Name one good piece of literature that wasn't written by a white, bourgeois, heterosexual, cisgender man.

File: 170 KB, 643x960, homo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:19:22 2013 No.3552273 [DELETED]

Name one good piece of literature that wasn't written by a white, bourgeois, heterosexual, cisgender man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:20:22 2013 No.3552276 plenty of them were hardly bourgeois

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:21:22 2013 No.3552280 The Count of Monte Cristo

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:21:22 2013 No.3552281 Just one? The Picture of Dorian Gray.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:22:22 2013 No.3552284 >>3552273 Cambridge people really lack a sense of humour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:23:22 2013 No.3552288 > bourgeois So...the vast majority of modern books, then?

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:25:23 2013 No.3552292

Let's not forget that the vast major part of women shared the same sexist ideologies that their husbands and brothers did and the trend continues even today with females being slightly more conservative in their attitudes towards birth control and abortion among others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:26:22 2013 No.3552293 The bourgeoisie are the plague of the planet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:26:22 2013 No.3552294 >>3552273 The image is sort of more confusing than the OP's question. He's saying white, bourgeois, heterosexual, cisgender males are the ones who 'write history.' What does that even mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:26:22 2013 No.3552297 >>3552292 I want Tumblr to leave.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:27:22 2013 No.3552301 Pushkin was black

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:27:23 2013 No.3552300 >>3552293 Write a panflet about it, stupid Commie

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:29:22 2013 No.3552305 >>3552294 They're the only ones who know how to write, the non-whites and women are busy living like savages

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:29:22 2013 No.3552306 >>3552294 I think he's saying that white bourgeois people see life through the lens of the white bourgeois experience.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:29:22 2013 No.3552307

>>3552294
He's invented an extremely misogynistic "Great Historiman" view of history. With this historicity, you pretend that regardless of what actually happened, the only reason we value it as a part of our past is because of rich, white, sexually conservative dudes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:30:22 2013 No.3552309 >>3552300 >panflet Dear God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:30:22 2013 No.3552310 Slightly related subject: When did /lit/ become overrun with rabid feminists, and when will they get bored and leave? Have we become their base for launching their stupid bullshit propaganda at other larger, more active boards?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:31:22 2013 No.3552314 >>3552310 it's just /pol/ trying to be funny trying

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:31:22 2013 No.3552317 File: 151 KB, 643x960, sniff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:32:22 2013 No.3552318 >>3552310 >When did /lit/ become overrun with rabid feminists, and when will they get bored and leave? Every board from /r9k/ has always had this. And welcome to /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:32:22 2013 No.3552319 >>3552310 This is the designated liberal arts board on 4chan. Where else would they post?!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:32:22 2013 No.3552320 File: 34 KB, 831x450, timted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3552284 Isn't that the Bodleian behind him? If so, it's Oxford, not Cambridge. I don't have a sense of humour either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:33:22 2013 No.3552322 >>3552310 I like how you think /lit/, and 4chan in general was anything other than feminist until /pol/ attracted a bunch of retards to this site

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:33:22 2013 No.3552323

>>3552305
I chuckled.

>>3552306
Interesting statement. I never quite understood if forcing views on others is bad why the views of others need to be forced onto white heterosexual, etc. men.

>>3552307
Yeah, I've found that even at a graduate level I just 'can't win' against a minority or female. I'm always shot down due to evidently believing in 'great history.'

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:33:22 2013 No.3552325 File: 9 KB, 212x238, troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>/pol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:33:22 2013 No.3552326 >>3552309 >2013 >Not using ortographic anachronisms You just went full plebeian, m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:33:23 2013 No.3552324 Slightly related subject: When did /lit/ become overrun with mindless misogynists, and when will they get bored and leave? Have we become their base for launching their stupid bullshit propaganda at other larger, more active boards?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:34:22 2013 No.3552330 >>3552320 It's actually the Radcliffe Camera

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:35:23 2013 No.3552332 >>3552324 >>3552322 >equating not being a feminist with being a misogynist Pls Tumblr, you have your own shithole to play in, stop fucking up ours.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:35:23 2013 No.3552336 >>3552330 Sorry, you're absolutely right, it is. That's still in Oxford though, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:36:23 2013 No.3552346 >>3552320 You're right, I was mistaking it for St Mary's St

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:37:22 2013 No.3552349

>>3552323
>Interesting statement. I never quite understood if forcing views on others is bad why the views of others need to be forced onto white heterosexual, etc. men.

Probably because many people think reparation and atonement for the crimes of ancestors are acceptable. Nothing says integration like pointing out others' differences and alienating them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:38:22 2013 No.3552352 >>3552310 >Not being a feminist >Not being the person you want to be >Letting a preconceived view of who you should be mould you into a caricature MMXIII

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:39:22 2013 No.3552355

>>3552336
Yes. The Bodleian is the official name for Oxford's University Library. However, the Bodleian building proper is opposite those steps you can see in the background. Also called Duke Humfrey's Library, it's got Law and English books in it. The Radcliffe Camera has history books. The OP photo was taken as part of an Oxford WomCam initiative (Fourth Wave Feminism and all that)

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:41:22 2013 No.3552362

>>3552349
Fair enough. I understand that atonement is probably a worthy goal, but that entails a certain level of understanding and mutual respect, rather than whole hog foisting of world-views. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but still...

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:42:22 2013 No.3552366

Well, this thread has confirmed to me that there's no hope for 4chan or the internet anymore. Either you're with the braindead feminists on most of the boards, or you're with the nutjobs that genuinely hate women on /pol/ and /r9k/. Sooner or later I'm going to have to pick one of those sides. Being a moderate is impossible in this day and age.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:43:23 2013 No.3552371 >>3552366 >Being a moderate is impossible in this day and age. Unless you're, you know, not an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:44:23 2013 No.3552374 >>3552371 How am I supposed to be a moderate when everywhere on the internet, there's two extreme viewpoints, and there's no like-minded, moderate and rational people to have a discussion with?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:45:23 2013 No.3552377 >>3552352 >implying the feminist progressive liberals aren't trying to mould you into their image

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:45:23 2013 No.3552378 >>3552374 Why would that mean you have to join a side? I don't see why the lack of a certain position on the internet of all places would have such a huge impact on your ideology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:46:23 2013 No.3552381 >>3552374 If you don't support feminism you might as well just say you hate women

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:46:23 2013 No.3552382 >>3552362 Yeah. As a second gen Asian living in south TX, i just don't give a fuck about race or culture anymore. It's immaterial and insignificant.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:47:23 2013 No.3552385

>>3552366
>Sooner or later I'm going to have to pick one of those sides.
Join the feminists, we're really not that bad. The tumblr megaphone kids give us a bad name, when in reality, all we are fighting for is more freedom for you to be yourself. For you to be more comfortable in your body without having to live up to an antiquated view of who you should be. All we want is a basic equal treatment, without enforced equality, and less pigeon-hole gender roles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:48:23 2013 No.3552387 >>3552378 Because not joining a side essentially means I bar myself from having any input on the issue, since no one will listen to someone that doesn't neatly fit into their black-and-white worldview.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:48:23 2013 No.3552391 >>3552366 Being a moderate is a disposition, not an ideology. If you were a moderate a hundred years ago, you'd probably think that monarchy was the best thing since sliced bread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:48:23 2013 No.3552392 >>3552385 >The tumblr megaphone kids give us a bad name It's the general confusion between feminism and post-feminism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:50:22 2013 No.3552398

>>3552381
>>3552385

Pls. I have no respect for feminism even outside of Tumblr. It's a flawed ideology that more or less blames men for all the institutionalized sexism in the world, promotes promiscuity and calls anyone that doesn't think promiscuity is a good character trait a sexist, and promotes the idea of some nonsensical "Rape culture" in Western countries, while simultaneously ignoring the ACTUAL FUCKING RAPE CULTURE in countries like South Africa.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:51:23 2013 No.3552400 >>3552387 Why do you want idiots to listen to you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:53:23 2013 No.3552405 >>3552398 >It's a flawed ideology that more or less blames men How'd you figure? The rest is bull, second wave was rather sexually conservative and prescriptive, your focus on promiscuity is more to do with you than the subject.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:53:23 2013 No.3552408 >>3552400 Because if they don't listen to me, then their opinions will be the ones running the world.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:54:23 2013 No.3552412

>2014
>Group of fellow (white male) rapists and I are meeting in our attic of oppression
>Begin plotting on how to degrade the female sex with our privilege, begin reading my latest jokes about traditional gender roles
>All of the sudden the walls begin to shake
>Team of militant feminists and queers burst in through the window, armed with guns loaded full of needles containing estrogen
>Daniel and I stay behind, throwing Hemingway novels at the highly trained troops while our rapist group runs away
>We're finally tackled by a large Butch lady
>Attempt to knock her out with hardcover copies of The Old Man and the Sea, but our attempts are futile
>Brought to the ministry of checking and forced to take estrogen injections while reading Andrea Dworkin's works and receiving a daily beating from groups of PMSing womyn
>Please help us

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:55:23 2013 No.3552414 >>3552408 >at least if I convince myself I agree with them, I can pretend I'm having a say in the "running of the world"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:57:22 2013 No.3552420 >>3552408 That doesn't make much sense at all, either, but okay, fool yourself into thinking whatever you want, I guess.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 19:57:22 2013 No.3552421

>>3552405

Because feminists believe in the patriarchy, which, simply stated, says that all institutionalized sexism, whether directed against men or women, is the result of the male-dominated world, therefore it blames men for it.

