feminist. At the end of the day these are all just labels, and we're all just individuals who find solidarity in each other.
I think it's way more likely to convert people to being GC than to being a radfem. Obviously "marketable" liberal feminism is for men, but I'm certain with enough effort radical feminism could be wildly appealing to women specifically.
This is gonna be a bunch of somewhat nonsensical rambling bullshit but here I go. Weird opinion, but I think there should be a "make liberal feminism great again" movement. I've noticed these past few years lurking that a lot of people who are "radical feminist" are really just anti-troon and aren't on board with this corrupted sex-positive kink-positive bullshit. All of which isn't necessarily radical feminism. Really, it should be "make liberal feminism great again" because it is libfeminism that will actually be appealing to most women. After seeing years of discourse among self-proclaimed radfems it really seems like they really aren't about that life. It's not a horrible thing, and not to blogpost but I myself just identify with "feminist" because I do not really feel like I truly understand everything and align 100% with radical feminism. Mostly because I haven't truly engaged with it. I haven't done any readings and I am not really involved with any real-life activism. You can even question my attachment to the feminist label with my current condition, kek. Shit, I bet the majority of people who identify as feminists are in the same boat as me but less self-aware. Basically I think any kind of feminism needs to be more normie-friendly. Not necessarily with watering down radical feminism, but making libfeminism less retarded. The way most women are is they want to "work within the system to improve the system." Regardless of whether you think that is a good idea or not, we cannot let retarded libfems have control of that movement and we cannot let right-wing ideology take over once the backlash against sex-positive bs and troons truly gains traction. I guess with me is that I do not want to just roll over because the idealized version of female liberation looks impossible rn.
>>88 I agree, the gender critical movement is more anti-troon than they are pro-women. I think the problem with gender criticals is that they've let right-wingers and homophobic boomers get involved and get associated with radical feminism. Radical feminism actually calls for change in lifestyle. Liberal feminism is more of "let's just change how we feel about this lifestyle to make it empowering." Radical feminism isn't here to cater to the masses, we just want women to be heard, just like most kinds of feminism, but with different understanding and different foundations. We're not here to convert everyone in to the movement. If you're obsessed with labels instead of participating in discourse, then do some readings and try to engage, then come back and feel free to identify/label yourself with whatever.
>>88 Another thing I just thought of, but Female Dating Strategy is essentially a group that is sorta feminist-adjacent that can appeal to normie women better. Like I wouldn't call it feminist because afaik the group isn't trying to attach itself to a specific ideology, but at least it preaches some values that are actually useful and promotes women in heterosexual relationships to have a backbone when dealing with men.
I'll give an example of the tone radical sets for me. It's like someone willing to roll up their sleeves. I am the poster from the other thread FYI. Lib Statement: Women are oppressed by men. Counter: It's not oppression if women choose it. Statement: It is oppression because the supposedly "free" choice is made under the auspices of a loaded question. Statement: PIV is rape. Counter: It's not rape if you like it. Statement: It is rape even if your physicality responds in a way akin to liking it. What a kinkster would say: Your body is betraying you! Response: Appeal to nature. Notice: This should be viewed in a sociological lens and taken with a heaping helping of salt.
>>88 100%. It makes way more sense to slightly radicalize an already existing movement from the "inside", imo. Generally, I don't think it makes sense to neuter an ideology in order to appeal to everyone, because it won't anyways. Radical feminism is already going to be very polarizing to most normies even without getting into the most divisive topics. Radical movements, to me, serve to influence, but not necessarily be at the forefront of the public's mind or anything. I don't think women are fed up enough to handle it and consider that it may be true, anyways. Men give them just enough crumbs for them to continue deluding themselves.
