Femenist theory

[Anonymous No.8754754]

Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society? Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms? Are gender roles good or bad for a society? Im just looking dor opinions of people more informed about femenist philosphy than I am

[Anonymous No.8754767]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society? Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?

Well its either that, burkas, or blinders. All male only and female only towns and cities, only to communicate via the internet and dating sites, to then attempt to meet in safe spaces.

[Anonymous No.8754773]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
Yes, it leads to sexual reproduction. Our society has a lot to learn about that, unlike some OTHER societies I could mention.

[Anonymous No.8754780]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
For some, sure.

>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
Not really

>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
Spookiest sentence I've ever read

> Im just looking dor opinions of people more informed about femenist philosphy than I am

You won't find that here. This is /pol9k/ central

[Anonymous No.8754803]

>>8754780
not many people on this board actually have sexism on line with /pol/ tier sexism. the problem is that its a social taboo to say anything nice about female authors because the vocal minority of pol escapees will viciously attack you. so its probably better to just not talk about it as it never ends up being constructive. unless youre shitting on woolf then its ok

[Anonymous No.8754806]

>>8754803
this.
just look at middlemarch man

[Anonymous No.8754810]

>>8754803
>shitting on woolf
>being this much of a pleb

[Anonymous No.8754813]

>>8754754
My thoughts on the male gaze is this:

If you see a girl and can't help but look because she embodies everything you'd want in a spouse, ok take a look.

But if you look at every female that enters your line of sight and think "i'd fuck that", you are a pig

So yeah, depends on the attitude

[Anonymous No.8754814]

why does /his/ exist if nobody ever uses it

[Anonymous No.8754816]

>>8754803
>not loving Woolf

wew

[Anonymous No.8754819]

>>8754803
>so its probably better to just not talk about it
that's beyond stupid, I hope you realize it

[Anonymous No.8754821]

>>8754813
All women are mere holes. They are worthless and shouldn't be seen as anything but masturbatory props that you can project your fantasies upon and then discard at will.

They are barely conscious and are at about the cognitive level of a dog or a small child.

They need a strong disciplinary authority figure to discipline them to serve his needs.

[Anonymous No.8754822]

>>8754821
>flat,800x800,075,f.u5[1].jpg

[Anonymous No.8754824]

>>8754813
>>8754773
You dont seem to understand what male gaze refers to. Its the idea media is male centric and mostly portray women as objects of desire.

Also, theres literally nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to most of the women you see. You think sometimes its ok, but too much is bad? That doesnt make sense

[Anonymous No.8754839]

>>8754824
>women as objects of desire

That's what I referring to, like how certain men can embody male gaze in the way they behave, by how they look at women

[Anonymous No.8754846]

>>8754824
>portray women as objects of desire.
This is bad, because it might lead to sexual reproduction. As opposed to the pottery classes and tarot readings that have replaced sex in some OTHER societies I could mention.

[Anonymous No.8754872]

>>8754824
>mostly portray women as objects of desire.

But many women benefit from this, like models and porn stars and strippers. And if woman did not want their divine geometry to be oogled they could dress more conservatively, though I understand it may be difficult or impossible to flatten luscious humps, thus, the burka.

Marveling at a womans face and/or body is marveling at the beauty of nature, celebrating and enjoying a work of art, to receive aesthetic pleasure.

[Anonymous No.8754873]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
No, it won't affect any of your relationships as a man or as a woman, unless you are a woman who only associates with scum, which is your own damn fault anyway.
>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
Unavoidable no. But partially the result of biological mechanisms yes.
>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
Spooky shit man. But yes, to an extent. The different genders have very different biological functions so it makes sense that they would play slightly different roles in society. However, anyone capable of qualifying for a job or what have you should be able to do it, as anything else tends to be a net loss for society.

The thing that does the most damage in terms of "sexual objectification" and shit isn't the so-called "male gaze" (oh no, an animated character in a videogame is wearing tight pants! The sexism!) but the ads and the like targeted at women. I know many very attractive women (without makeup) who refuse to leave the house without makeup on. If that isn't a sign of some sort of deep-seated psychological problem then I don't know what is. But otherwise, in the real world, no normal woman cares that there are sexy women in movies because they're too busy watching the sexy men in movies.

[Anonymous No.8754886]

>>8754872
>like models and porn stars and strippers.

I dont know if it would help to add, the make up, bikini, high heel, jewelry, calender industries

[Anonymous No.8754928]

The way I've had it described by a female friend is that "it's as though they're eating you with their eyes," and secretly I thought, yeah that's about right, while outwardly expressing sympathy. It was sincere I think. It can't be nice to be leered at any time you're out.

From our perspective it's just the mechanics of being a strait male. Can't speak for all of us but in my case the impulse to leer is pretty intense. I have to work consciously to overcome it, but at the same time I think why the fuck should I have to?

But if the goal of society is to create the maximum amount of well-being for the maximum number of people, then it's in the general interest to try to overcome it.

[Anonymous No.8754940]

>>8754928
meh, id rather enjoy myself by looking which is physically harmless

[Anonymous No.8754944]

>>8754940
>Physically
Key word there

[Anonymous No.8754953]

>>8754944

there is no obligation to make others feel comfortable, and if there is, women break it all the time

[Anonymous No.8754954]

>>8754872
>But many women benefit from this, like models and porn stars and strippers.
Yes, and also women of the female variety.

When's the last time you saw a female beggar?

