/lit/ - Literature

>>16664784
in the context of OP's pic related - does anyone know any explicitly right wing writers/bloggers who used Stirner's method to refute typically left wing spooks like "human rights", "equality" and the like? any right wing authors inspired by Stirner? I know Junger was influenced by him

>>16664816
What right-wing value could a Stirnerist hold?

>>16664784
Not a book but my understanding is it emerged as a result of women's wartime experience of being in the workplace (because the men were off fighting) e.g. 'Rosie the Riveter' and how they were pushed out once the men returned and relegated to a domestic role. Naturally they were quite angry about this. That said, they weren't the ones who had to fight the Nazis and the Japanese, and you can imagine the returning men were quite keen to get their jobs back. However, the 50s and 60s idea of the housewife is a bit of an aberration -- most working class women in America were in some form of employment (including in manufacturing, such as in seamstressing) up until the second world war.

>>16664816
some scholars contend nietzsche was influenced by stirner. i would hesitate to call him right wing but he's for sure not egalitarian

>>16665102
just about any that suits his fancy as long as he recognizes himself for what he is and the viewpoint doesn't involve an essentialism of subject

All you need to understand is this:

Feminism isn't about equality, it's about female privilege.

>>16665201
>Feminism isn't about equality, it's about female privilege.
equalizing parties presumably unequal in rights obviously entails an increase in privilege

>>16665192
So none

>>16665206
No, I mean feminists want all the privileges but none of the responsibilities for women.

2nd wave feminism was a jewish and CIA astroturfed psyop popularized through conspiracy of elite institutions like UCLA and the New York Times

>>16665209
no, i could want for the establishment of a "right-libertarian" state, all the while recognizing that the state is a construct of the mind that i dispense with at my own leisure
stirner's anarchy isn't necessarily a literal anarchy

>>16665216
yes i get it sorry i just wanted to pull your leg a bit
on a more serious note would you mind elaborating what you find contentious about feminist theory?

>>16665201
Capitalism isn't about prosperity, it's about exploitation.
Socialism isn't about egalitarianism, it's about social control.
Christianity isn't about love and peace, it's about conquest and supremacy.
Anarchism isn't about freedom, it's about violence and chaos.
Liberalism isn't about rights and the rule of law, it's about promoting mercantilist interests and increasing profits.
Fascism isn't about protecting and promoting the nation, it's about preventing working class revolution.
Communism isn't about workers' control, it's about establishing a red bureaucracy.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Read some RAW.

>>16665225
>i could want for the establishment of a "right-libertarian" state
As a valiety

>>16665206
Based

>>16665236
what?

>>16665236
I wish there was some way of filtering all the ESLs from /lit/

>>16665268
we're not all bad anon come on. minecraft let's plays taught me plenty of functional english
now i'm here and learning even bigger words by shitposting

>>16664784
>>16664784
Why is r/stirn so cringe?

>>16665143
>>16665143
yeah—what happened was that the USA in wartime saw a massive spike in female employment because men had to vacate their positions to defend the nation. when the men came back, a large number of working women were fired. this resulted in massive dissatisfaction among the former-workers-now-housewives. at the 1960 DNC, one of the proposals on the table was declaring support of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)—an amendment to the constitution which would guarantee that no distinctions could be made on the basis of sex on the subject of rights—which was highly controversial. before his election, JFK declared support of the ERA but because he was backed by the labor unions and unions believed that the amendment would weaken union power, he did not support the ERA in office. instead, he created the presidential commission on the status of women to address issues of sex-based discrimination in the workforce. by 1961, reproductive rights were folded into the feminist cause, after the approval of the first contraceptive pill. in 1963, the equal pay act banned wage discrimination on the basis of sex, and in 1964 the civil rights act banned workplace discrimination. while all of this was happening (1963) betty friedan published "the feminine mystique" which explored the phenomenon of the discontented housewife and the origins of women's sense of fulfillment. feminism was divided between pro- and anti-ERA women's movements. in 1964, demonstrations against the Vietnam war started, which energized the women’s movement—many supporters of women’s liberation were anti-war and vice versa. by 1965, contraception usage was legal (for married couples, which, as you can figure only ramped up the fight for ‘reproductive freedoms’). in 1966, NOW (the national organization for women) was created and Betty Friedan was nominated its first president—the organization pushed for full female equality (workplace equality, laws against marital rape, equal opportunities in education, affirmative action, right to abortion etc) this all dovetailed with the civil rights movement too, and similarly to the anti-war/feminism relationship the civil rights/women’s lib movements developed coalitions around shared demands for equality. by 1969 radical feminist writers were publishing works on the patriarchal state that were read by large audiences…and so this barreled on and on and you can see how this resulted in roe v. wade and more iconic radical feminist works. each feminist victory sort of increased morale within these women’s commissions, coalitions, and organizations such that they were able to push for further demands.

>>16665224
You have my attention, books that talk about this?

