/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5657248]

How do we spot "ideology at it's purest" as Zizek would say

[Anonymous No.5657254]

>>5657248
you need someone else to do it for you. there's no way of knowing if they're taking the piss, however, or if they're trying to move you to yet another ideology, so zizek says it's basically impossible

[Anonymous No.5657255]

It's presuppositions at work that we aren't aware of?

[Anonymous No.5657258]

>>5657254

but Zizek spots it all the time, according to him, he always gives examples....

[Anonymous No.5657268]

>>5657258
I'm sorry, I got confused with "how to escape ideology" for some reason.
>>5657255
is a good answer. Zizek's own definition (taken from Marx) is "They do not know it, but they do it." It's kind of like hypnosis. To know what is ideology, however, you seem to need to have a firm idea of what reality actually is. So I don't know how he solves this problem. I don't think he believes in the truth.

[Anonymous No.5657272]

you can spot other's ideology and biases, but it's hard to spot your own unless you're a zen monk

[Anonymous No.5657399]

>>5657248

[Anonymous No.5657450]

>>5657268

But *sniff* in reality, is it not more true, that we know what we are doing, but nonetheless we are still doing it? It is like how the physicist, Niels Bohr...

[Anonymous No.5657454]

by getting our of it.

and one gets out of it only by getting into another one.

[Anonymous No.5657465]

>>5657258
>>5657248
Is there anywhere I can read the artist's replies?

[Anonymous No.5657470]

>>5657248
http://swiftdino.com/7np

>mfw

[Anonymous No.5657473]

>>5657248

lol at how many "feminists" are willing to throw their own under the bus in a second just for their own piece of mind.

remember if you're jealous of anyone tell them that they're ideological pawns. that'll curb some of the frustration for you. fuck how they feel about what you say to them the patriarchy has them so badly that they're no even really people now anyway.

[Anonymous No.5657489]

>>5657473
>"feminists" are willing to throw their own under the bus in a second

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkjGg2WQly4&

[Anonymous No.5657498]

>>5657473
>muh solidarity
ideology at its finest. the bickering and infighting of feminisms is what makes it remotely relevant.

[Anonymous No.5657506]

For someone unfamiliar with Zizek and his lectures, could someone clarify what is meant by "ideologies at their purest" and how/why spotting them even holds any bit of relevancy?

Does he mean by this phrase just people that practice extremely concentrated (or, "pure") ideologies that have already been established by philosophers?

In which case, why is spotting them relevant? And, why would it be difficult to do so if one is able to recognize the ideology independent of a real life case?

Or does he mean an ideology being practiced to the T, with zero factors outside said ideology? Following the rules of said ideology perfectly, to put it simply.

[Anonymous No.5657517]

>>5657498

hahaha fuck off i never said that they shouldn't be open to the very concept of debate you hysteric tearqueen it's just this superficial no true scotsman shit is far more of a hindrance

you would honestly have to be a fucking moron to play the apologist for it

[Anonymous No.5657527]

>>5657248
>pictures of a woman eating her own period blood

IT'S JUST ART GUYS, WHY ARE YOU SO OFFENDED?

These people, mang, one day I tell you.

[Anonymous No.5657547]

>>5657527

because degenerate art doesn't push them towards any self-reflection, it's just out there like a pile of shit in the woods.

while meaningful art will cause them to reflect on themselves, and then they see things they may not like.

[Anonymous No.5657565]

>>5657547

>I struggle with the concept of subjectivity please be gentle

[Anonymous No.5657590]

Holy shit, that artist, though.

[Anonymous No.5657605]

>>5657590

Now that is pretty neat.

[Anonymous No.5657610]

>>5657565

is that why you can't handle certain 'subjective' opinions?

[Anonymous No.5657636]

>>5657610

There is a difference between disliking subjective opinions and actually coming to terms with the fact that subjectivity exists.

You should stop posting.
You aren't very good at it.

[Anonymous No.5657652]

>>5657517
>far more of a hindrance
to what? accomplishing its goals? feminism is the dominant ideology post 20th century.

[Anonymous No.5657670]

>>5657489
what a qt

[Anonymous No.5657671]

>>5657652

>>far more of a hindrance
>to what?

you're right no true scotsman games are never a hindrance great post

[Anonymous No.5657680]

>>5657268
>Zizek's own definition (taken from Marx) is "They do not know it, but they do it."
Wow. Way to get everything wrong and ruin everything. Zizek's work begins by questioning this and redefining ideology
As I'm on my phone I'll just say and you mentalize the image:
>local_man_ruins_everything.png

[Anonymous No.5657686]

>>5657670

yep, plus she's from /pol/

[Anonymous No.5657697]

>>5657636
> the fact that subjectivity exists.

That's just your opinion

[Anonymous No.5657701]

>>5657680
>Wow. Way to get everything wrong and ruin everything.
to be fair, Zizek ruined it himself, because this is actually how he introduces the concept of ideology in one of his movies (I'm not sure which one, and I'm also not that other anon).

[Anonymous No.5657721]

>>5657697

You're really bad at this, kid.

[Anonymous No.5657730]

>>5657721

>bad at this
>implying repeating "muh subjectivity" amounts to meaningful argument

[Anonymous No.5657737]

>>5657701
If it's "The Perverts Guide to Ideology" he introduces this only to actualize it, in the very beginning with his analysis of They Live.
That definition serves for the XIX century, for today's open "cynic" society, he says, it's more properly defined as "they do know it, but they keep doing it anyway"

[Anonymous No.5657976]

>>5657737

what's your point

[Anonymous No.5658063]

>>5657489

I think I'm in love

[Anonymous No.5658248]

>>5657489
This video has the same tone as the Mean Girls. The cruel sarcasm goes deep. I love it.

[Anonymous No.5658808]

>>5657506
it means someone's entire thought process and worldview is dominated by a fixed, subjective way of seeing things that they cannot break out of.

a good example is the political attitude that "nothing but capitalism is possible," very prevalent in the US

[Anonymous No.5658826]

>>5657730
>posting Dune reaction images

[Anonymous No.5658845]

>>5658826

dune is a fine book. some would call it literature.

[Anonymous No.5661098]

>>5657248

bump

[Anonymous No.5661142]

>woman living the way she wants
>"extremely problematic"

Feminists hate anyone who doesn't live by their rules.