[Anonymous No.8754960]

no one curr

[Anonymous No.8754962]

>>8754873
>I know many very attractive women (without makeup) who refuse to leave the house without makeup on. If that isn't a sign of some sort of deep-seated psychological problem then I don't know what is.
How do you know its not a natural psychological drive? Many species have a gender that goes out of the way to be attractive to the other gender, while the other gender simply picks and chooses

[Anonymous No.8754965]

>>8754954
that's because shelters favor women

[Anonymous No.8754969]

>>8754954
>When's the last time you saw a female beggar?
I work in downtown seattle and they are just as common as male beggars

[Anonymous No.8754972]

>>8754754
If we forbade women to speak, we would enter a golden age as a species. Women are literally wired to break down any society they are a part of and sexism is the cure for that.

[Anonymous No.8754981]

>>8754965
More damning evidence of male oppression.

But I doubt attractive women, so burdened by the male gaze, get to that point in the first place. They are one conversation away from staying at a strange man's place.

[Anonymous No.8754988]

>>8754953
No obligation for sure. It's just likely the right thing to be wanting to do. Empathy is important, man. Put yourself in their situation. I've gone out with a female relative and I've seen the looks guys give her, and I've seen her reaction to it.

>women break it all the time
Rings true but what exactly do you mean?

[Anonymous No.8755016]

>>8754988
>I've gone out with a female relative and I've seen the looks guys give her,

How does she not understand that she is beautiful yet? If you are beautiful, admirers of beauty are going to admire the beauty that beholds their eyes. If dogs, and birds, and squirrels look at her is she uncomfortable, or is the point that they are not as ugly creatures as the men whom she objects to?

[Anonymous No.8755025]

>>8755016
She thinks, omg, even that hideous disgusting guy thinks im beautiful, that may imply that he would desire to have sex with me, that is disgusting, he does not deserve to think about desiring to have sex with me, or deserve to gain any pleasure from observing my beauty

[Anonymous No.8755046]

>>8755016
>>8755025

Imagine if you were a baby chicklet walking around a swamp of alligators, it would feel as you may as well were being eaten.

Imagine being pure aesthetic beauty, pure fertile divine proportions womanity, imagine being encircled by 10 grotesque literal disgusting monster creeps, rotting teeth, discolored jagged porous odorous soreous faces, what little hair unkempt, breath bad enough to make onions cry, all licking their lips and moving toward you like frankenstein (s monster!), we could understand how no rational reasonable sensible individual would want to be in such a situation.

b-but im practically brad pitt, she cant mind me

[Anonymous No.8755063]

>>8754813
Look at whatever you want and be a free man.

[Anonymous No.8755105]

>>8755016
>How does she not understand that she is beautiful yet?
I'm sure when you get leers that tidbit comes quite quickly. Look, I'm not going to presume to know what their internal logic is, like >>8755025 over here, but if I had to take a crack at it I'd say there is no logic, more of a gut feeling than the sort of judgement "this guy is ugly and he does not deserve me," we all dread. (Though I'm sure if 90s-era Brad Pitt were to drool over a girl it'd be a different story.) The ogler to the oglee is the relationship between predator and prey. Knowing you're being undressed, imagined fucked on all fours. Shit like that.

And let's not pretend it's just a chaste admiration of beauty, though I know there can be moments of that.

[Anonymous No.8755111]

>>8754988
>I've gone out with a female relative and I've seen the looks guys give her
Same, it even made me feel uncomfortable. It's okay to look at people, but all the guys who gazed at her moved their head and surveyed her so boldly, slightly grinning or giving creepy looks. It's okay to look at people, just don't be that obvious and inconsiderate like some degenerate pervert.

[Anonymous No.8755181]

>>8754754
I worked a construction job for a couple years and the guys I worked with would ogle anything within vision that remotely resembled a female, I found it hilarious at first and it started rubbing off on me a little bit. It was never threatening or aggressive in any way, nobody catcalled or made any approaches, none of us would even consider doing that. Sometimes girls were aware that we worked there and would purposefully come by dressed in promiscuous clothes and chat with us or walk by several times very obviously, I assume because they liked the attention, which was cool. I can understand how women get upset sometimes because of stuff like that, but it's totally dependent on the situation. In a public space where people are going to be walking around and interacting, you can't really get upset at some dude casually staring at you, especially if you're showing a lot of skin or cleavage or something. Don't dress like that in public if you are uncomfortable with people looking at you.

As for it being biological, yea absolutely. There's a reason that those construction workers ogled girls more than any other men I've seen, because they had more testosterone than any other men I've seen, except maybe men in the military.

Gender roles are good and bad. For both genders. There are positives and negatives to being male or female, and they are biologically different so they should be treated like they're different, up to a point. Obviously denying women rights is wrong, but ignoring obvious biological differences in an attempt to make everyone equal is stupid. We're equal, but we're not the same. I find it annoying when feminists cherry pick all of the minuscule benefits to being a man and ignore all of the detriments. There are clear human rights issues with regard to sexes (particularly in places like the middle east and Africa) and then there's trivialities.

[Anonymous No.8755218]

>>8755046
>sex is bad because men are absolutely repulsive
More proof that feminism is a lesbian conspiracy, as if we didn't have enough.

[Anonymous No.8755228]

>>8755181
As an anti-feminist, I think we can all agree that blue collar people are shitty human beings.

Well, the lesbians probably want nothing more than to wear dungarees and play pool with these guys, but that's because they're congenitally contrary.

[Anonymous No.8755243]

>>8755228
>I think we can all agree that blue collar people are shitty human beings

Nah no way. That's a shitty stereotype. There may be a lot of shitty blue collar guys who ruin the image for the rest, but most of them are good people, albeit dumb people. For the most part they're just just ignorant if anything, but with good intentions.
I kind of admire them, they live simple lives with simple problems and take part in life's simple pleasures. I'm definitely not cut from the same cloth, but I respect most of them

[Anonymous No.8755247]

>>8754821
Leave your basement please

[Anonymous No.8755257]

>>8755181
So it sounds like you weren't really a "looker" before working there, is that right?

