/lit/ - Literature

Uneducated

Laurie Penny is untalented hack, i don't know why all the faggots on /lit/ support her views.

>arts students

lol

>>3487787
Why do you hate her so much?

>>3487813

>feminist
>left-winger
>thinks she impoverished
>uses opinion as fact

pick 4

>>3487824
Feminist
>Why would I give a shit about that?
Left-winger
>lol no
Thinks she's impoverished
>Her self delusions don't make her wrong
Uses opinion as fact
>How? Example

>>3487835

Im going to take a leaf out of Laurie Penny's book and respond with:

"I was going to respond but now im not"

In response to any argument she is presented.

could you guys finally cease to provide her with the attention she appears to crave? negative or positive attention, doesn't matter. just stop posting her ugly mug on here, it makes me sick.

I hate her, too.

But in criticising her by her sex, you're strengthening all arguments denouncing a prejudice against women by assuring that there is prejudice against women.

>>3487846

There is no prejudice against womyn. But seriously, fuck womyn.

>>3487835
> Feminist
Feminists, at least in respect to the majority of the majority of feminists who title themselves as such are on the same level as male rights advocates and are detrimental to promoting gender equality.

> Leftist
She is in all cases a leftist; she even says so herself and writes for a leftist magazine.

> Example [of opinion as fact]
I would go a step further and say she alters facts and is selective in doing such as in the case of her book Meat Market or her squib with David Starkey in calling him a racist - granted he deserved it; she's nothing more than a political pundit that pushes emotions over reasoning.

>>3487875
sorry, sleepy,
meant to say "Majority of the westernized/western standing feminists"

Take it to /pol/. Talk about books here, not how much you hate women.

>>3487850
>womyn
>replace the 'e' or 'a' (depending) with a y to distance their identities from that of 'men'
>replace with a y
>with a y
>a y
>y
>the most masculine letter

I lol'd when someone pointed that out to me.

>>3487875
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying she isn't a leftist, I was laughing at someone using the title as a negative thing.

>>3487893
In my opinion, anyone who isn't pragmatic is foolish

Where can I read more of Mrs. Penis' works?

>>3487898
Are you trying to suggest the left wing is pragmatic?

>>3487835
>Her self delusions don't make her wrong
>Her self delusions don't make her wrong
>Her self delusions don't make her wrong
>Her self delusions don't make her wrong

I'm savouring this.

>>3487835
>Feminist
:It matters as it is her only stand-point

>Left-winger
: Well, I don't really see how that matters either.

>Self Delusions
: Yeah, it would kind of show that she shouldn't be taken seriously. I mean, Hitler also claimed to be impoverished and by your example, you'd be implying he wasn't wrong in Mein Kampf.

>Opinion as fact
: One second, I am cherry picking from the large tree she has left us.

>>3487915
Not him, but...

If I believe I am something I am not, and my world view is extremely skewed, does that make my ideas and thoughts inherently wrong?

>>3487846
Pretty much this.

>>3487915
I'm saying it could be irreverent to the arguments she makes, not that if she believes something hard enough that she is then right.

niggas being facetious as fuck

>>3487886
I heard some radical feminists spell is wombyn or something because 'womb'

>>3487909
:'I
no...
if anything it's idealist

>>3487935
The etymology of the words 'man' and 'woman' are interesting. The 'man' part originally meant Human, and men were called 'weremen' (meaning Male Humans). 'Woman' means 'Female Human', and so the part that they changed, the 'man' part, is really sad. They don't want to even identify was humans, but as something altogether different, merely females.

(That's all a bastardization of the real etymology, but the basic idea is correct)

Also, I hadn't heard of this 'wombyn' thing yet, but it sounds right up their alley.

She's a dumb bulldyke slut and is more proof that this "womyn" bullshit is nothing more than unwanted women lashing out at a world that does not desire them. Sandy cunts like her are what bring feminism down.

>>3487875
This Anon is a good Anon

>>3487935
They put themselves too high in the importance of things, honestly.

Women's rights. Yes, I get that. But modern-day feminism? A complete fucking joke.

>>3487954
>settle down
Prepare for the massive shit-flinging to come your way, but that doesn't diminish what you're saying. The 'womyn' idea is nonsense, and it's no surprise that the vast majority of the movement consists of women that will never feel the desire from another human.

>>3487948
i have a radical feminist friend who writes to me using "womyn" and i am actually bothered and want to bring up to her that this actually implies women are something entirely different from men.

and the most misogynistic attitudes toward women is the very much the same premise, that they aren't fully human, they're "from venus", or are a fundamentally non-understandable, "different species" sort of being.

>>3487961
Not many places in the enlightened world would argue against Women's Rights, but Feminism is being torn apart by this shit. It's no longer about Women's Rights; it's about the Responsibilities
and Oppression of Men, all in the name of 'retribution', or as they call it so Orwellian-ly, 'equality'.

>>3487971
Bring it up with her, along with this>>3487886 point.

Watch the confusion and rage ensue.

>>3487980
I hear you.

It's honestly become a standpoint for crazed women with nothing better to do. Honestly, have you ever met a radical feminist who didn't seem to be 2 eye-twitches away from going completely psycho?

Or a man-hating bulldyke that wasn't 3 hairs away from being a baboon?

I just honestly can't take them seriously, especially when they snub me or others for being male and claiming we have ''male privilege''.

>>3487961
how exactly are you drawing these conclusions?

did you read somewhere a list of modern-day issues that feminists are working on and take it to be a "complete fucking joke"? or do you just have a hazy picture in your mind drawn from fragments of popular culture represenations of feminism?

my question is obviously a little more pointed than open ended. if you've really seen such a list that claims to represent all feminists everywhere and its a terrible list, i'd like to see it

>>3487989
knowing my friend, there won't be any confusion and rage. it's just new information to consider. she is intellectually very capable, and thoughtful, this is the reason we are friends in the first place

Have you ever seen those porn videos where there's a huge orgy at a club?