[Anonymous No.5661151]

>>5658808
As well is the attitude that "because of capitalism *insert every problem ever*"

[Anonymous No.5661154]

>>5661142
>Confusing 'is' with 'ought'

[Anonymous No.5661158]

>>5661142

women just hate women in general

[Anonymous No.5661159]

>>5661154
Right.

She 'is' living the way she wants, and not the way feminists think she 'ought' to live.

These people HATE free will.

[Anonymous No.5661166]

>>5661159
Explain how 'free will' prevails over social conditioning

[Anonymous No.5661168]

>>5661166
She has many options for leading her life, including the hardline feminist option.

She chooses to live otherwise.

[Anonymous No.5661170]

>>5661159
>He thinks force is just physical.

[Anonymous No.5661171]

>>5661168
You sound like a libertarian, m8

[Anonymous No.5661176]

>>5661170
What?

>>5661171
No I don't.

The woman obviously chose to live her life the way she wants: looking pretty, staying in shape, doing housework, painting pictures, ...

This is her choice, yet hardline feminists see this as "extremely problematic".

They hate free will.

[Anonymous No.5661184]

>>5661151
You just had to do that didn't you, you could not just take a point without inserting your bullshit smug lolbertardianism.
Learn how to take a point or fuck off to /pol/

[Anonymous No.5661187]

>>5661176
>They hate free will.
I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. They are arguing against the artificial female construct that is socially conditioned.. People are shoehorned into caricatures, and most don't fight back.

The ugly stereotypes we become are only adopted via a twisted form of peer pressure, mass media, and capitalism.

[Anonymous No.5661191]

>>5661187
>I fail to see how you reach this conclusion.
The woman chose a way of life.
They hate her for it.

Voilà.

>They are arguing against the artificial female construct that is socially conditioned.
Protip: all human culture is a 'construct' and 'socially conditioned'.

That woman had many options for leading her life, including the hardline feminist route.

She chose this way of life, and hardline feminists hate this choice she made.

They hate free will, and anyone who has a different opinion.

[Anonymous No.5661192]

>>5661176
You seem to be confused. There is no evidence that 'hardline feminists' find this image problamatic, they may well do, but all we have to go on is two angry women with a computer. Secondly, they find the impossible standard problematic as they feel that it could cause insecurity within young females. However, I do not know if demanding it be removed from the internet could be justified even if I myself find the images a tad tacky.

[Anonymous No.5661198]

>>5661192
>There is no evidence that 'hardline feminists' find this image problamatic
Except the image clearly shows a hardline feminist literally saying that woman's images are "extremely problematic".

[Anonymous No.5661203]

>>5661198
Did you read all of my post?
>all we have to go on is two angry women
I know that you were making a universal claim when you used the term 'hardline feminists' so do not try to crawl out of it by saying that you were still semantically correct.

[Anonymous No.5661209]

>>5661203
When I said "hardline feminists" I was talking about all feminists who would agree with what that particular hardline feminist is saying about the woman.

[Anonymous No.5661213]

>>5661209
>hardline feminists see this as "extremely problematic".

This is what you said and I do not accept it. I do not even know what a 'hardline feminist' is though.

[Anonymous No.5661219]

>>5661213
The woman commenting on those pictures is a hardline feminist.

There are many like her.

They are who I am talking about with the general description "hardline feminists".

[Anonymous No.5661226]

>>5657258
>>5657248
More butthurt landwhales pls.

[Anonymous No.5661233]

>>5661192
>There is no evidence that 'hardline feminists' find this image problamatic
Yes there is, OP's pic.

[Anonymous No.5661264]

>>5661191
>They hate free will, and anyone who has a different opinion.
You seem to be really struggling here, kiddo, so I'll answer with a metaphor you can understand. : )

Person A is given a pot of Jam and a pot of Marmalade to choose from since he was old enough to hold a spoon. There are more items of food to pick from, but all of his friends eat Jam, they are the Jamists, and the television, radio, and newspapers are bombarding him every with day with adverts for either marmalade or jam. He dabbled in peanut butter for a while, in secret, but felt counterfeit shame, and knew people would treat him like a leper if they found out. The Jam and Marmalade companies now have a monopoly and can blast Person A with adverts all day long from billboards, the sides of buses; every where he looks is Jam/Marmalade, and he sides with the Jamists.

Person B comes along and feels sorry for him. They tell him about cheese spread and Vegemite and lemon curd, about nutella and fresh blueberry preserve. They tell him that eating jam is problematic as it's not entirely his choice, and tell him it's okay to undo this conditioning and explore the other options; to stop defining himself as the ugly jam stereotype that was handed to him.

You crawl out from your rock and scream at person B for denying Person A "free will" to be a Jamist.

[Anonymous No.5661273]

>>5661192
>they find the impossible standard problematic as they feel that it could cause insecurity within young females.

An ideal is something you strive towards because you see some value in it; the point is to get closer and closer to it. Even if you fail to ever achieve it, you will benefit from the struggle and the development. Feminists still don't understand this point.

>>5661187
>The ugly stereotypes we become are only adopted via a twisted form of peer pressure, mass media, and capitalism.

Ya, I'm sure it was the media and peer pressure that forced that woman to take on the 1940s "wholesome housewive" role. That stereotype is just so prevalent in our media these days.
I think I saw Miley Cyrus promote it along with Lady Gaga and Madonna...

> They are arguing against the artificial female construct that is socially conditioned..."socially conditioned"

Criticizing a "role" by saying it's a social construct is a non-statement. It is meaningless. Calling a lifestyle artificial is not a criticism.

All roles are products of their time, environment, biology, etc...If you want to critique a lifestyle you have to talk specifics and make value judgments.

[Anonymous No.5661276]

>>5661264
Lol.

>person A has a choice of many sandwich toppings, each with their own marketing department
>person A prefers jam

>person B comes along and says this is a problem

Person B hates free will.

[Anonymous No.5661280]

>>5661166
By the same argument feminism is also the product of the exact same patriarchal conditioning.

[Anonymous No.5661282]

>>5661264
There's nothing inherently wrong with preferring jam over everything else.

And it's not like feminists aren't extremely vocal too.

[Anonymous No.5661292]

>>5657248

>a woman does something awesome
>other women try to drag her down, call her unrealistic and setting impossible goals

>man does something awesome
>men try to imitate him and cheer him on

[Anonymous No.5661296]

>>5661264

Just out of interest, do you think the woman in OP's image is a 'Jamist' or a victim of 'Jamism'? It seems to me that the image that the woman conveys, that of a traditional middle-class housewife, is not a common one today at all. It seems almost reactionary to me. Far from being influenced by prevailing cultural and social norms, she seems to be ignoring them or reacting against them.