>>8755243
Some of them are really fucking smart albeit not in the traditional, test-measurable way. I worked with this guy who I'd say had "social genius." The quickness with which he'd pick up on the slightest social cues and shoot back a reply, witty often, always left me amazed. Plus these guys have a bunch of sports shit memorized and I have the theory that they're just as smart as people we classically call smart, but the difference being that they place all their mental resources in trivial things that they just happen to be interested in. If they happened to have that same interest in say philosophy or physics, topics generally considered "smart", then they'd be too.

[Anonymous No.8755301]

>>8755257
Oh I definitely was a "looker" before that, it was just how unapologetic they were about it

Also I agree with your second point. In fact I felt pretty stupid when I first started working my construction job, relative to one of the other guys in particular. He had a very sharp wit and absolutely blew me away with the amount of knowledge he had about motors, vehicles, engines, and any type of mechanical "hands on" work. He could just look under the hood of a tractor or bobcat when it wasn't working and figure out how to fix it even if he had never worked with it before. Did the same thing all the time with really simple shit as well. For example I was having trouble unbolting a stripped insert that kept these two support poles together, and he found a smaller pipe to put around the handle of a ratchet for more leverage and wedged the other ratchet against a surface while he kicked it loose. Was constantly doing little things like that which don't seem all that difficult to come up with in retrospect, but consistently thinking of similar stuff like that in the moment whenever we had a problem was pretty impressive. It's a unique type of practical knowledge, it started rubbing off on me after a while

[Anonymous No.8755312]

>>8755111
>but all the guys who gazed at her moved their head and surveyed her so boldly, slightly grinning or giving creepy looks. It's okay to look at people, just don't be that obvious and inconsiderate like some degenerate pervert.
as usual, most men are repulsive to women so they do not like it, but they fear more the lack of attention

[Anonymous No.8755318]

English society is so fucking repressed it's considered impolite to even signal that someone's sexually attractive.
Latin countries don't have this problem because they aren't all autistic faggots.
Feminism is just puritanism with "just because I'm naked doesn't mean I should be sexualized you disgusting pervert" thrown in.

[Anonymous No.8755338]

>>8755318
>"just because I'm naked doesn't mean I should be sexualized you disgusting pervert" thrown in

kek. I definitely agree with this. There's been an insidious campaign to demonize male sexuality in the West. Some girls now are so sheltered that to them being approached by a guy and asked out or chatted-up is a minor trauma. "Creepy" is the word often used (and by the way, when did "creepy" acquire this sexual connotation that I don't remember it always having?).

>>8755301
Absolutely. And they've usually got a good moral core, or are generally "good" people. They'll help you out if you need it, and call you out on something if it's bs. And what's more, place any of us in a job like theirs and we'd be shit at it.

[Anonymous No.8755356]

>>8755338
Well pic related is pretty creepy though

[Anonymous No.8755374]

>>8754821
>mfw this is actually true

women are just really skilled manipulators

[Anonymous No.8755375]

>>8755356
Good god. What an appropriate jpeg title.

[Anonymous No.8755417]

>>8754821
it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible, dutiful.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support, which he sees as ''a childish useless submissive woman'' [or whore and he feels betrayed by her]
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

[Anonymous No.8755728]

So many replys in this troll thread, what the fuck is this reddit hahahah

[Anonymous No.8755764]

Couldn't you bitches just get a productive hobby?

[Anonymous No.8755768]

The problem of the male gaze is really more about context.

Woman don't want to be objectified when they are, for example, giving a lecture, reading the news, doing their shopping, trying to explain something. Etc

It's the feeling that nothing matters but how attractive they are to men that bothers women., not the fact men are attracted to them.

And sure some women won't care, and will even exploit it, but anybody with any feelings of dignity who cares about other things will find it uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.8755797]

In her essay she's talking about the male gaze in cinema, it's not readily apparent that you can extend that concept to talk about the real world.

[Anonymous No.8755801]

>>8755768
lol no women have dignity at all, they're are nothing but whores

[Anonymous No.8755802]

>>8755801
You cant respond to a criticism of sexism with more sexism, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.8755803]

>>8755768
>It's the feeling that nothing matters but how attractive they are to men that bothers women

But that is true to some extent. A man really doesn't care if a woman has a PhD in philosophy, or is a nurse, as long as she loves him and is loyal.

Which is why you see female secretaries marrying the CEO of a company, but you never see it the other way around.

Men see the physical aspects of women more easily, that's true, but a woman really has the final say in everything related to sex, or sexualization, because they are the pathway to procreation.

The fact that magazines exist that show scantily clad women, is a problem with women, not men. Everyone knows men want to see nude women, but it wouldn't happen if women refused to do it.

[Anonymous No.8755804]

>>8755802
sexism is true, though, take the redpill

[Anonymous No.8755816]

>>8755803
That very conveniently absolves all men.

[Anonymous No.8755821]

>>8755816
Women are to blame for everything, though. Ever since they got the vote the West has crumpled and the white man is being genocided

[Anonymous No.8755824]

>>8755803
But that is exactly the problem, it's dehumanising and horrible to have your existence reduced to tits and ass.

[Anonymous No.8755825]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
yes
>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
it has material basis but it is not
>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
genders per se are bad

i think the main problem with 4chan is the individualism and the lack of empathy of its users, most /pol/tards are just middle class white straight (kek) males, they don't give a fuck about any other human being except themselves

[Anonymous No.8755830]

>>8755417
Every time
Is this pasta?

[Anonymous No.8755831]

>>8755825
Give me one good reason why I should give a shit about women, non-whites, and degenerates?