Also, I don't see how promiscuity isn't related to the subject, Every feminist I've ever talked to has said something to the effect of "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS HOW MANY GUYS A WOMEN'S SLEPT WITH (lol, yet its somehow THEIR business whether or not I'm confident, whether or not I'm religious, and what my political views are).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:01:22 2013 No.3552435 >>3552414 >pretend Contributing to a discussion that the majority of people are having instantly gives you a say in how the world runs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:01:22 2013 No.3552436 >>3552352 This right here is exactly what I'm against. I don't know how any sensible person could find this appealing.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:05:22 2013 No.3552451

>>3552398
>I have no respect for feminism even outside of Tumblr.
That really is a shame.

>It's a flawed ideology that more or less blames men
The concept of a patriarchy is not putting blame on men in some kind of gender twisted original sin concept. Feminism aims to liberate men from the structures they're shackled by too.

>and calls anyone that doesn't think promiscuity is a good character trait a sexist
Not true in the slightest. Are you basing this exclusively on 'slut-walks'? Either way, if two people want to sleep together why shouldn't they?

>nonsensical "Rape culture" in Western countries
It's not nonsensical, it's statistical. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect sex to be consensual. Though I do agree that the whole 'tumblr scene' takes issues too far sometimes and twists them into something counter-productive.

>ignoring the ACTUAL FUCKING RAPE CULTURE in countries like South Africa.
Errr.... actually, I am South African. Feminism isn't an isolated thing though, it applies globally. From women having clits sliced out in Nairobi to men forced into work camps in Korea; from gender image in Britain to mass rape in Rwanda. The problem is, a middle class French teenager can't do a lot about Rwandan politics. Though I agree most people tend to focus on the issues that effect them and their loved ones first.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:09:22 2013 No.3552461

>>3552421
>Because feminists believe in the patriarchy, which, simply stated, says that all institutionalized sexism, whether directed against men or women, is the result of the male-dominated world,
I don't really see how that is up for debate, to be quite honest. Either people argue that patriarchy is right or good or whatever, or that it is unjust. No one really argues that it doesn't exist.
>therefore it blames men for it.
Yeah, that doesn't follow. No one I'm aware of is claiming there's some kind of penis illuminati of which all men are implicit. Some post-feminists view men as inherently unjust creatures and want to do away with them, but that isn't feminism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:12:22 2013 No.3552474

>>3552421
>Every feminist I've ever talked to has said something to the effect of "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS HOW MANY GUYS A WOMEN'S SLEPT WITH
You think that means promiscuity is a positive trait somehow? Regardless of people's views, it sounds more like you have problem interacting with people. It's not like in very conservative times asking about someone's sexual history would be appropriate either.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:15:22 2013 No.3552483

>>3552451

>Feminism aims to liberate men from the structures they're shackled by too.

By "saving them from themselves" essentially. Frankly, I find feminism's complete lack of willingness to admit that women are responsible for some of the sexism in the world to be kind of insulting. I've never gotten into a conversation with a women feminist that didn't eventually result in them basically saying that men are what's wrong with the world. And male feminists are usually the most self-hating, "Privilege guilt" fucks I have ever met in my entire life.

> Either way, if two people want to sleep together why shouldn't they?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking from a dating standpoint. I regularly see people get called sexist for saying they wouldn't date a promiscuous women.

>It's not nonsensical, it's statistical. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect sex to be consensual.

There's a difference between being against rape and being against a "rape culture". A "rape culture" implies that the society supports rape, which just isn't fucking true in Western countries, and you know it's not.

>All the rest of the post

My point is, that if you're going to engage in activism, engage in activism that actually matters, not this Tumblr-level "GET RID OF SOCIETY'S EXPECTATIONS OF BEAUTY" bullshit.

>>	I LIKE LEARN Mon Mar 11 20:16:22 2013 No.3552487 >>3552280 this also... Frankenstein... but that one was arguably edited by the white boureois heterosexual cisgender husband

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:16:22 2013 No.3552488 >>3552483 >By "saving them from themselves" essentially. Are you still at an age where you think there's a "boys' club" and a "girls' club"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:17:22 2013 No.3552495 >>3552451 >Feminism aims to liberate men from the structures they're shackled by too. thank you for knowing what's best for us men!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:17:22 2013 No.3552497 >>3552461 There is no way to claim that a patriarchy exists, and then not claim that all institutionalized sexism is the fault of men. The two ideas are mutually inclusive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:18:22 2013 No.3552499 >>3552488 >a "boys' club" and a "girls' club" What are you trying to say

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:21:24 2013 No.3552509 >tfw ancient greek philosophers were surely not "cisgender" >tfw you realize that the term cisgender is unapplicable to the ancient greeks since greek sexuality is very different from our own and does not have the same dualism

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:22:22 2013 No.3552512 >>3552509 haha oh wow you really believe that? that's just feminist revisionism

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:23:22 2013 No.3552514

>>3552495
>thank you for knowing what's best for us men!

It's not about what's best for one gender, it's what's best for all of us. Feminism isn't a man vs woman thing, despite how it's depicted. everyone is equally victimized by social structures in a variety of ways, and feminism is a movement to reduce and end that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:23:22 2013 No.3552516 >>3552499 strip clubs I think

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:24:22 2013 No.3552518

>>3552497
>There is no way to claim that a patriarchy exists
You think one cannot make a claim? The idea of a "patriarch" comes from Roman culture anyway, and was codified within their laws. The idea of a society being patriarchal ultimately derives from that. But, hey, if you want to fart about and whine you have nothing to say on a subject you know nothing about, who am I to stop you?
>and then not claim that all institutionalized sexism is the fault of men.
Do you mean men in an inclusive or exclusive sense? Either way, this isn't a blame game, no one is saying it is someone's "fault".

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:25:22 2013 No.3552519 >>3552514 Really? Because I never hear of feminists rallying together to protest any number of the sexist government/social actions against men.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:25:22 2013 No.3552521 war and peace

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:25:22 2013 No.3552522 >>3552519 If one does not listen, one cannot hear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:27:22 2013 No.3552526 >>3552519 Such as?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:28:22 2013 No.3552536 >>3552280 Done in two.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:29:22 2013 No.3552537

>>3552514
But what if I like the structures and feel that they should be furthered?

>everyone is equally victimized by social structures in a variety of ways

I'm not sure this is entirely legitimate, and and when it is, I feel that it's more than worth the trade-off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:29:23 2013 No.3552539 >>3552526 ...Oh god, this is why I hate talking to feminists. -Child custody laws -Prison sentences -Selective service int he United States -Domestic abuse -Rape the list goes on and fucking on.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:30:23 2013 No.3552542

>>3552518

>Do you mean men in an inclusive or exclusive sense?

Exclusive.

>Either way, this isn't a blame game, no one is saying it is someone's "fault".

