It seems to be more damage than good that Marxists and leftists are still associated with these female bourgeoisie hypocrites who habitually demonize working class and low status men, who are increasingly resorting to reactionary politics. The right is also capitalizing on this, and are seemingly successful in making the left seem anti male.
And yes, I know Democrats arent leftists, but the left still vote like Liberals when it comes to social issues , so the fact that theres been a heavy shift to the right among many young men should be a concern. The left says that they are against identity politics, yet are more than happy to let rad and Marxist feminists be the exception.
If by "feminists" you simply mean those liberal idpol types, then yes. Leftists should be feminists by definition though.
Absolutely not t. CIA
No, the left should be for egalitarianism, and be able to call out the bullshit of women aswell as men, and not resort to flawed anti male conspiracies like deh Patriarchy to justify women having their cake and eating it too, even in an oppressive capitalist system.
I don't disagree i.e. marxist feminism i.e. liberalism
How do we despook normal people about liberal feminism? I mean especially those who fall for liberal traps and can't see beyond the smoke screen of liberal "feminist" (unegalitarian idpol) policies and theory.
The problem is, marxist fems are a minority and arent the only true leftist feminists. Most Marxist feminist also hold some rad feminist beliefs and seem to have more solidarity with rad feminists, than lower class leftist men. Marxist feminists tend to be a hypocritical lot and most wouldnt even give a time of day to male issues or be open to other perspectives , owing to hang ups they may have developed when they were rad feminists. I know this, because I was apart of a prominent marxist student organisation and i was also an MRA.
the problem is, the left also cosigns many of liberal feminst bullshit, so its very easy to group the left and liberal feminists together to the average normie.
If only people had listen to Marx then maybe things wouldn't have gotten this bad.
Literally only people who care about feminists in 2018 are sargonites and people who started to care about social and political issues last summer. Just because these plebs you want to stop associating with feminists? At least find better reason please.
do you really think that the democratic party is a left wing party?
They also perpetuate myths that women didnt work. Women worked, but it was lower class menial labour, which was why there wasnt much of a gender pay gap for working class women and men at the start of the industrial revolution. Feminists were so bourgeoisie that they didnt consider lower class women as real women. They only focused on elite and middle class jobs that most men didnt even have access too until the late 20th century with the creation of the service economy.
While i agree that idpol diverts attention from class struggle. I also want to be rational. If we ignore all the struggles and conquests of the LGBT groups and the sane part of the femminism movement, we are going to see their right stripped away by the reactionaries. So then they'll have to mobilitate again and again and again. There is nothing wrong for gay people to have their marriages and adoption or for trans people to be considered not mentally ill. If we want egalitarianism, this is part of it. You may or may not like it.
Can you give us an example of when LBTQP+ and feminists had their rights stripped away in the past?
he who promises to redistribute pussy has the power
incels have a history of shaping history far more than you think, they have plunged ENTIRE empires into civil wars on more than one occasion
we offer land, peace, and pussy. what do you offer? faux gender equality that never was
So we continue to empower the the many shitty parts of feminism and alienate a big chunk of working class and low status men who would have been allies of the left, just so then there wont be a small chance of reactionaries going full Handmaids tale if America goes full Chud?
Except that theory ignores the economic and political forces which enabled feminism to flourish, namely the creation of the service economy which sidelined male brute strength and enabled women to contribute economically to their own wellbeing and not be dependant on men to raise a family or be economically secured, which undermined male power, and put women at an advantage in modern gender sexual dynamics and in many aspects of politics, where women issues are put at the forefront of the national agenda and mens issues are sidelined or dismissed .
So unless we somehow crash our economy so hard that we return to a pre service economy, where male brute strength returns as the primary force of economic power, then there should be no fears for such a thing occuring. Women rights and political power arose as a result of their increasing economic power and independence in relation to men, not to mention labour saving technologies at the home, and the Pill which freed up time for women to be active in the labour market and in poliitcs, and not just because a few rad femitards got cranky .
Feminism is a female advocacy movement which has a history of dismissing male issues and perspectives. Unless socialism is gynocentric, Id say Egalitarianism is a better thing to support for socialism.