[Anonymous No.5661302]

>>5661213
Look, I try as much as I can to support feminism, but there's always either the "this is not real feminism" or "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about hardline feminism or radfem or whatever", we all know you do, we all know there are some facets of feminism that aren't the lovefest you preach and that you probably partake in such facets whenever there isn't a non-feminist person looking.

Just be honest, for god's sake

[Anonymous No.5661307]

>>5661296

Not who you replied to, but to me those images tell me that she's in control.

She's consciously chosen to "claim" that stereotype look for herself and master it and make it beautiful,. It's kind of clever.

[Anonymous No.5661326]

>>5661282
>There's nothing inherently wrong with preferring jam over everything else.
Person A doesn't necessarily prefer Jam. He may even be too frightened to try all the other options. He is, at the fundamental level, handed Jam and told to eat either that or Marmalade. His options have been restricted by the culture he is in, by the effects of capitalism, by the pressure of society to conform to a ready-made image.

When the metaphor is unpacked, and the aesthetic (though, obviously it goes a lot deeper than aesthetics) is exposed, we get a few options out of the spectrum too. Sure, Sarah may 'choose' to botox her forehead, collagen her lips, squeeze gallons of silicon into her breasts, bleach her teeth, live on the brink of starvation, but this is just one of the small set of images she is allowed to adopt in western society.

>>5661296
>It seems to me that the image that the woman conveys, that of a traditional middle-class housewife, is not a common one today at all.
Perhaps the Cath Kidston dress is not all that common, but the 50's image of the perfect chef/cleaner wife is still alive and well in most households. Not being snarky, but was there any hint of egalitarianism in your household when you were growing up, or did your father lean slightly towards one of the accepted 'men' roles like 'the beer drinking football watcher', and your mother towards 'the maid and cooker of meals'?

[Anonymous No.5661329]

>>5661326
>Person A doesn't necessarily prefer Jam.
Says who?

In any case this changes nothing about the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with preferring jam over everything else.

[Anonymous No.5661333]

>>5661326
Well, the thing is, my household was pretty egalitarian when I was growing up, both my parents are fairly progressive and well educated, but once they had enough time and me and my brother were older, they seemed to settle to more traditional roles, like, mom cleans the house, does the food (thank god, my dad sucks in the kitchen), dad repairs the litte things, handles the garden, etc.

So, are they being opressed by themselves?

[Anonymous No.5661336]

>>5661333
>are they being opressed by themselves?
Yes, it's extremely problematic.

[Anonymous No.5661337]

>>5661326
>Cath Kidston
uugh. i really, really hate the cath kidston trend. have you ever seen one of the cath kidston shops? if dante were alive, one of the circles of hell would be a giant cath kidston shop.

[Anonymous No.5661339]

>>5657465
http://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/2kg4dh/christinehmcconnell_teams_up_with_rpics_to_make/
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/29gc95/uchristinehmcconnell_posts_an_album_to_rpics_some/?sort=confidence

fucking hell the butthurt is strong

[Anonymous No.5661341]

>>5661336
Damn...

[Anonymous No.5661348]

>>5661336
>>5661326

Please list some authentic female desires, and authentic lifestyles & behaviors they could engage in.

That aren't conditioned by their society/time/culture/capitalism...etc

[Anonymous No.5661349]

>>5661348
All of human culture is conditioned.
That's what makes it culture.

[Anonymous No.5661350]

>>5661333
>So, are they being opressed by themselves?
Slightly, but not by themselves. Do you think it was pure coincidence that mom chose to be the cleaner and cooker, and dad chose the putter-upper of shelves? Or do you think there is a powerful inherent biological drive for women to polish televisions and men to put up shelves?

[Anonymous No.5661352]

post instagram.

[Anonymous No.5661354]

>>5661349
thanks for that input Foucault, but culture had to come from somewhere.
Beneath ideology is human nature.

[Anonymous No.5661358]

>>5661354
Your point?

[Anonymous No.5661361]

>>5661350
I hardly think there's any.

As I've said, they're both quite educated and (for their age at least) progressive, mom used to be a hardcore feminst (as she could under the brazilian dictatorship, at least) and dad has lived in communes, been arrested and shit.

When times demanded, these roles went out the window, but when they could, they simply found this way more comfortable than most. I'm not saying there's a biological drive, I'm just saying that, at a certain pont in their lifes, they chose a more "traditional" setting because this was the easiest way for them to keep on going, even though our whole lives, mom was (and still is) THE authority figure.

It's similar with my parents-in-law, actually, and with some friends parents as far as I know

[Anonymous No.5661366]

>>5661326
>50's image of the perfect chef/cleaner wife is still alive and well in most households

But is it represented in the media? In popular culture? Most of the TV shows young women consume in the last decade or so don't seem to impress this sort of life. I'm thinking Sex and The City, Dunham's Girls, etc. And being a housewife seems so inimical to consumer culture and capitalism in general that I can't believe any of Western society's elites would champion it.

[Anonymous No.5661372]

>>5661350
>Do you think it was pure coincidence that mom chose to be the cleaner and cooker, and dad chose the putter-upper of shelves?
Women evolved to have innate instincts that differ from male ones.

[Anonymous No.5661378]

>>5661349

That's why these feminist arguments are irrelevant. calling some behavior or desire "conditioned" is a non-statement, it's never a criticism because all behaviors have underlying conditions.

>>5661350
>Or do you think there is a powerful inherent biological drive for women to polish televisions and men to put up shelves?
Men are stronger, so ya men will tend towards more physically demanding roles.

The question is, are these behaviors ok to engage in? Are they productive, good, helpful? Does the person enjoy them, are they useful?

We can answer these questions.

We can't answer the question about how "authentic" these behaviors are for each specific gender. Every behavior is conditioned somehow, nothing is "authentic".

[Anonymous No.5661397]

>>5657248
>>5657258

That woman is doing the exact opposite of what the media, culture and radical feminism is telling her to do.

She's closer to freedom than they realize. And they feel insecure because they see some value in what she does.

[Anonymous No.5661400]

>>5661142

It seems to be two different people, and in both cases they're being extremely inhibited in regards to what they really want to say. They're trying their hardest to express what they feel in a non-inflammatory way.

>>5661151

Capitalism is a Ferrari that seats two people, has no steering wheel, and has only one speed; on.

