/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6622167]

Can we have a serious discussion about feminist literature without it degenerating into pic related?

[Anonymous No.6622188]

>>6622167
No, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6622190]

>>6622167
No, because feminist literature is, as a whole, a gender-biased collection of assumptions with no regard for logic or realism. A chimp painting on a piece of butcher's paper with its own feces as a pigment constitutes a higher modicum of social understanding than feminist drivel.

[Anonymous No.6622194]

>>6622167
That wouldn't be fun, would it? Back to tumblr, degenerate.

[Anonymous No.6622196]

>g-go back to /pol/ muhsoggyknee!

[Anonymous No.6622201]

Which is the more harmful stereotype.

[Anonymous No.6622206]

what the fuck have women ever done for literature you fucking jewboy. go back to tumblr you fucking sjw /lit/ doesnt want any fucking leftys

[Anonymous No.6622208]

>>6622201
>implying housewifes are bad
>implying taking care of your children isn't one of the most noble things that a person can do

[Anonymous No.6622211]

>>6622167
Considering 99% of 4chan, apart from /soc/ and the cosplay board, is male, it would be far more pic related if we did have a serious discussion (or what OP means 'agree with me or you a hat tipping man') about feminist literature.

[Anonymous No.6622213]

>>6622201
The one in your picture, since it a) encourages the perpetuation of Wife's effective slavery to Husband which is a result of her not being paid for her labor around the house, and b) encourages the perpetuation of the capitalist family unit and the contradictions it entails?

[Anonymous No.6622216]

>>6622206
/lit/ is one of the most leftist boards on 4chan retard.

[Anonymous No.6622220]

>>6622213
get back to tumblr already, /lit/ would be far better if we didn't have you liberals shitting it up

[Anonymous No.6622222]

>>6622213
And he calls others fedoras.

[Anonymous No.6622230]

>>6622213
Proletarian families are the unit of capitalism. Middle and upper-class families are not involved.

[Anonymous No.6622234]

>>6622213
>the perpetuation of Wife's effective slavery to Husband
Stopped reading right there, all she does all day is clean and talk over the phone with her friends and for it she gets a free home and food plus way more free time then her husband who does the work. If anything the man would be the slave.

[Anonymous No.6622240]

>>6622206
>Marxist threads
>doesn't want leftys
You're the one who's in the wrong place my friend.

[Anonymous No.6622241]

>>6622213
a) It's her natural position.
b) It would still exist without capitalism like it has before.
>inb4 everything is influenced by pure culture

[Anonymous No.6622243]

seriously though have women ever made any decent literature lol? i've been on /lit/ for a few weeks now since some of us /pol/acks got recced this place; and there ain't any decent women ive seen LOL

[Anonymous No.6622249]

>>6622243
Homer was a woman.

[Anonymous No.6622250]

>>6622213
>the capitalist family unit
This is why people are getting sick of you.
>Ah, yes! Injecting more people in the capitalist workforce will hinder capitalism!

[Anonymous No.6622251]

>>6622241
This.

Women naturally carry the child for 9 months.

Women are naturally equipped to care for the child after birth with their milky breasts.

Women naturally undergo radical hormonal changes to accommodate the baby.

And then cultural Marxists will STILL try to make you believe that motherhood is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.6622254]

>>6622249
haha don't make me laugh, next you'll be saying apu doesn't smell like curry LOL

[Anonymous No.6622257]

>>6622243
We had a female authors thread yesterday. Admittedly not as many women have been historically great compared to men but there are still quite a few.
Virginia Woolf
Flannery O'Connor
Emily Dickinson
Emily Bronte

[Anonymous No.6622260]

i guss not

[Anonymous No.6622263]

>>6622251
>implying we need or want more children in society

[Anonymous No.6622266]

>>6622257
I haven't read any of these authors so they can't be good.

[Anonymous No.6622267]

>>6622241
>like it has before

Explain nursemaids. If motherhood is natural and not cultural, why did we have a culture where any woman who could afford to dumped all her "natural" motherly duties on the nearest lactating peasant?

[Anonymous No.6622269]

>>6622213
But Anon, capitalism is why the "family unit" got disbanded, you know, cheap labour.

[Anonymous No.6622270]

>>6622267
So said peasant could practice motherhood. Said peasant was in fact a woman.

[Anonymous No.6622275]

>>6622257
>O'Connor
Eh. The other three are alright, but it's still debatable if they're a GREAT of literature.

[Anonymous No.6622276]

>>6622263
>"society doesn't NEED or WANT more children!"
Now THAT's a social construct.

[Anonymous No.6622278]

>>6622267
Because virginity and purity were prized, and bodily fluids demonised...

[Anonymous No.6622289]

>>6622267
You're describing a socially constructed variant of motherhood.

[Anonymous No.6622293]

>>6622263
>birth is not imperative to the survival of society

[Anonymous No.6622295]

>>6622270
...are you saying that the upper classes had nursemaids because they were so worried that their servants would otherwise never get to enjoy the experience of breastfeeding? That all the women who employed nursemaids actually desperately WANTED that for themselves, but in the name of charity and noblesse oblige, they handed over their children to the peasantry?

Because that's dumb.

[Anonymous No.6622305]

>>6622289
...quod erat demonstrandum.

[Anonymous No.6622314]

>>6622305
Basic motherhood is still biological.
Barring disease or other physical defects, women are still built to bear and care for children.

This is not a social construct.

[Anonymous No.6622316]

>>6622275
Depends on where you draw the line at great. To be great might just mean they're better than Steinbeck or Dickens. I think it's asking too much to immediately compare a writer to Joyce or Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.6622319]

>>6622316
>I think it's asking too much to immediately compare a writer to Joyce or Shakespeare
No it isn't. They have consisted of half the human race. We should have one that can at least be top ten.

[Anonymous No.6622326]

>>6622314
Fucking cis scum.

[Anonymous No.6622328]

>>6622295
But that actually did happen. Nobility would often want their children to grow up among the common people & sometimes sent then to spend some time growing up with them so they would understand and like the peasantry more. Montesquieu comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.6622330]

>>6622267
Yeah, but they didn't dump it on a male peasant.

[Anonymous No.6622332]

>>6622314
The social construct is WHAT caring for children even MEANS. That's what makes is cultural, that the idea of what Mother is supposed to be doing changes depending on what culture you're talking about, and what era in that culture.

[Anonymous No.6622333]

>>6622314
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good or that it fits humanity in its current state. Men are designed for physical activity and hunting, but you don't see too much of that in modern society. Why do we assume something is bad just because it's a social construct.

[Anonymous No.6622334]

>>6622326
90, being a stemlord took away my privilege

[Anonymous No.6622337]

>>6622328
>Nobility would often want their children to grow up among the common people
>so they would understand and like the peasantry more.

What.

[Anonymous No.6622338]

>>6622295
>he responds to the one troll response

[Anonymous No.6622339]

>>6622333
Oh wait, this doesnt have as much of a bearing on the post it's responding to as I thought it did. Never mind.