So I had this extremely feminist, psycho teacher in uni (it was a cliche how attractive she was, though). She was an English professor, but would use most of her class time talking about Feminist issues and arguing with the male members of the class.

So, one night I get talked into going to what I assumed was a bar, with a few friends. Turns out it was a club. I'm sitting in the back, on a couch. OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE, these chicks start swarming this dude, and they all just start copulating like animals, and I'm just stunned. This lady jams this guy's cock into her asshole, and is screaming. I leave (lel beta). I'm waiting outside, and in like 20 minutes the same lady walks out, fixing her dress, and once she puts on her glasses, I realize she's my fucking professor. We lock eyes, I laugh, she half-skips, half-jogs away, and I start walking home without my friends.

I'm sure it was just her expressing her femininity, and her power over man, right?

>>3487998
I consider myself open, if not broad, minded. I will listen to what someone has to say and then conclude if I agree or not.

What modern day issues would you be speaking of? The ''evils'' of porn? How horrible it is to be a prostitute (gender not given) ? How difficult it must be being born a woman? Yes, these are jokes. They seriously are.

How exactly am I drawing these conclusions?

Um, I fucking read ( a lot ):
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Radical_feminism.html
http://radfem.org/ (anything from here)
http://www.feministissues.com/radical_feminism.html
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/9c/da.pdf
http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/

>>3487844
But she obviously started this thread like the other for attention. But she's not /lit/ related she is an attention whore.

>>3487947
Thats why I asked. I wasn't sure if you were trying to say it was good or bad. Cheer up :D

>>3488009
feminists have this thing where they constantly complain about being objectified by men but then go out and engage in acts where they are objectified by men

as an feminist, the first time i saw someone spell womyn i fucking lost. fucking silly. i don't get rad-fems who think women should separate away from the male population

>>3488028
>strawman

>>3488036
>strawmyn

>>3488042
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Don't divide by 0 , nigga!

>>3488042
well played

>>3488036
err, no. im not engaging in the argument, im just pointing out something ive noticed

>>3488019
>'evils' of porn

there are feminists on both sides of this question, do you have a poll or something that is telling you most feminists perceive porn to be evil?

>terrible it is to be a prostitute

same as above

>difficult it must be being born a woman

your links provide reading material on particular issues, it doesn't give me a basis on which to judge all feminists and the "movement" as a whole with blanket statements. i haven't read anyone claiming this in particular, nor have i read any basis that all feminists think this.

three of your links are to RADICAL feminism (ie: not all feminists. in fact, radical often denotes that the thinking is marginal), and the last is just a centralizing tumblr thing, where anyone with a piece of paper and a marker can share their thoughts. IE: not peer reviewed. that pdf link isn't working either btw.

>>3488048
Doesn't make it any less of a fallacy

>>3488052
i dont think you understand what a straw man is

>>3488048
Don't pretend it wasn't for people to draw a certain conclusion from.

>This feminism with which the whole of Europe is now slowly being overrun was from its inception an uprising of the decadent, barren populace of women against the healthy and fecund...of the lowest orders of women against all higher orders...

>This feminism with which the whole of Europe is now slowly being overrun has been from its inception an uprising of the decadent, barren populace of women against the healthy and fecund...of the lowest order of women against all higher orders...

>>3488100
>feminists have this thing where they constantly complain about being objectified by men but then go out and engage in acts where they are objectified by men
>Strawman:
to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition
I'm sorry, what was that you were saying?

>>3488113
What are you saying? If I were to believe that you're just making statements rather than posing them as a criticism then no it isn't a strawman. But I don't.

>>3488116
are you this guy?
>>3488100

>>3488116
>>3488136
Oh shit nigga, my bad. I linked to the wrong comment.
I'm the guy that called out his argument as strawman

>>3488106
spot on lel

>>3488100
it wasnt though? let's use the definition this guy posted

"to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition"

my statement fails the criterion because it is not refuting a proposition. i pointed out something that i noticed; if im wrong, then fine, that's great. if you think the statement has malicious intent, it doesnt. you feeling like youre being attacked or whatever does not constitute a straw man argument

>>3488116
Go and retake your introductory logic class.

>>3488142
It wasn't a straw man argument.

>>3488106

>These rotten 'feminist-types'--I know only too well what they are and what they want! They are seducers and pied-pipers to a whole range of chandala instinct; the European feminist is only a subtler species of European degenerate...she is a cunning misogynist incognito---and let no one mistake her for anything else! These feminists DESPISE as only woman can, as only our too-heavy European woman can...

>>3487886
>the most masculine letter
I don't see how it's the most masculine letter just because it's the male chromosome, but it took me a while to figure out that womyn was even made to remove the word "men" from it lol.

I thought it was just done for dumb stylistic purposes like vampyre or Katheryne when I first saw it used.

>>3488019

>Reading only radfems

http://www.feministe.us/blog/
http://feministing.com/

There's plenty who aren't against pornography or prostitution.

>>3488157
Logic?! HAHAHAH I'm a strong womyn that doesn't need any rationalism built by chauvinist men to suppress my gender.
FUCK YOU

>>3488158
I'd like you to tell me how it was not.

