The end-of-feminism thread - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By MB.
#13596927
anti-feminism cannot be revolutionary because the patriarchy is the status quo.

In other words, the anti-feminists are reactionaries.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596935
Feminists have had their reaction, they are the status quo now since theirs is the ideology being disseminated as correct, this is the Masculinist reaction to their reaction, anti-feminists are revolutionary anti-fascists.
User avatar
By MB.
#13596940
Sorry, Suska. You are gravely misinformed about these things. The entire social structure, the entire political and legal and military and cultural, and economic fabric, education and history and art and literature all have been predominately constructed and maintained and governed over by men. The power structure itself is a patriarchal creation. The patriarchy has effectively ruled forever except in the minority of cases were matriarchs existed. I am not suggested that a matriarchy should be constructed, nor is this the goal of feminism. Feminism is about overthrowing the patriarchy, the old order, and replacing it with some new more just synthesis. How you can confuse that with fascism (another patriarchal institution) is beyond me.
User avatar
By Red Barn
#13596942
^ The funny thing is, I don't often get the impression that PoFo sexism is actually political in the usual sense - which is odd, considering the nature of the forum.

This thread is pretty typical: the anti-feminist faction sounds very bitter and incredibly needy - as if some woman, or maybe women in general, had somehow failed to supply something or other to these guys, and they feel deeply, personally shortchanged by that. Whatever pseudo-political justification they've dredged up to justify this just doesn't sound very convincing somehow.

I realize that most of these guys are very young men, but still - you'd think that people used to thinking in political terms would be able to retain some modicum of critical distance and rethink this kind of neurotic shit. Apparently, though, they can't, which is sad. My guess is that it's just too personal to be contextualized in genuinely political terms.
User avatar
By MB.
#13596943
Perhaps the anti-feminist reaction (sexism, as Suska observed) is Oedipal. It would explain the antagonism between the boys on the forum.
Last edited by MB. on 10 Jan 2011 02:26, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596948
Sorry, Suska. You are gravely misinformed about these things. The entire social structure, the entire political and legal and military and cultural, and economic fabric, education and history and art and literature all have been predominately constructed and maintained and governed over by men. The power structure itself is a patriarchal creation. The patriarchy has effectively ruled forever except in the minority of cases were matriarchs existed. I am not suggested that a matriarchy should be constructed, nor is this the goal of feminism. Feminism is about overthrowing the patriarchy, the old order, and replacing it with some new more just synthesis. How you can confuse that with fascism (another patriarchal institution) is beyond me.

I don't believe that one bit, you're acting like women were never LET IN on the power grab. Woman's role has always been of a different order, as has woman's influence, which has never in the history of man been irrelevant. If we adopted Matriarchy, would we go about our business as before with just more women at top? No. What some women want is the authority of BEING a man, which equates to sexual androgyny, something else which they rail against. It's like insisting on being a turtle that can fly, and blaming men for the lack of loft.

And the rest of that is just bullshit. When women complain it's freedom fighting, when men complain it's Oedipal or needy. Fuck that.
By lessnot
#13596952
Don't worry, most of you will get laid some day.

The funniest thing about suskas post is that he doesn't realize how sexist what he said is. Oh sure some number of women want to stay at home etc, just as some men do, but what do you do with the ones that don't? Send them to a nunery, or whore house was the usual answer. In so much as feminism is trying to force all women to adopt a new mould I am against it for it will be just as oppressive as the old system. However the reactionary drive we see here is completely at odds with the supposed progressivism of the posters in question.
User avatar
By Suska
#13596954
Who's "trying to force women" to do anything? Does telling a drug addict they're going to die amount to a threat? If a woman wants to be loose she can, if that creates a problem for her that isn't men's fault. Such women should be shunned and I don't have to tell men to do that, unless they're completely pussy whipped they won't have it. And in the other case, let the loose women dominate some men. I don't care. But you can't tell me a loose or pushy woman has every right to my affection and respect. That's personal. Now, we're here talking on PoFo, I'm being called sexist, being equated with fascists, but I have NEVER dismissed an opinion just because it's coming from a woman. Some women are idiots, just like some men. This is where the fascism kicks in. You're trying to shut me up.