[Anonymous No.6622341]

>>6622319
Women have just recently started having judicial equality within the last century. There aren't many groundbreaking female writers in history because women couldn't write.
You know what we're now finding out?
Even when given the same treatment from the law as men, even when gifted with the same if not more opportunities than your average man, they still don't write that earth-shattering literature.

There's no reason to put a woman in the top ten if she's undeserving of it.

Maybe in a couple centuries we'll see some female writers really drive it home. A woman comes along and just knocks all of the writers, male or otherwise, out of the park.

But that hasn't happened yet.

[Anonymous No.6622342]

>>6622341
in a couple centuries will we really have writers?

[Anonymous No.6622343]

>>6622339
Meant for >>6622328

[Anonymous No.6622344]

>>6622332
At the very physical basis, women are distinct from men. This is sexual dimorphism, and this is not a social construct.

For instance: women are biologically more inclined to care for children. Hence their higher propensity for housework.

Of course there are deviations, but you simply cannot escape the biological truth.

>>6622333
Hunting isn't as important as it used to be.
But yes, the greater physical strength of human males is part of the sexual dimporphism.

This also explains why men are more suited to physically challenging work.
Because they're simply stronger.

[Anonymous No.6622345]

>>6622333
>Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good or that it fits humanity in its current state
Yeah but it means it's pretty much unavoidable.
And if you're implying men shouldn't get more activity fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.6622349]

>>6622342
Probably not.
Chances are, we'll have developed what's effectively an online hivemind within the next decade or so.
Here's hoping.

[Anonymous No.6622352]

>serious discussion about feminist literature

[Anonymous No.6622353]

>>6622349
That sounds like a leftist utopia, I don't know if I like it.

[Anonymous No.6622356]

>>6622349
>Chances are, we'll have developed what's effectively an online hivemind within the next decade or so.

>what is 4chan

[Anonymous No.6622359]

>>6622341
>Even when given the same treatment from the law as men, even when gifted with the same if not more opportunities than your average man, they still don't write that earth-shattering literature.
You don't think it's simply that literature written by women is valued lower than literature written by men because everyone KNOWS women can't write?

[Anonymous No.6622364]

>>6622344
>For instance: women are biologically more inclined to care for children.
You're making the assertion that women are biologically inclined to care for children, and you're proving it by pointing out that women are biologically inclined to care for children.

Did no one ever tell you that you can't use your conclusion as your premise?

[Anonymous No.6622366]

>>6622293
>the survival of society is imperative
tips natalism

[Anonymous No.6622371]

>>6622359
How are women supposed to prove themselves as great to you when you just dismiss them and assume that it's bad before reading it.

[Anonymous No.6622372]

>>6622359
Nope.
If anything, literature written by women is given more attention than that written by men.

The concept that the author's gender impacts sales at all due to 'sexist readers' and not shitty writing is a myth.
I never said that women cannot write, just that we're yet to see a single modern era-defining piece of literature written by a woman. Make your own conclusions.

[Anonymous No.6622373]

This is such a shitty thread.

[Anonymous No.6622377]

>>6622364
Scientific data isn't a premise or a conclusion

[Anonymous No.6622381]

>>6622372
That only started happening recently and now all of the top selling authors are women. The problem is that sales do not indicate an authors talent. Top selling literature by women includes the hunger games, Harry potter and fifty shades of gray.

[Anonymous No.6622382]

>>6622371
...that was rather my point.

>The concept that the author's gender impacts sales at all due to 'sexist readers' and not shitty writing is a myth.
Oh, that must be why Rowling goes around putting an obviously female name on the cover of her bestselling series, right?

[Anonymous No.6622384]

wow you lefties are getting BTFO in this thread, so fucking glad, maybe now this board won't be so fucking sjw and we can get more like my old board /pol/

[Anonymous No.6622387]

>>6622377
Please show me this scientific data.

[Anonymous No.6622391]

>>6622328

Jesus Christ...

[Anonymous No.6622392]

>>6622384
you wish nigga

[Anonymous No.6622393]

>>6622364
I already proved that women are biologically more inclined to care for children.

As if you need any proof from me anyway.

Are you a dumb person?

[Anonymous No.6622395]

>>6622387
I need the scientific data that proves you requested the scientific data.

[Anonymous No.6622396]

>>6622372
>modern era-defining piece of literature
elaborate

[Anonymous No.6622398]

>>6622393
No, you claimed that women are biologically more inclined to care for children. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between saying something and proving it. Do you have a disability of some sort?

[Anonymous No.6622399]

>>6622393
You didn't prove anything jackass you just stated it as a given fact. I agree with you that motherhood is natural but do you not know what proof is?

[Anonymous No.6622402]

>>6622399
>>6622398
Do you not know what breasts are, who has them, and what they're for?

[Anonymous No.6622403]

>>6622395
Don't worry about it, I have something much better: scientific data that proves women are not biologically more inclined to care for children.

Here it is: Women are not biologically more inclined to care for children.

[Anonymous No.6622404]

>liberals and /pol/ both trying to play the science card
where do you think we are?

[Anonymous No.6622409]

>>6622404
/lit/ which is essentially /pol/ 2

[Anonymous No.6622411]

>>6622396
He means a piece of literature that enforces his personal views about the modern era. What is this obsession with defining the modern era anyway? Can't a good book just be a good book?

[Anonymous No.6622414]

>>6622384
I am going to shill this board on /pol just to piss these self righteous cunts off.

[Anonymous No.6622416]

>>6622396
Something that scholars approve of as being a great novel of its time that gives great insight into the times it was made.

[Anonymous No.6622420]

>>6622409
this christian-socialist board

[Anonymous No.6622422]

>>6622409
I want /lit/ to be a place where I can post my opinions on fiction I haven't read and watch people agree with me in terms I can use to impress people in real life.

[Anonymous No.6622423]

>>6622416
Well then if you want this era defined you'll just have to wait another twenty years anyway.

[Anonymous No.6622424]

>>6622402
Are you under the impression that the sum total of childcare is breastfeeding? That it's literally just a case of occasionally plopping an infant against your tit, until it grows old enough to stop breastfeeding, after which you abandon it on some beach like a baby turtle and leave it to fend for itself?

Also, do you know the difference between "can usually naturally do a thing" and "is naturally inclined to do a thing"?

[Anonymous No.6622426]

>>6622416
like Woolf's novels?

[Anonymous No.6622428]

>>6622382
I'm not sure what point you''re trying to make with that.
You could have said that she abbreviated her name to avoid sexual scrutiny in the literature scene, but you didn't. You went directly for an argument that actually proves my point further.

Readers were able to distinguish her art from others because they thought it was exceptional. It didn't matter whether the work was written by a man or a woman, the book sold like hotcakes.
>>6622396
See, now you know how to prod an anonymous poster and make me bend.

I guess the only way to recognize those great works is in retrospect. It's no big secret that some of time's best authors aren't recognized in their time.

Maybe something has been written by a woman and just not recognized yet. Who's to say, maybe in two-hundred years, somebody will find a Zadie Smith novel in a digital cafe FTP server and realize how genius it is.
>>6622411
No, that's not at all what I meant. Timepiece literature is not necessarily era-defining literature.