>>3487971
>i have a radical feminist friend who writes to me using "womyn" and i am actually bothered and want to bring up to her that this actually implies women are something entirely different from men.
i don't think it's of any consequence. i wouldn't do it myself but many languages do not have words that assign femininity with a prefix in front of their word for male. The words are often much different in structure or are both indicated by a prefix in front of an identical syllable.

masculum feminam
macho hembra
maschio femmina
árren thi̱lykós
fireann baineann
mužčína žénščina
männlichen weiblichen
mannelijk vrouwelijk
mann kvinne
erkek kadın
chāy h̄ỵing
nán nǚ
dansei josei
nara mahilā
lalaki babae
namseong yeoseong

>>3488164
>I thought it was just done for dumb stylistic purposes like vampyre or Katheryne when I first saw it used.
exactly what i mistook it the first time i read it ha

>>3488198
You may consider it to be a false generalization, but it is not a straw man.

>>3488190
Please castrate me.

>>3488154
I have a hard time believing that you think all feminists are hypocrites that objectify themselves by choice.
It's a blatantly false statement.
The statement projects an argument, regardless of your intentions, that would attempt to refute the legitimacy of the feminist argument by wrongfully projecting their argument in a manner that is hypocritical and invalid.
Being that the deinition of a strawman is
"to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition"
I would say your statement falls under the definition quite nicely.

>>3488236
You are such an idiot, that it's hard to read what you've wrote.

>>3488019

>salary disparity
>raep
>fighting the stereotype pure-whore dichotomy

glad to see you're untouched by these problems

>>3488236
What is the "feminist argument" and why do you think he is trying to refute it?

>>3488247

>fucking commas, how do they work?

>>3488253

There is no feminist argument. There is only the underhanded impulses of a small sect of malicious degenerates.

>>3488163
>>3488106

>>3488255
He's an idiot, trying to police/troll the board with his arbitrary standards that a person must meet to post here.

>>3488259

I'm pretty sure the only standard to post here is a keyboard and a few shitty opinions

>>3487810

she's not a genius, but she fills the role of articulating people's thoughts

this thread needs more why her ideas are baloney, not a bunch of yentas shitposting 'i hate her'

>>3488253
His statement suggests that feminists are malicious and their grounds for protest are based off of nothing but attention.
Being that this is obviously not one of the many types of feminism, though he attempts to suggest that it is, does it matter what my definition of feminism would be?

>>3488268
see
>>3487875

you are grasping so hard that your fingers are going to break

im going to bed now, i dont care about this nearly much as you seem to but if you are looking to engage in a constructive dialogue about feminism, youd be better off dropping the strawman thing before you try to extend its definition to any propositional nonargumentative statement

>>3488300
rage quit

>>3488236
Apples are tasty.

This statement projects an argument against the apples are gross argument, regardless of its intentions. Evidently, it is a strawman by definition. Checkmate.

>>3488287

>{some} feminists are detrimental
Why?
>Leftist is bad
Why?
>Alters fact, Cherry picking
Which?

>>3488253
>What is the "feminist argument"

That modern society is structured at the hands of a patriarchy. It's not an anti male thing, it's anti-social conditioning. Women have the right to vote now, but the absurd gender roles remain; women are expected to cook, clean and submit to male authority, and men are expected to be the pack leaders, provide, have 2 years of national service.

We have, in every single country, people acting out these dumb puppet roles because they have been handed them by a previous patriarchal system, that was fortunately much less oppressive, but , never the less, still exists now.

I never even heard of her.

>>3488548
>define the patriarchy
protip: You can't

It's as loosely constructed as them, the others, or the illumnati, the jews or any other fucking wacko conspiracy theory.

>>3487787
>This is what happens when woman are allowed to have an opinion.
That pic is taken from this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WrEB3Amh6E

Where she argues against a conservative MP who claims that our generation has bankrupted society. She then argues for affordable education for every child. Why would you deny someone an opinion, even hinder a certain debate, purely because you don't like females. OP, you really are a thick piece of shit.

>>3488555
No. No one claims that the Elders of Dongs get together at Ballhair Grove to plot all the gang rapes in the world.

"The patriarchy" is an abstraction of all the norms, values, behaviors, laws, etc. that enact male supremacy.

There. I just did it.

>>3488555
>define the patriarchy

The patriarchy isn't a group of Russian spies plotting to take over the world, silly. It's a term to describe the socially conditioned modes of thinking that stemmed from antiquated, mainly Christian based ethics, and the social structure resulting from it; i.e. - our puppet gender roles.

>>3488561
Thinking christians cemented social structure. lrn2classical knowledge which later travelled to the muslim world then back to byzantium with added ethics from india and china and then to rome then to mainland europe again.

>b-but muh evil w-white men

>>3488568
You don't get to squirm out of engaging with an argument like that.

Especially when "like that" is arguing that the content of Christianity didn't influence European culture.

For the record, I think the roots of the problem lie deeper, but Christianity has its own pile of shit that has to be reckoned with by Europeans and everyone they colonized.

>>3488568
>lrn2
Please don't include this if you are trying to have a sensible discussion.

>>b-but muh evil w-white men
Or this kind of arguing. Feminism doesn't claim it's white men. It's a global thing that is obviously far more severe in different countries. Obviously, girls having their clits hacked out with razor blades and being forced to cover all visible flesh is much worse than the gender roles in western society, but most feminists in western society are acting out against the gender roles that directly effect them as they are powerless to do anything overseas.

>>3488575
But aren't the gender roles dictated by the very real differences in physique between men and women? Granted, there are always exceptions (though they tend to prove the rule). But how was it that all these various civilizations across millenia all came to hold similar gender structures? Just as sexual orientation is predetermined, wouldn't gender roles, at least to a degree, be as well?

>>3488575
Other poster arguing with the guy here; I'd like your opinion on something.