The economy is an attempt to do practical things, like transport dozens of people to the goal of the economy - an luxurious hotel.

Socialism is like a great big bus. It might be smelly, slow, and because it has a steering wheel safe and controllable, but you can fit everyone who wants to go to the hotel on the bus.

The end result is that the Ferrarri flies off the road into an electric pole, killing all the capitalists (Remember that they have no steering wheel; manipulating market forces is wrong).

Meanwhile, the bus arrives at the end of the day at the hotel, with all the socialists safe and sound.

Oh, and before you mention 'communists atrocities,' take a look at history and you'll see that Russians and Chinese have been murdering tens of millions of themselves for over a thousand years. It's not socialism that makes these people this way. Russians and Chinese just like totalitarianism and killing.

>>5661176

>staying in shape

The woman in these pictures is a toothpick. One of those tall women who try to look smaller by starving themselves to death.

>This is her choice, yet hardline feminists see this as "extremely problematic"

Because nine times out of ten, people fuck up traditional gender roles as much as they fuck up current ones.

I'm not sure if you can imagine being beaten by someone who has absolute economic and social authority over you. He can beat you, insult you, abuse you, and there's no one you can go to. If you beg him to stop, he acts like you're accusing him of being a monster. To make matters worse, the other people he beats defend him when he beats you - it takes a lot of willpower to not wish ill on them.

Without economic and social power, there's no way out. He'll even tell you how it's not his fault you can't support yourself. You can either deal with him, or go starve on the street.

And no education? As in, you never went to elementary school? That's your fault too.

Traditional gender roles are a fetish. I find them delicious. But when some asshole is ripping your hair out and rolling around on the floor with you, it destroys the whole fantasy.

[Anonymous No.5661404]

>>5661400
>It seems to be two different people, and in both cases they're being extremely inhibited in regards to what they really want to say. They're trying their hardest to express what they feel in a non-inflammatory way.
That's a really misleading and convoluted way of saying "they're oppressive bitches who hate everyone with a different lifestyle from theirs".

[Anonymous No.5661411]

>>5661400
>The woman in these pictures is a toothpick.
She isn't fat, if that's what you mean.

>blablabla
She's leading the life she wants, and that's not something for you or anyone else to judge.

[Anonymous No.5661418]

>>5661397
>>5661404

[Anonymous No.5661422]

>>5661400
>Russians and Chinese just like totalitarianism and killing.

And women love to be dominated.

[Anonymous No.5661431]

>>5661400
>The woman in these pictures is a toothpick
Dat thin shaming.

[Anonymous No.5661443]

>>5657652
Do you really believe that? If so, you're completely blind to the real dominant ideology because you see the world.colored through its lense.

Capitalism, neoliberalism, these are the.dominant ideologies, and their.brilliance is the extent to which people don't even.conprehend how their values are all created to reinforce it, how pervasive it is, and how very little real violence within a first world country it uses to perpetuatue itself.

Your post ideology in its purest.

[Anonymous No.5661453]

>>5661443
>here are a bunch of crackpot vagueries to support my claim that the patriarchy and capitalism are evil!

Wow, you sure showed us.

[Anonymous No.5661459]

>>5661397
>That woman is doing the exact opposite of what the media, culture

Yeah, because revolting floral-clad 50's housewife with disgusting twee oven gloves that match the disgusting twee tea kitchen towels isn't the hottest trend at the moment.

Do you even Cosmo girl?

[Anonymous No.5661464]

>>5661453
Of course its vague, I'm making a very general claim avout ideology.

You want specifics? Just turn on the TV, go look through the magazins at the store, listen to what people want, read history, and read.

[Anonymous No.5661469]

>>5661464
>I'm making a very general claim avout ideology.
Yes you are.
That's what I said.

>You want specifics? Just turn on the TV, go look through the magazins at the store, listen to what people want, read history, and read.
I'll come across many different points of view, from the more 'traditional' gender roles to rabid feminism.

[Anonymous No.5661474]

>>5661469
Then your blind. Quite literally.

You need to wake up but you're asleep. Keep trying dude.

[Anonymous No.5661475]

>>5661464
>You want specifics? Just turn on the TV, go look through the magazins at the store, listen to what people want, read history, and read.

[Anonymous No.5661478]

>>5661469
Also don't forget to look at social relations and the extent to which capital infuses them. The way.conversation goes, peoples values and desires.

Sure there.is.variation, but the dominant ideology is obvious.

[Anonymous No.5661482]

>>5661464
>>5661475
>>5661443

[Anonymous No.5661483]

>>5661404

You seem to be expressing more hate than they are.

>>5661411

>She isn't fat, if that's what you mean

Neither is this woman in her 'after' picture, yet she's far more attractive. Why? She isn't tall and lanky.

Please stop acting as if anyone who doesn't worship at the feet of your ugly scarecrows is a fat-defender.

Now would also be a good time to mention that the woman in the OP's images is photoshopped to hide her long face. So to hold her up as an ideal of femininity is not only delusional, but an example of poor aesthetics.

>blablabla

When you ignore my post, you produce ignorance in yourself. And your ignorance isn't as good as my knowledge.

>She's leading the life she wants, and that's not something for you or anyone else to judge

I'm not judging her; I'm judging the people opposing feminism in this thread.

Personally, while I may not like her specific style, I like the idea traditional femininity. It's just that people are acting as if her taking auto-erotic pictures of herself doing stereotypically feminine things in any way shape or form relates to the crux of the feminist argument.

We all want to be pretty and be chased after. But I don't want a man who beats and insults me, while I have no escape from him. The first is the dream. The second is the reality of traditional gender roles.

Feminism is about economically and socially empowering women, so that no one can get away with beating them. The fact that Iran recently banned women from getting degrees shows that men really are just threatened by feminism - in Iran, more women were getting engineering degrees then men.

Why? To get the hell out of the clutches of men who beat and abuse them.

The only place where feminists are just jealous cunts is in the minds of misogynists. The fact that you can't even see the real issues goes to show just how much you live in a fantasy world.

>>5661422

But not beaten and told they're stupid, ugly, and that they don't deserve a break from scrubbing the pot that one of the men in the house burnt up while he was getting high in the living room.

[Anonymous No.5661488]

>>5661474
Media is rife with feminism, female empowerment, reversal of gender roles, ...

The fuck you talking about.

>>5661478
Be more vague, I dare you.

[Anonymous No.5661490]

>>5661483
>You seem to be expressing more hate than they are.
Except I'm reacting against oppression and injustice.