Please do not put words into my mouth.

[Anonymous No.6622430]

>>6622424
Women have breasts.

These breasts are there to provide nourishment for children.

Hence: women are biologically equipped to care for children.

[Anonymous No.6622431]

>>6622411
No, no, damnit, the experiences of 7 billion people in the 21st century HAVE to be summed up by a hundred thousand words on the life of a 20-something white guy from the US.

[Anonymous No.6622434]

>>6622430
1. Equipped to =/= is inclined to
2. Care for children =/= breastfeeding

[Anonymous No.6622435]

>>6622431
Okay, now I'm positive that you're shitposting

You're better off on /pol/, they're like fucking minnows to a decent piece of bait.
If not, read what I said in the second quote >>6622428

[Anonymous No.6622437]

>>6622243
these >>6622257
plus:
Clarice Lispector, Alice Munro, Katherine Mansfield, Jean Rhys, Carole Maso, Myung Mi Kim, and Gertrude Stein, off the top of my head.

Also, /pol/tard pls go.

[Anonymous No.6622443]

>>6622420
Is that you?
If so you're beautiful

[Anonymous No.6622444]

>>6622426
Haven't read her books or heard of her so maybe.

[Anonymous No.6622446]

>>6622444
>or heard of her

for real?

[Anonymous No.6622456]

>>6622213
>free food, free housing, free electricity
>all for washing some dishes
I wish my life was that good.

[Anonymous No.6622458]

>>6622434
>1. Equipped to =/= is inclined to
That's exactly what it means, barring anomalies.
There are profound hormonal changes that take care of this.

>2. Care for children =/= breastfeeding
Feeding is an integral and basic part of care.
A lot of other caring acts result from the example of breastfeeding: cradling, keeping the baby close for the next feeding session, ...

[Anonymous No.6622467]

>>6622458
You're also somewhat implying that men do not also play an important part in caring for children.

[Anonymous No.6622468]

>>6622443
>that pale skin
>those dark, saggy eyebags
>that frail lippy hair
>dem soulless eyes
>dyed hair
>that crocked nose

Yeah no you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.6622475]

>>6622467
The fact that they do not typically lactate alone makes that true.
Biologically, their role is more indirect.

[Anonymous No.6622476]

>>6622468
yeah no you're weebshit, gulag material

[Anonymous No.6622482]

>>6622476
>weebshit
What the hell are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.6622488]

>>6622475
Lactation does not mean an inclination to care for a child. Not having two parents has been shown to seriously fuck with a child's natural development. Products of single parent homes are more likely to grow up depressed or drop out of high school.

[Anonymous No.6622496]

>>6622488
>Lactation does not mean an inclination to care for a child.
Again, that's exactly what it means. Lactation is a mechanism designed to care for a child.
>Not having two parents has been shown to seriously fuck with a child's natural development
He never said anything about a single parent household, just that the father plays a more indirect role in raising the child.
Be it hunting deer with a flint spear or slaving away your days in an office to bring home a paycheck, human history reflects this pretty accurately.

[Anonymous No.6622497]

>>6622488
>Lactation does not mean an inclination to care for a child.

Women lactate.
They do this to feed the child they just bore for 9 months.
Hormones give them all kinds of bonding feelings, including hormones released during breastfeeding itself.

What are you not understanding?

>Not having two parents has been shown to seriously fuck with a child's natural development.
How is this relevant?

I said "women are MORE inclined to care for children", not that "ONLY women are inclined to care for children".

[Anonymous No.6622507]

>>6622468
#rehk

[Anonymous No.6622517]

>>6622213
>This is bad because it perpetuates capitalism.
>OMG SHE'S NOT EVEN GETTING PAID, LIKE, WTF

Seriously, GTFO.

[Anonymous No.6622540]

>>6622167
>Can we have a serious discussion about X without disagreeing with me?
Thankfully not.

[Anonymous No.6622542]

How many ITT browse Reddit?

[Anonymous No.6622550]

>>6622540
>Can we have a serious lactation fetish thread without degenerating into social theory.

[Anonymous No.6622554]

>>6622542
>muh leddit boogeyman

[Anonymous No.6622578]

>>6622554
I have a hard time believing people from Reddit don't browse this board and aren't posting ITT. The Reddit bogeyman is real, and so is the /pol/ bogeyman.

[Anonymous No.6622610]

>>6622578
Reddit has been on 4chan and vice versa since the inception. If I had to make a wager I'd say that a lot of the people who complain about reddit browse reddit, except maybe guys from /v/.

[Anonymous No.6622639]

>>6622326
-25
kek I suddenly like this whole ideology thingy
>>6622334
fuck you racist scum

[Anonymous No.6622645]

>>6622326
90, i have also more and better hair than many womemes if that means something

[Anonymous No.6622651]

>>6622645
>womemes

Women are memes
/thread

[Anonymous No.6622691]

>>6622610
Nah, I think most of the people who complain about Reddit don't like Reddit and don't browse it. Reddit hasn't been part of 4chan since its inception since Reddit came into being after 4chan did.

[Anonymous No.6622708]

>>6622610

No we don't. We genuinely hate reddit and its culture, and trust me when I say we can absolutely notice a redditfag.

The "the userbase is the same" myth is pure cancer.

[Anonymous No.6622719]

>>6622708
>t. certified redditfag spotter

i would say professional, but that would be inaccurate since you do it for free

[Anonymous No.6622722]

>>6622708
Because we spend so much time there ironically studying them so we can spot them here.

[Anonymous No.6622726]

>>6622691
Since reddit's inception, you dummy.
>>6622719
Not he, them :^)

[Anonymous No.6622735]

This is a good example of a memethread; well done gang we've got fairly dank

[The cats No.6622740]

>>6622610
>I use reddit and an underage
who cares
>>6622719
>>6622722
A couple of examples of how correct that anon was, right here.

[Anonymous No.6622741]

>>6622735
saw him debating somewhere, somehow i thought he would sound more like an alcoholic and not like birtbong posh cunt

[Anonymous No.6622744]

>>6622740
>namefaggot
>uppity about anything

[Anonymous No.6622746]

>>6622726
So Reddit likes to imitate 4chan. How does it from this that 4chan doesn't dislike Reddit?

[Anonymous No.6622762]

>>6622744
>redditors
>calling out people who use names online

[Anonymous No.6622763]

>>6622190
lol
at least cite what 'feminist books' you're talking about

[Anonymous No.6622766]

>>6622746
a long time ago someone said reddit was bad, then someone said it again, then another guy said it and so on.

You watch people who complain about reddit and you will find that they are strangely up to date with reddit's current memes and catchphrases. I had no idea what a "shitlord" was before some faggot decided he had to call everyone shitlord on 4chan ironically.