[Anonymous No.8755832]

>>8755816
>That very conveniently absolves all men.

Well in this context men aren't at fault.

The fact that women are find the sexually lusting gaze of a man uncomfortable is a problem within the individual woman's psyche, not a problem with the man's gaze, because that gaze has existed for 100 million years and we're still here.

[Anonymous No.8755836]

>>8755824
>But that is exactly the problem, it's dehumanising and horrible to have your existence reduced to tits and ass.

But apparently it isn't, because women gleefully and willfully reduce themselves to that all the time by participating in arenas of life where that is the whole point.

[Anonymous No.8755837]

>>8755831
don't cut yourself on that edge

[Anonymous No.8755838]

>>8755837
Not. An. Argument

[Anonymous No.8755839]

>>8755832
you fail to understang that the gaze of a man is percieved by most women as a will to rape them

[Anonymous No.8755842]

>>8755839
>you fail to understang that the gaze of a man is percieved by most women as a will to rape them

I don't think that's true.

[Anonymous No.8755845]

>>8755839
>le /pol/ retard roleplaying

[Anonymous No.8755848]

>>8755838
>uses buzzwords
>pretend arguments
lole

[Anonymous No.8755849]

>>8755825
I think your post is serious.

But if you think right-wing ideology is a selfish idea you couldn't be more wrong. Right-wing thinking always puts society above the individual.

Progressivism is a war against the nature of man(kind). It has its roots in the disgust of the self. It's an attempt to place oneself above others. It's hubristic and degenerate. it tries to divide society in more and more pieces, it wants every individual to become its own nation. it wants to create a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society, anti-authoritarian people made of measure.

[Anonymous No.8755854]

>>8755825
I do think it'd be better for the human race if all /pol/ users were shot.

[Anonymous No.8755856]

it's quite funny that everyone tacitly knows that the first thing a man thinks about when he sees a woman is whether he'd fuck her or not but when confronted with this fact we consider it abhorrent
see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us/harvard-mens-soccer-team-scouting-report.html
don't think any amount of cultural brainwashing could change it either

[Anonymous No.8755861]

>>8755849
Why do you people think Ted was a right winger? He complains about the left in his manifesto, but the kind of primitivism he's promoting is a very anarchist kind of primitivism.

[Anonymous No.8755863]

>>8755849
>Right-wing thinking always puts society above the individual.
Why do all modern people who see themselves as right-wing think that climate change is a hoax?

You'd think you'd need a stable climate for society to work

[Anonymous No.8755864]

>>8755849
>believing in human nature
>believing degeneracy isn't based on arbitrary norms
i hope you're enjoying eating from the trashcan of ideology

[Anonymous No.8755868]

>>8755856
Maybe controlling your baser instincts is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.8755869]

>>8755856
But I don't understand why this is wrong. Women do exactly the same, men are simply more vocal about it amongst themselves.

A woman literally decides within 10 seconds of seeing a man whether or not she could see herself having sex with him, and if you've ever had prolonged encounters with women, you can literally sense that they have done so the moment you walk into a room with strange women.

[Anonymous No.8755871]

>>8755863
>stable climate

I'm commie scum and that's a bit spooky m'lad

[Anonymous No.8755872]

>>8755849
Is this satire? You are contradicting yourself so much it must be intentional

[Anonymous No.8755874]

>>8755863
>all think

Whew lad, gonna need a source there

[Anonymous No.8755878]

>>8755861
anarchist primitivism is tribalism, which is what the right wing truly wants in its core. Technology accelerated degeneracy.

>>8755854
I do think it'd be better for the human race if everyone was shot, except the Amish.

[Anonymous No.8755879]

>>8755868
did I advocate acting on them?

[Anonymous No.8755883]

>>8755863
I am as right-wing as it gets and I believe it's real (but I don't know, of course).

I also think that the only way to get this system stable is first of all to reduce the population, since efficiency and asceticism can only get this far.

[Anonymous No.8755886]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
No.
>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
No.
>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
Good, duh.

[Anonymous No.8755909]

>>8755864
>not believing in human nature
>believing like an ancient Egyptian that the brain is just a filler in the cranium

Behaviour and pretty much everything that makes us what we are is good 80%, minimum 50% in the genes, the rest is nurture. To believe there is no human nature is absolutely ridiculous. Is anger a reasonable choice? People in their arrogance like to put themselves above nature, as free-willed agents of reason. But they are not. Another point would be nurture- alas we live in a society where controlled nurture is at a minimum and we just abandon our children to the world and hope the free market will fix them. Freedom is indeed slavery.


>believing degeneracy isn't based on arbitrary norms
What is degenerate and what is not is depending on a measure. Only a society with a goal can also measure it's growth and purity. However the left only measures with coins, which is why the left joke of conservativism is neoconservativism and communism is merely an economic theory/solution. Surely it's easier to measure GDP, but of course you would be able to judge one culture as superior or inferior to another and a lifestyle better than another, if only you dared to do so.

>i hope you're enjoying eating from the trashcan of ideology
Good argument.

[Anonymous No.8755912]

feminist theory is interesting because women are capable (usually after men blaze the trail) of critiquing deep constraints on their freedom, and the ways in which they are "othered" and all that shit, but they can only do it from a self-othering stance of bawling like children and guilt-tripping male society into making life easier for them

the kind of woman who seriously recoils from limitations on her freedom from things like "the male gaze" usually isn't the kind of woman who then needs to spend her entire life crying about it like a woman so that men will go "there, there" and fix it for her

if you want to read """"feminism""" from """"feminists""" whose idea of feminism is sitting around male institutions and trying to nag all their male colleagues and men at large like a fucking overbearing mother, by all means read this shit

[Anonymous No.8755934]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?

