New Moderation Thread

khalas

Not allowing critique of your material analysis is dogmatic, which is pretty radlib. How the fuck are you supposed to develop a good analysis of gender politics if nobody is allowed to critique what exists and make it better? Per BO:
Apparently whatever version of feminism BO supports (and who knows exactly what that is?) is the final word on gender politics?

This is true.

What makes someone a feminist or not, and why is feminism the only legitimate position/theory/take for gender politics?
Right, so you acknowledge that feminism means different things so why insist on it without being clear what you mean? There are MRA critiques that are based on materialism too. Having a materialist basis doesn't render a critique bulletproof, and it especially doesn't make a particular feminist critique a good one, much less the best we can do.
If I'm being honest I think that's a chauvinist if not outright white supremacist question to ask when you could have picked places like Alabama or parts of eastern Europe. To the point though, I don't think it's "obsolete." I think it's incomplete and needs a shitload of work because feminism hasn't been as successful as gender-based liberation movements could be. Even in the west where feminism is "obsolete" you still routinely find feminists reinforcing gender roles and stereotypes under the guise of "equality" or some bullshit. That's evidence of deeper problems with the ideology that call out to be critiqued and discussed openly and thoroughly.

Democratic in what sense? Elections are a horrible idea and will lead to a tripfag popularity contest, and implementing democratic functionality will likely require using a system outside of Zig Forums.
It would be chaotic, but a good solution can be randomly selecting moderators from a pool of volunteers, and giving anons the ability to periodically vote on removing the moderators they don't like. The BO's main purpose would be to purge the inevitable Hoochie 2.0 and that's it. This will probably require user accounts though it should be fairly simple to enforce poster anonymity or allow unregistered users to post.

feminism is necessary for communism. Sure, i suppose you could have world without commodity production in which women were subjugated still, possibly. In this world however, repression of women is extremely intertwined with class oppression and pretty much every major theoretical and historical Marxist or anarchist thinks this. What you forget is that unpaid female labour is an enormous part of the economy. Socially necessary labour i.e. literal labour, child birth, raising of children, which predominantly still falls mostly on women particularly outside of europe/america but even then within is still a massively gendered thing, for obvious reasons, men can't give birth. This work is fundamental in reproducing the capitalist economy. If it is fundamental to the capitalist economy, then it should be revolutionised.

Still wouldn't ban anti-feminism unless its shit like "women should be raped/men should assign women to incels" level of shit

So who is the new board owner?

he says on Zig Forums

are fun and spread propoganda and the worst possible conseqence is having to read some shitposts.

also national soycialism is that best

yeh tell us about yourself and your intentions in full

Can you add the ML flag that Zig Forums has? The flag of the Russian SSR? I thought it looked cool.

you have to go back

Attached: discord.webm (711x400, 11.95M)

That's not my point at all. I'm contesting that feminism has the sole claim to liberating women (or people in general) from gender roles.

I don't disagree even slightly with this. I would simply add that women are not the only people who are repressed on the basis of gender, and feminism by and large has been at best unhelpful but usually actively hostile toward attempts to address the ways that men are repressed as men or that gender non-conforming people are represses on that basis.

I did not forget that. My position is that "feminism" has an inconsistent definition that can alternate between encompassing any attempt to redress gender issues and whatever specific female-centric take is being advanced according to convenience.
I don't disagree with that. My position is that these issues do not exist in a vacuum, but a totalizing system of gender roles and ideology that affects everyone (albeit differently), and that for instance women's issues particularly are bound up with men's issues and one cannot be solved without the other. Feminism can help liberate women, but only up to the point where it runs into contradictions. For example, you can't share the burden of "women's work" like raising children unless you expand men's gender roles to allow them to do that. Gender roles as they are constructed are inherently binary, with corresponding complementary responsibilities and restrictions.
They're a single system and the notion that men are simply a "default" or "normal" person and women an abberant subordinate one is simply ideology. Women may be told to obey their husbands, but similarly men are told to do wage labor to support the family. You can't have one role without the other, same way you can't have proletarian or capitalist without the other, since they're defined by their relationship to each other. My issue with feminism is that in being so focused on women it misses the bigger picture here, and it's at the point now that libfems have had to start resorting to saying things like "patriarchy hurts men too" to try to salvage the ideology from these kinds of critiques.

That's not "anti-feminism." That's just bigotry.