Who cares about ameretards again Like you know when we have the nukes, we will strike… And i dont care about the five Stalinist NEETs there
I deleted my comment because i didint want this thread to become a another shitty PKK thread, where we spend the whole thread convincing brainwashed k(t)turds like yourself that your people are being used to further US hegemony in the region. The PKK is being armed by the US because the US fears t*rkeys warming relationship with Russia/China and its own Neo Ottoman ambitions. In fact, the US supported the Gulenists attempted takeover of t*rkey because they see Erdogan as another middle eastern anti west imperial dictator in the making.
In all honesty, the t*rkish are much, much more dangerous to the ideals of socialism, by way of their ever-encompassing borderline nazbol-esque "Pan-Turkish grey wolves xD" retard nationalism.
If you want to see a future where egalitarianism reigns true to the entire earth and all her people, then the t*rkics and their descendant branches will probably have to be erased from human history. That's the hard truth but it's going to be inevitable.
I couldnt give a fuck. Im part armenian and according to my grandmother, it was the kurdish regiments who committed genocide against the Armenians and took their lands.. Theyre no better than Polish, Austrian or Swedish Nazis following orders, but unlike Nazis, their crimes have been erased from history, and theyre still enjoying the spoils of their genocidal ancestors. They still havent given any of those lands back to native Armenians whove been in those lands for thousands of years, despite their fake apologies. They both have filthy histories of expansionism and ethnic cleansing. Supporting k(t)urds against the roaches is like supporting British imperialists to spite German imperialism in WW1. Trust me, No one is a good guy in that shithole. Im sure once the PKK gains power, theyll just start ethnic cleaning Arabs and other minorities from their territories, and expand into disputed territories to house their rapidly expanding population . I just want them both to annihilate each other, so minorities like Assyrians and Armenians with actual historical ties to the region wont be bullied by two of the biggest and most aggressively expansionist ethnic groups in Asia minor.
I think instead of attacking idpol, pragmatically, we should instead place emphasis on the struggles of LGBTQ people, women, etc within left-wing movements. Given how integrated idpol is within society, it seems idealistic to adopt a stance of "fuck idpol." We should criticize it, but on the basis of not doing enough for liberation. We should try to illustrate to the masses how class struggle is integral to the struggles of other oppressed people, and how capitalism perpetuates systems of racism, homophobia, and misogyny.
I think that SJWs are probably the group of people who would be easiest to radicalize in the short term, as they generally have their hearts in the right place, but are just misguided, and fail to understand how capitalism is the greatest system of oppression.
Yes, feminism is idpol faggotry and should not be tolerated. Socialism already includes women's rights. Intersectionality and anything like it should be shunned and its supporters purged.
The problem is that there is no such thing as Marxist feminism. It's just trying to put a coat of red on a liberal idea that is rotten to the core.
Homophobia doesn't exist. It's just an ideological term. These "lgbtqsomethingsomething"-people have a mental illness that needs compassion and treatment, not making their mental illnesses a way of life.
Kek. Get over it m8.
Shitty, self contradictory article. Get the chip off your shoulder "Comrade". There aint no room for you stupid grudges.
It's simple. We should reject these idpol ideologies and insist that only through socialism can there be any advancement of women, gays, and so on. We hold the keys, not them. We do not need these groups. They need us.
What rights don't women have? White women are most privileged demographic in the west, and yet they complain the most. Most of the things you guys complain about are either the result of poor e choices you make like becoming single mothers, or not getting into a major which is well paying. Now you've got the whole liberal establishment catering to your needs andtheres legally enforced quotas in countries like Norway, preferential treatment when it comes social services, divorce laws, university scholarships and quotas, welfare. Heck women under 30 are outearning men and receiving the majority of degrees. Now women across the west are complaining that there aren't many eligible men left to marry who out earn them, but instead they're left with disgusting working class men like myself, who according to average feminist doesn't deserve respect or love from the opposite sex, which is fuelling a marriage crisis for young women . Feminism in the west is now bourgeoisie bullshit. Progressive Black guys like myself who see their communities disintegrate because of the lack of economic opportunities for working class men are forced to pretend to care for bourgeoisie feminist concerns about equal representation in the boardroom, whilst black men kill themselves trying to raise a family. And the thing is, they really don't give afuck about us or our struggles as working class men. I totally agree with the OP. Until feminists start involving themselves in non bourgeoisie issues and also acknowledge the unique problems men of all r jaces face, especially those in the lower socioeconomic bracket, then I'll pass.