That's exactly what they're saying, by blaming me and 50% of a population for sexism (and don't even try to say they don't blame us), when we have about as much control over the world and society as they do, and they're just as guilty of sexism as we are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:30:23 2013 No.3552543 >>3552539 Those laws are the result of men, rather.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:33:22 2013 No.3552555 >>3552543 ...I'm laughing so hard right now. This post comes JUST after I was talking to someone saying feminism isn't playing the blame game or saying men are responsible for all sexism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:34:22 2013 No.3552563

>>3552519
>Because I never hear of feminists rallying together to protest any number of the sexist government/social actions against men.
How can they 'rally together' except for things like child custody – feminists are for fathers seeing children. if you read some feminist literature on social structure, you will find that feminist theory applies to everyone equally. We have inherited a structure, and it's not the fault of our generation that we have been conditioned by it. Nobody is saying 'all men are evil' at all, we are trying to help men too.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:35:22 2013 No.3552564

>>3552539
>-Domestic abuse
>-Rape
I'm not sure what you mean by protest or how one would protest such things exactly.
>-Selective service int he United States
Many anti-war and anti-conscription protests are attended and supported by feminists.
>-Prison sentences
You've got to be more specific.
>-Child custody laws
The argument for giving mothers preference in custody is anything but feminist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:36:22 2013 No.3552569 >>3552555 You'd deny that most law-makers are men, then? I don't give a shit about tumblr or feminism, I just find your line of logic equally as silly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:37:23 2013 No.3552575 >>3552542 If you're using men in an exclusive sense, they're blaming a small group of men, not you "and 50% of the population". Compare to inclusive and exclusive we. Make up your mind what you mean and stop being so vague.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:38:23 2013 No.3552578 >>3552555 To be fair, as I've just pointed out, you're not putting your thoughts very clearly at all.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:39:22 2013 No.3552584

>>3552564

>I'm not sure what you mean by protest or how one would protest such things exactly.

Maybe "raise awareness" or "start trying to change" would be better terms. They do both those things when those issues apply to women,so I don't see why they don't do it when it applies to men, if feminism is genuinely trying to help both sexes.

>Many anti-war and anti-conscription protests are attended and supported by feminists.

I imagine the majority of feminists don't give a shit, though.

>You've got to be more specific.

How men are overwhelmingly given harsher sentences for the same crimes across the board.

>The argument for giving mothers preference in custody is anything but feminist.

And yet, until this thread, I have not seen a single person who claims to be a feminist say anything against it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:39:23 2013 No.3552582 >>3552555 You're not really all that clear, dude.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:40:22 2013 No.3552587

>>3552539
>-Child custody laws
But feminists do want fathers to have access to kids where appropriate
>-Prison sentences
Again, feminism is arguing for equality here.
>-Selective service int he United States
I don't know much about US services, so I really can't say.
>-Domestic abuse
Feminists don't want any domestic abuse. If there is money to be directed at victims, it should be spent on whoever needs it regardless of genitals.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:42:22 2013 No.3552593

>>3552582
>>3552578

It's because I'm talking with like, four different people about different subjects, and I'm trying to reply as fast I can, so my points are kind of getting a little mixed up.

My overall point: Feminism does not care about both sexes equally and is only interested in defending women. It also, for the most part, refuses to acknowledge that any sexism is because of women.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:42:22 2013 No.3552594 File: 9 KB, 190x265, proust.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] damn OP

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:43:22 2013 No.3552595 >>3552584 It's becoming increasingly and painfully apparent that you haven't really met or talked with any feminists in person.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:44:23 2013 No.3552600 >>3552595 Why does it matter if it's in person? A feminist online will have the same views offline.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:44:23 2013 No.3552604 File: 12 KB, 117x57, its time.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:45:23 2013 No.3552605

>>3552584
>>3552584
>I imagine the majority of feminists don't give a shit, though.
That's your problem, doesn't match up with reality either.
>How men are overwhelmingly given harsher sentences for the same crimes across the board.
Then it'll anti-feminist for similar reasons to child-custody.
>And yet, until this thread, I have not seen a single person who claims to be a feminist say anything against it.
Your ignorance does not a point make. The preference for women in child custody comes from the view that "women are mothers", that they're naturally more suited to care giving and more nurturing than men, and this kind of stereotyping is not feminist at all. It's just like how feminists don't think women should just be nurses, maids and nannies or whatever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:45:23 2013 No.3552607 >>3552514 you have no proof that our present system is evil & should be changed, and no proof that what you're proposing is a better system you are basically re-enacting communist/liberal/fascist/whatever-ideology propaganda and nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:46:23 2013 No.3552614 >>3552600 You know that's not true, especially under the blanket of Anonymity. Christ, if people behaved like they did here I wouldn't leave the house.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:47:23 2013 No.3552617 >>3552600 Human interaction is fundamentally different on and offline. I never had any respect for feminism until I talked to actual feminists in a real-life situation. I also have a high level of education and am sociable, so that helps.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:47:23 2013 No.3552618 >>3552607 >you have no proof that our present system is evil There is no "definitive proof" either way, but the argument that the current system is unjust is a compelling one.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:48:23 2013 No.3552623

>>3552605

Ah, I'm starting to see where the confusion is happening.

My point isn't that feminists support these things. It's that society supports them, and feminists mostly try to do anything about it, yet they're perfectly fine getting outraged about the issues that apply to women.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:49:22 2013 No.3552627 >>3552623 *don't try to do anything about it

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:49:23 2013 No.3552624

what about things like paternity fraud?

if a woman lies to a man, and says he's the father of a child, even if she knows she isn't, women, specifically feminist women would support the mother lying to the alleged father, because it's in the woman's best interests to have this "father" around.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:50:22 2013 No.3552630 >>3552614 >>3552617 I have no reason to think the feminists I've talked to online weren't actually feminists, because they don't say anything particularly shocking or angering.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:52:22 2013 No.3552639 >>3552618 yes, the current system is unjust, but not only towards the women. it's a fact that capitalism is flawed. but that doesn't mean at all that feminism is the answer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:52:22 2013 No.3552643 >>3552630 You totally side-stepped my point, though. Your interactions online aren't always indicative of real life beliefs or reality. Sorry mate, just how these things work. Go out and actually talk to some feminists, men and women alike, for once.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:53:22 2013 No.3552645

>>3552623
>Ah, I'm starting to see where the confusion is happening.
No you don't. While there may be no picket line for sentences and child custody, feminists do protest and argue against them. So yes, they do get outraged. And if that was your problem with conscription too, plenty of feminists are outraged about not being in line to fight for their country unlike men, just as some are outraged anyone should be obligated to do so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:53:23 2013 No.3552648 Men are the cause of all unjustice in the world. This is a fact, admit it already, you stupid fuckers...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:54:23 2013 No.3552652 >>3552639 >but not only towards the women Feminism isn't only directed at women.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:55:23 2013 No.3552655 Oh, nevermind me, just pouring some gas on this fire: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:56:23 2013 No.3552657 >>3552301 slavs and blacks are similar, not the same

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:57:22 2013 No.3552662

>>3552643

If feminists' beliefs change based on whether or not they're posting on the internet, then why should their beliefs off the internet be considered valid? Besides, I've talked to feminists in real-life, and for the most part they were liberal hippie pseudo-intellectual college girls. No different from the ones on the internet.

>>3552645

And where are these reasonable feminists, exactly? Because I sure as hell haven't met any.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:57:22 2013 No.3552663 >>3552648 >Men are the cause of all unjustice in the world. Hitler Stalin Pol-pot Mao mussolini Hussein Kim Jong Yup, all men. Men are fascist chauvinist pigs, and should be kept in perpetual quarantine with women running the world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:58:22 2013 No.3552669 >>3552639 >it's a fact that capitalism is flawed. That's debatable and a bad place to start. I think we really need to question if a "just" society is desirable.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:59:23 2013 No.3552673

>>3552652
so feminism is the answer to the exploitation of the proletariat, babies dying in the third world, obesity in the us, the euro debt crisis, financial regulation, environmental protection?
darn!