[Anonymous No.6622772]

>>6622744
>not filtering the cats
dum

[Anonymous No.6622776]

>>6622266
did you not go to hs?

rest of thread-plz read a history book

[Anonymous No.6622779]

>>6622766
tbh r/books is a pretty cancerous place, but 4chinners trying to become the complete opposite of its attitude are ridiculous

[Anonymous No.6622781]

mods please sticky this wonderful thread

[Anonymous No.6622784]

>>6622772
he likes Gaddis and Swift, I can't consider him complete faggot

[Anonymous No.6622785]

>>6622211
It's actually about 40% female. /v/ is like 80% male and lit is fifty fifty

[Anonymous No.6622789]

>>6622766
>You watch people who complain about reddit and you will find that they are strangely up to date with reddit's current memes and catchphrases
I really don't think that's always true, or even that it indicates that people like Reddit. It's a cultural force that has a much broader appeal than 4chan, so its memes achieve saturation sooner than ours do.
>I had no idea what a shitlord was
What? It's an I uotive insult, not a particular entity. Is this how Reddit thinks?

[Anonymous No.6622792]

>>6622444
>>6622446
yikes

highschoolers I know you're excited for school to end, but please pay attention in class, this thread is truly embarrassing, even compared to the usual /pol/ illiterates posting in here

[Anonymous No.6622810]

>>6622789

Nope. Really not true at all. I have no idea about anything happening on reddit because I've never been interested. You don't accidentally hear people IRL using redditspeak. You only find out what it is if you hang around there.

[Anonymous No.6622812]

>>6622789
>it's an intuitive insult
That's what I used to think too.

[Anonymous No.6622830]

>>6622810
Maybe I do t know Reddit's memes as well as I thought I did. Didn't they invent the Le meme? I know a lot of people IRL who do that.
>>6622812
What does it mean, then? Someone whose fiefdom is shit?

[Anonymous No.6622845]

>>6622766
>a long time ago someone said reddit was bad, then someone said it again, then another guy said it and so on.
Sounds like a lot of people don't like Reddit. Disiking something is basically thinking it's bad, since emotivism is correct. Not sure what point you to get this would prove.

[Anonymous No.6622855]

>>6622830
>>6622830
i think it's origin (as far as the internet is concerned) comes from people making fun of tumblr/'sjw' people who have used it (bc it's a non ableist or racist or etc-ist insult i think was the logic if it even came from there)
so now we have the always hilarious and not at all tired and painfully unfunny "Stop triggering me shitlord! I'm -random object--kin!" jokes

[Anonymous No.6622857]

>>6622190
Antifeminists are much less rational than fieminists tbh

[Anonymous No.6622861]

>>6622830
>What does it mean, then?
used to be sjw preferred insult for people who say things they don't like

[Anonymous No.6622864]

>>6622855
I've never heard it used in that kind of context before, in fact I've never seen it used outside of this website. It really seems like a generic insult to me. You haven't provided sources or evidence either, and that is actually relevant, believe it or not.

[Anonymous No.6622873]

>>6622864
google it then if you want "sources" pissbaron

[Anonymous No.6622886]

>>6622873
Or you could post a few instances where an SJW used the phrase and not look like the problem with this board (people not posting sources to back up their claims). There's a long argument about whether or not it's a scientific fact that women are more inclined to childcare than men due to the fact that they have breasts; at no point did the person making an affirmative claim provide any kind of citation for this supposed fact, proving himself to genuinely be a shitlord, whatever the term means. You're no better than he is if you won't even try to back up your claims about the origin of this insult.

[Anonymous No.6622897]

>>6622886
um i'm not one of the /pol/ idiots talking about any of that, i was trying to be helpful
and I said it's what people here and on reddit and other places SAY 'sjws' say, not a statement on 'sjws' (because 'sjws' don't even exist in the way the people who use the term say)
since google is too hard and you need yr FACTS: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shitlord

[Anonymous No.6622936]

>>6622897
Sorry for the confusion & thanks for the link

[Anonymous No.6622969]

>>6622936

[Anonymous No.6623021]

>>6622326
>being poor takes away less privilege than being a woman

K E K
E
K

[Anonymous No.6623126]

>>6622234
Being this based.

[Anonymous No.6623193]

>>6622610
>Reddit has been on 4chan and vice versa since the inception.
>since [Reddit's] inception
How does that make Reddit good? It mostly proves the other guy's point.

[Anonymous No.6623204]

No OP, we can't

[Anonymous No.6623333]

>>6623193
>How does that make Reddit good?
It doesn't, it just means the current state of affairs is no different from the situation before the existence of reddit. they're not outsiders and no worse than 4chan.

[Anonymous No.6623358]

>>6622190
Explained perfectly
/thread

[Anonymous No.6623440]

>>6622222

>22222
sorry /lit/, couldn't ignor

[Anonymous No.6624291]

Bampuuuu~~~

[Anonymous No.6624295]

>>6623333
>they're not outsiders
Yes they are.

[Anonymous No.6624504]

>>6624295
No, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6625894]

>>6622220
>>6622230
>>6622234
>>6622241
yall niggas need to read The Second Sex

[Anonymous No.6626378]

>>6622437
fucking lol, unfortunately for you I'll actually read anything with pages in it, so I'm familiar with most of those mediocre artists.
Woolf, Eliot, and Austen are the only decent female writers.

[Anonymous No.6626408]

>>6622167
I never understood the interest to read the feminists. What do they talk about ? what do they state to want ?

[Anonymous No.6626423]

>>6626408
>What do they talk about
400 pages of pure ideology

[Anonymous No.6626445]

>>6622213
this is bait. I can't believe how dumb all you faggots are.

[Anonymous No.6626466]

>>6626378
Alice Munro got a fucking award. Yes, I'm sure a random anonymous person can judge her literary merit better than whoever thought she was good.

[Anonymous No.6626470]

>>6626466
She's literally the only person in Canadian history to put pen to paper, of course she got an award m8

[Anonymous No.6627893]

>>6625894
>spot the intruder

[Anonymous No.6627945]

>>6624504

[Anonymous No.6627951]

>>6626445
The more time I spend here the less respect I have for literate-seeming people.

[Anonymous No.6627964]

>>6627945
I'm sorry Bartleby, it's time to choose another boogeyman. and possibly spam about it somewhere else

[Anonymous No.6627973]

>>6627964
Au contrair, shitlord; everyone ITT disagrees with you.

[Anonymous No.6627997]

>>6627973
>everyone
Nah
also opinions don't influence facts

[Anonymous No.6628077]

I just want to say I can see why people hate this board. I swear you're all worse than /pol/

[anon No.6628266]

The issue i've seen amongst FemLit is largely poor definitions. Even the definition of oppression from Frye, the four criteria she mentions leave out a large amount of groups that are largely known as being oppressed(known, not necessarily are) such as homos, muslims, and black people(in the West anyway). It was written pretty much to only include females.

Feminism on its own is poorly defined as "equality amongst genders" and because of its loose definition, lack of leadership as an organization, etc, is left to divide amongst itself over petty issues. Theyve absorbed LBGTSEIFSJEFLWQ or whatever, Theyve absorbed racial issues. And then you have intersectionality, which sounds good in concept, but in practice all it has done is led to oppression Olympics and ironically, shaming those who aren't oppressed and patronizing those who are.