(316.92 KB 760x769 Screenshot_20200528-145246.png)
When I found lolcow some years ago, I stumbled upon those PP and Radfem threads that were getting traction on the site. I felt welcomed, because I had always thought that the trans movement was kind of sexist, but nobody in my circle of friends seemed to understand my points. I even got bad looks when I tried to explain my arguments kek. Anyway, when I started to lurk there, I felt really happy and I discovered what was radical feminism but I was a bit taken aback by it. Mostly because a lot of the radfems seemed to be anti-capitalists. I'm not pro-capitalism, I just don't have enough knowledge about economy to understand how other types of economy could improve our living. Also, I'm very apathetic towards that topic, because humans are greedy and like to be on top so no matter what model of economy, it will always end up in corruption just like politics. However, even though I didn't identify myself as anti-capitalist, I did understand all of their other points. I think we could define Radical Feminism with three objectives: >wants to abolish gender >wants to abolish prostitution and end pornography >does not want equality BUT liberation/freedom What some people on this site have wrong is that, while we share these same objectives, we don't really share others. Pink pill aligns with radfeminism Gender critical aligns with radfeminism BUT Radfeminism IS NOT pink pill Radfeminism IS NOT gender critical. I don't know if that's makes sense, but what I want to say is that some radfems can have different opinions on certain topics. For example, some radfems can be full pinkpill, while others are just mild or light pinkpill. It's the same with gender critical, hell, even some right-wingers share that with us. I think we don't have to reform radical feminism, but understand that each of us have our opinions on different topics and that's understandable, we are not a hivemind and we'll never be. I've met people who were "radical feminists" but attacked white women and despised people who weren't vegan. However, I'm not instantly abandoning the movement because of an unpleasant interaction with another fellow radfem. That's just bullshit and childish af. It's like saying "well, I don't like rock anymore because some rock fan insulted me!!1!1!" or "this rock song shares awful messages, I'm not a rock fan!!" Sorry for this spergery, but I needed to get it off my chest.
>>91 Anon, off topic, but I just want to say I agree with you on all your posts so far, including the anti-natalism and suicide, and reading your posts makes me feel less alone.
>But I find myself mostly drawn to radfem circles for being the only group to consistently be calling the emperor naked, which means not repeating the lie that 'trans women are women'. But I don't think pointing out that that's obviously wrong is really all that radical! It seems like it must be when it's an opinion that will get you ostracised from most groups, but aside from this issue I tend toward liberal opinions on most topics. I am super about choice and individual agency. In a political context radicalism does not necessarily equate to extremist ways of thinking, it advocates for structural change. Of course saying biological sex is real is a moderate take. However, refusing to let women be defined by the performance of femininity (i.e. sex stereotypes) is a radical act because it challenges the status quo that upholds gender roles. Furthermore, the main objective of radical feminism is a complete restructuring of our current patriarchal society. This is why liberation > equality, because equality means nothing in a broken system that is fundamentally built around misogyny. Second, radical feminism seeks to "get to the root" of sexism. It critically analyzes how sexism manifests structurally and in our daily lives. "Choice feminism" is reviled by radical feminists not because it advocates for agency but because it's anti-intellectual and purposefully derails the conversation away from sexism. It defangs feminism because it renders any critical analysis meaningless if any action is a feminist action by virtue of it being chosen by a woman. Watch the video to learn more about the differences between radical and liberal politics. I'm tired of seeing both feminists and anti-feminists struggle to understand what radicalism entails, and persistently get it wrong. IMO the broader radical feminist movement has a lot of issues in its current form, but liberal feminism is ineffectual and has wider appeal (especially with men) precisely because it doesn't challenge the patriarchal system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuBS-pkNWN0
>>85 Radical feminism is it's own movement and it's own history, it's own beliefs about the origins of female oppression, and it's own proposed solutions to problems. I'm not a radfem but I really dislike when people don't respect that and assume they're radical feminists just because they think troons and porn are gross. Besides, "radical feminism" is never going to be as marketable to normies as GC or a more original name would be, in part because it's just culturally associated with whatever cRaZy MaNhAtInG fEmInIsT you don't like and in part because even the lowest key radfems are GNC commies. >>88 has the right idea, mainstream liberal feminism was historically really important to women's lib and it's tragic that men have managed to hijack it into a movement for ~empowered~ handmaidens. >>89 >>91 That's not what liberal feminism means, anon. Liberal feminism literally means that you believe the primary answer to women's oppression is political and legal reform. ISTG some of y'all sound just like men when they call every "feminist" they don't like a libfem.
>>96 This is precisely why radical feminism is being so watered down. "Libfem" is being turned into an insult which is why every gc and anti-porn and sex industry who has critical thinking thinks she is a radical feminist.