They're just hating on someone with a different opinion from them.

[Anonymous No.5661493]

>>5661483
>she's far more attractive. Why? She isn't tall and lanky
hahaha, holy shit.

How an you be so extremely superficial?

>When you ignore my post, you produce ignorance in yourself.
Yeah, because your ramblings are so important.

>I'm not judging her
Says the guy who called her "a toothpick" and "tall and lanky".

You're defending those who directly judged her, therefore you are complicit.

[Anonymous No.5661494]

>>5661483
>But not beaten and told they're stupid, ugly, and that they don't deserve a break from scrubbing the pot that one of the men in the house burnt up while he was getting high in the living room.

There are laws against violence, regardless of gender.

Do you enjoy coming up with imaginary opponents?

[Anonymous No.5661496]

>>5661469
>I'll come across many different points of view, from the more 'traditional' gender roles to rabid feminism.
No. You may occasionally discover a feminist on a panel show, but feminists aren't a mass demographic that can be targeted by normal products.

Mainstream advertisement is only one way these gender binaries are maintained, but pic related: A common British advert that shows a smiling housewife having a wonderful time buying groceries and cooking them for her husband and children, with the slogan, "That's why mums go to Iceland." Each advert depicts a different smiling housewife with a different incentive to shop at Iceland. How many times have you seen the same advert with "That's why feminists shop at Iceland"? I mean, how likely are you to ever see that? Do you think there is one game theory marketing model that shows it's a good idea to set up feminists as the primary shopper in a traditional family unit? Within the binary, sure, some fathers are shown poking around at a BBQ, but rarely would a company attempt to set up males as the primary shopper. Don't worry, there are plenty of beastly 'male' adverts too.

[Anonymous No.5661498]

>>5661496
>No.
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5661502]

>>5661496
>How many times have you seen the same advert with "That's why feminists shop at Iceland"?
Same reason you won't see adverts saying "That's why determinists shop at Iceland".

[Anonymous No.5661505]

>>5657248
>as Zizek would say
You should ignore him unless you genuinely believe in totalitarianism (he advocates it), he's basically a eastern yuro cuck with a romanticized view of the "commie heydays".

[Anonymous No.5661522]

>>5661490

>Except I'm reacting against oppression and injustice

What oppression and injustice? Two polite, honest comments?

Try some drunk man leading you up the stairs by your hair. That's oppression and injustice.

>They're just hating on someone with a different opinion from them

The person hating on someone with a different opinion is the one saying things like "they're oppressive bitches." As in, actually using insults.

And then you have me, who is even being so honest as to say that they want some of what the woman in the OP's image has. She may be skinny and photoshopped, but the artistic vision she's presenting is quite tempting.

But I know the reality of it. Acting like a stereotypical woman is fine. There's nothing wrong with it. The problem comes when we pretend as if these photographs in any way, shape, or form reflect the reality of gender.

Do you really want to scrub burned up pans, clean floors, and get beaten for the trouble? To be told that you're being suffered, and that you should be glad to even have the opportunity to take the abuse?

No one wants to do that. They just want to put on pretty dresses and makeup, and waddle about in high heels making cakes.

In the end, what does that amount to? A fetish. That's what gender roles are. As soon as you start trying to enforce gender roles outside of the bedroom, you become as creepy and frightening as a brony.

[Anonymous No.5661528]

>>5661483
>Neither is this woman in her 'after' picture, yet she's far more attractive. Why? She isn't tall and lanky.

The one taking the apple of discord in this Renoir painting is the goddess Aphrodite. All the women in this picture are goddesses, and the absolute pinnacle of beauty once; small breasts that will swell with pregnancy, large fertile hips...

[Anonymous No.5661532]

>>5661522
>What oppression and injustice?
The one where people are judging and berating someone simply because of the life that person leads.

>The person hating on someone with a different opinion is the one saying things like "they're oppressive bitches." As in, actually using insults.
No, the person hating on someone with a different opinion is the one saying things like "your lifestyle is a problem".

I don't hate them because they have a different opinion at all, I hate them because the are trying to force that opinion on someone else.

>Acting like a stereotypical woman is fine. There's nothing wrong with it.
Then stop defending those who think it is far from fine, who think there's something massively wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.5661542]

I believe this is relevant
http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/whats-made-julie-bishop-so-afraid-of-feminism-20141029-11dpw6.html

[Anonymous No.5661555]

>>5661502
>Same reason you won't see adverts saying "That's why determinists shop at Iceland".

In a few years you will see semi-philosophical adverts targeted at the self-titled intelligentsia...

- 97% of indeterminists buy Bordeaux rosewood-aged vino. The superior tasting wine for those with the Free Will to chose quality. Student discount!

- Have you had your existential Wheaties? The crunchiest way to create meaning. Student discount!

- specsavers are having a 'phenomenal' sale on all designer glasses for students. The Kantian void never seemed so clear.

[Anonymous No.5661579]

>>5661488
That's just your bias speaking. If you actually syatematically and scientifically examine media you would understand that it presents a very specific set of images and ideas. You only especially pay attention to anything that's counter to your ideology, similar to how some white men think the system is oppressing them more than anyone else.

Watch Misrepresentation, Reel Injun, or Zizeks films of ideology if you can't into reading science and social theory.

[Anonymous No.5661586]

>womens liberation
>womens suffrage
>women get equal rights

mfw Feminists are still mad as hell because women actually enjoy feminine roles, being motherly and delicate, and avoid things like working in coal mines and oil fields

[Anonymous No.5661591]

>>5661579

yes, refer to >>5661482

The jewish, liberal, cultural marxist media and sjw are a big problem. Does your ideology recognize this?

[Anonymous No.5661643]

>>5661493

>How an you be so extremely superficial?

The woman in the OP's picture is reducing herself to an image. That's all I know of her, and that's all I'm criticizing her for.

If she doesn't want to be judged solely on the aesthetics of her images, she should include something else in them.

>Yeah, because your ramblings are so important

Important enough for you to reply to, but not important enough for you to actually read apparently.

I mean, we're on a board about literature, and I'm writing you an essay in every post. If you see any lengthy text as "ramblings," I must wonder how you manage to get through a book.

>Says the guy who called her "a toothpick" and "tall and lanky"

She's putting her image up for everyone to see. I'll criticize her just as I would criticism any other form of art.

What I'm criticizing isn't her body itself - I was simply stating my disagreement that she was "staying in shape," as >>5661176 put it.

