[Figlio di Moros]

[youtube]w__PJ8ymliw[/youtube]

Well, Rei, I assume you'll have a response to this?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Mod Note: This is a discussion forum. One line posts deleted.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't know what happened before I got to this thread, but I think I can actually give my response after having only seen five minutes of her video.

It's totally reactionary stuff, and she shoots her own argument down by mentioning the modern conveniences that make things nice for women anyway.

I actually don't see why I should have to respond to her arguments, when she is essentially defending the presently-existing capitalist system, a system that I have no intention of defending. Fight an opponent on their own terms and expect to lose.

[slybaldguy]

She makes some thought-provoking points. It's nice to see a strong-minded independent woman, outing those feminist parasites for what they are; irresponsible little girls. On a side note, could this be daktoria's sister?

[Rei Murasame]

What's the definition of 'responsibility' these days? I find that 'responsibility' often seems to actually mean "accepting the self-help narrative put forward by the bourgeoisie in the mid-Victorian era".

Why would anyone want to do that?

[slybaldguy]

Irresponsibility is bringing a child into the world without the means to support it. It's expecting men to pay child support for a child they are either denied access to or did not consent to in the first place.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, the most hard-line feminists are actually completely opposed to the concept of child support payments, because 'child support' being paid for by a man, gives him economic power over a household that presumably doesn't want to see his face anyway, and the whole idea is based on patriarchal assumptions (man is breadwinner and the state should reinforce that by making him relevant even when he isn't there?).

Feminists did not invent the concept of 'child support' and have to my knowledge always opposed it.

[Rainbow Crow]

Yes, self-help has nothing to do with responsibility

I'm sure Rei's conception of responsibility is being responsible for others with no mention of self-help whatsoever

[Rei Murasame]

When I refer to 'self-help narratives', I'm referring specifically to the Samuel Smiles dogma, where he says that no one in society is responsible for anyone else, and that hard work is all that matters.

In other words the basis of the British liberal morality system. Also known as utter trash morality system.

I call for a balanced approach instead, which in the Anglo-Saxon world is apparently like calling for rape and murder, the way that you all react to it.

[Rainbow Crow]

Probably because the logical and historical result of removing all human rights and forms of democracy is rape and murder?

Shame on us I guess for calling rape and murder rape and murder

[Rei Murasame]

Do you remember the late 1990s when in Japan there was the "young single parent fashion"? It was the time when young women decided to be single parents on purpose because it was a fad and the magazines were glamorising it.

Did you know that the taxpayers soundlessly paid for every single one of those children and their daycare, without the state demanding that anyone should name who the father was for 'child support'?

Some may say that was all "irresponsible", but actually it was taxpayers taking responsibility for their young people.

[slybaldguy]

Do you remember the late 1990s when in Japan there was the "young single parent fashion"? It was the time when young women decided to be single parents on purpose because it was a fad and the magazines were glamorising it.

Did you know that the taxpayers soundlessly paid for every single one of those children and their daycare, without the state demanding that anyone should name who the father was for 'child support'?

Some may say that was all "irresponsible", but actually it was taxpayers taking responsibility for their young people.

Of course it's irresponsible of mothers to thoughtlessly churn out babies and expect the state to pick up the full tab. Those magazines glamorising such destructive behaviour should have banned. I find it strange that you approve of said 90s fad, yet you complain about Japan being overpopulated.

[Rei Murasame]

The overall population trend was still going downward, so it didn't really matter where the few babies that were emerging were coming from, within reason.

So long as they are healthy and smart and are given good opportunities, people shouldn't be all that worried about the 'morality' of the people who are giving birth. If we were to nitpick the life choices of every woman that decides to give birth to a child, no one would ever give birth again, since there's always something that we wouldn't like about them.

[Figlio di Moros]

I'd like to thank Rei for examplifying the points of this woman for us. "I only watched five minutes of this video, but I disagree with her perspective so it's reactionary and now let me complain about mundane things."

Well, the most hard-line feminists are actually completely opposed to the concept of child support payments, because 'child support' being paid for by a man, gives him economic power over a household that presumably doesn't want to see his face anyway, and the whole idea is based on patriarchal assumptions (man is breadwinner and the state should reinforce that by making him relevant even when he isn't there?).

Feminists did not invent the concept of 'child support' and have to my knowledge always opposed it.

First off, there's a significant doublethink in the idea that child support is "giving a man significant economic power over a household". By taking money that a man earns, presumably against his will, to support a household where he has no influence, and possibly never wanted it, is giving him economic power? Last I checked, the ability to take the product of labor from somebody against their will is power, not being forced to hand it over.

And, Rei, whether or not you're sympathetic to legal paternal surrender is irrelevent. You have a knack for saying "Well, I support this, therefore feminism supports this, even though other feminist oppose this and feminism as a whole has never done a single thing for these issues." If feminists were concerned that child support actually gave men legal rights over women, then where are the thousands of protests, sit-ins, and sit-downs? FFS, you can hold a thousand "slut marches" because you're incapable of understanding a single police cheif correctly, and yet you expect us to believe opposition to child support is oppression of women, and you're simply incapable of doing anything about that?