Here's a suggestion; find a media form that is aimed at women like, oh, Nylon: fashion mag with a female editor , mainly female staff, and a readership that is overwhelmingly female.
The female editors, photographers, and models are *more likely* to present women in positions that Feminists claim 'prove male gaze' in media that is aimed at women.
Then look at, oh, GQ - these male-led, male-staffed magazines aimed at men are *less likely* to present women in such a way that Feminists would say demonstrates 'male gaze'.
tl;dr - no

[Anonymous No.8755938]

>>8755824
that sounds retarded, I would sacrifice a child to hades if it meant I became a hot piece of ass

[Anonymous No.8755940]

>>8755825
>most /pol/tards are just middle class white straight (kek) males, they don't give a fuck about any other human being except themselves
You're a racist bigot.
Yes, really - you are judging a group of people negatively based on class, race, and gender.
Scum

[Anonymous No.8755945]

>>8755824
>Person glances at a stranger that he will never interact with
>Can only evaluate physical traits
>Mistaking this for reducing a person
'Not interviewing every passerby for their biography' != 'dehumanizing'.

[Anonymous No.8756153]

[Anonymous No.8756159]

>>8755825
>genders per se are bad

[Anonymous No.8756258]

The male gaze is an art theory, its talked about in "Ways of seeing".

Used properly it is fairly convincing, Berger is able to show the difference between "the male gaze" at work in art and a male artist painting a naked or even fairly 'sexy' portrait of a woman.

Feminists do not engage with this nuance.

[Anonymous No.8756285]

>>8756159
t.someone who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender

[Anonymous No.8756328]

>>8754821
Nothing good on /pol/?

[Anonymous No.8756329]

>>8755940
lol boohoo need a safe space?

the problem with the "reverse racism" argument is that saying white men are ignorant and self-interested is not quite the same as saying that black people/muslims/immigrants are subhuman and should be systematically oppressed. does this make sense to you?

[Anonymous No.8756349]

>>8756285
Fuck off with your made up definitions of gender. You faggots literally believe gender is just a fashion statement. The funny hypocrisy about idralouges like you is that you say "gender is a social construct!" but then you say shit like "some people are born the wrong gender!" which are 2 contradicting statements. And your non binary friends prance around claiming that gender is just made up, and yet they still wear sterotypically male things to express masculinity and sterotypical female things to express femenity. The enitre concept is a hodge podge of contradictions

[Anonymous No.8756356]

>>8754754
>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
this is kind of an irrelevant question -- feminists like mulvey argue that in a patriarchal society like ours, the dominant way of looking is through the lens of masculinity (and this is an argument that has tons of evidence throughout the visual arts)

>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
you can reduce basically everything to a biological basis if you want to, but it doesn't really matter. the intricacies of love, morality, aesthetics etc. can be explained away biologically but in terms of real, lived experience, what does that matter? this is not to say that questions of sexuality are divorced from the body, just that "biology" doesn't explain everything.

>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
i would say probably bad -- many feminists say definitely bad. men are expected to be brutal and unfeeling and women are expected to be submissive and passive (these are the broad strokes, anyway). sometimes this sucks, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.8756357]

>>8756329
>I am totally justified
All bigots think that, bigot.
>Safe space
Nope - just calling scum scum

[Anonymous No.8756376]

>>8756356
We live in a patriarchy for a reason. Men get shit done. If women were the superior gender then we'd live in a matriarchy, but we dont because thats how biology made us. Even in the most gender equal countries in the world men take the leadership roles, not because of society, but because men are more likely to be biologocally driven to be leaders

[Anonymous No.8756377]

>>8756357
so seems like that did not make sense to you

here we go again

calling someone mean or selfish != calling someone subhuman

[Anonymous No.8756415]

>12 hours ago
>+ 99 posts and 10 image replies omitted

So /lit/ will just gobble up any old bait that's thrown its way.

[Anonymous No.8756432]

>>8756415
How is this thread bait? He seems like he was genuienly just wondering. He didnt say anything for or against femenism

[Anonymous No.8756451]

>>8756376
>We live in a patriarchy for a reason
of course there's a reason. is it an unquestionably good reason? not really.

>Men get shit done.
you think this is the entire reason? like sometime in the last couple centuries people were like "oh men get shit done, guess we should suppress the voices of millions of unhappy women, that's the only way anything will get done"?

>If women were the superior gender then we'd live in a matriarchy, but we dont because thats how biology made us
there are many examples (from the past as well as the present) of matriarchal societies. are the women in those societies genetically superior to the men? not anymore than men in our society are genetically superior to women. what would genetically superior even mean in a society like ours? it's not like we're hunter gatherers or something. like right now we're arguing on a website for chinese cartoons, how does this get factored in to your metric of superiority?

>Even in the most gender equal countries in the world men take the leadership roles, not because of society, but because men are more likely to be biologocally driven to be leaders
even in matriarchal societies men can still be leaders. just like in our society there are many examples of women who have been leaders. the point is not that it can only be one or the other, just that there are historical reasons for why one is dominant in the current moment.

[Anonymous No.8756473]

>>8756451
Give me modern examples of opressing womens voices.

Matriarchal societies are all failures and never become anything more than smelly dirt hut tribes.

Yes some women become leaders and are good at it but biology makes it more common in men.