I don't want a nasty woman because I want a useful partner. If they don't want to be looked at like sex objects they need to be modest. Clearly modesty is not what the sexual revolution is about. Be as bold as you like, but if that makes you a slut it's not sexist to say so. If you ask me, the best sort of woman is one that develops into a good mother - and that's matriarchy. But I'm not stopping the rest, just not gonna cower in PC fear of crazy bitches. Be a person if you want to be treated as a person. Women sexualize themselves and blame it on men, try to frame it as historical - ideological. It's total bullshit. The social advances of emancipation are shamed by modern women - ever proud of their feminism, but what does it amount to? Misogyny and promiscuity.

The worst part of it is how chivalrous men leap to their defense. Fucking pussies. You deserve the reamed out strung out jaded psychotic children of the sexual revolution. You really do. God forbid they grow up to be oppressed housewives, content well into their golden years. God forbid we admit to the value of a proper courtship procedure or fidelity and equality in lifelong marriage because that's supposed to be a conspiracy of males.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13597082
MB wrote:The entire social structure, the entire political and legal and military and cultural, and economic fabric, education and history and art and literature all have been predominately constructed and maintained and governed over by men.

Exactly.

Feminism was coopted by the ruling elite (who are married hetero men with wives who neither take care of children or work for a living) and turned into something they would be able to squeeze more status symbols for themselves out of.

What's funny is watching the well-branded members of the working-feminist class pretending that it was a few bookish lesbian novels that got all those women working in dull gray offices. And then accusing the men of talking about "something they can't possibly know anything about."

What are you talking about? Men understand nine to five very, very well.
By Zyx
#13597125
MB. wrote:Feminism is about revolution. I tend to support revolutionary movements. If you reject feminism you are probably some kind of crypto-fascist.


Utter nonsense. There is a way to make feminism emancipatory, but this way is neither practiced nor theorized. The feminism of today is reactionary in that it aims to be an expansion of the ruling and working class. Albeit females rather than males.

Plus, there is no reason to designate 'anti-feminists' as young or characteristically lacking. It's perfectly possible for people with heightened political senses to discuss matters regarding women without say a chip on their shoulders.

It is beyond me to see why Red Barn insisted that the men of POFO were 'needy' or why lessnot considers us virginal or why MB. believes us young. Who honestly contests that feminism is not emancipatory, neither in theory nor practice?

To wit, as outlined, there are four main branches of leftist-feminism: liberal, radical, socialist and "post-constructivist" (post-modernism and constructivism combined.) None of these three address the female problem, so it's beyond me to admit any of them as emancipatory. Though it would be interesting to see an effort. However, insofar as the soi-disant feminists are concerned, they never made a gesture toward debating the emancipatory qualities of feminism but rather sunk into this low "You are men and therefore you can not understand woman's liberation." As if liberation had a sex. :roll:
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13597265
This thread is really disturbing. Particularly as Suska and Zyx in particular have ramped up the rhetoric to include constant personal attacks against anyone who disagrees. That last bit directed at MB was particularly foul.

Those who disagree are 'not real men' (Zyx). Feminists are actually nasty and sluttish; crazy bitches (Suska). Etc. Both have repeatedly stated what role women are supposed to play. Deviations from this are not acceptable.

What gets ignored over and over again is that feminists are not trying to force anyone into anything. We are fighting to stop others from imposing their own value judgments on other people. That fight includes challenging those who are so negative, aggressive and abusive towards those who disagree with politically/legally/socially enforced gender roles. Such abusive behaviour towards both men and women is a social force, and a particularly strong one. It cannot be ignored.