Feminism has achieved victory in many legal battles. but its since run out of major legal fights to pick. Targetting video games? really? of all the benign things to complain about.

which related, is the avocation for a gross violation of 1st amendment rights, in the form of censorship. Forcing private citizens to change their content is somehow important. Content that they have sole creative control over, yet everyone thinks you can tell people how to write their books, or films, or games, or whatever form of media. Its an attempt to control the narrative. which I cannot support.

Then if you want to dive deep enough, you can root femlit in an attempt to dismantle capitalism due to "inequality"

To further add to the sad state of things, femGroups are getting jewed by anyone because its so easy. Look at Gawker networks. Constantly writing clickbait for the ad money. and many others do the same thing. Companies pander to these people, not because of a change in opinion, but because their so easy to manipulate.

Nobody wants to associate with feminism, many people, women and men alike, will say "i'm not a feminist, BUT i believe in equality". its just embarrassing to be a part of such a bitter group.

My gf is somewhat tumblr feminist, and she claims media presence is important to bring equality, bringing psychological impacts of being a minority in a western nation, or being a woman and being shown in a negative light(never definable as to whats bad and whats good either). Again, as stated, I cannot let one group wrestle for control over somebody else's content. or somebody else's business.

For a movement that claims to want equity, lately its been lots of division, and separation(man free talks, spaces, etc. separate classes, men being barred from speaking) and does little to actually help in a pragmatic way(battered women shelter, volunteering, teaching self defense, tutoring and encouraging ALL, not just women, to enter STEM(equality right?)

[Anonymous No.6628270]

>>6627997
That's true, they don't.

[Anonymous No.6628275]

Where I live there's a debate going on between feminists about the relationship between young women and older men.

Unlike some other debates where it's usually a small radical minority vs the majority, this one is pretty much 50/50. Some of them are against it (in a way that actually shocked me) saying that the relationship is pretty much inherently abusive (the older guy is a position to manipulate the younger woman, she doesn't know better, etc) and others are saying that this is against the idea of bringing woman personal freedom, the right of choice, etc.

It's pretty comical to see it, because it shows how feminism can be used a conservative force if people want. The same thing has happened with prostitution, where absolutely out of fucking nowhere every feminist became against it. also happened with porn, is happening with the welfare state (with some calling it paternalistic, etc) at this point some of them often have more in common with the christian right here than with the traditional left.

[Anonymous No.6628280]

>>6628275
>at this point some of them often have more in common with the christian right here than with the traditional left.

And, btw, I'm really happy about this. I'm 200% done with these movements and I'm fighting day and night for a workers' movement without a social agenda.

[Anonymous No.6628295]

>>6628266
>Feminism has achieved victory in many legal battles. but its since run out of major legal fights to pick. Targetting video games? really? of all the benign things to complain about.

I often tell people that while I do believe that, left by itself, in inertia, some traditions and prejudices can often perpetuate themselves eternally and there is a necessity of creating some "intervention" to destroy them, I also do realise that the problem with fighting the cultural symptoms of the supposed disease is one that happened in history many times: people can be led to believe that almost anything is "symptomatic" of it.

[anon No.6628301]

>>6628266
Overall, I wish there wasn't this perpetual victimhood everyone feels. Everyone is a victim of somebody and something and it isn't their fault. While it may not be their fault, its still ones responsibility to deal with it. At some point there is personal responsibility to take care of yourself.

There is a large toxic culture perpetuated by the literature(which usually is misunderstood by the very group it was written for). I imagined feminism to be a gender egalitarian movement, yet all I see is a constant push to divide men and women as separate, when I had imagined it was about being seen as equally responsible and capable individuals. That anybody could advance through society on merit.


Unrelated:
I was a military child, and something we were taught was not to attack war protesters or harass them. (the "fuck the troops" crowd), not to do anything if they burn the flag, or in general just shit on the USA, even though our family was deeply rooted in it. There have been some really awful things people have said, or done to disrespect the USA. And we were told to not do anything. Because even if they burn a million US flags, its their right to. They have a right to do that, even if I don't agree with it. And this is where I fail to see how feminism can so quickly attempt to destroy whats allowing it to exist in the first place(freedom of speech, expression, press, etc)

I wish to form my own egalitarian movement, governed by a strict set of ideology, that you cannot bend and warp to meet some other agenda. So you can't say #killallmen and still be considered part of the movement.

inb4 MRA or masculinists.

The movement is just as toxic. Although expected and needed, its still a kneejerk reaction formed to combat just as reactive "feminists"

feel free to ridicule or correct,

or give more fem lit. Analyzing it is nice. I shouldn't hate something I don't understand, but this is so far my understanding of the movement and its lit through reading a few prominent titles

[Anonymous No.6628307]

>>6628275
sex negative vs sex positive feminism is nothing new. the sad thing is that this is seen as feminism contradicting itself instead of just being not a homogeneous hivemind bent on destroying western culture

never can win

[Anonymous No.6628323]

>>6628301
the thing is with #killallmen is the idea that women and men aren't seen as equal, so the threat (if you can call it that) from a woman towards men doesn't have the same weight to it as the opposite. men and women aren't interchangable like that.

and even if they were, it's not like the non-feminist side is completely free of hatred towards women, etc. so really part of the movement in effect is just balancing that hate out.

either it's allowed because of inequality, or it's allowed because of equality.

[anon No.6628325]

>>6628295
Such traditions do not impede upon legal equity. There isn't a right to representation, especially amongst private creative works. The solution to this, is to create your own works and assimilate it to the dominant culture.

Intervention may be a quicker way to "solve" this "problem", but sacrificing rights(in this case the 1st) conflicts with the majority that enjoy these rights. Not to mention that feminism wouldn't even exist without 1st amendment rights, so overriding it is just absurd

[Anonymous No.6628334]

>>6628307
>sex negative vs sex positive feminism is nothing new

Except that this one isn't about what content is allowed on the media, but about personal relationships and individual agency. Literally, everything feminism claims to enforce, autonomy from traditional values, ending up in the intrusion of cultural values into the individual space.

>the sad thing is that this is seen as feminism contradicting itself instead of just being not a homogeneous hivemind bent on destroying western culture

Oh poor you and your small fringe movement of feminists

[Anonymous No.6628337]

>>6628275
I'm like 10 years older than Malu Magalhães and I'd definitely enter a abusive relationship with her.

I want to hatefuck her every orifice while yelling and insulting her, degrade her like few people have been degraded before. Once she's completely broken, i'll start selling her to other people.

That's what I think of her music.

[Anonymous No.6628339]

>>6628325
>The solution to this, is to create your own works and assimilate it to the dominant culture.

this isn't really true. it's not a solution when the creative works are seen as inequality because they ape the creative works from the dominant culture that are unequal, or they're dismissed as founded in ideology, or dismissed because women/minorities aren't to be taken seriously in creative fields, etc

[Anonymous No.6628345]

>>6628337
AYY LMAO

[Anonymous No.6628350]

>>6628334
>Except that this one isn't about what content is allowed on the media

sex negative vs sex positive is about prostitution, porn, relationships

>everything feminism claims to enforce

feminism claims a lot of things and sometimes this contradicts other things feminists claims, hence me bringing up sex positive vs sex negative, hence me replying to you in the first place

>Oh poor you and your small fringe movement of feminists

what?