Do you think- either practically or theoretically- there'd be any value in switching to a new term from "feminism," one that makes the point that what we're really on about is liberating people from gender roles?

>>3488573
>You don't get to squirm out of engaging with an argument like that.

Okay. If gender roles resulted from a patriarchy that caused current 'social conditioning' and gender roles, doesn't the fact that women are no longer second class citizens, and as much of a victim of gender roles as men, mean the term feminism should be changed to something more egalitarian? The institution of man has fallen, but left some gender roles in its wake, so shouldn't egalitarianism aim to enlighten people to the marionette roles they are being shovelled into instead?

Also, the word 'feminism' itself is detrimental to any cause. It enhances a male/female binary, and ends up with males opposed to it.

>>3488581

>Culture, not just biology, my good man.

>>3488581
>sexual orientation is predetermined

But it's not. It's very fashionable at the moment to claim so, because it provides a perfect theoretical underpinning to a moderate, liberal "equal rights" vision, but even a cursory look over the history of human sexuality (or virtually any individual's sexual history) will show you that orientation is a construct and sexuality is fluid as all fuck, no pun intended.

There's some research suggesting certain genes can facilitate tendencies, but empirically we can see any effect is very, very far from absolute.

>the very real differences in physique between men and women

1) At bottom, there's no particular reason to map additional stuff onto whether someone's genotype is XY or XX. Why not take every body on its own grounds?

The same basic point of scientific anti-racism- that there's wider variation within a population (sex) than there is between them- holds over here, too. Compare Alex Puccio and Michael Cera.

2) We've progressed enough in our collective capacities that the differences in physique between men and women, where they exist, are trivial for virtually every social role.

3) A large part of the construction of these physiques has to do with our society. I saw a study a while back- couldn't dig it up right now even I remembered enough details, sorry- that IIRC suggested paleolithic women were substantially more muscular and closer to men than contemporary women.

>>3488573
Okay, squirming out ofanargument. I think you're an idiot of divide the world into men (evil) and women and minority (gooooood). No matter how much you try to squirm this is the essence of all feminism.

Like how white men gets to carry the burden of slavery, the holocaust, any form of evil capitalism, oppression. And on individual basis, all men are rapists, sex is rape, we opress by either being rude, too kind, neutral, or showing any form of opression.

Yet feminist refuse to acknowledge that white males have contributed to the majority of achievements throughout history. Any form of egalitarianism have come from the mouth of a white man. And yes women were sidelined, still doesn't change that we formed the ideas that led to your liberation, or the majority of the innovations that made "the sexual revolution" possible.

Feminists live in a black and white world. I can't support a theory like that because there are women that opress, kill and rape. There are white men that are opressed and in servitude that starve and hunger. My world is grey. I'm not blinded by a one sided ideology. Does this mean that I deny the absolute fact that women have been sidelined all through history. Nope. It only means that I think feminism is a batshit crazy, almost exclusively vanguarded by white males and white knights who are so "enlightened".

Seriously fuck feminism.

>>3488588

Since when has the institution of man fallen?
What would be a more egalitarian term?

I think the opposition has more to do with the ideas that come with feminism, not the word itself.

>>3488591
That doesn't answer anything. Instead of glib generalities, why not give me a detailed answer as to why these realities can be ignored and why and how culture is to blame?

No need to be so snippy either. I have an open mind about this subject—so should you.

>>3488558

A lot of shriveled relics argue the next generation is from the nutjob factory.

I get the feeling hate comes from those uncomfortable sensations of looking at an semi-attractive female who doesn't fit into the maid or dom 4chan stereotype.

>>3488581
Take a look at your parents for a case study, or someone else's parents, and ask yourself if the only difference between them is physical strength. Do they act equal in the house - cooking, cleaning, delegation of responsibilities, the way they look after the kids? Then look at society, at adverts, at internet culture, at anything that could be causing these differences, at the portrayal of gender in the media, in porn, in huge 50 foot billboards plastered around your city. Pic related was displayed in mine. It seems harmless to look at, but it's enforcing the very thing feminists aim to dismantle.

Wit the specific case of pic related, we have strange result. Statistically, due to socially programmed gender roles, the maternal figure is far more likely to do the weekly shopping for the household. So advertisers target ads at this role because it's financially lucrative (They wouldn't get anywhere by replacing 'mums' with 'dads' and featuring a man) but acting on this role, by targeting adverts, just enforces and perpetuates the role itself. This is a tame minor example, but the same thing can be found in every aspect of society.

>>3488600

Wasn't being snipey, just lazy. Sorry about that. Culture is not biology. DNA carries your biological code, not a bunch of cultural memes. The latter comes from the environment.

Humans reproduce the same way since ever, but we have so many cultures, and many cultures have evolved. The idea that biology determines culture is half-baked.

>>3488588
Well, since I suggested it, I guess I have to take this up.

First, it's important to point out this is not much more than a semantic argument, and the idea I floated of a different term

Second, and fundamentally, men are *not* as much a victim of gender roles as women, and "the institution of man" has definitely not "fallen." The gender roles we have, and the functioning of our society (patriarchy, again), continually puts men into a superior position and women into an inferior one. (Insert all the famous statistics and an obvious noting of what the roles *are* here.)

So, basically, we still have women as the downtrodden, the revolutionary class. Focusing on combating their oppression is one of the best strategies for undermining gender.

Third, the problem with most current alternative terms like "gender egalitarian" is that they suggest the sort of legalistic, atomized traditional liberal thinking that acts like it's all just a matter of fairness and lack of cruelty and "rights." Those are all well and good things, but it's a long since exhausted discourse that doesn't have much to do with how people actually relate to and behave regarding gender.