>>3552648
lol
nope, the bible says its u womens sry

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 20:59:23 2013 No.3552674 >>3552663 Not to mention all the fucking stupid fascist elitist sexist misogynistic pigs running the White House since George Washington. AND THE FUCKING RAPISTS WHO WANTT TO RAPE ME JUST BECUASE IM A WOMAN down with men

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:00:22 2013 No.3552676 >>3552391 I am a moderate today and endorse monarchy

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:00:22 2013 No.3552679 >>3552648 >>3552663 examples of reasonable feminists

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:01:22 2013 No.3552681 >>3552662 Again, it is painfully apparent that you haven't really met many feminists of any intellectual weight. That's fine, but the assumptions you make are absurdly trite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:01:22 2013 No.3552685 >>3552412 >not using The Sun Also Rises >2014

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:01:23 2013 No.3552683 >>3552662 >Because I sure as hell haven't met any. It is already quite clear you haven't met any, reasonable or otherwise. Try reading a book or a newspaper or talking to people.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:02:22 2013 No.3552690

I fucking hate the word "cisgender". Why do we need a word to describe, that one doesn't hate his gender. I never used it. Ever. not even when discussing transsexuality. The only people on the planet who use it are feminists and when they use it, it sounds like it's something bad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:03:22 2013 No.3552693 >>3552681 I haven't met them because they don't exist. Intelligent feminists that are actually reasonable about the concept of sexism would better be described as humanists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:05:22 2013 No.3552697 >>3552690 >The only people on the planet who use it are feminists I dunno man, transtheory is not the same as feminism. Feminism in general seems to be more in line with queer theory and disagrees with much of trans theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:05:22 2013 No.3552698 >>3552512 haha oh wow >history is objective >complete knowledge of a distant, ancient culture

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:05:22 2013 No.3552701
File: 33 KB, 800x384, 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>assume behavioral differences are mostly/solely the result of social demands with no evidence

>SES differences aren't consensual, they're duh patruarkee, ignore data that suggests otherwise

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:06:22 2013 No.3552704

>>3552669
>I think we really need to question if a "just" society is desirable.

This.

I agree that gender roles are, for a part, socially constructed, and that we are pushed into these ways of acting, but why is it a bad thing? 'morality' is a social construct too, but nobody is arguing that "you are 'shackled' by the idea of theft." We have society, and we have these programmed views that we are indoctrinated with, but why are they bad?

If a women is pushed into a role of wearing dresses and eyeliner, and doing the housework and cooking, what's wrong with that? She can turn around and say 'fuck off' if she wants too. 'roles' are a part of hereditary structure, and they could be very different, but I don't see a positive/negative attached to them. I just see them as something that are there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:06:22 2013 No.3552706 >>3552693 > Intelligent feminists that are actually reasonable about the concept of sexism would better be described as humanists. Word. Beats me why describe oneself as a "feminist" when all that does is lump you with the crazies.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:07:22 2013 No.3552707

>>3552693
>Intelligent feminists that are actually reasonable about the concept of sexism would better be described as humanists.
While I have to point out they're not mutually exclusive terms, humanism isn't the same thing as feminism, any more than libertarianism is the same as feminism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:08:22 2013 No.3552713 >>3552669 By flawed I really only meant economically. Capitalism is by essence unstable and very unfair. I didn't claim that there could be a better societal system, merely that ours can be improved (economically speaking).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:09:23 2013 No.3552715 >>3552693 The fact that you are wholly ignorant of the term humanism and what that entails is comical.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:10:22 2013 No.3552718

>>3552697
I saw several discussions on TV about transsexuality and read several articles about it and not even the transsexuals used it. (Ok, Maybe that's because it's not that well known.) The first time I encountered it, was in a thread on 4chan on feminism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:10:22 2013 No.3552719 >>3552704 >but nobody is arguing that "you are 'shackled' by the idea of theft." You don't get out much do you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:10:23 2013 No.3552717 >>3552693 We have yet another genius on /lit/! This person is already smarter than some of the best cultural theorists the last three generations have produced--and didn't even have to read them!

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:11:22 2013 No.3552720

>>3552707

I know it isn't the same thing as feminism, because I think feminism is flawed. I think the ideals of feminism that don't fit the description of blaming men for everything, encouraging women to act stupid because its "their right", and thinking rape is the worst possible thing in the world that could ever happen, generally fall under the umbrella of humanism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:11:22 2013 No.3552723
File: 13 KB, 403x300, american-psycho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3552701
>>3552701

Let me add that I do think gender roles or "cultural roles" in general may be oppressive, but feminism has an overwhelming focus on tangible social inequalities between the sexes.

Anytime their double standard is revealed or evidence conflicts with their worldview, they fall back into ad hoc arguments for the time being. "The focus isn't just one wyminz!!" "I never implied that sexes didn't differ biologically!!!"

Once their opponents are out of sight and out of mind, they begin preaching their dogma once again.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:12:22 2013 No.3552724

>>3552715
you are the ignorant one, the guy is right about humanism. if you look at the history of humanism (15th cent. in Europe), there was no overzealous feminist movements yet female writers would flourish and be just as famous and influent as male writers.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:14:22 2013 No.3552729

>>3552718
The first time I encountered it was at a summit for Gay-Straight Alliance in high school. One of the panelists referred to himself as cisgendered but queer (I think he made a joke about being cissy). I think the usage is pretty common. There wasn't really a negative stigma for people identifying as "cisgendered" at the conference

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:15:22 2013 No.3552732 >>3552715 What. >>3552717 "Waaaaaah all these smart people said stuff, therefore they must be right, waaaaaaah" Lots of smart people say stupid or crazy shit. For example: Philosophers that sympathized with fascism and Nazism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:15:22 2013 No.3552733

>>3552706
>Beats me why describe oneself as a "feminist"
It's the history. At one point there was a very strong 'institution of men' actively oppressing women. Men slowly gave rights to women, but the social structure that remained was called the patriarchy as it stemmed from this imbalance. It's a determinism cause/effect thing, that today's gender issues come directly from a time when women were horrendously oppressed, and in some ways now are second class citizens. Although men would be considered second class in some aspects now.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:16:23 2013 No.3552734

>>3552724
What are you on about? Have you never head of Sartre? You don't quite get current ideological discourse or academics, do you? Humanism isn't monolithic, nor is feminism. Stop trying to herd people into labels because youa re too ignorant to find out on your own.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:16:23 2013 No.3552736 File: 1.08 MB, 628x896, f4JSONf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:16:23 2013 No.3552737 >>3552719 >You don't get out much do you? I don't know what point you attempted to make. Are there really people protesting for the right to burgle houses without prosecution?

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:17:23 2013 No.3552738

>>3552718
Transtheory isn't even strictly attached to transexual culture. It's really very niche, and personally I don't see it makes much sense. Especially the idea that it's a part of feminism: it seems to me there's an underlying idea in transtheory that many of the problems of third wave feminism have gone away, and that now is the time to focus on trans v cis issues. So I'd describe it more as a kind of post-feminism. And in my experience, most transexuals follow queer theory and so don't make a distinction between men and women or trans and cis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:18:23 2013 No.3552746 >>3552737 You don't know about things like squatters' rights movements? Have you never heard the famous phrase "property is theft"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:20:22 2013 No.3552750 >>3552736 >yfw you realize this woman is a feminist

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:21:22 2013 No.3552751 >>3552734 please don't mention sartre, he is one of the worst ideologist in the history of ideologies, only beaten by the cunt simone i'm not herding anyone into any label; of course humanism isn't monolithic, it is a better version of feminism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:22:22 2013 No.3552754 >>3552746 I know a few kids who break into derelict houses with section 6's, and I know the Marxist idea of property. But it's not a mainstream view that people can't own material possessions.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:24:22 2013 No.3552761

>>3552751
>implying you know anything about them beyond what you heard in undergrad and just read

>of course humanism isn't monolithic

Exactly my point, son. It's not a monolith and it comes with a lot of ideological baggage.

Just because a term has ideological or historical baggage doesn't necessitate its abolition. Same goes for feminism, as it too isn't monolithic. There, problem solved. One can be both a feminist and a humanist, no problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:25:22 2013 No.3552767 >>3552750 ...Yes? It's kinda the point.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:27:22 2013 No.3552771

>>3552724
That's because feminism is reactive. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote Vindication of the Rights of Woman in response to arguments that women should be treated as the inferiors of men, and that she as a woman essentially couldn't be an intellectual. Women wanted suffrage in response to men getting suffrage. It isn't a case of "If you just worked harder love you'd have equality", it comes from people actively being put down because of their genitals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:27:22 2013 No.3552772 This thread goes to show what happens when liberal arts undergrads are given an anonymous soapbox Is there anywhere I can go to discuss books with smart people?