This. Feminism has a profound image problem that justifies abandoning the label. If you're an egalitarian then call yourself an egalitarian.
If there was a group that advocated only for issues that affect white people, would you call that a movement for equality or a supremacist movement?
What rights don't women have? White women are most privileged demographic in the west, and yet they complain the most. Most of the things you guys complain about are either the result of poor e choices you make like becoming single mothers, or not getting into a major which is well paying. Now you've got the whole liberal establishment catering to your needs andtheres legally enforced quotas in countries like Norway, preferential treatment when it comes social services, divorce laws, university scholarships and quotas, welfare. Heck women under 30 are outearning men and receiving the majority of degrees. Now women across the west are complaining that there aren't many eligible men left to marry who out earn them, but instead they're left with disgusting working class men like myself, who according to average feminist doesn't deserve respect or love from the opposite sex, which is fuelling a marriage crisis for young women . Feminism in the west is now bourgeoisie bullshit. Progressive Black guys like myself who see their communities disintegrate because of the lack of economic opportunities for working class men are forced to pretend to care for bourgeoisie feminist concerns about equal representation in the boardroom, whilst black men kill themselves trying to raise a family. And the thing is, they really don't give afuck about us or our struggles as working class men, and yet they expect us to unconditionally support them, because we were born with the original sin of being a cisgendered man.
I totally agree with the OP. Until feminists start involving themselves in non bourgeoisie issues and also acknowledge the unique problems men of all races face, especially those in the lower socioeconomic bracket, then I'll pass.
when it comes to white advocacy movements its almost 99% of the time inbred rednecks who think they're genetically superior. White lives matter was cringe worthy af tbh. Don't associate me with those whites I'm not retarded.
So to answer your question. It varies. Like fucking everything. Boohoo. Context is needed.
Many feminists are involved in proletarian issues you just don't know them lol but ok keep generalizing
So Kurds are bad because they are supported by one imperialist power to fight another But one side is leftist and i am a Greek Like you know that you can acknowledge Americas crimes but if they come giving me free shit for my leftist revolution i will take them.
So in your view its possible?
Doesnt China own everything of value in Greece now?
To the extent women suffer unfairness on the basis of being women today, we should be unflinching feminists. Which means yes, we should abandon 99.999% of modern 1st-world feminism.
…And the leadership/flunky-cadre of every single established "leftist" org meatspace or online.
Why is teh wimminz and faggotry special? What about all the other long-settled reformist victories, like child labor, apartheid, slavery, bankruptcy, internal visas, etc. Why don't we maintain special sections of every single org dedicated to frittering away effort virtue-signalling about them 24/7?
Nearly every source of overt oppression against them was legislated out of existence, under socdem reformist capitalism. All remaining oppression against them is covertly idpol, indistinguishable and inseparable from the non-idpol oppression inherent to capitalism. As such, railing against remaining idpol oppression on any basis other than a non-idpol socialist stance is almost invariably futile.
Yeah, feminism is egalitarian insofar as it redresses imbalances against women, and supremacist insofar as it tips the scale past the middle to maintain and impose imbalances against men.
it varies and it's unlikely. in bizarro world where blacks were on top and whites were poor, non-imperialists, were colonized, etc sure thing these could raise, white rights and shit for their freedom make them equal under a state.
but this isn't bizarro world. no such thing happened, no such movements are relevant because of this fact. 99% are legit redneck white supremacists not otherwise. Anyway.
Not really like the hold a part of some ports and they are planning to colonize poor Greek hoods Also we have some triad activity The problem, for leftist, is that Greece is a country with many self-employed petit bouj types so we have many America wanabees
so there is a lot you don't understand because you generalize moronically. In the case of America which is the country I'm assuming you're from at least it isn't that way at all.
Even then you didn't gave me any Context but if you did I'm pretty sure it would be some Zig Forumstardic cospiracy theory non-sense "le gultural margsigsmmmm!".
Only when it affects women.