It's not that feminism is a desirable term, it's that the current alternatives are all shit. Which gets at my raising the idea of another term: it's not that feminism isn't well and good, but that the discourse of traditional feminism is nearing its own exhaustion. We need something more radical, that doesn't get quagmired in discussions of e.g. "choice" in the same way liberalism got quagmired in discussions of "rights."

Also in all this, compare racial issues. People don't talk about the abolition of the black race, they talk about the abolition of the white one. Same deal. Just like how the language of liberal "anti-racism," and the "Civil Rights Movement" has proved insufficient to actually liberate black people, I think we might need a new way to liberate female people.

>>3488594

Arguing that sexual orientation isn't predetermined is ridiculous. No one chooses to be gay, and just because a few Greeks gave each other handjobs doesn't mean that it's all a 'social construct'. If your line of reasoning is correct then it is entirely reasonable for the rednecks to complain about 'gay propaganda' or whatever seeing as everyone can choose to become a homosexual if they feel like it.

The differences in physique between men in women may be negligible now, but each gender is predisposed to find different things enjoyable. (Look up the paradox of equality). SO don't get into a hissy fit when you find that more men are welders and more women are nurses.

>>3488605
>DNA carries your biological code, not a bunch of cultural memes.
But if sexual preference is encoded there, could there not be behavior associated with gender as well? I had a debate on just this topic last weekend with my girlfriend over lunch. Her position, as is yours, is that gender roles are a construct. My feeling is that embellishments, shall we say, on those roles are indeed constructs. But their core are reflective of biological truths that cannot be denied. It is a fact that men are generally more physically powerful than women. As mentioned earlier, there are always exceptions that, nonetheless, prove the rule.

My girlfriend posited that the behavior I feel is that biological birthright of a man is only learned behavior. But how could that be possible if I have never consciously striven to be, say, the dominant sexual partner in a relationship or generally gravitate towards male heteronormative behavior. Yes, of course, my parents inhabited that world. But suppose I had been raised by a homosexual female couple? How would my behavior be accounted for then?

(Incidentally, I knew just such a person in my days working in marketing. His parents were a pair of lesbians that still imbued the idealism of the 1960s and the new feminism that erupted from that era. One would never guess from looking at him, though. He very much behaved as one would expect a heterosexual male of Hispanic descent to behave.)

>>3488609

No, what you really mean is that instead of fighting for equal rights or whatever you want to go on the attack and aggressively target anyone you see as being an oppressor.

There's very few white people who would be comfortable with being told that the white race must be abolished, and it reeks of subliminal aggression and finger-pointing. Instead of the discussion being about "How can we stop racism?" it turns into "White men did everything, we must destroy them!" It's overt scapegoating and it blows my mind that people can't see that. This equally applies to (more radical) feminism.

In short: Fuck off back to tumblr.

>>3488613
>Arguing that sexual orientation isn't predetermined is ridiculous. No one chooses to be gay
That's non sequitur.

Gays had to argue that it wasn't a 'choice' in their gay marriage campaign. The difference between sexual preference and sexual orientation had to be made so they tried, and failed, to take the 'gay gene' route. The notion has been disproven, and there is no genetic predisposition that is responsible for all homosexuals; if it was, then a 'paedophile gene,' 'I'm genetically predisposed to being attracted to kids' would be equally valid.

What we have is social programming, the same as gender roles, but with a much more influential childhood significance. You're right that they don't always choose to be gay, but are wrong to suggest they are born like that. The vast majority of psychologists believe it's childhood imprinting, development in the first five years of life, and full social conditioning.

>>3488594
>But it's not. It's very fashionable at the moment to claim so, because it provides a perfect theoretical underpinning to a moderate, liberal "equal rights" vision, but even a cursory look over the history of human sexuality (or virtually any individual's sexual history) will show you that orientation is a construct and sexuality is fluid as all fuck, no pun intended.
I think that may indeed be the case with some people. But others, like myself, have had only heterosexual impulses from the moment they can remember such things. I never "chose" to find sexual fulfillment in women. It was simply an attraction that not only felt inevitable, but could simply not work in my mind any other way. To desire a man, for me, is like wanting to have sex with a vacuum cleaner—it not only isn't desirable, it simply doesn't make sense to me. Even as child—and by this I mean when I was around 3—I remember being unduly fond of my babysitter's breasts and buttocks. Gleefully I would reach out and grab them knowing that I wouldn't be reprimanded because of my age. (How devious children can be!) Never did I see my father, for example, behave that way with my mother. Nor was I exposed to such things in my environment. How can one explain this then if it isn't predetermined?

Also, your view that sexual orientation isn't predetermined opens up some difficult problems that homosexuals have been trying to combat for decades. How would you explain to them that their orientation is a choice? Isn't that a perfect theoretical underpinning to augment and support the vision of theocrats and other such religious and moral fundamentalists?

I often find that these studies on human sexuality say less about humanity itself and more about the person making the judgment.

>>3488559
>No. No one claims that the Elders of Dongs get together at Ballhair Grove to plot all the gang rapes in the world.

But we do

>>3488624

Have you actually got any sources to back this up?

>if it was, then a 'paedophile gene,' 'I'm genetically predisposed to being attracted to kids' would be equally valid.

Well who says it couldn't be? Maybe paedophiles will be the next homosexuals.

>>3488613
So let me get you right: if "being gay" was a choice, it would be acceptable for a religious sect to enlist the violent force of the state to make them choose not to be gay?

"Being gay" is incredibly vague. Is it identifying as gay? Is it being attracted to be people of the same sex? Is it proceeding to act positively on those attractions? Some of those things are manifestly choices.