>You're defending those who directly judged her, therefore you are complicit

In what? She made some images that represent a shallow and childish understanding of traditional gender roles. I'm not criticizing her for that; I'm criticizing people taking these images and using them to defend misogyny.

Women like to be pretty and wanted. They don't like to be beaten and told how much they need men to live.

>>5661494

>There are laws against violence, regardless of gender

Call the police. Tell them your husband is beating you. What will happen?

The police *might* take him away. If they do, your problems are only beginning. If they don't... well now he's angry that you got the police to come in.

If they take him away, now what? He'll be back - and pissed - eventually. If he beat you before, he sure as hell is going to beat you for getting him arrested.

But for the time he's gone, certainly you can escape him, right? Where to? With what money?

>Do you enjoy coming up with imaginary opponents?

I'll admit that anecdotes aren't good evidence, but I assure you that the man in question is very real.

But there is one, firm piece of evidence I can pull out; most violent criminals are men. Most women who get assaulted or murdered are assaulted or murdered by a man. Other statistics prove that your family is the most likely to assault or murder you.

Like it or not, there are a bunch of men acting like ogres, beating and abusing everything woman they know. This is the crux of feminism, and I can say from personal experience that only more economic and social power will allow women to escape these situations.

Certain women tarting themselves up on the internet has nothing to do with it. No one cares about that. Not even feminists, despite misogynists using the claim that they do as a strawman.

[Anonymous No.5661651]

>>5661586
>Le intellectually superior racially concious dogmatically inconsistent handsome man face.

[Anonymous No.5661661]

>>5661418
Makes no sense.
When I see a guy hotter than me I feel inadiquet as well, the difference is I suck it up and maybe put abit more work into making myself prettier.
Perfect takes work, Is she trying to shirk work?

[Anonymous No.5661669]

>>5661443
Do you think that all of feminism is somehow not compatible with capitalism and neoliberalism? That's naive.

>>5657671
Thanks for saying nothing. Great post m8

[Anonymous No.5661673]

>>5661579
Lol.
Media is rife with feminism, reversal of gener roles, female empowerment, ...

You're just seeing what you want to see.

And besides, the fact remains that this woman in the OP is doing what she wants, and hardline feminists hate her for it.

[Anonymous No.5661677]

>>5661643
>The woman in the OP's picture is reducing herself to an image.
Because she chooses not to be fat?
Because she wants her pictures to look a certain way?
Lol.

>She's putting her image up for everyone to see.
So do fat women.
But you're not supposed to judge them either.

>What I'm criticizing isn't her body itself
But you called her "a toothpick" and "tall and lanky".
That's direct criticism of her body.

>I was simply stating my disagreement that she was "staying in shape,"
She is staying in shape.

>In what?
In the judging of her lifestile.

[Anonymous No.5661681]

>>5661643
Please, enlightened one, tell me who the fuck doesn't reduce itself to a image in fucking late capitalism.

That's everything there is to you, like it or not.

Honestly, it seems to me you have some sort of traume with domestic abuse, and that's fine, it is traumatic and it must be stopped, one way or another. This woman ISN'T endorsing domestic abuse in any means by being like that, YOU are making associations of that image with whatever domestic abuse you have suffered / seen

[Anonymous No.5661684]

>>5661651

>mfw the feminist demands for emancipation were used to turn them into wage workers, to make them consumers, to get them out of the "home" and into a mercantile position to have buying power

>mfw they are now made to feel guilty about being a housewife, viewing it as alienation, a suffering, a humiliation, while being consumers and degenerates is promoted not only be media by but philosophical feminism


>mfw women are not only subjugated by husbands at home, but by bosses at work, and by the market in the consumer sphere

[Anonymous No.5661685]

>>5661532

>The one where people are judging and berating someone simply because of the life that person leads

What berating? One of them said the images were 'problematic' for feminism. The other said the images were creepy, and made her feel inferior.

That's just polite honesty to me.

>No, the person hating on someone with a different opinion is the one saying things like "your lifestyle is a problem"

No, it's the person using profanity. Literally calling other people 'bitches.' Not the people refraining from profanity, and honestly stating their opinion that the images in question represent a threat to feminism.

And lo and behold, the images go on to be used to argue against feminism. Criticizing fat women is apparently OK, and calling people bitches is too, but don't you dare say that you think a woman is too tall and skinny!

>I don't hate them because they have a different opinion at all, I hate them because the are trying to force that opinion on someone else

Two comments on the internet isn't an attempt to force their opinion onto anyone else.

Meanwhile, the anti-feminists in this thread - you - readily admit to hating them. In your own words;

>I hate them

Why? Because they think differently from you? I don't hate you. I don't hate this woman. I hate men who beat or abuse people, and then use their macho horseshit to justify themselves.

>Then stop defending those who think it is far from fine, who think there's something massively wrong with it

No. Because the hostility you see doesn't exist. And because you're more hostile towards the feminists than they are towards you.

[Anonymous No.5661686]

>>5661643
>The woman in the OP's picture is reducing herself to an image.
People have been doing that since the days of cave paintings. Most likely before that.
In fact, beads and similar purely decorative items are some of the oldest finds in human history.
And let's not forget about those venuses depicting idealized bodies.

You have problems with humanity.

[Anonymous No.5661693]

>>5661685
>What berating?
What what?
Who is this?
Where did I put my keys?
Where am I?
Where are my teeth?

[Anonymous No.5661703]

>>5661684
Alain Soral pls.

[Anonymous No.5661704]

>>5661685
I am by no means a anti-feminist.

I just think those women in the pictures are extremely butthurt because that woman chose to follow this stepford wife cliché for whatever reasons.

That's the same kind of stupidity that leaves high class, well educated, marxist friends of mine mad that the blue collar dude who works 12 hours shifts is glad with his life. Do I think he should strive for freedom? Yeah, I do. Does it give me the right to proselitize him to death? No, that's patronizing, that's coercive, that's disrespecting his soreveignity over himself.

[Anonymous No.5661708]

>>5661684

I think women's biggest enemy is feminism now.
Specially the fat, red-haired variety.

[Anonymous No.5661715]

>>5661685
>What berating?
She is being judged and rebuked for looking the way she does and doing the things she does.

>No, it's the person using profanity.
No it's not.

I called them bitches not because of their opinions, but because of their willingness to force those opinions upon someone else.

>Two comments on the internet isn't an attempt to force their opinion onto anyone else.
Of course it is.
"That woman is 'problematic' for failing to adhere to our opinions."