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:27:22 2013 No.3552774

>>3552761
>implying i didn't read sartre in french and read all his exchanges with camus and merleau-ponty
>implying you know more than i do on french politics and intellectual life

>One can be both a feminist and a humanist, no problem.
you can't. humanism is just a broader, more accepting version of feminism

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:28:22 2013 No.3552775 the passing of grandison

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:29:22 2013 No.3552777 >>3552774 If you define humanism that way you clearly haven't read Sartre. Sorry kiddo. They're not mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:29:22 2013 No.3552779 >>3552754 >But it's not a mainstream view that people can't own material possessions. Do you think you can own rainwater? That is, do you think that the rain should be privatised?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:29:22 2013 No.3552781 >>3552772 Take me with you if you find a place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:34:23 2013 No.3552801 File: 97 KB, 400x291, PatrickBateman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3552779 >>3552779 >personal property doesn't exist

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:36:22 2013 No.3552803
File: 11 KB, 300x300, water_bottle-300x3001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3552779
It is already. People collect the rainwater, package it, and sell it. We have a situation where water is free - you could easily collect your own rain or go to the river, but people would rather buy it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:42:23 2013 No.3552820

Warning, possibly retarded question incoming.

Alright, I'm confused. Is the bourgeois the upper class, or the middle class. and what makes them bad? I thought they were the middle class ones without any culture and read purely entertainment centered novels.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:43:23 2013 No.3552821 >>3552803 >It is already. If it was already, collecting rainwater would be a form of theft. Look up Bolivia, they did sell the rights to rainwater at one point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:45:22 2013 No.3552824 >>3552820 Bourgeois is an outdated term used by college-aged students who don't realize they aren't living in early 20th century Russia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:45:23 2013 No.3552826 Leaves of Grass

>>	Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc Mon Mar 11 21:46:23 2013 No.3552831 >>3552820 bourgeois are upper class who own the means of production. What you're referring to are plebians.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:49:22 2013 No.3552837

>>3552820
>Is the bourgeois the upper class, or the middle class. and what makes them bad?

Historically we had peasants and aristocrats; really rich and really poor. The bourgeois and proletariat reflect this, but in modern society we have a smoother spectrum instead of such harsh divides.

The middle-class and upper-class are often used interchangeably and would reflect the bourgeois, while working class are still the proles. There isn't much of an 'upper-class' any more, as that denotes some kind of British Royal family aristocrat image, although there are those that act out this image.

They are 'bad', from a Marxist sense, because they exploit the labour of the working-class. If a bourgeois owns a factory, it's in his interest to work the people harder so they make more products for him to sell, while paying them the same wage and profiting from their labour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:49:22 2013 No.3552839 >>3552831 bourgeois don't own means of production iirc, they're like doctors and shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:49:22 2013 No.3552840 File: 134 KB, 500x333, hhhehehee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3552273 >>3552276 >>3552280 >>3552281 OP needs to stop crying and respond.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:50:22 2013 No.3552844

>>3552820
The middle class. In Communist theory, the lower class are the workers, and the upper class are the people with a clue as to how to run the state that can be bribed and threatened into going along with the revolution.

Fascism/National Socialist theory says that the middle class is the worst of the classes to be if you don't support the nation/volk, as "good" bourgeois stimulate the economy and apply education to it, whereas "bad" bourgeois just buy up cheap Jew shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:52:22 2013 No.3552854 >>3552366 >thinking even the most annoying feminists are even close to internet-rightists You've already chosen

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:53:22 2013 No.3552856

>>3552519
Because people like you never bring up the issues affecting men except when talking to a feminist. To actually put into practice what you believe in is beyond you but you will keep it as a handy head-sized square of sand when feminism starts becoming applicable to you

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:55:22 2013 No.3552862 >>3552839 not at all

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 21:56:22 2013 No.3552864

>>3552839
The bourgeois are derived from the artisans of pre-industrial society.

Essentially, you had farmers, who produced raw materials (mostly food and animal goods), artisans, who obtained non-animal based resources and/or refined them into a product, and the nobility, who were trained to lead a nation and an army.

The triangle worked, with the upper class protecting lower and middle, lower feeding upper and middle, and middle making things for lower and upper. Eventually however, the crossbow began to usher in an age when the nobility weren't needed as much to defend the other two. The musket finalized this, as any lower or middle class man could be trained into a warrior in a week to a month, while the pre-crossbow training of a noble took a lifetime.

Inevitably, societies begin to have their middle class grow, and their upper class atrophy, instead just being a sort of upper region of the middle, rather than its own class. As the middle class is the knowledgeable, trained class, and the lower the raw labor, a society with more information and mobility will inevitably have its middle class grow.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:00:22 2013 No.3552873

>>3552844
>>3552837
Oh ok I get it. It's negative in the sense that they've been known to exploit the lower classes. But can't it also be positive in the sense that they're the ones with the money to support and pursue the arts (albeit in a relatively narrow mindset because they're the ones deciding what is deemed valuable in art)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:01:23 2013 No.3552876 File: 62 KB, 792x481, courtenay_knight.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3552864 >tfw a feudal King will never make you a Sir for bravery, and give you your own town to play with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:05:22 2013 No.3552896 >>3552864 Thanks, that's awesome. You and the other responders have restored my faith that /lit/ actually has knowledgeable people that come here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:06:22 2013 No.3552900 Labyrinths by Borges. Oh wait he's from Argentina. So I guess he es white.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:08:22 2013 No.3552908

>>3552864
Wasn't it the invention of the steam engine that really kicked shit into action? Before that, all trade was done locally on a small scale, with some large trade done by ship. The minute railways were constructed and produce could be sent around in bulk, it paved the way for the industrial revolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:11:23 2013 No.3552912 >>3552292 So what, I can't have conservative attitudes towards birth control and abortion without being sexist? Fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:14:22 2013 No.3552926 File: 58 KB, 436x377, 1353074221837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] these drudges with their stupid signs and smug smiles make my blood boil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:19:22 2013 No.3552942 >>3552663 Calls all men fascists. Posts commies. Confirmed for female.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:20:23 2013 No.3552946 >>3552912 It's my uterus, shithead, keep your views away from it.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Mar 11 22:20:23 2013 No.3552947 >>3552663 word. little boys with their deficient and tunnel visioning, ideal sciduck engineer monkeys not social decisionmakers

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:21:22 2013 No.3552952 Genji Monogatari What do I win?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:22:22 2013 No.3552954 >>3552942 It was pretty obviously a troll.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:23:22 2013 No.3552959

>>3552669

given that material possession is obviously not a necessary case for contentment, there is no categorical imperative for either equity of material possession, nor for malthusian style population control in reaction to scarcity of possession.

never mind the fact that equity of possession is a physical impossibility anyways.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:25:23 2013 No.3552971 File: 143 KB, 548x914, two faces of feminism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3552946 >its my uterus >but i get to decide how to partition your money to pay for its services.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:27:23 2013 No.3552978 >>3552946 It's not ur uterus, it's society's. post-enlightenment kiddies think they have a personal right to everything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:29:22 2013 No.3552986 >>3552971 >Feminists hate white males >Statistically, most rapes are committed by minorities Top Lel

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:34:23 2013 No.3553000

>>3552978
>It's not ur uterus, it's society's.
Kay, no more sex for you. From now on you're wanking into a cup, sending of to 'Statechild', and will not complain when your mixed race downs baby arrives the next day. Your sperm, and your child raising duty belong to 'society'.

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:36:22 2013 No.3553008

>>3552461
>Either people argue that patriarchy is right or good or whatever, or that it is unjust. No one really argues that it doesn't exist.
You do realize that whenever the patriarchy comes up in a discussion on any male-dominated site, the first rebuttals are "THE PATRIARCHY DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST IT'S ABOUT AS REAL AS THE ILLUMINATI"?
Y'know why?
BECAUSE THE PATRIARCHY DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST IT'S ABOUT AS REAL AS THE ILLUMINATI.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:36:22 2013 No.3553009 >>3552971 >>3552986 pol pls go

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:39:22 2013 No.3553016 >>3553009 >oh god oh god what do i say i know ill just label them arbitrarily. stellar example of the consistency of feminists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:40:22 2013 No.3553020 >>3553016 pls go pol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:42:22 2013 No.3553028 >>3553008 not to derail the thread, but weishaupt and friends certainly did exist, the extent of their activities is another question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:46:22 2013 No.3553042 Homos are disgusting and should be genocided. They're nothing but cogs in the big jew scheme to destroy western culture. Copy and paste 10 times if you agree.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:52:20 2013 No.3553074 >>3553042 Go to bed, /pol/

Anonymous Mon Mar 11 22:54:20 2013 No.3553085

>>3553042

just because they are fabulous now doesnt mean they wont decide to have a wife and kids later, or that they are necessarily unproductive members of society to begin with. alternately, if the intent is to promote homosexuality through media as a form of population control, then given the fact that it impacts the most capable populations the most, and the least capable populations the least, it does not seem to be doing humanity as a whole any favors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:06:22 2013 No.3553135 >>3552310 >>>/pol/s fault. Fucking board needs to be put down like a dog with rabies.