I just wanted to do some more ideological venting. I have a liberal outlook. I'm gender critical. I'm anti-porn, but anti-censorship. I'm critical of the way porn is produced and consumed but I don't really have a problem with the idea of filming people having sex. Same goes for prostitution. I don't think political and legal reform is enough to tackle sexism, which is a social issue. People's ideas need to change. I think the domestic division of labour has always been at the forefront of women's issues. Tradwifery is going down but most people who grew up in two parent families will have seen their mother doing all or most of the housework and still have that expectation embedded in them. We have all been stereotyped as radfems and I've been taking the bait and accepting the label. I don't reject performative femininity out of principle, only when it suits me. I reject the expectation to perform. Maybe I'm only slightly radical or something, but the old LC threads and now here were the only place I felt I could relate to people ideologically on the whole gender issue. I'm glad I can talk about it on here but I am still frustrated that my seemingly reasonable views make me a political outcast in mainstream discussion.
>>96 >answer to women's oppression is political and legal reform. ISTG some of y'all sound just like men when they call every "feminist" they don't like a libfem. There are effectively 2 meanings at this point because liberal feminism has gone way off the rails. I don't think you can reasonably fault people for referring to it colloquially/as an insult, when it genuinely has been hijacked hard. So weird though that in the past like, 4 months, men and lowkey 'pickmes' have started using "libfem". They used to just say 3rd wave. Idk if this is accurate, but from what I've seen, it seems to have taken root super recently and only because anti-porn feminists and nofappers are sharing some internet space. Men weren't using it as an insult first, afaik. Never seen it until super recently.
>>99 NGL I agree with you on pretty much everything. My one thing is that I really hope that the acceptance of alternative structures to homes (lesbian relationships, gay relationships, single moms (mostly dad's tho, of course) being praised more in kids and family TV) will start to remove the idea that the woman has to take care of the home and her husband and her kids at the same time.
>>99 >>102 Can I ask you guys why you're okay with prostitution? I don't see how having stronger safety nets and general safeguards for women to not slip through cracks is not preferable to legalizing prostitution.
>>103 Well to be honest the narrative about women only ever entering prostitution when they have no other choice contradicts reality. I'm actually not sure on this one, I feel like there must be something I'm not getting about why it's 'immoral' to accept money for sex, but I don't know who it's hurting. If you want to tell me it's the woman who's been forced into the situation to survive because it would never happen otherwise I just won't believe you because I know girls like that and they're not how you think. https://twitter.com/search?q=rightsnotrescue https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/false-promise-of-nordic-model-of-sex-work/ If your narrative about prostitution doesn't consider or acknowledge the women who actually work in prostitution and speak about their needs and experiences, I'm going to be sceptical of it. I'm not ignoring the fact that there are many more cases where it is pretty much rape combined with slavery if you look at the whole world, but you could honestly say the same about marriage and married women are not demonised or marginalised in the same way even though they're participating in an institution used by men to control and possess women. We probably need a new thread for this topic.
>>104 >I'm actually not sure on this one, I feel like there must be something I'm not getting about why it's 'immoral' to accept money for sex, but I don't know who it's hurting. Commodifying the human body for sexual services contributes to a society that debases and sexually objectifies women. What's not clicking?
>>105 Female pop stars do this too with highly sexualised music videos. Every time a woman puts on makeup she's complicit in her own objectification. They still deserve rights, respect, recognition and a voice.
>>106 >They still deserve rights, respect, recognition and a voice. Cool story but I never said that they didn't. If you know that it's objectifying and still struggle to see why buying sex is unethical, you're patently admitting that you don't think there's anything wrong with objectification. That affects all of us luv, especially considering the fact that the other half of humanity has historically failed to treat women as anything more than property for millennia.
>>107 I guess yeah, I don't really see a problem with people objectifying themselves, only when they objectify others. If you're going to make an argument about how it influences the wider culture I would be pointing the figure at singers and actresses and celebrities with an audience of millions including impressionable young children, not independent sex workers dealing with individual clients who are seeking them out in the first place.