We don't generally make a conscious decision about who we're attracted to in any meaningful way, but that doesn't make attraction this infinitely, biologically fixed notion. We don't come up with most of our preferences through conscious decision or biological determination.

Mapping "sexual orientation," especially statically, onto the messy world of people's erotic lives is just incorrect. For an easy, familiar example, look at all the straight-identifying people getting laid in prison.

I have zero problem with religions proscribing certain forms of sexual activity for people who adhere to them. That's not the issue. The issue is people exerting coercive force to ensure orthopraxy on the part of the heretics.

>the paradox of equality

Can you give me a better citation? Google turns up a bunch of different stuff when I punch in that phrase.

>>3488624
Yes!

>>3488620
>>3488623

I'll respond in more detail to these later (I'm way overdue on taking care of something for a friend) but "abolishing the white race" does not mean "killing white people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies

Read this.

>>3488594
>1) Why not take every body on its own grounds?
Because in order for an organized, cohesive society and government to function well, generalities must be made, both particular and universal.

>The same basic point of scientific anti-racism- that there's wider variation within a population (sex) than there is between them- holds over here, too. Compare Alex Puccio and Michael Cera.
Again, the exceptions that prove the rule. Cera, in any case, is certainly taller and likely stronger than your average woman.

2) We've progressed enough in our collective capacities that the differences in physique between men and women, where they exist, are trivial for virtually every social role.
Clearly that isn't the case if the debate on this subject continues. And for certain social roles these differences are no trivial thing.

3) A large part of the construction of these physiques has to do with our society. I saw a study a while back- couldn't dig it up right now even I remembered enough details, sorry- that IIRC suggested paleolithic women were substantially more muscular and closer to men than contemporary women.
But were they closer to the men of their own day or contemporary men? It goes without saying that anyone would be more muscular in those days. One needed a hardy physique then simply to survive. Our sedentary, civilized society, you will agree, has vastly different biological and psychological priorities than did that of our prehistoric ancestors.

>>3488609
>Second, and fundamentally, men are *not* as much a victim of gender roles as women
By victim I don't mean social position or hierarchy, I mean victimized by being subjected to gender roles. Maybe men do get the better deal, but they are equal in being subjected to a gender role.

>and "the institution of man" has definitely not "fallen.
Oh, come on. I agree with you about gender roles. But women are no longer second class citizens. They start in the same education system, have no social restrictions, can access higher education, can start companies, get mortgages, vote, they are on the same level as men.

The only differences are in the result of capitalism, which has justifiable economic reasons to offer girls cheaper car insurance, and in gender influenced things like "Is there a man around, I need to open this jar of peanut butter?" Yes, these gender roles - which I'm slightly jesting at- do exists, but the institution of man, which once existed to maintain a 'male bourgeois' class no longer exists. We just bathe in the sewage left by it, and are equal victims of social conditioning.

I have dual residency in the TRNC where it's compulsory for every male to enter national service. We are mainly a muslim country, but very liberal and no forced veils. Yes, women still take on the maternal housewife role, but turn to their sons, mid polishing, and say "You have to join the Army, you're a man, you need to defend our country". This stems from a patriarchy that no longer exists. We just have the remnants of it in the form of socially constructed gender roles, that don't over-victimize women.

ITT: A feminist and homosexual debate with well thought out answers and no shitposting.

Laurie Penny, are you in here?

>>3488638
>Maybe paedophiles will be the next homosexuals.

Jesus Christ:

"I'm sick of being persecuted. I didn't chose to be like this, it's not my fault. It's time society accepted that paedophiles aren't the monsters that the media makes us out to be. We are gentle Humbert's with a taste for nymphets that we cant help. Equal rights for Paedophiles."

>>3488651

No sources yet though. Just parroting of what professor Goldbergstein told them.

>>3488658
So much for no shitposting.

>>3488654
>"Equal rights for Paedophiles."

-Vote LibDem

>>3488647
>The only differences are in the result of capitalism, which has justifiable economic reasons to offer girls cheaper car insurance

So what is the solution? Communism isn't an option. Which leaves educating people to let them know they are being socially programmed by the dregs of the previous generation. This means angry teens with megaphones, stood in city centres, screaming slogans at passers by while dressed in costumes and manually checking privileges. This doesn't seem like a viable option either.

>>3488638
>>3488654

Pedophiles shouldn't be persecuted for their lust. They should, however, be persecuted if they take actions that harm other people without the informed consent of those other people.

Sexual relations between an adult and a child are generally thought to be inherently harmful to the child, and children are generally thought to be unable to give informed consent. The same is NOT true of sexual relations between two adults of the same sex.

>>3488651
>well thought out answers

for 4chan standards

>>3488668
>Communism isn't an option.
because?

>using a dichotomy anyway
/pol/?

>>3488676
Suppose we leave aside the law. An adult engages in sex with a 16-year-old who readily consents. What then? What if the adult is the man and the 16-year-old a girl? What if the sexes were reversed? What if both were male or both female? What if the 16-year-old actively sought this sexual encounter with the adult?

Though technically a child under the law, 16-year-olds have a firm understanding of what they want, what their boundaries are, and what their needs are. Can it be really said then that they are being harmed or that they are unable to consent?

Conversely, could it not be argued by a religious fundamentalist that tolerating homosexual behavior undermines presents an attack on their own freedoms and personal space by way of the encroaching of open homosexuality into their spheres? Though you and I may not consider such things "harmful", to a fundamentalist it represents an erosion of their entire world. Could it not be said that they, too, are entitled to that so long as they're not harming anyone?

>>3488668
>This means angry teens with megaphones, stood in city centres, screaming slogans at passers by while dressed in costumes and manually checking privileges.
I'd happily let Laurie Penny dress up and check my privilege.