>Why?
Do you know what the word 'because' means?

I literally said: "I hate them because the are trying to force that opinion on someone else."

>No.
Then you're just as authoritarian as they are.

[Anonymous No.5661735]

>>5657248
>if a woman puts on makeup and makes cakes it's because men told her to

Why is it inconceivable to feminists that women can be strong and make their own choices?

[Anonymous No.5661742]

>Something about your photos makes me feel strangely inadequate
>and I'm alarmed by my own reaction

In other words: "MUH FEEEEEEEEEELIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINGS!!!!!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.5661746]

>>5661735

>feminists

Those women aren't feminists. The women in the picture is a feminist.

The women who criticized her were just insecure and felt threatened by her.

[Anonymous No.5661749]

>>5661746
I misspoke, I meant the red-haired landwhale versions.

[Anonymous No.5661754]

>>5661749
>I meant the red-haired landwhale versions.

I think Nietzsche explained it in his geneology of morals. They have the slave morality that simply lashes out against the strong/beautiful/healthy.

[Anonymous No.5661755]

>>5661742
>I'm alarmed by my own reaction
This made me think of a dog getting startled by his own fart.

[Anonymous No.5661774]

>>5661677

>Because she chooses not to be fat? Because she wants her pictures to look a certain way?

No, because she takes pictures of herself, and then lets them stand alone.

She's nothing but an image to people who see her. We can't even infer that she likes the type of cake she's making; she might not even like cake.

Thus, we can't judge her on anything other then her image. She hasn't given us any other information.

>So do fat women. But you're not supposed to judge them either

You seem to have confused me for someone that thinks fat people are attractive.

>But you called her "a toothpick" and "tall and lanky". That's direct criticism of her body

I'm criticizing this woman's appearance from an artistic perspective. If she didn't want this attention, she could have not posted these images online.

Also, I don't think fat women are ideal in any way. The image I posted - the before and after of the same woman - is in my opinion as attractive as real women come.

>She is staying in shape

Having strength and endurance is what being in shape means. Any woman who works out enough to gain strength and endurance gets thick. No attractive woman is 'in shape.'

Exercising and dieting to make yourself as slim as possible has nothing to do with being in shape.

>>5661681

>tell me who the fuck doesn't reduce itself to a image in fucking late capitalism

People who don't post images of themselves on the internet. Not that presenting yourself as nothing but an image is wrong, it's just not satisfying.

Is she actually a traditional, or does she just like playing dressup?

>That's everything there is to you, like it or not

No, that's the strawman you're arguing against.

>Honestly, it seems to me you have some sort of traume with domestic abuse, and that's fine, it is traumatic and it must be stopped, one way or another

And the only way it is going to be stopped is by economically and socially empowering women.

>This woman ISN'T endorsing domestic abuse in any means by being like that, YOU are making associations of that image with whatever domestic abuse you have suffered / seen

I'm seeing people arguing against feminism based on pretty pictures they've seen on the internet, and the nasty comments left by 'bitches.'

This woman isn't endorsing domestic abuse; the anti-feminists in this thread are ignoring that domestic abuse is the crux of feminism.

[Anonymous No.5661781]

>>5661774
>I'm criticizing this woman's appearance from an artistic perspective.
Bullshit, you called her "a toothpick" and "tall and lanky".

>Having strength and endurance is what being in shape means.
Bullshit, "being in shape" is just a general term for looking healthy and not fat.

[Anonymous No.5661785]

>>5661774
>the before and after of the same woman - is in my opinion as attractive as real women come.

Are you saying the fat-before is attractive as women come? Or her transformation to a healthy weight is attractive?

[Anonymous No.5661786]

Noby can stop the feminist and marxist powers of the leftist due, the caped egalitarian crusaders, Penny and Zizek.

[Anonymous No.5661796]

>>5661786
Finally, /lit/ has it's king and queen.

[Anonymous No.5661843]

>>5661785

Her 'after.' Sorry for being unclear.

[Anonymous No.5661978]

>>5661774
>People who don't post images of themselves on the internet. Not that presenting yourself as nothing but an image is wrong, it's just not satisfying.

And don't have absolutely no contact with any human being who doesn't completely understands and know them.

Really, people WON'T read a fucking resumé to deal with you on a occasional basis, they'll just judge you based on whatever they feel like judging, and feminism be damned, our whole world is mediated by images - at this point of culture, at least.

I highly doubt that anyone is ignoring domestic abuse, I assume they're only taking a (rather popular, most of the time there isn't a radfem sperging near) point in "Whatever feminism has fed these people is the only significator they have to see the world, and it has come to the point where they no longer have any mean to realize there might be women who feel strong and empowered living outside of whatever "ideal" lifestyle modern feminism deems 'better'".

You, by making absolutely everything about domestic abuse (which is not by itself wrong, if this has had such a large impact in your life, I guess) is just being completely oblivious to whatever people are talking about.

And domestic abuse will hardly "end" with empowering women socially and economically. If anything, it'll just change proportion, instead of being practiced 80% by men, 20% by women, things'll get closer to the 50/50 divide (which is better than whatever we have now, I guess)

[Anonymous No.5662331]

>>5657248
theres something wrong with this line of thinking and i can't put my finger on it... i mean like we can't just write it off as "stupid" or "lol fucking feminists". Is it just projection and their pride is blocking them from realizing what the artist actually meant and their presuppositions and judgement cloud what is actually happening?

[Anonymous No.5662345]

>>5662331
>heir presuppositions and judgement cloud what is actually happening?

cultural marxism is based on false assumptions, eventually they will clash with reality and only death will follow.

[Anonymous No.5662361]

>>5662345
hmmm never heard of that term before but that is exactly what it is, i just looked it up... i wonder what the psychological implications are, like where an ideology like that would and why it would become such a defense mechanism, its like a rope you have to untangle..

[Anonymous No.5662386]

>>5662331
it has nothing to do with feminism, it has to do with people being dumb and not getting jokes. see also: literallyunbelievable.org

[Anonymous No.5662437]

>>5662345

cultural marxism is a spook is a spook a spook apook pook ook ok--okay?!

[Anonymous No.5662447]

>>5657976

The image in the OP is a pretty clear expression of this form of ideology.

Nigger, you need to learn to think on your own.

[Anonymous No.5662484]

>>5657686
>plus she's from /pol/
That's not a plus

[Anonymous No.5662493]

>>5662484
>>5662484
>That's not a plus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB2ptkisgDc

[Anonymous No.5662506]

>>5662484
It's a huge minus.