>>	Petulant Child !IpF9wBJQqI Mon Mar 11 23:09:22 2013 No.3553148 >>3552436 what even could you take exception to in that other than the word feminist? it's so vague...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:09:22 2013 No.3553149 >>3552310 pls leave /pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 11 23:22:30 2013 No.3553194 >>3553135 >>3553149 stop trying to blame /pol/ for everything you think is wrong in the world, believe it or not, people from all over the internet come here, and sometimes, they even post things, shocking i know.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 01:46:22 2013 No.3553651
File: 342 KB, 1280x957, 1362425391926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3552398
You sound like a bad person but I agree with your last point (some what), feminism is almost entirely concerned with its force in the First World, while almost entirely ignoring the subjugation of women in the Third.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 01:50:22 2013 No.3553660 Seriously? Most of Mayakovsky's poetry, for one. Bertolt Brecht? Jay Wright? G.B. Shaw? Iris Murdoch? R.K. Narayan? Yukio Mishima? Raja Rao? Garcia Marquez? Carlos Fuentes? Roberto Bolano?

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Tue Mar 12 02:07:23 2013 No.3553716 >>3552398 >8R get a load of this retard. with the social experience of your basement lair rape culture probably is nonsense lol!

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 06:57:22 2013 No.3554175

>>3552908
>Before that, all trade was done locally on a small scale
Not at all. If the steam engine did anything, it was to allow the enlarging of industry and to move it away from river banks and the reliance on things like water wheels. You could still transport a lot fairly quickly using canals and horse drawn carts, steam didn't really change that so much.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 07:35:22 2013 No.3554210 >>3553716 >social experience AHAHHAHAHA get a load of this stupid twat

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 08:24:22 2013 No.3554256
File: 161 KB, 300x132, guuurl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3552405

"No no no that’s not what REAL feminism is"

Who are you to claim the mantle of truth and define what real feminism is? Most of the people that are repelled by feminism are responding to feminism as it most often presents itself, obnoxious and absurd.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 08:41:23 2013 No.3554278 >>3554256 >Most of the people that are repelled by feminism are responding to feminism as it most often presents itself, obnoxious and absurd. So tell us about where you have seen feminism 'present itself'

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 08:42:23 2013 No.3554280 File: 33 KB, 480x320, 71112200027517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3554256 Don't you see how silly that is? It's like saying 'I don't like football because a guy in a football shirt beat me up in a pub once.'

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 09:45:23 2013 No.3554395
File: 445 KB, 253x182, frustrated.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3554278
Honestly most of my contact with self-proclaimed feminists is online. The few encounters with feminists IRL have been once at a public rally, once at a feminism group stand at uni (was a student organisation fair type deal) and once when I took a shot (verbal) at an obnoxious PETA protestor that was impeding traffic and she turned out to be a rather rabid mysandrist to boot.

Online feminists on the whole seem to be a lot mellower than the IRL feminists I have met. I assume it comes down to only the most fervent and delusional proponents being willing to associate themselves with what has become an illogical and often counterproductive movement where others can see them
>>3554280
I would phrase that analogy a little differently “I don’t like football fans because most football fans I have met have been shouty obnoxious assholes.” This has the additional benefit of being true for both football fans and feminists, though the football fans at least have excessive alcohol consumption as an excuse for their behaviour.

(N.B. “fans” in this case refers to those that define their self-identity as relying on a particular ideology or group, be it football or feminism, as opposed to those that casually enjoy watching a game of football sometimes which are usually fine upstanding folk. Most people that define themselves with a particular belief or movement tend to be idiots.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 09:49:23 2013 No.3554399 200 posts and no Atlas Shrugged?

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 09:52:23 2013 No.3554402

>>3554395
But i that analogy football would be akin to the feminist ideology. The fans of both can be annoying, but it doesn't alter the underlying structure. It doesn't make feminism or football inherently bad, it just suggests that there are some asshats associated with both.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 09:55:23 2013 No.3554406

>>3554395
>The few encounters with feminists IRL have been once at a public rally, once at a feminism group stand at uni (was a student organisation fair type deal) and once when I took a shot (verbal) at an obnoxious PETA protestor that was impeding traffic and she turned out to be a rather rabid mysandrist to boot.
Well, firstly, PETA is not a feminist group. This brings me to the question of how you knew/why you thought they were feminists in the first place (was it a 'feminist society' or something in the first case? Why did you believe the PETA protestor was a feminist?)

Secondly, how do you know you haven't encountered feminists IRL more often? If you met myself or other posters who are apparently more 'mellow', how would you know we were feminists?

Finally, why do you think the 'most fervent and delusional proponents' represent feminism more than people like Judith Butler or Luce Irigaray, or Louise Mensch or Laurie Penny, or Ryan Gosling or Andy Samberg? If they even represent feminism at all?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 09:55:23 2013 No.3554408 >>3554402 Or it suggests the underlying principle tends to attract those with faulty reasoning because it appeals to emotional needs rather than reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 09:57:23 2013 No.3554412 >>3554395 >mysandrist

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:05:23 2013 No.3554421 typically perfunctory white guilt, supporting any cause as long as it further his own career path >I'll do anything to help as long as it doesn't interfere with my oxbridge lifestyle

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:06:23 2013 No.3554423 >>3552273 > Who is Upton Sinclaire

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:10:23 2013 No.3554435 >>3554408 or maybe your ability to judge a global multidisciplinary movement by your interactions with three people and "the internet" suggests faulty reasoning appealing to emotional needs rather than reality

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:15:23 2013 No.3554445 >>3554421 Being a liberal is a really good way to advance your career in some industries. Many of those Hollywood stars really don't give a shit about their causes for example.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:19:23 2013 No.3554453

>>3554406
I didn’t believe or know she was a feminist, but well done assuming I was the asshole of the situation, nice to know you are entering this prejudice free. I confronted her partly because I found the stance she was supporting foolish (something about cattle farms, as one who grew up on a farm I had a personal steak in the debate) but mostly because she was impeding foot traffic along a narrow footpath during lunch hour. That and she was screaming at everyone like a howler monkey on LSD, I just wanted to drink my coffee in peace dammit.

Anyway I interrupted her when she took a breath with a snide comment and she promptly lost her mind and started going on with this patriarchy/CIS/other catchphrase tirade. I wish I had responded with a sharp comment or witty joke but I was so stunned all I could say when she took her breath was “wow, just wow”. I had to leave with her howling at my back, my lunchbreak ruined.

As for meeting “mellow” feminists whenever the topic comes up almost everyone I know and respect hesitates at attaching themselves to the feminist label because of the baggage it comes with. If you are truly for equality feminism should repel you in its current form. Sign up with the humanists; it’s like non-radical feminism without all the self-contradiction and baggage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:21:23 2013 No.3554454 File: 293 KB, 453x337, [grumping intensifies].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3554453 >as one who grew up on a farm I had a personal steak in the debate

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:22:23 2013 No.3554456 >>3554454 I think that was a pun.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:26:23 2013 No.3554462

>>3554453
>but well done assuming I was the asshole of the situation
What the hell man, way to get on a high horse. I did no such thing, and I can't see why you would interpret the thing like that.
>Sign up with the humanists; it’s like non-radical feminism without all the self-contradiction and baggage.
They're not the same thing at all, I wouldn't describe myself as a humanist, but I would describe myself as a feminist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:28:24 2013 No.3554465 File: 499 KB, 500x200, lul.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3554456 >>3554454 I was wondering how long it would take, damn, you fast /lit/

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:31:23 2013 No.3554473
File: 100 KB, 400x400, 1361201861372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3554453
>Sign up with the humanists; it’s like non-radical feminism without all the self-contradiction and baggage.
pic related, the greatest "humanist" of anno MMXII
there's baggage everywhere, is what I'm saying

Anyway, maybe 10% of clipboard people actually care about their cause; you get shitty quotas and most of them swap names (i.e. a $10 donation becomes a $50 donation spread across 5 people) to keep their jobs. I know you're just talking about one person who buys into a certain ideology (or they wouldn't have the job in the first place), but those jobs basically ruin you as an activist.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:36:24 2013 No.3554485
File: 2.67 MB, 400x225, implying1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3554462
“and she turned out to be a rather rabid mysandrist to boot”
Implies I only found out about her feminist views after the encounter began.
>This brings me to the question of how you knew/why you thought they were feminists in the first place
Implies I assumed they were feminists and engaged “them” (her) on that principal. There were multiple protestors but they seemed rather embarrassed by her outburst.
>What the hell man, way to get on a high horse. I did no such thing, and I can't see why you would interpret the thing like that.
>backpedalling

Also, what is so great about feminism that humanism doesn’t cover?