[Anonymous No.6628353]

>>6628323
I just don't see the value in placing any importance on the opinion of someone so hateful. or advocating violence.

They just keep further distancing themselves from equity on purpose. And as a gender egalitarian I cannot support that. Assimilating the genders to where they are still separate entities, but can interact together still as if gender wasn't a factor would be ideal. But all I'm seeing is avocation of segregation(safe spaces akin to fainting rooms)

[Anonymous No.6628362]

>>6628353
>They just keep further distancing themselves from equity on purpose

'they'? you mean the #hateallmen feminists? they don't represent all of feminism and it's a mistake to assume they do

>But all I'm seeing is avocation of segregation

do you have examples? because a lot of the anti-feminist rhetoric i see here is that women are invading male spaces which doesn't sound like segregation

[Anonymous No.6628384]

>>6628339
Dominant culture can exist outside of sexism. it isn't inherently sexist. Just as any other minority, it competes against the dominant. Which isn't wrong. This is how it exists in many facets. Existing doesn't guarantee success.

Regardless, it has worked already. Contrary to what outsiders(normally feminists) believe, the specifics of actual culture amongst different fields(comp sci, arts, lit, politics) are delightful. Women and minorities have been treated largely as equals professionally for possibly 3+ decades. Many dare I claim, will accept and praise good work, not resorting to petty claims against gender. This goes back to meritocracy, where their works should be able to stand on its own. just as much as anyone elses work does. Demanding special attention further divides and fails to assimilate to dominant culture once again.

Basically, if their creative works were good, they will be praised regardless of their source. Women are taken seriously in many fields, as confirmed by many anti-fem women with great careers. hell, even AMD, one of the largest semiconductor corps, has a woman as their CEO, with two masters degrees and a doctorate in Electrical Engineering. Shes very well respected, and even if she wasn't. She would be able to prove herself through merit.

advocating anything other than meritocracy is intellectually dishonest and definitely not "equal"

[Anonymous No.6628401]

>>6628325
Legal equity is a principle that in practice tends to be secondary to material limitations. This is true about individuals (you wouldn't expect to get away with the same things a richer person could in court) and then so is true about groups based on race, religion, sex, geography etc. In theory, it is true that atomized property remain private property, but they can't exist without taking place in a wider network of economic relationship whose key aspects (particularly who finances, who deals with it, advertises it and if there's a product made, who distributes it) are not open to anyone enjoying the same political rights as those in it, but rather entrance is policed and achieved through an acquisition of different types of economic and cultural capital, and in the end the recruiting processes is in the hands of those already "in", which is the recipe for perpetuating the legacies of the time if let by its own. Therefore, just like for the black individual living in post-slavery societies there's often little point in being free if a) your economic condition has not been improved and you still lack the means to enter proper training institutions and b) people like you do not own any tool of production so in the selective process you're still depending on the goodwill of an entire different group of people (which up to a certain point was, and still largely is, homogeneous) so for the women living in today's west a basic prerequisite for their "integration" in all sects of the economy is the revision and destruction of certain cultural traditions, and we cannot underestimate the role that the "culture industry" has in shaping and maintaining them.

But I tend to be a moderate when it comes to these things, and I do agree with you about rights and I think they often focus on winning small battles that in the end does nothing but damage the integrity of some principles that allows for them to fight for equality in the first place, including those of free speech and lately presumption of innocence

[Anonymous No.6628405]

>>6628350
>feminism claims a lot of things and sometimes this contradicts other things feminists claims, hence me bringing up sex positive vs sex negative, hence me replying to you in the first place

Even if what "the other things feminists claim" are the principles that feminism sells in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6628419]

>>6628405
>sells

pure ideology

[Anonymous No.6628423]

>>6628362
I know better than to generalize, but the fact anyone can attach their hate to a movement, and have its authenticity as nebulous is worrisome. Nobody is saying if their right or wrong. Its an internal conflict and nobody can prove one side is right or not due to the loose definition. From an organization standpoint, the whole movement is doomed, unless there becomes a general consensus amongst everybody to ignore these weirdos.

>Examples
Safe spaces, women only gyms, women only viewings, women only classes, women only STEM avocation, Television stations like W, Oxygen, etc(or in lbgt, the gay channels, further drawing a dividing line), separate standards for women(big example being military), , there are many women-only groups that, according to the loosely based doctrine, shouldn't be closed off to just women. Not to mention getting support for anything ever, closing it off from half the population only draws a darker line in the sand. I thought the point was to prove women are equals, not that they need separate special treatment.

Anita Sarkeesian even said shes a strong advocate of segregation, especially amongst classrooms. Shes pretty much the only leader icon you can find for western feminism. I guess maybe b. hooks, but she doesnt even visit schools or speak out anymore. Intersectionality has caused this divide unintentionally. Dividing, rather than united under a common goal. and thus shooting the entire movement in the foot

[Anonymous No.6628434]

>>6628423
>Anita Sarkeesian even said shes a strong advocate of segregation

Source? Because there's a difference between acknowledging what studies say and supporting it.

[Anonymous No.6628450]

>>6628423
Internet celebrities are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6628455]

Feminist theory was largely a critical theory but nowadays it's just a structure from where woman criticize others.

They don't accept any negation of that structure so it's like the oedipal complex at this point, his followers think from it rather than towards it.

[Anonymous No.6628460]

>>6627951

>wah I'm a reactionary and these ideas are scary and make me upset

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.6628470]

>>6628401
I think really our disagreement is just the importance industry culture might have and how to approach it. I can respect that.

As a side rant: Post slavery society(immediate) really led to shaping black culture into what it is today. Reconstruction was awful, and all the displaced slaves had nowhere to go. thus leading to a massive norm for being uneducated.

Economic condition responsibility still rests on the individual. I see the continuation of the massive poverty amongst black americans odd. A lot of money is thrown at this issue, in the form of black only scholarships, and affirmative action policies.

As for women, I again don't see enough evidence to warrant destruction of any norms. Especially amongst industry. Women are largely accepted into what would seem like all western careers(barring those physically intensive, due to biological differences) Again pointing >>6628384
in that meritocracy governs ones acceptance ideally. Some industries are in fact male dominated(construction, civil engineering, etc,) but looking for why this is, you look to the training statistics in that many women don't go after these. Then you have Female dominated industries(largely used to be fashion(sortof), now biology, biochemistry, academia) and as a male, it is difficult to get in. On top of that you have the allocation of workers of certain genders for equity and just end up preventing more deserving applicants.