>>3488686
>>using a dichotomy anyway
>/pol/?

I'm not using /pol/s binary like that. This thread is about Laurie Penny, who happens to advocate communism as a solution. I'm arguing against her final Marxist solution.

>>3488620

>>3488620

If gender roles can be determined by biology, what are these gender role constructs and the biological truths to which they adhere?

I think that line of thinking (biology -> gender roles) can be very murky and invites the just-so stories.
We can make stories of why men act so and so at this particular time and place and attach a biological fact as "explanation". Wait a couple of decades and this behavior could be inhibited without drastic changes in our biology.

>>3488623

Knowing how to distinguish the idea and the person or the behavior and the person shouldn't be a problem... but your comment proves something else.

>>3488688
>I'd happily let Laurie Penny dress up and check my privilege.

"Check it, you naughty Anon."

>>3488686
Iron law of oligarchy, that's why.

>>3487813
Because she's different.

>>3488699
>one person said to another on an anonymous image board

If /lit/ ever could drop the, by god you offended me sir, thus I am better than thou and have won this argument, g'day!-idiocy

She's degenerate. Anyone that whines is degenerate. Anyone that whines about having to be a certain gender is super mega degenerate. So what, society oppresses people by encouraging them to conform to the types of "man" and "woman" and ridicules them if they don't (i.e. a cowardly man, or a graceless woman). They are oppressed for a good reason: so that the people who are successful in embodying the type can reflect the values and beliefs of the society.
But when society loses its cohesiveness (it's ability to oppress degenerates and raise healthy peopl) all of the little degenerate and super mega degenerates become confident and claim that it's their "right" to be treated with the same amount of respect as everybody else.

>>3488686
>because?
Inherent human corruption. The corrupt always seek power and with communism they acquire it and keep it with a greater ease . Also, the slogan/philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ignores that people will not work to their full ability if they don't feel they're being appropriately rewarded for their effort.

>>3488697
But that's the thing. How do we determine what is a "construct" and what is "predetermined"? Just like a line of thinking that is grounded in biology can be murky to someone else, so can a philosophy planted in learned gender roles sound like so much speculation to another.

For my part, I am a feminist in so far I believe women should enjoy equal benefits—as well as problems—that men do. But there is an undeniable strain of misandry and in much of feminist thought. I'm in support of justice. But when it comes to petty revanchism, count me out.

Another thing that irks me about much feminism is its focus on young, white, middle-to-upper class women, as if only their concerns and realities truly mattered. True, there is are many women of color who fight their own battles for equality. But they typically aren't the media darlings their white counterparts tend to be.

>>3488697
>If gender roles can be determined by biology, what are these gender role constructs and the biological truths to which they adhere?

There are two distinctions to make here.

Firstly, gender roles can be seen as separate from a biological imperative. Look at the culture in Tehran compared to, say, Quebec; they have completely different social values based on the constructs of the environment they were raised in.

Secondly, we have an underlying biological imperative in two forms. 1) is a genetic imprinting leftover from our more primitive ancestors. We still jump when scared even though we are the top of our food chain. We experiences sexual urges and emotional responses that are beyond our direct control, and have (this argument is tenuous) a biological imperative to fulfil an alpha male, protector of women and children role. 2) Men are physically stronger, and this power advantage has manifested itself in the gender hierarchy we now have. Men are better at fighting, and doing manual work; women are better at childbirth and lactating, these direct -as opposed to indirect in '1)' - biological differences influence social gender roles, and result in a gender difference when structuring a social system.

Leaving political and economic factors aside, we can say that these gender roles do have a biological base. They are enforced through social conditioning, but have a biological grounding.

>>3488713

>strain of misandry, revanchism
>white middle-to-upper class feminism

Too true. It irks me just as it irks you.

We can roughly lump "gender" along with "biology".
As for "constructs", I'd say what's (suspiciously) mimetic.

>>3488712
>ignores that people will not work to their full ability if they don't feel they're being appropriately rewarded for their effort.

That's the argument for communism. With capitalism your labour is devalued. You make 10 pairs shoes in a factory a day and a rewarded with one pair of shoes. It's in the capitalists interest to whip you, work you harder, get you to make 15 pairs of shoes and still pay you one pair. The harder you work in capitalism, the more your labour is devalued unless you are the capitalist owner. Communism says if you make one pair of shoes, you labour is worth one pair of shoes. There is no capitalist owner, workers have factory occupation, and if they make 10 pairs of shoes, they can keep a pair and have the value of the remaining nine to trade for the products of other peoples labour..

The 'not working to their full ability' argument is irrelevant as people are worth their labour, not used as machines that attempt to reduce labour value for profit.

>>3487787
oh, it's this thread again

>>3488721
>Men are physically stronger, and this power advantage has manifested itself in the gender hierarchy we now have.

Of course we have our biological imperatives. But these imperatives don't automatically translate to a set of normative ethics or explanations for norms.

What if you're born into an Aeta tribe where women hunt and the men take care of the kids? You could work the same logic(?) "men are stronger so they stay at home".

There's what can be inherited through genes
And there are ideas drilled into our heads by the people around us.

>>3488711

There's some truth in that. But society's values and beliefs are frequently foolish, which creates 'degenerate' and 'healthy' categories that cause great harm (or, at least, are not as useful as they could be).

You don't want to kill your Alan Turings.

>Feminism
>Relevant

>>3488749
>But these imperatives don't automatically translate to a set of normative ethics or explanations for norms.
It's not 'automatic', but the influence of biological advantages can't be ignored.