>>16665378
>feminism was divided between pro- and anti-ERA women's movements
I think investigating the differences between these two groups would be informative. I know of Phyllis Schlafly's arguments against such things, but never learned much about other grounds for opposition. I think reading up on NOW might lead me somewhere. I'm familiar with the basics of the history of civil rights and feminism and such at the time, but am looking more for an in-depth consideration of social currents that influenced it. The large-scale patterns are good to start with though.
I will look into NOW and see if I can find platforms/manifestos that state their issues, then work backwards to see what lead to the issues being such points of contention, and do the same with their opposition. I think that might be a good way to get insight into what I'm looking for. Nobody seems to have book recommendations so I'll just do the research myself...

>>16665386
Start with this imo, good introduction into how manipulated and artificial the entire counter-cultural scene coming out of California was.

>>16665378
sorry this is garbled as fuck because i have a headache. also the history books on this do not tend to be particularly good because they always want to evaluate second wave feminism's ultimate success/failure/whatever and wind up preaching rather than tracing the evolution of the movement and all of its ideas and figures. "Feminist Coalitions: Historical Perspectives on Second-wave Feminism in the United States" is alright so is "The Feminist Revolution: The Struggle for Women's Liberation" and "Women Politicking Politely" but this movement is VERY poorly chronicled by most scholars so :/

>>16665451
NOW is a great start—i also just typed up a few recs for you but i'm in a similar position where i researched most of this myself. look into the 1977 women's conference for more info on phyllis schlafly vs. the women's libbers and for women's lib info in general

>>16665451
looking for 'large scale patterns' isn't going to explain much since 2nd wave feminism was a top-down, manufactured movement. It's not something the people demanded and were given, it was something that was created and then justified to the people.

>>16665510
ty for your help, I appreciate it. Do you have an opinion on what the other anon is saying about it being a manufactured movement?
>>16665525
Yeah, I said the large-scale stuff is only worth getting a big picture to start with and I already have that knowledge. I'm specifically looking to go deeper. I tend to agree with you that it was a top-down thing, but I don't know enough about it yet to say so beyond a gut feeling. Seeing what exactly they were peddling and where it began, and how it affected social life is of more interest to me than the bare facts of the scheme's existence.

>>16665586
Honestly I haven't really seen any large, coherent works explaining this. I just notice that whenever I read about second-wave feminism, everything is about legislation, authors who were heavily promoted by newspapers, media propaganda, and frankly jewish activist organizations. Maybe this book still needs to be written.

>>16665586
before stating my opinion, i’m going to give myself away here as someone with a particular interest in radical feminist theory and history. i think that there were certainly aspects of second-wave feminism that were manufactured (like the rushed production of contraceptives despite how dangerous they were) (or fucking fed gloria steinem infiltrating radical feminist hroups) but women’s response to post-war lack of fulfillment seems pretty organic. there were a number of grassroots organizations pushing for greater freedoms and responsibilities for women before gloria steinem et al. entered the ring. the ERA has roots in the suffrage movement...i guess it can look manufactured if you try to examine it in a vacuum but there were a looooot of unpopular aspects of the movement as far as how the government received second-wavers.

>>16665586
here is the redstockings’ statement on steinem’s infiltration: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25772264

you can probably find it not on jstor or i can screencap it or something

>>16665681
forgot to mention that off our backs is a great source on feminist social and thought currents during the time

>>16665669
much respect for being on the left and recognizing the manufactured aspects instead of buying into the 'masses of women with their fists in the air DEMANDING RIGHTS!!!!1' image.

>>16665230
You could revise that last bit to “read.”

>>16665691
it does make me wonder if the lack of in-depth scholarship that puts light to some of the more odious and corporate currents in the feminist movement is intentional. i think it would be detrimental to today’s corporate 3rd/4th whateverwave if a critical genealogy/history of the fight for women’s rights was published. they’ve already tried to edit some of the greats (at least in my opinion) like dworkin, firestone, mackinnon etc out of the canon for not supporting pornography or the trans-inclusion mania.

>>16665681
>>16665689
Very fascinating, thank you for the insight and sources.

>>16665726
Obviously you know much more about this topic than me, but when one zooms looks at some broader facts, an interesting picture develops. I mean how about full womens' equality being written into the Japanese constitution at the end of the war, supposedly by request of a single jewish woman on MacArthur's staff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Sirota_Gordon
I don't know if I believe that story, but it's clear that this was the elite ideology well before the 60s and was something being rolled out and implemented across the liberal world wherever possible.
Or how about the supposedly conservative governor of California, one Ronald Reagan, signing no-fault divorce into law? How does that possibly add up? Did the American public really even want that policy? If so then why was there a conservative governor in the first place?
There seems to be no book which addresses these oddities in the history of feminism.

>>16665770
typing up a bigger response but for what it is worth reagan has a divorce of his own in 1949, that, because of fault requirement stated that he was emotionally and mentally abusive to his wife

>>16665770
typing up a bigger response but for what it is worth reagan had a divorce of his own in 1949, that, because of fault requirement, stated that he was emotionally abusive to his wife

>>16665811
Doesn't that fly in the face of the narrative? This privileged white man wasn't able to oppress his wife because she was granted a divorce, so why was no-fault divorce so necessary? Wasn't it obvious that this policy would destroy marriage even then? I just cannot conceive of a world where this isn't cultural sabotage. My mom was an active 2nd wave feminist and her GO TO talking point every time is about how women didn't have access to credit. I mean... jesus christ.