Its a complicated issue as we both know, but I don't think dismantling nonpublic entities for the sake of equality is worth it, nor constitutional

[Anonymous No.6628507]

>>6628423
well like i said before their hate is a reflection of the hate they face. they've seen it as a legitimate way of achievement, or expression, because this is reinforced by the society as they see it. in that way it is equal. and if we can see this as a criticism of non-feminist culture, we see it's hard to call them weirdos without distancing ourselves from the same people who act this way towards women. and there are ways this behaviour is legitimised, or seen as 'right', even though others see it as 'wrong'. it's not that far a leap to say that 'patriarchy' is doomed from an organisational standpoint but maybe that's true of all metanarratives

> I thought the point was to prove women are equals, not that they need separate special treatment.

i wouldn't say that women have achieved equality so safe spaces are still necessary

[Anonymous No.6628523]

>>6622251

>motherhood is giving birth

holy fuck, are you so illiterate? Do you even anthropology?

[Anonymous No.6628525]

>>6628523
I didn't say motherhood is giving birth.

This is /lit/, you should learn how to read before posting here.

[Anonymous No.6628531]

>>6628525

>gives arguments about mother birth

>then says because those motherhood isn't a social construct

top lel

[Anonymous No.6628532]

>>6628531
>gives arguments about mother birth
What?

[Anonymous No.6628535]

>>6628532

I misread lel

[Anonymous No.6628544]

>>6628535
Yes you did.

I didn't say a word about "giving birth".

I said these things:
- women carry the child for 9 months
- women breastfeed the child after birth
- women undergo hormonal changes that attach them to the child emotionally

I guess I could have added "women go through the strenuous act of childbirth", but didn't.

In any case, motherhood is biologically a female thing.
This is not a social construct. Nor is any other part of sexual dimorphism in humans.

[Anonymous No.6628553]

>>6628401
Equality really is the new justification for acting like a totalitarian dictator.

Judging by your post, any order of violent force might be necessary to use in the marketplace, or in people's social life, in order that they feel more equitably and fairly treated.

Just like to remind you that the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Anonymous No.6628556]

>>6622326

>poor is less than 30k per year

>there is no south america

>poor in chile is 5,7k per year

>middle class is 9,6k per year

>most people work from 8 am to 6-7pm

AND PEOPLE SAY THAT CHILE IS FIRST WORLD COUNTRY

-90

[Anonymous No.6628573]

>>6628556
Doesn't Chile have some of the lowest taxes though?
Might even it out some.

I live in Europe, and a Chilean guy was visiting during the winter.
One cold day I asked him "this country must remind you of home right?"
He asked "why?"
I replied "because it's always Chile".

[Anonymous No.6628576]

>>6628507
how does one achieve equality whilst perpetuating they aren't equal(with safe spaces, segregation, etc)?

What determines when one is "ready"?

You also claim that we must distance ourself from those who act this way towards women, when largely, as a society, we do.

A man saying anything along the lines of le go back 2 the kitchen xDD are quickly dismissed, as our fedora tipping maymay goes. This is a reality. Overtly sexist behavior is met with opposition from almost everybody when coming from a male, yet despite being a movement for equity, this does not happen to women doing the same exact thing. This point is normally countered by appealing to the definition of oppression and that males are oppressors, therefore this hatred is justified. However, for three reasons it is not.
1. Division, further pushing away from equality and assimilation as equals
2. The relationship between males and females is not oppressive. The dynamic of this relationship isn't Oppressor and victim.
3.

Patriarchy isn't an organization, nor is it a movement. Its merely a cultural artifact of prehistory and happenstance, as well as the logical conclusion that within such a short period of time, that equity would show via population and statistics of public positions and who they are held by. I'd honestly say to wait maybe 50+ years and you'll see the fruits of the labor sown by the generations before us.

In what way have they not achieved equality. What is this fight for? Representation amongst private works is not a valid reason because they're private and because of 1st amendment rights. Public positions your free to deride. Private is at the discretion of an individual, history, industry culture, or not. Social issues do not trump constitutional rights.

I ask that as a genuine question. In the western world, where is the fight? It cant be universities, they have much more women than men.

Equal opportunity also means equal responsibility, and this is something I feel many forget to consider. for both sides

[Anonymous No.6628578]

>>6628573
M8 you overestimate what taxes do

[Anonymous No.6628583]

>>6628573

There aren't taxes to every family, but there are taxes added to the price of things and house dividends are high compared to the wages here

[Anonymous No.6628594]

>>6628578
I'm Belgian, I know exactly what taxes do.

[Anonymous No.6628602]

>>6628594
Why don't you tax some African kids in the Congo?

[Anonymous No.6628708]

>>6628423
>Anita Sarkeesian
why do all you morons always bring her up? she's a youtuber who made interesting videos explaining basic media studies points and then got a bunch of little nerds mad at her and made her 1000000000000x more famous-the opposite of what the little nerds wanted

most feminists only became aware of her post the nerd freak out, she's not a feminist scholar or lit writer or politician so why bring her up all the time like she's post-election pres hillary clinton in terms of importance?
what does she have to do with a lit discussion?

also shitheads
woman writer=/=feminist writer
austen and most of the other authors you're whining about being evil feminists have or had no affiliation with what we would call modern feminism, especially the ones that predate modern feminism
I guess I need to stop being so surprised by how poorly people on this board understand history or literature or anything.

[Anonymous No.6628720]

>>6628708
>I guess I need to stop being so surprised by how poorly people on this board understand history or literature or anything.


The OP asked a question and I think it's been answered pretty well by the thread that ensued.

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6628727]

>mfw someone opposes feminism near me

[Anonymous No.6628729]

>>6628708
If you're trying to persuade someone of the merit of your argument (and I can only assume you are, otherwise why post) then you're only doing yourself a disservice by calling them "shitheads", "morons", and "little nerds".

Once the slightest bit of snark appears in any post directed at an audience, you can guarantee that the persuasive effectiveness of that post has basically bolted out the door - nobody likes being insulted, even if they "deserve" it.

[Anonymous No.6628731]

>>6628708
when I say "she got" I meant a bunch of nerds found out about her and having been getting themselves in a tizzy ever since to the point where she'll probably be going into history books as the prime example of how toxic [male nerd] internet culture was in the 2010s

[Anonymous No.6628741]

>>6628708
>who made interesting videos
stopped

[Anonymous No.6628749]

>>6628729
I'm only truing to persuade them that they look like idiots when they bring up Anita whatever in completely irrelevant discussions on feminism or women, I have no hope that anything will convince people itt not already convinced/aware that women aren't brainless baby making machines.
>>6628741
I meant in terms of youtube a couple of years ago, ie a step up from a fuzzy cam in a depressing teen bedroom.

[Anonymous No.6628763]

>>6628729
>>6628729
I'm only trying to persuade them that they look like idiots when they bring up Anita whatever in completely irrelevant discussions on feminism or women, I have no hope that anything will convince people itt not already convinced/aware that women aren't brainless baby making machines.
>>6628741
I meant in terms of youtube a couple of years ago, ie a step up from a fuzzy cam in a depressing teen bedroom. I don't remember much of her videos other than the points being so nonoffensive that the 'outrage' is even more pathetic, she's not Dworkins.

[Anonymous No.6628774]

>>6628729
>people on 4chan are being too mean
>;____;

[Anonymous No.6628780]

>>6628708
>interesting
yeah no.