[Rei Murasame]

We are indeed apparently incapable of doing anything about it. We've repeatedly called for universal child benefits, but these have been never been established and maintained, have they?

I'm not projecting my own position onto feminists, I'm simply telling you what the facts are. Men don't want their tax money to 'pay for some other man's offspring', so they make a huge noise any time anyone suggests having the state take over this role for any sort of collectivisation of 'breadwinning' for disadvantaged people.

And if you want to talk about taking labour from people without paying for it, that's exactly what you and the anti-feminist woman in that video are consistently calling for, since she even says outright that women were placed in such a position that they could not survive on their own, but she seems to have no problem with that.

Where have I heard it before?

Leaving the labourer possessed of more land than his family can cultivate in the evenings means that the farmer can no longer depend on him for constant work.

Gender transformation:

Allowing a woman to possess more assets than she can live off of without the labourer watching over her as a husband, means that the labourer husband can no longer depend on her for constant sexual favours and womb rents.

That is the point that she establishes within the first five minutes of her video. That's why I called her a reactionary. Did you really expect me to get past five minutes when she's so far up the capitalist patriarchy's ass?

She makes both points, by the way, she takes the first point about the labourer, accepts it as eternally true, and then does that gender transformation to create a role for the woman based on that. I am not pinning this on her, she actually is establishing that position.

Obviously I would apply the brakes right there, since that's a fundamental and insurmountable disagreement. There is not a socialistic bone in her entire body, and that's why she keeps making these videos, and why I keep disagreeing with all of them.

[Figlio di Moros]

We are indeed apparently incapable of doing anything about it. We've repeatedly called for universal child benefits, but these have been never been established and maintained, have they?

I'm not projecting my own position onto feminists, I'm simply telling you what the facts are. Men don't want their tax money to 'pay for some other man's offspring', so they make a huge noise any time anyone suggests having the state take over this role for any sort of collectivisation of 'breadwinning' for disadvantaged people.

Again, Rei, there have been thousands of Slut Marches in the last, what, two years? There have been protests for this issue and that time and time again, and feminists are constantly appearing in the mainstream media to give their opinion on why things are not women friendly enough. Where have feminists ever seriously and organizationally called for an end to child support?

And if you want to talk about taking labour from people without paying for it, that's exactly what you and the anti-feminist woman in that video are consistently calling for, since she even says outright that women were placed in such a position that they could not survive on their own, but she seems to have no problem with that.

What the fuck are you even on about? You call taking a man's paycheck economic oppression of the person it's handed to, and then dare suggest we're somehow "taking labor without paying for it" based on something she pointed out in the first five minutes, that women historically needed men to do dangerous jobs just for their survival?

If you refuse to watch her video, Rei, that's one thing; to assert either me or her are "continually calling for" stealing the labor of women without listening to what someone else has to say is another.

Also, Rei, paying women to do less work isn't "socialist". He who shall not work, shall not eat- or did you forget that part?

[Rei Murasame]

I have no idea how to interpret that response. Basically, she is not challenging the system in any way, I don't know why I should be expected to respond to anything she says, just because men's rights advocacy groups like her.

She's basically their token woman who will say what capitalist reactionary men would like to hear a woman say. If she wants to say those things, she can do it, but there is simply no chance on this earth that I'll ever be found agreeing with her.

And, by the way, you are not the first person who has asked me to comment on her videos, I've had her stuff thrown at me elsewhere as well, but it always ends the same way. She is consistently in the tank for capitalist reaction. In further comedy, I've even seen a video of hers where she had a men's rights advocacy poster stuck on the side of her refrigerator behind her, as though she weren't already doing enough to signal whose side she is on.

It's also notable that I have yet to see a single men's rights advocacy group criticise capitalism. Not even once.

[Decky]

'child support' being paid for by a man, gives him economic power over a household that presumably doesn't want to see his face anyway,

Yes Rei because a couple has split up the entire household wont want anything to do with him, the children won't want to see their dad at all. You aren't just spouting total nonsense there, when a couple splits up a pheromone is released that means no one in the household will want to see him ever again Please keep making posts free of hilariously stupid assumptions for the forum to consume

I take it that in cases where the children are living with the father you would be glad to apply the same principle and assume that they would want nothing to do with the mother? I assume so, it isn't like you are a massive hypocrite or anything.

[Rei Murasame]

I can't even decipher that post. Recently I'm just not trying, so you are going to have to either speak real English or I won't even care to respond.

Basically my stance is what it is, and that's it. If you are not on board with socialist feminist thought, then you are wrong.

[Decky]

'child support' being paid for by a man, gives him economic power over a household that presumably doesn't want to see his face anyway,

Ok Rei.

1) Couple splits up.

2) ?

3) The entire household "presumably doesn't want to see his face."

Fancy explaining 2 in a little more detail or withdrawing one of the most bizarre assertions I have ever head you make?

Bonus points if you use the old "it had happened ergo that must be the norm." That ones a useful get out clause when you have said something impossible to defend.