[Anonymous No.5663434]

>>5657248
>Zizek would say
>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.5663841]

>>5661555
you guys would like Blue is the Warmest Color.
most of it is a critique of taste.

[Anonymous No.5663873]

>>5661192
>there is no evidence
>except for the evidence I'm willingly ignoring

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5663966]

>>5661349
The people are the beginning and end of culture and power. I have not witnessed any step taken by feminists or any other leftist group that trumpets this "cultural oppression" horn that doesn't just shift the social derision of one group or activity onto another. What made society pro-abortion was making the life of a fetus inconsequential in much the same way the anti-abortion advocates of the past made the woman's life inconsequential. What made society multicultural was the mocking and denigrating of European customs. The power that racists had in the past in shunning and discouraging is now used by the anti-racists, whom in the exact same way drown out the opposition by calling them the new "niggers": racists--that is to say they bring to light some publicly unacceptable status of their opponent and thus have no need to reply to any given counter-point. No greater understanding of accepting has taken place. There has yet to be any positive growth in what is permissible. There is simply replacement. Old power structures leading into new ones.

We all still hate each other. Did you see the public outcry when a white NBA team owner dare be illegally recorded saying he doesn't want his mistress showing up to games with black people? No one gives a shit about the illegal recording, no one gives a shit about how this "powerful" rich guy is clearly shown to be just as enslaved to the system as anyone else (did anyone even bother to read or listen to the entire thing? Its obvious he is as sucked up into his own social pressures as anyone else but that would take another post to fully explain), no its the fact he doesn't like black people. How dare he not like someone, we should all be tolerant and progressive, I say we take away his team until he learns to be understanding and accepting like us. Yes, clearly its evil white people in power, just look at how quickly they fold after being found out-- yeah right. Yeah fucking right. The people are in charge here, same as always.

[Anonymous No.5663973]

>>5663966
I agree, calling out racists is the same as calling black people niggers.

[Anonymous No.5663982]

>>5661400
>socialism
>capitalism
>socialist that thinks groups of people "like" doing things
>healthy woman is a toothpick
Yeah you're post is way too long to properly imply so I'll just give you a nice big
>
>>
>>>
>>>>

[Anonymous No.5663999]

>>5663973
I know you are trying to be sarcastic but it has a very clear social power. The idea is to silence and make insignificant.

[Anonymous No.5664033]

>>5663999
yeah we might miss all the good stuff the racists have to say

[Anonymous No.5664178]

>>5661459

>Japan

[Anonymous No.5664198]

>>5657272
Just do a ton of DMT

[Anonymous No.5664202]

>>5663999
>The idea is to silence and make insignificant.
Yes. It's called culture war. We engage in it openly.

[Anonymous No.5664240]

>>5664202
Nice false flag

[Anonymous No.5664244]

>>5664033
replace racist by "Völkisch". Look it up.

[Anonymous No.5664249]

>>5663873
>plural of anecdote is not evidence

[Anonymous No.5664287]

>>5664202
>>5664033

[Anonymous No.5664288]

>>5664033
>"the racists"

This does not exist, you are not essentially the product of one opinion.

However the idea of silencing anyone by calling him or her "racist" is very real and efficient, it is the modern version of the accusation of heresy.

But how can you defend heretics? Do you mean the heretics have good things to say? Are you a heretic yourself? Prove you're not a heretic right now! Let's burn that heretic, he said something wrong about the True Martyrs we are representing, but it won't make him a martyr if we burn him because WE ARE RIGHT AND HE IS WRONG, this is not censorship and torture but mere justice, etc.

Basically the same intolerant Christian shit in disguise.

[Anonymous No.5664296]

>>5657248
does anyone have a link to an article by Zizek?

I'm sure most of us have never read anything from him.
It would help to stay on topic.
From what I read on wikipedia, he doesn't seem like the kind of leftist I like.
First, you can't fight for the oppressed classes when you're a Lacanian. (Lacan is basically Freud 2.0, a watchdog of the exploiters).
Second, I smell BS when I hear he's considered as a vague thinker, another pointless philosopher of language (the signifier and the signified, all that irrelevant shit...).
Smells like mental masturbation to me.

But I'd be happy to discuss an article from him, if he wrote anything good.

[Anonymous No.5664416]

>>5664296
>does anyone have a link to an article by Zizek?

see you there : >>5664391

[Anonymous No.5664544]

>>5661482
>dem generalizations
>dat butthurt
>caring about other people's inadequacies when all that should matter is your own virtue
Fag.

[Anonymous No.5664570]

>>5661400
>I'm not sure if you can imagine being beaten by someone who has absolute economic and social authority over you. He can beat you, insult you, abuse you, and there's no one you can go to. If you beg him to stop, he acts like you're accusing him of being a monster. To make matters worse, the other people he beats defend him when he beats you - it takes a lot of willpower to not wish ill on them.
You're talking about single mothers here, right?
You know, these women that society decide should take care of children on their own.
These women who make the majority of child abusers.

>Without economic and social power, there's no way out. He'll even tell you how it's not his fault you can't support yourself. You can either deal with him, or go starve on the street.
Maybe you shouldn't get married to an abuser. Maybe you should stick to your family until you find a good husband.

>And no education? As in, you never went to elementary school? That's your fault too.
No, it's your parents' fault, and society's fault for enabling the reproduction of the poor.
Young women are more educated than young men anyway.

>But when some asshole is ripping your hair out and rolling around on the floor with you, it destroys the whole fantasy.
Don't date assholes then. You can't say fuck you to your dad and complain about your boyfriend beating you afterwards. Don't use the government as a family you don't have to pay dues to.

[Anonymous No.5664597]

>>5664033
You seem to think that a person has to to "have good stuff to say" in order for them to have a voice. This is inherently oppressive, surely you can see this. I mean, its so fucking obvious.

[Anonymous No.5665465]

>>5663973
Calling black people niggers is the same as calling white people whitey.

[Anonymous No.5665657]

>>5661400
>Socialism is like a great big bus. It might be smelly, slow, and because it has a steering wheel safe and controllable, but you can fit everyone who wants to go to the hotel on the bus.
>Meanwhile, the bus arrives at the end of the day at the hotel, with all the socialists safe and sound.
Yeah because everyone loved the USSR, Cuba, Venezula etc

tl;dr you're a deluded faggot