Shes a large figurehead of feminism. and thus i made a point of addressing it.

as for the further insults. Fem lit has been mentioned already. Frye's inadequate definition of oppression already covered.

I'll add a fun fact. Many of the works written by Radical feminists from 1965-1995 later admitted to simply doing it to get back at their father, or because they couldnt get laid, or something similarly absurd.

This isnt part of the argument, just an interesting tidbit

[Anonymous No.6628781]

>>6628774
Why did you bother typing that?

Don't answer, it's just a prompt to introspect.

[Anonymous No.6628799]

>>6628780
She's only a 'large figurehead' because she's been attacked so much, like I said she's not a leading feminist scholar or philosopher and has nothing to do with the OP. Most people have no idea who she is and most feminists if they know of her only know her because of the backlash, not because they're adherents to her opinions or thoughts on feminism.

citations please on that last point

And you don't think lots of great lit from men (not calling the nebulous/fake category of "Many of the works written by Radical feminists from 1965-1995" great lit) was written out of hatred of their Daddys and Mummys?

[Anonymous No.6628806]

>>6628780
>large figurehead
You acknowledge that you're aware of actual relevant feminists, so why do you make this claim?

[Anonymous No.6628807]

>>6628763
people were angry because they were largely baseless claims and shallow "dialogues" on mainstream video games, that are widely known as mediocre by the majority of video game enthusiasts. The real rage came from assigning hateful labels to things and attempting to shame enthusiasts for enjoying video games. And when told her arguments were poor and constantly getting blown the fuck out by a bunch of 15 year old girls on youtube, she would scream sexism and end the narrative there. effectively silencing anyone who didnt agree with by branding them a woman hating misogynist. Which, if you ask me is just ridiculous.

also, to add, it would seem she can't handle the bantz. because hateful shitposting, as you demonstrated with "shitheads" and other meaningless pejoratives, is a normal occurance amongst people who play video games online, its not really that odd people comment on her with hateful remarks, as its a norm. and largely meaningless outside of those who look for things to be offended by

[Anonymous No.6628814]

>>6628807
Personal critiques aren't critiques of feminism as an ideology. "She can't handle it" is a proposition about 1 woman.

[Anonymous No.6628832]

>>6628806
>>6628799
then perhaps you're right, maybe it was unnecessary to mention her, maybe its just reflex at this point due to her noteriety
>>6628266
is where frye's definition was somewhat crudely deconstructed. I can link to an essay about that if you want

Heres just a preview of quotes from promininent feminist figures


“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

[Anonymous No.6628842]

>>6628807
nice circular logic there, i'm a hateful shitposter who shouldn't be listened to and am the same as the mobs harassing her bc I called people "shitheads" (lol), but people hatefully shitposting and maybe critiquing her youtube videos should be listened to because...?

[Anonymous No.6628846]

>>6622213
>capitalist family unit
*projectiles vomit all over my white cock*

[Anonymous No.6628855]

>>6625894
>can't explain why people are wrong
>you need to read this
>suggest one reads mediocre philosophy
>probably doesn't understand it
>o I am lauffin

[Anonymous No.6628863]

>>6622213
>This much butthurt over an obvious piece of b8

[Anonymous No.6628873]

>>6628842
i'm saying you critique your own definition of "nerd culture" but adhere to it

the second part is merely personal opinion and can be disregarded

[Anonymous No.6628885]

>>6628832
i was going to type up a whole long thing explaining why most of these people are massively out of favor in feminism bc a. they were hacks to begin with b. their affinity for the state and shortsighted worsening of the oppression of others (dworkin and mackinnon and that 'anti porn' law that just made gay people in canada's life worse) (and what I could call real feminists are opposed to the prison industrial complex) c. most feminists, statistically, are straight and don't hate their bfs or husbands or all men d. their transphobia/racism (see Greer, or a more recent example in the UK, Caitlin Moran)

sharon stone is cool though

[Anonymous No.6628912]

>>6628832
also yes I've read the Frye essay and no I'm not reading your critique of it, esp not after seeing how you casually throw "jewwed" in there
("see feminists are hypocrites who can't take criticism bc they don't want to read my inane internet ramblings!")

[Anonymous No.6628919]

>>6628885
I'm glad you at least took the time to reply.

Just be aware i'm not very sexist beyond acknowledging biology. I'm gender-egalitarian for lack of a better word. My girlfriend is feminist, but I can't agree with an attempt to seize and control the narrative through making individuals walk on eggshells and self censor.

You seem like you know what you're talking about. Can you give me a decent definition of feminism, as well as some authors that aren't crazy? I'd honestly like to find out more about this to form better opinions on it

[Anonymous No.6628934]

>>6628912
I already mentioned that >>6628873
its personal opinion. and thus can be disregarded.

As for disregarding the critique due to "jewwed" is just childish anon. If you won't read mine, at least read the argument

http://em-journal.com/2012/03/fryes-oppression-an-inadequate-definition-1.html

[Anonymous No.6628955]

Feminism receives a pretty poor response online. Most male internet users are not the winners of the gender divide either. Most male internet users are, in fact, losers (this goes doubly for 4chan). So when these men listen to women whinge about men getting all these benefits and how hard a woman's life is, they feel pretty embittered.

[Anonymous No.6628981]

>>6628955
Baseless claims and speculation. Did you even think before you wrote that out, filled out captcha and pressed submit?

[Anonymous No.6628995]

>>6628934
What is this comic strip about

[Anonymous No.6629016]

>>6628995
I think its about the reception to "The Avengers"

Tumblr attacked it for whatever reason, and its poking fun at guys who rally with them for acceptance

or Joss whedon is the old guy. I can't tell because I dont keep up with that garbage

[Anonymous No.6629028]

>>6628981
Not him, but that is often true. Men who've had shitty lives and shitty experiences with women feel embittered often insist that there is some sort of female privilege. They are not the majority of male internet users but that is a pretty common explanation.

[Anonymous No.6629055]

>>6629028
I'm pretty sure thats why the "privledge to die in a war or commit suicide more often" and stuff is posted.

I'd argue the same is for tumblr, rejected females, bitterly writing on the new livejournal

[Anonymous No.6629137]

>>6629028
>Not him, but that is often true. Men who've had shitty lives and shitty experiences with women feel embittered often insist that there is some sort of female privilege.

This is like saying that because someone had a bad experience with x, he shouldn't have opinions regarding x. Also pretty much the feminists' equivalent of that old anti-feminist saying "all feminists are bitter ugly dykes" or something

[Anonymous No.6629153]

>>6629055
98.9% of tumblr is porn or teen girls posting pictures of models and flowers

[Anonymous No.6629191]

>>6629016
some feminist guy who was cucked by fem frequency got turned on by feminists and got all butt hurt

[Anonymous No.6629235]

>>6622213
>effective slavery to Husband which is a result of her not being paid for her labor around the house
You're wholly discounting the existence of community property states. Don't be intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.6629263]

>>6628434
In one of her videos she advocated female only and male only public transit (trains).

[Anonymous No.6629636]

>>6622167
no