I don't see many feminists who are overly concerned about alimony reform, male me tal health crisis which has meant that men under 45 are most likely to die from suicide than cancer or murder. Or the fact that men are still held hostage by gender roles , despite women being liberated from gender roles and expectations, since women are more than happy to subject men to trad male expectations. Or fatherlessness, which disproportionately affect the development of boys, and as s black man, I personally know the costs of having no father figures in a boy's life. Feminists are also for social services giving women priority, even if more men are homeless or have severe h mental health issues, which means that shelters are mostly occupied by women despite men being overrepresenteed in the homeless population . Feminists rarely care about issues which disproportionately affect men, unless it is to prove the toxicity of masculinity and to further the lie that men must castrate themselves to stop hurting themselves .
and yet somehow people (overwhelmingly male, because female-on-female sex and relationships still aren't taken seriously because of misogyny) who prefer to have sex with people of the same gender are abused or killed for their interests. sex isn't evil and people should be as free as possible to do non-abusive sex with whoever or however they want.
this user has the right idea and I believe I've adopted their analysis of the implicit/explicit oppression: the liberal paradigm, insofar as it excludes the economic part of life from its conception of equality, can only address questions of power imbalance among demographics by abandoning neutrality and universality. for example the 'positive discrimination' or re-segregation as supported by neolib wokersters
this is the primary failure of feminism IMO - the near-total ignoring of male-gendered problems that are threatening to become epidemics, such as the suicides you mentioned and in reaction we get MRAs who tend to take the worst aspects of modern feminism and then adopt them IMO being a woman in the modern western world is like playing a video game on easy mode: you'll have your hand held and the game actively tries to get you to the end, but it's a hell of a lot harder to reach all the highest accolades and scores and a lot of paths are simply not open. Whereas men are far more expendable, but success is also rewarded far better. I dislike evopsych and especially trying to make some kind of social extrapolations from it but this might have some kind of evolutionary basis: for men reproduction is fire-and-forget, women have to carry the damn babbies around for months, and are even after birth stuck nursing and whatnot. so from a certain point of view, women are more valuable due to having wombs
Here's another quote I often find helpful in elucidating the implicit/explicit distinction, and why it's crucial to understanding when reformism under capitalism can go no further, whenever the subject comes up.
The problem with feminism isn't image/PR. It's this question: People who tell you you should be a feminist are arguing about signifiers, not what they signify.
What analysis/information does "Marxist feminism" provide? I've asked this before and looked for it, and what I got was horribly lopsided nonsense based in idealism rather than materialism.
That's an explanation of male disposability but that's about it. It's not that men can reproduce without involvement, though, but that one man can have a limitless number of offspring. The death of any pre-menopausal woman lowers the cap on reproduction rate, but a dead man could be replaced in the reproductive sense by a surviving man. This is also why post-menopausal women are seen as less valuable that elderly men (who are still fertile).
Opposing inequality doesn't necessarily make someone a feminist. That's not how words work. Feminism means a lot more things than "fix women's issues." The people who use that definition are almost always the ones who adopt the label for social credit. The ones engaged in activism and reform carry theory and all that along with them, and the accuracy and utility of feminist theory is not something that can just be taken for granted, often being the source of the problems you identify below: "Tipping the scale" is a meme. Equality is not zero-sum. Everyone benefits from equality except exploiters, which neither men nor women are by virtue of gender roles. The problem with "sexism" or "imbalances" "against women" or "against men" is that gender is inherently a dualist concept and any trait belonging to one gender has an opposite for the other. The problem with not enough women doing STEM or shit like that is not (just) an issue of sexism, but a problem that the number of people who can do that is limited in the first place, a problem of capitalism. The idea of creating "balance" of power within capitalism is not inherently bad so much as it's expending a lot of effort missing a deeper problem. I don't really care if the total number of women/men in a field is not equal. I'm very bothered when someone, regardless of gender, is denied entry into a field either because of biased gatekeepers or because there's not enough "space" as determined by how much capitalism has decided to fund that field or education for it.
Why did this thread get anchored? I don't see any trolls
you didn't read the OP?
That's exactly what I said How? By that definition, "MRA" also means "fix women's issues", which would make both terms linguistically superfluous. For the word "feminism" to be useful, it must specifically refer to advancing the cause of women, which is a good thing if that cause needs to be advanced, and a bad thing if that is no longer true. Notice that I was careful never to use the terms "equality", "egalitarianism", or even the sometimes disingenuously applied "equal opportunity", but instead "fairness".