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:44:23 2013 No.3554497

>>3554473
I assume clipboard people are survey takers and donation tin rattlers? If so she was not one of them. This was some pre-organised PETA protest/media grandstanding event. You know, where they do some ridiculous stunt to get on the news. It just so happens they did it outside a coffee place I like.

I don’t like protests like this, I have taken shots at them as I encounter them (only a few in my lifetime). PETA, pro-Israel, evangelical Christian, I don’t care. If you ruin my lunch break or block the footpath I will do my best to mock and disparage.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:47:23 2013 No.3554498

>>3554485
I don't care if you engaged her, or asked her to marry you or whatever, you're just avoiding the original questions.
>Also, what is so great about feminism that humanism doesn’t cover?
I don't see why you think they're that similar. Valuing fideism, denying some form of objective human nature, or rejecting notions of intrinsic value are all things I can do happily as a feminist, though they're not really compatible with current humanism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:53:23 2013 No.3554506 >>3552324 >you're not a feminist so that makes you a mindless misogynist Bit of a non sequitur, eh?

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 10:59:23 2013 No.3554514
File: 2.05 MB, 500x391, really.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3554498
Sorry I am a bit lost here, what original questions?

>I don't care if you engaged her, or asked her to marry you or whatever

Easy there tigress, yes we all know that word has multiple meanings, thanks for the reminder.

(weeeee, snide backhandedness is so much fun)

>>3554498
I guess if you don’t assign human beings with an intrinsic value, reject objectivity and derive your moral imperatives from beliefs and assumptions instead of reality we have reached an impasse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:00:23 2013 No.3554516 > come back to /lit/ after long hiatus > see this thread > over 200 replies I'm crying tears of joy right now. God Bless /lit/

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:21:23 2013 No.3554548

>>3554514
>I guess if you don’t assign human beings with an intrinsic value, reject objectivity and derive your moral imperatives from beliefs and assumptions instead of reality we have reached an impasse.
Oh noes, how can I live knowing you no longer want to sign me up to feminism.
>Easy there tigress, yes we all know that word has multiple meanings, thanks for the reminder.
If you think that's how a 'tigress' talks, you must find Zizek seriously confusing. I feel like I am stuck in some weird impression of him or whatever.
>Sorry I am a bit lost here, what original questions?
The three points illustrated above: why did you think they were feminists, why do you think other people aren't, what makes that group more representative than prominent feminists.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:29:23 2013 No.3554558

…what is woman’s basic metaphor? It is mystery, the hidden. Karen Horney speaks of a girl’s inability to see her genitals and a boy’s ability to see his as the source of “the greater subjectivity of women as compared with the greater objectivity of men.” To rephrase this with my different emphasis: men’s delusional certitude that objectivity is possible is based on the visibility of their genitals. Second his certitude is a defensive swerve from the anxiety-inducing invisibility of the womb. Women tend to be more realistic and less obsessional because of their toleration for ambiguity which they learn from their inability to learn about their own bodies. Women accept limited knowledge as their natural condition, a great human truth that a man may take a lifetime to reach.

- Camille Paglia

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:31:23 2013 No.3554559

>>3554558
The female body’s unbearable hiddenness applies to all aspects of men’s dealings with women. What does it look like in there? Did she have an orgasm? Is it really my child? Who was my real father? Mystery shrouds woman’s sexuality. This mystery is the main reason for the imprisonment man has imposed on women…Man’s genital visibility is a source of his scientific desire for external testing, validation, proof...Sex crimes are always male, never female, because such crimes are conceptualizing assaults on the unreachable omnipotence of woman and nature. Every woman’s body contains a cell of archaic night where all knowing must stop.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:32:23 2013 No.3554562

>>3554559
Modern feminism’s most naïve formulation is its assertion that rape is a crime of violence but not of sex, that it is merely power masquerading as sex. But sex is power, and all power is inherently aggressive. Rape is male power fighting female power. It is no more to be excused than is murder or any other assault on another’s civil rights. Society is woman’s protection against rape, not, as some feminists absurdly maintain, the cause of rape.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:33:23 2013 No.3554564

>>3554562
Male sex is quest romance, exploration and speculation. Promiscuity in men may cheapen love but sharpen thought. Promiscuity in women is illness, a leakage of identity. The promiscuous woman is self-contaminated and incapable of clear ideas. She has ruptured the ritual integrity of her body. It is in nature’s best interests to goad dominant males into indiscriminate spreading of their seed. But nature also profits from female purity. Even in the liberated or lesbian woman there is some biologic restraint whispering: keep the birth canal clean.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:35:23 2013 No.3554565

>>3554564
In judiciously withholding herself, woman protects an invisible fetus. Perhaps this is the reason for the archetypal horror (rather than socialized fear) that many otherwise bold women have of spiders and other rapidly crawling insects. Women hold themselves in reserve because the female body is a reservoir, a virgin patch of still,pooled water where the fetus comes to term.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 11:42:23 2013 No.3554575 >>3554558 >>3554559 >>3554562 >>3554564 >>3554565 What is this drivel?

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 12:24:24 2013 No.3554675

>>3554548
I wasn't the one dismissing the more vocal and aggressive self-styled feminists as not representing feminism. My view of feminism is derived from my attempt to average out the assorted viewpoints of those that claim to represent feminism.

As for prominent feminist writers, wasn't Luce Irigaray the one that implied Einstein’s equations were somehow sexist? I remember reading that alongside newtons principia being described as a rape manual or something. I find such lunacy prevails throughout the feminist spectrum. The less mellow and more in your face feminists are just more honest in expressing their delusions.

>>	Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J Tue Mar 12 12:28:23 2013 No.3554680 >>3552273 The Young Boys/The Young Girls, by Montherlant He was aristocratic and homosexual does it count?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 12:28:23 2013 No.3554681 >>3552273 Invisible man The Marrow of Tradition The English Patient The Rise of Silas Lapham The 42nd Parallel >The

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 12:41:23 2013 No.3554701 Nietzsche.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 12:48:23 2013 No.3554713

>>3554675
>wasn't Luce Irigaray the one that implied Einstein’s equations were somehow sexist?
Yup. And she does have a point, if you're willing to engage with her work, even if a snippet taken out of context may sound very strange or even ridiculous. Take it from a STEM guy, there's no need to be so precious and defensive over the speed of light, especially when the idea of an unchanging speed regardless of reference is equally crazy sounding.
>I wasn't the one dismissing the more vocal and aggressive self-styled feminists as not representing feminism.
Neither was I, I simply wonder why you think they are the best examples of feminists. However, I doubt I would view them as being bona fide feminists as their views don't fit with my view of feminism, and my view is similar to the mainstream academic view, that is the view that they're feminists is a minority one at best. I would think it more likely you'd confused post-feminism with feminism, and/or are inflating your standards for feminism. There's no reason to think that every person who describes themselves as a feminist is intelligent or has something worthwhile to say, just like for any other -ists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 12:55:24 2013 No.3554732 >>3552273 Any of byrons poems?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 12:58:23 2013 No.3554741 Never mind blacks and women, but gays have contributed a great deal to literature. And so have chinks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 18:50:23 2013 No.3555747 File: 5 KB, 300x168, Milton Checkem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3552293 >>3552293 bourgeoisie are the planet you stupid fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 18:52:23 2013 No.3555757 >>3555747 "Milton Friedman has a head like a fucking Orange." – Chomsky

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 18:56:23 2013 No.3555779 >>3555757 I am econfag, not a litfag. You mind telling me what that simile means? Or is just that his head is shaped like an orange?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 18:57:23 2013 No.3555783 >>3555779 Good intuition. In literature orange means orange.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 18:59:23 2013 No.3555789 >>3555783 Then why does saying it was a quote by Chomsky matters? I mean I get it, but the joke wasnt really well thought out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:01:23 2013 No.3555804 File: 158 KB, 761x569, like_a_fucking_orange.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3555779 >You mind telling me what that simile means?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:03:23 2013 No.3555811 >>3555789 I know Zizek's said it, but I'm pretty sure it was Chomsky who said it first.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:03:23 2013 No.3555814 >>3555804 I thought you litfags were creative. If this some kind of /lit/ joke I don't get it, or don't care. I just came here because someone on /g/ was saying that /lit/ is becoming tumblr. I came here to fuck around

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:06:23 2013 No.3555828 >>3555814 http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=like+a+fucking+orange

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:08:23 2013 No.3555836 >>3555828 oh, thats what I thought

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:27:24 2013 No.3555881 Literature existed long before the bourgeois did, ya know

>>	RomanianRichard Tue Mar 12 19:51:23 2013 No.3555922 >>3552374 By doing research and educating yourself enough to form legitimate, non-ignorant, just opinions that are your own.