(67.16 KB 512x241 unnamed.jpg)
I still maintain that belief that any ideology that can't survive times of true dire straits isn't worth having, If we were in a famine or in the midst of a true war, I don't think I can see something like radical feminism flourishing, same with most neo-liberal feminism, anything I mentioned in the PP thread but during the Chinese Civil war and Japanese Invasion of China, the communists would hand out simple leaflets written in simple Chinese about the glory of communism to any and all rural villages, these leaflets had an incredible impact in convincing the populus to side with the communists,
>>108 >I don't really see a problem with people objectifying themselves, only when they objectify others. The punters ARE objectifying the women they pay to sleep with, that's the point.
>>110 Yeah I couldn't give a shit less about the punters. The thing is when you talk about this it's abstract, whereas I have to compare everything I see written about prostitution with what I know about my friend of ten years who has made it her occupation. Look at this: >Cool story but I never said that they didn't. If you know that it's objectifying and still struggle to see why buying sex is unethical, you're patently admitting that you don't think there's anything wrong with objectification. In the same breath you're agreeing she deserves recognition and voice, and then you erase her from the sentence and focus back on the punter. Did you even read the article about how the Nordic model of only prosecuting the buyer leaves women at risk? The willing prostitute doesn't exist in your narrative, I thought you were actually going to give me an interpretation but you only want to talk about the punter.
>>103 Response anon. I don't support prostitution. It encourages the idea you can buy women, that sex is a "human right" (look at countries like the Netherlands) which only encourages the though process of incels and rapists. Personally that's one of the points that I think anon is a little stupid about. We are actively people that want prostitutes and women in porn to share their experiences and be heard. We don't want anyone to just... be quiet?? I don't know what anon is on about.
>>111 Let me break this down a little for you: Even by selling consensual sex, you teach men that it's okay as long as she is willing. A girl will bring in more money if she seems willing. A girl has to pretend to be willing for fear of retribution from pimp or loss of income. A John will not even realize he's raping a woman because she has to insist to him that she's willing. The majority of sex workers are not like your friend. It might hurt people like her, but abolishing sex work is for the greater good for women. Add to that the disgusting culture of men going out to fuck prostitutes the same way they go out to the bar or a ball game. It sets women's liberation back 100 years at least.
>>113 >We are actively people that want prostitutes and women in porn to share their experiences and be heard. We don't want anyone to just... be quiet? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but the truth is that women involved in sex work are overwhelmingly in favour of decriminalisation. https://decrimnow.org.uk/testimony/ https://supermaker.com/articles/sex-work-is-the-worlds-oldest-profession-are-americans-finally-ready-to-decriminalize https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/we-speak-but-you-don-t-listen-migrant-sex-worker-organisi/ >>114 >It might hurt people like her, but That's the thing everyone's willing to throw her under the bus, and I happen to not be. I can't accept any ideology that views her as acceptable collateral damage. Ultimately you, an anonymous stranger on the internet without firsthand experience, are not going to be more persuasive than someone I know IRL who is actually involved. I don't really want to argue, I'll just get upset and sperg out. Look at the links I posted instead and if anyone wants to have an open minded discussion we can make a new thread.
Okay this is gonna be a blog post, i have always viewed my self as progressive, i still support gay and lesbian rights, free healthcare, minority quotas e.t.c but I'm becoming more and more disgusted by the degeneracy that seems to common place in most left wing spaces stuff like sex work, porn, sex toys, BDSM, sexualized clothing just disgusts me and I am utterly opposed to but I seem to get booed of leftist spaces due to this, Like I'm not a right wing puritan christian, I'm just against the filth thats become common place in society
>>115 >I can't accept any ideology that views her as acceptable collateral damage. You can't accept her as collateral damage but you can accept the thousands of women who will be trafficked as a direct result of legalisation, just so she doesn't have to bear the inconvenience of finding a different job? Sex workers (and former sex workers) are not monolithic in their opinions so using your friend as a political prop while unironically stating that SWs deserve to be heard is disingenuous at best. The stats speak for themselves though. >The idea of the law, passed by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democrat-Green coalition, was to recognise prostitution as a job like any other. Sex workers could now enter into employment contracts, sue for payment and register for health insurance, pension plans and other benefits. Exploiting prostitutes was still criminal but everything else was now above board. Two female politicians and a Berlin madam were pictured clinking their champagne glasses in celebration. >It didn’t work. “Nobody employs prostitutes in Germany,” says Beretin. None of the authorities I spoke to had ever heard of a prostitute suing for