Too easy

[Anonymous No.8756519]

>>8755825
>genders per se are bad
this is like saying sitting in a certain way is bad

[Anonymous No.8756521]

>>8754754
FUCK
OFF

[Anonymous No.8756531]

>>8756519
A more accurate analogy would be being born a certain height is bad

[Anonymous No.8756538]

>>8756531
t. Manlet

[Anonymous No.8756544]

>>8756473
>Give me modern examples of opressing womens voices.
for real? anti-women's health care, pro-rapist legal system, wage inequality, not to mention the crazy high statistics of rape, domestic abuse, and sexual abuse against women

>Matriarchal societies are all failures and never become anything more than smelly dirt hut tribes.
lol matriarchal native societies didn't "fail" they were killed by disease. and jews have elements of matriarchy and they control the government, right?

>Yes some women become leaders and are good at it but biology makes it more common in men.
how can you even measure how "common" leadership is amongst a population, get real

too easy

[Anonymous No.8756552]

>>8756544
>anti-women's health care, pro-rapist legal system, wage inequality, not to mention the crazy high statistics of rape, domestic abuse, and sexual abuse against women
Women secretly want to be raped, though. That's a fact.
There is no wage inequality, women could just work harder and not worry about Chad cock all the time.
Women belong in the home, they are inferior

[Anonymous No.8756589]

>>8756552
damn you really doubled down, huh

maybe one day you'll be less scared of women than you are now. many of them are nice people.

[Anonymous No.8756601]

>>8756544
>>8756589
Not him but half of what you said is false.
The only thig that is somewhat true is the wage gap

[Anonymous No.8756606]

>>8756589
They are all evil worthless whores

[Anonymous No.8756611]

>>8754962
Because that psychological drive, while certainly present in both genders, can manifest in far more constructive ways, and does, particularly among men - working out, running, learning useful skills, etc. Imagine if there was as much advertising targeted at women glorifying physical strength and practical capability (while occasionally ridiculing quick fixes like makeup, diets, and plastic surgery), as just about all advertising targeted towards men does. Surely there would be a positive psychological, or at least physical, effect on women as a whole? It would definitely increase the average fitness, and I'm sure it would at least lead to a reduction in this imagined need for visual crutches - which of course ties into idiotic eating disorders.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that advertising presents fit men as attractive while presenting (primarily) not-fat (as opposed to actually fit), heavily made-up, and/or photoshopped women as attractive, while pushing the message that makeup makes you attractive. I'd like to see health and fitness being the ideal for attractiveness in both genders.
Obviously facial structure and the whole slew of other stuff that goes into the mix still plays a large part, but the pedestal that wearing makeup occupies in the "attracting a mate" handbook ought to be occupied by fitness.

[Anonymous No.8756616]

>>8756544
>anti-women's health care
huh? the health and wellbeing of women has been prioritized over men for centuries and still is

breast cancer research gets more funding than prostate cancer,
female circumcision is criminalized, but not male circumcision
women have their own health and research departments

>pro-rapist legal system
>what, someone accused of rape is relieved of charges because of insufficient evidence?? must be a conspiracy by the patriarchy

>wage inequality
debunked to a large degree, and insignificant in the remainder

[Anonymous No.8756633]

You have ten seconds to think of three things that women do better than men on average, that don't have to do with having a female body or men's attraction to them.

[Anonymous No.8756637]

>>8756544
>pro rapist legal system
You mean, in dubio pro reu?
Yeah that's how everything works.

[Anonymous No.8756697]

>>8756601
>>8756544

The wage gap is the least true of those things. Its been debunked to hell and back

[Anonymous No.8756703]

>>8756544
>how can you even measure how "common" leadership is amongst a population
Literally the vast majority of people in power (here in America) in goverment and institutions are men. Its actually a really common femenist talking point

[Anonymous No.8756707]

>>8756544
>lol matriarchal native societies didn't "fail" they were killed by disease
Interesting that almost all the matriarchal societies were killed by disease but the patriarchal ones werent

[Anonymous No.8756713]

>>8756616
>breast cancer research gets more funding than prostate cancer,
>female circumcision is criminalized, but not male circumcision
>women have their own health and research departments
Not to mention women have access to birth control while men only get pills that make them horny. Seems kind of fucked up only women get to control when they want to be fertile

[Anonymous No.8756715]

>>8756707
stop raping me

[Anonymous No.8756718]

>>8754824

Yeah fuck that, if they're attractive women we are biologically programmed to want to fuck them. There's no arbitrary line.

[Anonymous No.8756727]

>>8756589
Thats a different guy, but if it gives you a convienet excuse to ignore all the actual arguments being made against you, then I guess I cant make you think critically.

[Anonymous No.8756729]

>>8754754

None of that's a problem. I'm biased though as a misogynist. I'm not the Elliot Rodger type of autistic misogynist thought. I'm just a complete misanthrope and I'm heterosexual so it only makes sense that I direct a certain and specific kind of hate toward women. If I were gay than I'd probably engage in certain types of misandry.

[Anonymous No.8756731]

>>8756715
No. Now hold still.

[Anonymous No.8756735]

>>8756729
I think sexism is a natural biological mechanism. Of course youre supposed to treat the genders differently, because they are relevantly different. Its actually in the best interest of everyone to treat the genders as they should respectively be treated. Irrational hatred of a gender is more harmful though.

[Anonymous No.8756741]

Women are biologically inferior to men

Affirmative action is killing art by promoting shitty, uncreative female "artists" even though women are, 90% of the time, just dilettantes and don't give a shit about anything except Chad. Women live life on easy mode, they barely know pain. Men do, which is why men do great things.

Inequality between the sexes is natural and caused by sexual differences. The mere fact that women can give birth mean that we are NOT and can never BE equal.

Women are inherently sociopathic. They are driven to the top males and treat everyone else like shit. They are skilled manipulators.

Gender and sex is the same thing. The fact that women are weak and dumb, that biologically they get fucked by men and have to nurture and raise children mean that there is a wide array of psychological behaviors inherent to them BECAUSE of sex. Because women cannot do things, they live vicariously through the accomplishments of men and male-like figures (ie the state). Women, as much as they are forced to deny it, love to be submissive and controlled, which is why rape fantasy is so common among them.