There has been mention of 'second wave feminism' as though it is somehow the root of all evil. First wave feminism deal with legal barriers to gender equality. Second wave feminism attempted to deal with the social barriers to gender equity. The critiques of second wave feminism as being primarily aimed at, and suited to middle class white women were incorporated into third wave feminism. Since then, feminist thought and critique has branched out into many diverse areas. This too has been pointed out and ignored.

We are still fighting the cultural, social and political discrimination that is very much expressed throughout this thread by men who continue to believe it is their place to define the role of men and women. If you want to ignorantly boil that down to 'second wave feminism', ignoring actual feminist thought and evolution, you're on your own.

In other words, build your strawfeminists and attack them if you wish. Expecting anyone to address your fairy tale 'concerns', and give them even an ounce of legitimacy by refuting the ridiculous, is a little much.
User avatar
By Suska
#13597345
Anyone who disagrees? You mean, I gave what I got? I'm sure poor MB. had to cry himself to sleep last night over me being such a meanie. See, my thinking was, here I am being insulted all the time, I wonder what I can say to respond to that..? It's really typical feminithinky, any reality you like so long as it fits the agenda.

stated what role women are supposed to play

That's right, I have. You're incapable of addressing what was said.

disagree are 'not real men'

And you've, or was it Pants, is there a difference? ...made it clear that men aren't being themselves when they act like men.

In other words, build your strawfeminists and attack them if you wish. Expecting anyone to address your fairy tale 'concerns', and give them even an ounce of legitimacy by refuting the ridiculous, is a little much

Well y'know, men have learned a thing or too along the way.

Image
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13597378
Yiwa wrote:What gets ignored over and over again is that feminists are not trying to force anyone into anything.

First of all, we know you are just regurgitating the media-publicized version of what a feminist is, and that - in your eyes in this thread - they can do no wrong.

This is why you are able to be condescending, rude, and occasionally incoherent in this thread, and still get away with it: because in your own mind, you are on the side of "good" because you have the good ideology. Your money-seeking ideology is read as "good" because it will bring your own people (tribe?) more power. This is true of all "ism"s.

You act like you're defending bombed villages of women from drone attacks from the male tribe, when - in the real reality which we all observe everyday - you are defending a system of low-wage office work that has displaced child-rearing and the home economy.

No one will thank you for this. That type of commercial feminism is so far behind us. Whenever I see feminists complaining that Saudi women aren't allowed to drive SUVs like their fat husbands, it reminds me of what the commercial feminism movement turned into.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13597384
Aren't you guys tired of exchanging monologues? :/
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13597388
Cookie Monster wrote:Aren't you guys tired of exchanging monologues? :/


Yeah, I am. That was my summation of the thread, and its lack of legitimacy or point.

Hope everyone is managing the slide back into work/school/routines without too much difficulty, take care and buh-bye :lol:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13597398
I have said virtually nothing about the discourse of feminism, except that it is a hollow one.

Many posters have reified the dorm-room discourse of feminism, and to do this, you must ignore all the tragic effects of putting women to work in offices.

As an ideology, feminism - like any other ideology - exists in its own little make-believe heaven. If you call attention to the real-world effects of the discourse, the believers will always jump up and down and call you a heretic. Or worse.

We rock - They suck - You suck - Everything sucks applies here as well.
By Pants-of-dog
#13597410
I have a hammer. It is a good hammer. A 20 oz Estwing with a rip claw.

People have used models of this hammer to seriously injure and kill other people. That is what these hammers have been used to accomplish.

Does that make hammers inherently immoral?
User avatar
By Suska
#13597425
Pants wrote:...men can simply be themselves instead of trying to fit some macho ideal.


Men according to Pants, not being themselves when they are masculine.

People have used models of this hammer to seriously injure and kill other people. That is what these hammers have been used to accomplish.

This is pretty macho, careful you aren't being yourself. Does it help, the leash that yiwa makes youwear? To remind you who you are?
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]