>>16665857
i think that marriage became rocky terrain after women entered the workforce en-masse and found their lifestyle incompatible with their husbands’ lifestyles, resulting in amicable-ish divorces on grounds of growing apart. this wasn’t a matter of fault and since falsely proving fault could damage both parties’ reputations no-fault divorce took off. you’re right that a lot of the movement was pay/labor/employment oriented and unfortunately usury already had a tight hold on american society and so greater personal and financial freedoms were already hopelessly entwined with the credit system, which is a whole different monster

>>16665857
i absolutely do think that no-fault divorce sabotaged the nuclear family but if you understand it against the backdrop of changing societal roles and an aversion to defamation it makes more sense. i do think a lot of the secual revolution was bunk but again i think female desire to enter the workforce was pretty organic. i think wrt marriage the baby was thrown out with the bathwater because of the legality of marital rape.

>>16664816
I mean, isn't that just Stirner himself? Not that he was right wing, but his whole work was just dunking on Left-Hegelian socialists and gommies.

>>16665669
What books/sites would you recommend for more radical feminist theory/history? Already saw "Off Our Backs."

>>16665977
some great starting points are robin morgan’s “sisterhood is powerful,” any of dworkin’s works available free online here: http://radfem.org/ and kate millett’s sexual politics. i also recommend the furies collective newspaper called “the furies lesbian and feminist monthly” (i believe most editions are available online) also betty friedan’s feminine mystique is necessary for the context but not nearly as intense as the revommended works.

>>16666053
Based feminist anon

>>16665857
>My mom was an active 2nd wave feminist and her GO TO talking point every time is about how women didn't have access to credit
My mom derives a lot of her views on gender and relationships from second wave feminism as well and she also makes a big deal of the credit thing. She's also big on divorce being more accepted in society, since she witnessed in her own family the difficulties faced by divorced women. It's what I've heard from her that makes me want to get more into this stuff and see more aspects of the issue, since I know there was certainly some organic impetus, but the grand scale of the movement feels quite different from the true issues faced by women.
For instance, would the answer to the poor prospects of divorced women, or to the sad state of marriage in general, not be better addressed by improving the institution of marriage and teaching better values to avoid situations where a divorce is needed in the first place, rather than letting the whole thing dissolve? It's easier of course to propose such things with hindsight, and you can't turn back the clock or anything, but really... What self-respecting society would allow that? It just makes me think.

>>16666080
The credit thing is just so very suspicious to me because I can just smell the involvement of banks and jewry looking to expand credit markets.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/692274#_i4
This article is very interesting.
>issues faced by women
i think this attitude is part of the problem in the first place, there's this tendency to frame it as 'issues faced by women'. I mean... it is on everyone in a society to bear some burden and perform their role. I'm sure there are some issues that need to be addressed, but has it really turned out to be for the best to just turn childcare over to corporations and the state? Our communities are all but dissolved and our ability to simply reproduce ourselves is seriously impaired. These are extremely basic measures of the health of a population and feminist policies seem to lie at the heart of deep social ills.

>>16664784

>>16666205
let me know how often male feminists get laid

>>16666223
tell me where in the image you see reference to feminism

>>16666156
Yeah those "issues" are definitely precipitated by other factors and focusing on the gender-related issues is largely a misdirection. That article looks interesting; fascinating how no women cared about their credit until some commission mentioned it and told them they should...
I bring up women's issues because there are obviously differences in the stations of men and women in society and each have their own particular difficulties. It's just a matter of framing. Women have had theirs projected with high visibility onto the stage of politics and discourse and they've been subject to dramatic interference and presented as negative in all aspects. Ignoring that women have certain "issues" just lets those with jewish intentions jump on them so they can propose their own solutions (like with childcare), rather than the people with the interests of the actual community at heart. I would say the latter approach would be distinctly not "feminist" in the general sense of the term, specifically because it would eschew pretty much every tenet of feminist theory while yet still better addressing women through the lens of the community, not as a distinct social group whose lot must be adjusted in reference to another's.

>>16666205

>>16667703
There is a small amount of truth to this image. When you give good dick you face significantly more logical arguments, if any at all.
However the rest of the image is inflammatory garbage

>>16667720
Lurk more before posting.

>>16667814
Just stop posting it

>>16667820
Just stop posting.

>>16667839

>>16667814
Why are you surprised that people disagree with a radical opinion

>>16667820
old

>>16665225
>stirner's anarchy isn't necessarily a literal anarchy
It is a literal anarchy, it's not an anarchy of the polis.

>>16668707
It an anarchy of the polis.
You’ve never heard of the union of egoists?
the real dichotomy is Individualism/Conformity versus Individuality/Community
Or: One cannot banish collectivism