Women are not free thinkers. They follow the herd of women. Feminization of society has brought the age of the Last Man and the fall of Western civilization. It must be stopped.

The increased masculinity and aggression of women is a symptom of a failing society.

[Anonymous No.8756746]

>>8754754
just wanna say that's a really attractive neck/collarbone area. honestly I find it the most attractive part of women

[Anonymous No.8756749]

>>8756735
Most "sexists" don't hate women. Sexists love women, which offends women because betas creep them out.

[Anonymous No.8756754]

ITT: numales regurgitate what their teachers and profs told them without putting a damn bit of thought into the implications.

Women don't have a problem with the "male gaze," they have a problem with YOUR male gaze, because they are completely above unfit, poor trash like you. Radfem lesbos have a problem with the male gaze because they like to have a problem with everything to give their existence justification.

If women in general actually did not want the male gaze AT ALL, even from attractive, resourced men, they would wear comfortable (and less revealing, most likely) clothing.

High heels are the ultimate proof of this. They are uncomfortable and limiting, and they have no reason to be worn except for aesthetics. If you care for your own personal aesthetics, it's because you're either a complete narcissist, or you care about how you look to other people. If you care about how you look to other people (99 percent of people), you BY DEFINITION SEEK GAZE. Makeup is the same way, as well as tight, hardly fitting clothing.

It's not a matter of sexism or judgement. It's not a matter of /pol/ or shitting on women. It's a matter of the fucking truth. I'm not going to hate women for being attention-seekers, because men seek attention in their own sometimes stupid ways.

If you extend this to media and writing or whatever, then yes, male writers are going to have a male perspective on women. Even women writers objectify female characters.

What's crazy is that the largest audience of novels since their inception has been WOMEN. WOMEN BUY BOOKS THAT OBJECTIFY WOMEN. Free market for writing, bitches.

Congrats, feminists, you've fucking played yourself.

[Anonymous No.8756764]

>>8756754
>Congrats, feminists, you've fucking played yourself.
Kek. Beautifully put

[Anonymous No.8756775]

>>8756754
I agree

>>8756741
I disagree and youre making my side of the argument look bad. Stop tainting the rational perspective with your irrational bigotry

[Anonymous No.8756776]

Feminism is basically Penis Envy: The Movement

[Anonymous No.8756779]

I'm a twenty year old white woman. T
Both the male gaze and female gaze, are unavoidable. We are sexual beings beholden by illogical desire, and that desire naturally manifests itself in looking at members of the opposite sex as sexual objects. Women mentally undress men, just as men mentally undress women. Gender roles are a manifestation of this natural need to reproduce, they increase the likelihood that offspring will reach their reproductive years, and themselves have children.

A perfect society, in terms of economic and scientific factors, would be made up of asexual, androgynous, cyborgs, who logically evaluate every decision. That's not who we are as a species.

I think a lot of feminists (and MRAs) are just sexually frustrated individuals. I find myself having a hard time hating men, considering that my fiancé is basically the center of my personal universe.

[Anonymous No.8756780]

>>8756775
>bigotry
It's the truth. We are allowed to have our differences, aren't we? The psychology of women is affected tremendously by sexual dimorphism

[Anonymous No.8756781]

Funny. I expected /lit/ to be more femenist leaning, but the few femenists itt are getting their shit wrecked

[Anonymous No.8756785]

>>8756754
That isn't what the male gaze and objectification are actually about though, don't buy into the SJW version where nobody reads anything.

Pic is the male gaze. That is a portrait of Nell Gwynne, famous actress and the King's mistress. He hung that up in his receiving room. Its literally "Five times a night actually lads, like the picture - thats the closest you plebs are going to get".

The way the picture is composed is the same as art from the same period which displayed physical objects as indicators of their owner's wealth and power.

"Objectification" isn't just a random idea, it concerns the deliberate and artistic composition of images.

Liking to look at attractive women or liking to be attractive etc. has nothing to do with it.

Porn by its nature is probably not objectifying in essence, in fact probably the opposite if the woman is an active participant. However, the way modern porn is shot (positions that would be uncomfortable in real life for all concerned but suit the voyeur) probably are.

There are something interesting ideas in all this about aesthetics, we shouldn't let lazy tumblrinas turn in them sludge.

[Anonymous No.8756786]

>>8756780
Of course we have differences but both genders serve equally important purposes and excel in different areas

[Anonymous No.8756789]

>>8756779
>A perfect society, in terms of economic and scientific factors, would be made up of asexual, androgynous, cyborgs, who logically evaluate every decision. That's not who we are as a species.
That sounds fucking awful

[Anonymous No.8756790]

>>8754954
>When's the last time you saw a female beggar?

I've seen plenty. Less common than male beggars but not uncommon by any stretch.

[Anonymous No.8756792]

Forgot picture.

[Anonymous No.8756797]

>>8756786
Which was my point. Men can be creative and industrious, women can be beautiful and nurturing.

But women fail when they try to be men.

[Anonymous No.8756800]

>>8756785
>objectification
If I could eliminate one word from the English language it would be this one

This concept makes zero fucking sense

[Anonymous No.8756805]

>>8756789
I agree, but a society like that would be purely logical, and thus advance rapidly. I'm glad I don't live a thousands years from now.

[Anonymous No.8756809]

>>8756797
No, your point was that women are inferior and literally have no reedeming qualities.

>Women are biologically inferior to men
>Women are not free thinkers. They follow the herd of women. Feminization of society has brought the age of the Last Man and the fall of Western civilization. It must be stopped.