>What if you're born into an Aeta tribe where women hunt and the men take care of the kids?
Yeah, the Aeta peoples interact with multi-story buildings and laptops now; the Philippines is tiny, and unlike east Brazil, they are forced into contact with the modern world. There have been tribal women warriors (of which there is some evidence) In south America, both Incan and Amazonian. It's believed they had to slice out the left breast to right breast to draw a bow. But in these situations there was a segregation between men and women, they existed in two different tribes, joining for mating. There is very little evidence of what socio-biologic factors caused this.

Either way if you wish to look at history, we can see the same situation everywhere. Pre-colonialism too. The ching dynasty, the Ottomans, Aborigines, the pre-Spanish American tribes, Inuits, all structure themselves around the less powerful women as the child rearer and the man as the strong hunter. Virtually every society from 2kbc to the industrial revolution did this. Biology had such a huge importance and it made sense to utilise it. When women aren't pregnant or looking after children, they are well-suited to agricultural work, from basic crops to foraging. Men can haul heavy logs and rocks for construction, and chase after wild animals faster, and often the tribal leader or village elder was a male; a throwback to 'alphaism.'

So, when is the Laurie Penny Q&A?

>>3488797

hahaha when was this?

>>3488777
>It's not 'automatic', but the influence of biological advantages can't be ignored.

Assuming we don't "ignore" these biological facts or these biological advantages, the human mind can produce variations of justifications using these biological facts.


>Yeah, the Aeta peoples interact with multi-story buildings and laptops now
exactly. assuming they also believe "men are physically stronger than women", why are the women hunting food and the men babysitting? They derive own truth values based on the "facts" they know, which they pass on to their kids, just like those people you mentioned.

Which asshole wrote this?

What is the point in lying and scaring her off by linking her to this thread? A Q&A is nothing like a normal thread; they sticky it, give a unique trip, and heavily moderate the thread.

>>3488801

There's an exception every rule, chum. Just because a couple of obscure tribes in the middle of nowhere have the women doing traditionally masculine roles doesn't prove that the untold billions who did things the normal way are wrong.

>>3488814
>A Q&A is nothing like a normal thread; they sticky it, give a unique trip, and heavily moderate the thread.

Now she wont show up because she'll think the thread will be like this one, when it would be like pic related.

>>3488797
has anyone ever though of asking tao lin to do this?

>>3487875
I can't read what you wrote the punctuation is scattered like chex-mix.

>>3488821
He already posts here.

Oh look. A fucking thread where tripfags idolize famous people. Out of all the people we want, Penny is at the bottom of that list. She is at the bottom of the unwanted list too. Let the other boards bow down to commercial fagfucks that get hyped in media because of their youth, attractiveness, rebellious opinions or gender.

I'd like to discuss literature. The stuff this board supposedly is about.

Protip: An overwhelming majority of the board feels this. There are a handful of people who keep creating these fucking threads in order to force some fucking "Queen of /inputboardnamehere/".

God, during my time on 4chan I've seen so many boards being ruined because of shit like this. Leave /lit/ be.

>>3487947
idealist in its rhetoric and publications but pragmatic in its political activity.
How can you guys generalize an entire spectrum of thought with one word? That like, in the US, 100 million people you're glazing over.

>>3488315
>>3488548
Laurie, if you're reading this thread. These two posts above represent the gaping transatlantic difference. This one (>>3488315), and all the posts before it are predominately American. While this one (>>3488548), and the ones after it are Mainly European.

Obviously, if you choose to do a Q&A, you need to do it at a time when the more civilized Europeans are on, so the thread won't descend into a pit of misogynistic teen angst and you can have a coherent discussion.

>>3488834
>A fucking thread where tripfags idolize famous people
I just had a scan through the thread and one tripfag asked about Tao Lin. There were no other tripfags idolising famous people, and even that guy wasn't idolizing Lin.

>>3488838
>england
>worth pissing on
make it when the australians are on. that way, all the worst americans are asleep, and all the worst europeans are yet to finish realschule for the day.

>>3488854
>Thinking every European is from England.

I know the board communicates in English, but don't confuse that with nationality. We have loads of French, German, Spanish, Norwegian posters here. There's even a Romanian guy who pops up a lot.

>>3488838
This guy here again. Laurie I've changed my mind. I'd rather have you perform your striptease on live cam while I e-mail pictures of me masturbating if that is ok?

>>3488861
>I'd rather have you perform your striptease on live cam while I e-mail pictures of me masturbating

>Think we need her perfoming a striptease to e-mail her masturbation pictures.
I have fapped over her youtube vids twice today already.

>>3488860
i mentioned realschule to safeguard against anyone thinking i'd made that mistake. it seems it was a poor tactic.

Laurie Penny showcases her ideas through language.

>>3488868
Are you denying the fact that she was a stripper, something she herself has used her language to describe?

'Bligatory LP excerpt.

>>3488871
Are you claiming that Winston Churchill was in fact a lion-taming Martian?

>>3488732
So then the shoemakers make one pair of shoes for themselves and leave it at that. When someone comes along and ask for some shoes the shoemakers say "Why should I make shoes for you?", and so the man in need of shoes offers the shoemaker some of his cabbage. Boom. Capitalism is reborn.

You clearly don't have a very good grasp on how communism works.

>>3488249
>salary dispute

Don't tell me people in 2013 still fall for this? To get the 77% statistic, they just compared average females workers to average male workers, without taking into account hours worked or fucking anything. Men tend to work more hours and more overtime, as well as more dangerous jobs.

It's a complete myth used to perpetuate victimhood.

>>3488676
> informed consent

Should we have a bureau of consent to issue licenses that certify people for sexual activity? Face it, people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, children included. Even if they make choices you don't like.