payment, either. And only 44 prostitutes have registered for benefits. >Pressure to review prostitution laws is coming from an EU anti-trafficking directive that obliges member states to “reduce demand” for human trafficking. Given that at least 70 per cent of trafficking in Europe is into forced prostitution, a lot of people are arguing that the best way to reduce demand for trafficking is to reduce demand for prostitution. And one way to do that is to criminalise the buyer. >There is “absolutely” a correlation between legalised prostitution and trafficking, says Andrea Matolcsi, the programme officer for sexual violence and trafficking at Equality Now. “For a trafficker it’s much easier to go to a country where it’s legal to have brothels and it’s legal to manage people in prostitution. It’s just a more attractive environment.” >She points out that Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999 – the same year Sweden made the purchase of sex illegal - has four times the number of trafficking victims than its neighbour despite having around half the population >She tells me about a 17-year-old Russian - let’s call her Klara – whose father had fallen ill. The family was getting desperate for money so when Klara saw a newspaper advert offering temporary work as a prostitute in Germany, “she thought, ‘it will be awful but for three months I can bear it.’ And then she was raped by several men the night she arrived to “get her ready” for prostitution. They took her passport. There was another girl there who wouldn’t do something a customer wanted and they broke a bottle, a glass bottle, and raped her with that. She was cut inside. It was shown to all the others.” Klara was trapped there for four years. https://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/
>>118 gj not engaging with any of the links I posted so you could greentext an entire daily telegraph opinion piece. I don't really want to spend all day trying to defend it when I don't really think it's a good idea I was just venting about a disconnect between radfem ideology and my reality. Just because someone won't take my advice doesn't mean I think their actions should be criminal. If you want to listen to sex workers don't take it secondhand from me look at the links I posted and engage with those, preferably in another thread.
>>119 >gj not engaging with any of the links I posted so you could greentext an entire daily telegraph opinion piece. At least acknowledge the fact that not every person who has worked in the sex industry agrees with that narrative. All of the sources you posted are opinion pieces that do not back up the efficacy of decriminalisation with evidence while you ignore the facts presented to you which exhibit that decriminalising the buyers and pimps does. Not. Work. and increases the demand for trafficking victims. Agree to disagree because talking to liberals is like talking to a brick wall.
> I think liberal feminist ideology has become corrupt with the acceptance of the trans narrative, which upholds and enforces traditional gender roles. I might sound pedantic here but I always considered gender roles as something different from gender attributes. Reading this sentence, I realize I don't clearly see if there is an obvious relationship between the two ideas, or if this is something you overlooked for the sake of brievety/rambling. The "trans narrative" as I understand it, upholds, as some kind of collateral damage, a stereotypical idea of feminity but doesn't challenge anything regarding gender role, which is why feminism has not much to do with trans activism Even when laying this out It's stil confusing for me, so I should rather ask : Are (traditional gender) roles and (traditional gender) attributes more or less the same things? Does the distinction really matter?
>>121 Aside from the fact that a lot of gender attributes are obviously just made up bullshit (girls are pink, boys are blue.) In my opinion it's important to distinguish gender roles from gender attributes that may have some truth to them, the major problem that arises is that the latter is commonly used to justify the former. E.g. women as an aggregate might be evolutionary predisposed to being more nurturing than men because we bear the brunt of child labor, but patriarchy twists that into the expectation that all women must be broodmares who always put their own needs last, or that men don't have to do their fair share in child rearing. That may go against some common feminists belief, but I don't see the problem with some gender attributes being described so long as they aren't used to justify mistreatment or enforced on individuals who those attributes don't apply to.
>>121 I say 'gender roles' rather than gender by reflex now because it avoids the conversation getting derailed by pointless circular debates about the definition of gender, which it always does when I try to explain my views to most people. That sentence probably works best with 'gender stereotypes' though.
>>122 >E.g. women as an aggregate might be evolutionary predisposed to being more nurturing than men because we bear the brunt of child labor I honestly question this. I've known a lot of women with no nurturing, maternal instinct (myself included tbh), and my experience with animals kind of backs up my beliefs that this is overhyped. I don't believe a lot of shit 'science' says regarding the sexes, it's always coming through a lens of clear bias. Female animals have an interest in just generally keeping their children alive more than males, but that's basically it, not this overly cloying sentimentality that people want to believe. I think they feel very burdened by their circumstances and this can be an especially unfortunate situation for their children.