[Anonymous No.8756816]

>>8756805
>denial of biology and objective truths using post modernist ideaology
>logical
>progressive
Kek

[Anonymous No.8756821]

>>8756809
wew, you're trying to get into some semantics game like "they're not inferior, they're just different!"

[Anonymous No.8756825]

>>8756816
Do you honestly think that sexual desire is "rational"? It's an animalistic need to reproduce. Also, genetic modification if alreasy rapidly aproaching, so even in the near future, current biological realities might be more malleable.

[Anonymous No.8756829]

>>8756825
>wanting to reproduce and continue your species is irrational
This is your brain on leftism

[Anonymous No.8756832]

>>8756821
Its not semantics, its accurate. There are things women are superior at and men tend to suck at and vice versa. Society couldnt survive without both (obviously)

[Anonymous No.8756837]

>>8756825
So a rational society just stops reproducing and dies? Fucking kek

[Anonymous No.8756845]

>>8756832
Of course. But I was not hating women. I was pointing out some of their differences. The positive aspects of women are well-known already, and not every post about them has to make concessions like "but women can make babies though!"

It's just your own conditioning that has made you convinced that the things I said were "hateful".

[Anonymous No.8756846]

>>8756829
But we won't need to have sex to reproduce at that point. Artificial wombs are already being developed, IVF exists, sexless reproduction is already here. Who knows what the future holds? Probably things beyond our current comprehension. I'm not a leftist, and calling me.one doesnt constitute an argument.

[Anonymous No.8756849]

>>8756846
>irrational belief in Daddy Science to fix humanity and thereby make us technologically dependent, inhuman automatons
>I'm not a leftist

[Anonymous No.8756851]

>>8756837
Nope, science eliminates the need for sex, that's literally the only way to have a species that is comprised of purely rational actors.

[Anonymous No.8756856]

>>8756851
>he thinks that objective rationality is a thing
>he thinks that technological society would inherently be "rational" (whatever that means)
>being this spooked

[Anonymous No.8756864]

>>8756849
I don't want society to go that direction, but it still constitues a society made up of purely rational actors.

Would you consider Peter Thiel, Trump's transition team head to be a leftist? He is a complete transhumamist.

[Anonymous No.8756870]

>>8756856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

[Anonymous No.8756875]

>>8756864
Theres no reason to think pure rationality is cold and purely scientific. Thats how you get facism and slaves. Fuck off back to the enlightenment plse

[Anonymous No.8756880]

>>8756864
>sexless reproduction and would make us "purely rational actors"

[Anonymous No.8756881]

>>8756875
The United States of America is literally founded on enlightenment principles. Do you hate the greatest nation on earth?

Your new age relativist garbage is what's killing society.

[Anonymous No.8756883]

>>8756880
>Not responding to arguments

Le green text eksdee

[Anonymous No.8756886]

>>8756881
Im not a relatvist. And I realize the enlightenment lead to a lot of good, but it also lead to a lot of bad. The problem is you seem to think ethics and rationality are mutually exclusive

[Anonymous No.8756887]

>>8756881
You're the one who thinks that a "perfect", "rational" society would be one that ignores human impulses. Technology as art is created by irrational ideas and methods, and animalism is inherent to us (we cannot "transcend" it)

Not sure if autistic or just really spooked

[Anonymous No.8756891]

>>8755883
>I am as right-wing as it gets
>I also think that the only way to get this system stable is first of all to reduce the population

Well there's every left wing newspaper headline for tomorrow

[Anonymous No.8756914]

>>8756886
Ethics are mutually exclusive with rationality, yes. Rationality in the economic sense is making decision based off of purely statistical information to obtain the most possible benefit for the individual in question. Ethics muddy that.

>>8756887
>Technology is art
Dropped
Technology is merely the product of scientific advancement, the scientific method is a purely rational process that is hindered by opinions on the subject which scientific scrutinty is being applied to. Eg. Sciencitific agendas, but more often that not, interpreting data in such a way that the (human) scientist feels emotionally validated.

I do have autism/aspergers, but I still managed to get engaged, so it's not so bad I (and my GP) think.

[Anonymous No.8756926]

>>8756914
>Ethics are mutually exclusive with rationality, yes.
Straight from the horses mouth. Well hopefully some day you find the Brave New World sexless society that you desire. I think Ill stay here.

[Anonymous No.8756932]

>>8756926
I don't desire it, but it follows logically. I need sex, and I want to have children. Someday, however, that may become an uncommon, or, antiquated thing.

[Anonymous No.8756939]

>>8756914
>I do have autism/aspergers
Shocking. Well accoriding to you it would be rational to clean you out of the gene pool. Wait there, Ill get my gun.

[Anonymous No.8756940]

>>8756914
Technology is created by human creativity. It is not "purely rational"

But autists are known to worship logic above all else.

[Anonymous No.8756955]

>>8756939
>Condition which makes the affect indiviudal more logical and individualist
>bad

KYS communist

>>8756940
>Humanities major detected

[Anonymous No.8756962]

>>8756800
>>objectification
>If I could eliminate one word from the English language it would be this one

People are objects and subjects.
Beautiful objects are admired.
Beautiful subjects are admired.

The sunset cannot force itself to not be looked at, a solution must be, everyone wears very dark shades, or the sunset wears a burka.

[Anonymous No.8756963]

>>8756955
Autists have signficantly lower iqs than the rest of the population

[Anonymous No.8756976]

>>8756963
My IQ was 142 a year ago, so I'm alright. Pretty neckbeard tier to talk about iq though. Have you mastered the katana yet, my dude?

[Anonymous No.8757011]

>>8755831
>degenerates
I can only make a case for the degenerates.