The sexes differ on a biological level, producing different (though not universally different!) desires and inclinations, and that's okay. All that matters is that a state of fairness exists, that people of both sexes can live as they wish, to the degree they're able, without undue pressure to conform imposed on them in any direction.
Agreed that the OP is eyerollingly "aren't libs retarded? What do you comrades think that hasn't been unanimously agreed on in every thread about this back to 2014?", but anchoring it was stupid.
Except that feminist friendly progressive socdem countries have an epidemic of men who die alone with no children, like Norway where more than a quarter of Norwegian men baring recent conservative immigrants end up involuntarily childless and single by age 45. Which is more than double the rate of Norwegian women, and increasing.
I was responding to this quote: Which is saying that if we are to address women's issues we should be feminists. So I'm not sure what distinction you're making here. I already explained how in the sentence immediately following that one.
That something overall more supportive of women is feminist, and something overall more supportive of men is, er, masculist. Holding feminist and masculist positions in different areas, then, is the correct path. plz stahp Yes, that's certainly a challenge, but it's one we have to confront. The thing is that biological differences from race of any practical consequence are so tiny as to be irrelevant outside a few obscure medical issues better tracked through genetic profiling, but practical differences between the sexes are very large and play directly into economic and social organization.
Of course, for something vaguer like professional and academic inclinations (i.e.: Nordic Paradox) you would want to be as hands-off about any sort of regulation as possible, since freedom itself is all that's needed to "fix" it. But for something more concrete, like the devastating impact of closely spaced pregnancies on a woman's career path, the "fair" thing to do is very interventionist, providing for sufficient paid leave, and the imposition of understanding from colleagues that this dip must be accommodated.
That's true from a high-level perspective, where zero-sum breaks down due to the strife it causes for society as a whole. But on an issue-by-issue basis, these things are very much zero-sum, and remedying the problems of one group necessarily involves taking away powers enjoyed by another.
Last I checked, Luxemburg explicitly rejected the feminist movement on the basis of it being based on idpol bullshit, not a material analysis. So, it's like you feminist faggots can't even read.
Why is this bumplocked? Stop bumplocking discussion please, we're having fun throwing shit at feminists in here.
I was asking quite a general question and no Im not from America.
Simply put… If we want to make any progress for the working class, we need to disassociate them publicly. Femicunts are actually doing activism and appropiating mainstream left wing politics.
We, everyone on the left, are associated with these dickheads because we do not disavow those pieces of shit publicly and we are completely disorganised.
Maybe it's time to become an actual left wing activist group and take back the left from those SJW faggots.
accelerationist pill: in a few decades women can jail men by accusation, people might revolt against it, assuming we will progress to that stage anyways, we should make it go as quickly as possible
Feminism is so egalitarian in fact it quadrupled male-female suicide ratio since the 50s
but male gaze! muh wage gap! muh sex objectification! muhtoxic masculinity! muh metoo! muh harassment! muh… muh!
why? this book?
Anti-kurd "leftists" are about as retarded as they come, dude. I wouldn't waste my time trying to reason with, or argue with them. They'll forsake internationalism at the drop of a hat just to virtue signal about how pure their anti-imperialism is. Forget it Jake, it's faggot-town.
Freedom for men has ran parallel to feminism,but I do think a new term could be in order. I don't believe most people who say they are egalitarian because it seems more like they are interested in saying nothing is wrong and massaging the ass of the status quo. Also a ton of MRA/willful cuckold types blame feminism for the faults of the leftovers of patriarchy we still have to deal with. Men never rebelled against patriarchy in the same way women did ,and now they are waking up to it, they think it is women's fault. It's pretty funny in a fucked up way. Also most of them want to assert male control instead of true freedom for their gender and for women.
I do agree that patriarchy is on the way out in the west because it's increasingly profitable to cater to women ,since they are the big spenders in a lot of areas in comparison to men. Paradoxically, certain features of it are kept in place by capitalism, so that a huge dissonance is produced.
Just stop raping/assaulting and promoting rapists/assault