>>124 Yeah that point has been floating around in my head recently, I swear that in most species of mammals it's the males who are more aggressive and fight for reasons besides survival/protecting their young. Hyenas are obviously an exception but I don't think that derails the argument. Human beings are less sexually dimorphic than other mammals, meaning the size difference between male and female is much smaller than in most species. I think on the one hand you have things like long hair or elaborate footwear as markers of femininity as entirely cultural, and then you have some probably rather small actual differences that get magnified and distorted as culture becomes applied, but I have been trying to pay attention and I think I can try to summarise the fundamental difference. Men are more likely to indulge in aggressive dominance games and seek confrontation as a way of raising their status, often resorting to violence if they are outplayed. They are more likely to be self interested but with a lower regard for personal safety and a higher tolerance for risk. They generally have lower empathy and are therefore less affected or concerned by the suffering of others. They are more likely to identify strongly with a particular group and be hostile to all outsiders. I think that the above is true for all cultures (and most mammal species!), which is sort of uncomfortable to admit since I was sold on the blank slate idea that it is only socialisation which causes differences in behaviour.
>>125 >Men are more likely to indulge in aggressive dominance games and seek confrontation as a way of raising their status, often resorting to violence if they are outplayed. They are more likely to be self interested but with a lower regard for personal safety and a higher tolerance for risk. They generally have lower empathy and are therefore less affected or concerned by the suffering of others. They are more likely to identify strongly with a particular group and be hostile to all outsiders. Real talk, I think this has to do more with the fact that all of this is the hallmark of a stupidass person. I know a number of women that have all of these awful "masculine" traits, and they're generally pretty stupid. I think it's less to do with female/male and more that men are just stupid. These are the trademarks of a dumbass, and the average male is generally less intelligent than the average woman.
>>127 Yeah I guess the difference is that I see even supposedly intelligent men acting this way.
>>128 Yeah, because their idea of intelligence is just an exercise in ballfluffing. It's generally definitionally designed to favor them, basically always. Ime, men that are "intelligent" are not intelligent, they're just extremely autistic about like, one topic or skill. That's a joke. The definition of intelligence is typically and purposefully androcentric. I'm talking about people who aren't just extremely proficient in one field and yet are a complete knuckledragger that needs to be mommied and led through life outside of his given field. When given a fair shake, women outcompete men in basically everything. I also think we generally don't have the time or privilege to become earthshatteringly autistic about one thing because we're saddled with a lot more responsibility and the pressure to be somehow held accountable for everyone else, from day 1.
I wanna talk about intersectionality, I actually do think it has its merits. I do think it does make some good points about the intersections of privileges and oppression. The problem is that it's permeated so widely down to a much more simple analysis for the average person. It's set group against group and now it's clear that we're starting to think in more tribal political terms than we did in the past. You can be called an "oppressor" now, despite the fact that only three generations back, your great grandparents couldn't read, didn't have the vote, and spent 14 hours a day in darkness down a mine. People instantly categorize other people according to the group they belong to and all the other important factors (class, mental health, Past experiences etc) tend to overlooked in any individual exchange. We are steadily descending to the types of politics one sees in places like the Sudan were people vote entirely on identity lines with zero concern for policies or what makes someone an individual.
>>131 I have nothing much to contribute to this board beside noob questions but I found your post interesting and overall I'm happy to see cordial and intelligent anonymous discussions about feminism. Cheers
>>176 That's how I came to a be separatist, anon. In my country no democratic methods have worked ever, especially now, political opposition is targeted and sometimes murdered, and the economy is down-spiraling to shit at a breakneck speed. So participating in peaceful protests and organisation is not much of an option. I don't see how socialist methods of "let's put a fuckton of taxpayer's money to good use" would work here, where corruption is king and poverty is a norm either. The one thing we can realistically do is to encourage other women to go their own way, and encourage their daughters not to choose men, to put time, energy and resources into sisters instead. Some women who can not spell the word "feminist" correctly cause they don't know it choose separatist-ish way of life too, without reading dozens of theory books etc. though. Gives me hope.


Delete
Report

no cookies?