>>	RomanianRichard Tue Mar 12 19:55:23 2013 No.3555937 >>3552273 Their Eyes Were Watching God

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 19:56:23 2013 No.3555939 >>3555881 >Implying men of power haven't always ruled everything >Taking a middle class, white, cis-male seriously >Believing /lit/ agrees with this guy 100% Have you no shame?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:03:23 2013 No.3555961 >>3555937 this is bait

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:04:23 2013 No.3555966 File: 348 KB, 643x960, I need feminism like I need a hole in my head.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:07:23 2013 No.3555977 >>3555966 Go to bed, /pol/

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:15:24 2013 No.3556000
File: 1.60 MB, 350x197, waitwat1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Had to sleep, but back now, round 2 *ding*
>>3554713
>Yup. And she does have a point,

Wow, okay mind explaining what that point is. As someone with a passing knowledge of feminism and a functioning understanding of general relativity I would really like to get this.
By the way if you honestly think an equation describing the nature of reality can somehow represent some kind of patriarchal concept I got some bad news. You ARE part of the more radical and absurd wing of feminism, you are just less shouty about it.
>why you think they are the best examples of feminists
>my attempt to average out the assorted viewpoints
Averages don’t work that way.
>confused post-feminism with feminism
Like all ideology’s based on irrational appeals to emotion feminism will continue to fracture every time someone says something particularly crazy in its name. This will continue until every criticism levelled at feminism can be rebuffed with “well that’s not part of the real feminism”. Every time someone tries to squeeze feminism it breaks apart and runs between the fingers like sand. Unfortunately for feminism there is no core based in reality, no facts or truths that are irrefutable. It’s just one big clump of crazy sand.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:19:23 2013 No.3556012

Serious question here.
When is it that feminism seems to have transitioned from support equal rights and opportunities, to demanding "reparations?" Why did this happen? Do I only think this because of 4chan, or is this endemic to the movement as a whole?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:20:23 2013 No.3556013 File: 40 KB, 930x606, 111pat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3556000 >Unfortunately for feminism there is no core based in reality The firm central core is based on an opposition to patriarchal structure.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Tue Mar 12 20:23:23 2013 No.3556023 >>3556012 what reparations are you talking about

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:27:23 2013 No.3556029 >>3556023 I think he's implying that feminists have some Shylockian pound-of-flesh vendetta against men.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:28:23 2013 No.3556033 the three musketeers

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:28:23 2013 No.3556036
File: 1.04 MB, 282x189, 1326034650752.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3556013
Define patriarchal structure, because from what I have read you guys are fighting ghosts and shadows.

There are imbalances in the world but grouping them all together then slapping some big ominous label on them isn’t going to help. Neither is approaching issues from the perspective of women and focusing only on issues that negatively impact women going to ever result in equality.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:30:24 2013 No.3556043

>>3556000
>Wow, okay mind explaining what that point is. As someone with a passing knowledge of feminism and a functioning understanding of general relativity I would really like to get this.
>By the way if you honestly think an equation describing the nature of reality can somehow represent some kind of patriarchal concept I got some bad news. You ARE part of the more radical and absurd wing of feminism, you are just less shouty about it.
Irigaray's main idea is that of a lack of a female subject position in language and the presence of a male subject position. This idea can be applied to all sorts of utterances in language, and doesn't strictly have so much to do with what's being said as much as how it's said. Also, privileging the speed of light is an assumption in relativity, it really derives from Maxwell's equations.
>Like all ideology’s based on irrational appeals to emotion feminism will continue to fracture every time someone says something particularly crazy in its name.
All post-feminisms work on the assumption that the aims of feminism have already been acheived, or are as good as. They're really a totally different breed to feminism proper.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:32:24 2013 No.3556048 >>3552273 well according to /pol/ the place where you should go back italians,spanish,greeks,slavs and i guess southern french are not white.pick whatever book you want from that heap

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:34:23 2013 No.3556057

>>3556036
>Define patriarchal structure,
I guess it will help you to think of the way Nietzsche described social morality as Christian derived ethics. The social structure, gender inequality and gender roles that we have inherited came from a predominantly male institution.

>focusing only on issues that negatively impact women
You know that isn't true. That issue has been addressed by many other people ITT already.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:36:23 2013 No.3556066

>>3556036
>There are imbalances in the world but grouping them all together then slapping some big ominous label on them isn’t going to help.
To understand a thing, you must first name it.
>Neither is approaching issues from the perspective of women and focusing only on issues that negatively impact women going to ever result in equality.
Current feminist thought isn't so into binaries like "men" and "women", it's all people with different junk.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:46:23 2013 No.3556092
File: 1.00 MB, 200x152, 1323805419932.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3556043

>Also, privileging the speed of light is an assumption in relativity, it really derives from Maxwell's equations.

Ok now we are getting some traction. So you are saying that because the theoretical speed of light was derived from Maxwell’s equations it was somehow inspired by this “privileging” phenomenon that seems to pop up all the time in feminism? Why can’t it be that the theoretical speed of light was part of an inspired application of mathematics that drove our understanding of the universe forward significantly? What part, exactly, do you have an issue with and why?

By the way I don’t have a working definition of this privilege thing. I mean I know the definition of the word but it seems to be applied in such mind bending ways in feminist arguments I am not sure what’s real anymore.

>They're really a totally different breed to feminism proper.

Q.E.D.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 20:51:23 2013 No.3556109

>>3556092
>Ok now we are getting some traction. So you are saying that because the theoretical speed of light was derived from Maxwell’s equations it was somehow inspired by this “privileging” phenomenon that seems to pop up all the time in feminism? Why can’t it be that the theoretical speed of light was part of an inspired application of mathematics that drove our understanding of the universe forward significantly? What part, exactly, do you have an issue with and why?
No, that's just how scientists put it. No privileged frame of reference, but a privileged speed, phrases you should know if you've studied general relativity.

>Q.E.D.
Replace feminists with cats and post-feminists with rabbits. You've gone on a rant assuming cats and rabbits are the same thing, then when someone pointed out you're wrong, gone "THAT PROVES MY POINT"

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 21:12:24 2013 No.3556189 >>3556109 How is this 'privileged speed' related to feminism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 21:14:24 2013 No.3556193 >>3556109 I'm sorry but you should complete high school education before trying to sound smart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 12 21:15:24 2013 No.3556200 >>3556189 I'm convinced this leading up to a pun about 'checking' the speed of light.

Anonymous Tue Mar 12 22:17:23 2013 No.3556398

>>3556189
Her argument is more to do with E=Mc^2. In the context of when she's writing, it was a politically charged equation what with the whole cold war, mutually assured destruction crap. Remembering that her whole thing is about this idea of an absence of the female subject position, she basically wonders if there's a way of looking at that equation from that perspective. While Irigaray knows science tries to remove the subject, she also knows science doesn't come about ex nihilo, and so our preferences for certain arrangements or equations is not devoid of a subject position. Her basic point amounts to "why choose that particular equation which singles out/links energy, (inertial) mass, and the fastest speed in that way? Is there something in there which is the male subject position?". She singles out the speed of light as being an example, but it still amounts to "why are we putting above others an equation with a focus on the limit of how fast we can go?". She almost could just as easily have used mass or energy, though singling out the speed of light works well with her mathematical criticism too.

>>3556193
I see someone is upset.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 13 02:20:23 2013 No.3557131 >>3556200 Well not now, you ruined it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 13 03:26:24 2013 No.3557251 >>3556398 Lay off the two-dolla crack, boy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 13 03:35:23 2013 No.3557278 >>3552273 burn, /lit/, you can't do it

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature