not enough talk about the ai boyfriend thing. you can write articles on futurism and wired about those lonely weird men roleplaying with ai girlfriends but not all those women on reddit just ruining their perception of reality because now theyre comparinmg real men to a thing that just agrees with them all the time. at least those lonely men by and large know they're playing with hyperreality
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
10men do this with regular porn of course (thinking women should be like that) though this is well trodden territory for writers. the fact remains this is a thing that is happening to lots of women and they're choosing not to write about it much. i have theory of why but it's sexist.
@sun Actually not quite, there's a few modern medical papers showing that woman can get excited by imagination/reading while males are more visual, which is why a lot of people says that smut novels on woman has the same effect as porn on male brains
@kumicota popular media, science covers it generally. big gap.
@kumicota as an example you could write a shitty but true article about how ai boyfriends are the new smutty romance novel and shaming them but its never happening
@sun yeah, it's like how a girl doing only fans isn't shunned but a man who subs to an only fans is, society in general still sees woman as a purer being than men in general and the truth is more complex than the fiction
@sun to be clear. A lot of this happens in reverse too, where woman are judged as being worse or less in a field than a man and both of them are bad
@kumicota i don't want to single out women for bad behavior. basically though at this point i have to completely discard feminism as an academic and activist model. it is bad and wrong. not the same as saying i believe sexism is good, just its a geocentric explanation for planetary motion. it observes something, its just wrong
@subnetter @kumicota I am talking about second wave "radfem" and onward
@sun @kumicota @subnetter I've been reading a lot of second-wave feminist essays/papers recently, in preparation for an article I've set about writing. They had a point, a well-reasoned ongoing/perpetual critique of the male focus in literature that was successfully traded and abandoned for real, crude, institutional power in the 90s.
Replies
30
@kernow @kumicota @subnetter to be fair to second wave there is a lot of good academics (I studied it extensively at university in the 90s). the activism and popular promotion of it though was all very bad though
@sun @kernow @kumicota @subnetter
libertarian/anacha feminism is the only real feminism imo... everything else is tainted by various psyops (including cia et al), starting with the suffrage movement which was a psyop by various allied governments around the world to sway the vote in favour of mandatory military conscription of men.
libertarian/anacha feminism is the only real feminism imo... everything else is tainted by various psyops (including cia et al), starting with the suffrage movement which was a psyop by various allied governments around the world to sway the vote in favour of mandatory military conscription of men.
@toiletpaper @kernow @kumicota @subnetter I wonder if there was any prominent second wave feminists directly connected to the cia, hmmm
@sun @kernow @kumicota @subnetter
the other aspect of this is marxist socialist infiltration of politics via the women's movement. for instance via the frankfurt school. basically radical marxists moved the goal post of class from being about economics, to being about sex/gender, and used half-baked ideology based on marxist theory like "origin of the family, private property and the state" to create a mythology about "the patriachy" and to vilify men as a class as being the existential enemy of women. a prime example is this...
http://www.redstockings.org/index.php/rs-manifesto
https://web.archive.org/web/20260206124020/https://www.redstockings.org/index.php/rs-manifesto
but by far not the only example.
the other aspect of this is marxist socialist infiltration of politics via the women's movement. for instance via the frankfurt school. basically radical marxists moved the goal post of class from being about economics, to being about sex/gender, and used half-baked ideology based on marxist theory like "origin of the family, private property and the state" to create a mythology about "the patriachy" and to vilify men as a class as being the existential enemy of women. a prime example is this...
http://www.redstockings.org/index.php/rs-manifesto
https://web.archive.org/web/20260206124020/https://www.redstockings.org/index.php/rs-manifesto
but by far not the only example.
@toiletpaper @kernow @kumicota @subnetter it goes back to almost the beginning if you see like Simone de Beauvoir thinking that women can't be free until there's a socialist state that communally raises kids so women as a class aren't locked into childrearing
@toiletpaper @sun @kernow @kumicota
You're practicing historical revisionism. Radical feminism has Marxist roots but is not necessarily a Marxist philosophy as patriarchy is defined as the primary contradiction.
You're practicing historical revisionism. Radical feminism has Marxist roots but is not necessarily a Marxist philosophy as patriarchy is defined as the primary contradiction.
@sun @toiletpaper @kernow @kumicota @subnetter I wonder if feminists are just an attempt to get more low information voters to vote
@patriarchalape @sun @kernow @kumicota @subnetter
In the case of Canada and other British colonies/allies, that was originally exactly the case. It was calculated to force men into mandatory military conscription during WW1.
"The Wartime Elections Act gave the vote to the wives, mothers, and sisters of soldiers, the first women permitted to vote in Canadian federal elections. These groups tended to favour conscription because it supported their men in the field."
https://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/history/life-at-home-during-the-war/recruitment-and-conscription/conscription-1917/
In the case of Canada and other British colonies/allies, that was originally exactly the case. It was calculated to force men into mandatory military conscription during WW1.
"The Wartime Elections Act gave the vote to the wives, mothers, and sisters of soldiers, the first women permitted to vote in Canadian federal elections. These groups tended to favour conscription because it supported their men in the field."
https://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/history/life-at-home-during-the-war/recruitment-and-conscription/conscription-1917/
@toiletpaper @kumicota @kernow @subnetter @sun
Feminism is just another tool for polarization used by the socialists when the labourers in europe got too rich to be able to polarize against the rich any longer.
Feminism, when you view the world through gender glasses, is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism, which is individualist at its core.
Since I live in europe, I have to fight militant feminists every day and their pathetic attempts to grab power through politics.
@h4890 @kumicota @kernow @subnetter @sun
The main purpose of liberatarian/anarcha feminism isn't to seize power, but to remove legislation which disenfranchises women, so they can have the same human rights as every other person without prejudice. It's not about creating laws to privilege women, but removing laws which do the opposite. Everything else is up to the culture to determine.
The main purpose of liberatarian/anarcha feminism isn't to seize power, but to remove legislation which disenfranchises women, so they can have the same human rights as every other person without prejudice. It's not about creating laws to privilege women, but removing laws which do the opposite. Everything else is up to the culture to determine.
@toiletpaper @kumicota @kernow @subnetter @sun
Fortunately the weaker sex always fails in this, since they are too empathetic and are really optimized, by nature, to be caring and emotional at heart.
That is why militant feminists almost always end up bitter and lonely. But at least they are removed from the gene pool which is good!
@h4890 @kumicota @kernow @subnetter @sun
> removed from the gene pool
that's a consolation prize. the real issue in view of history is that they can still reproduce their ideology through institutional and legislative means, particularly with their long standing monopoly on child rearing, which didn't change just because many of these women disavowed their responsibility as wives and mothers. and it also begs the question, if men are so evil, but their primary childhood indoctrination is by/for women, where do the supposedly evil mens get their ideas about women in the first place?
> removed from the gene pool
that's a consolation prize. the real issue in view of history is that they can still reproduce their ideology through institutional and legislative means, particularly with their long standing monopoly on child rearing, which didn't change just because many of these women disavowed their responsibility as wives and mothers. and it also begs the question, if men are so evil, but their primary childhood indoctrination is by/for women, where do the supposedly evil mens get their ideas about women in the first place?
@toiletpaper @kumicota @kernow @subnetter @sun Excellent reasoning!
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world @sun@shitposter.world @kernow@clubcyberia.co @kumicota@akkoma.kumicota.moe @subnetter@shitposter.world the legal system should be completely silent on the matter and neutral and allow the culture of the population dictate what is and isn't proper.
@lolitechengineer @toiletpaper @subnetter @kumicota @kernow I agree with feminism that there are structural issues that benefit primarily men so you still need to think about it but over time the picture has gotten a lot messier, and a lot of the neoliberal changes now have institutional benefits for women over men. you can argue over what exactly that means but one of my main arguments is that patriarchy doesn't have explanatory power for it at all
@sun@shitposter.world @toiletpaper@shitposter.world @subnetter@shitposter.world @kumicota@akkoma.kumicota.moe @kernow@clubcyberia.co you will always have structural discrimination when you empower the government to change the balance.
@sun @lolitechengineer @kernow @kumicota @subnetter
there are also long standing legal and cultural structural issues which disenfranchise men (speaking from experience) which go back a couple centuries. here's just one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839
there are also long standing legal and cultural structural issues which disenfranchise men (speaking from experience) which go back a couple centuries. here's just one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839
@sun @lolitechengineer @kernow @kumicota @toiletpaper
You're from a country where women have about the reproductive rights and protections women in [insert "shithole" country] do. You don't ever question whether or not you're being taken seriously at the doctor, and your medical decisions to not fall to a hypothetical man you have never even met.
I don't think you could seriously argue what "neoliberal" advantages have over men, and if you're referring to something like full custody then it's not the gotcha you think it is when most men don't pay child support in full or on time to begin with.
The wealthiest man in the world pays the bare minimum for the baby he had with the bitch that smells like nickels.
At the end of the day all these structures and institutions continue to benefit you and other men, and most of you are not doing anything to change it because you enjoy your privileges. Of course patriarchy doesn't explain all transgressions, but at the end of the day all these issues are still largely committed, orchestrated, and done purposely by men in power regardless of the reasons (late stage capitalism, imperialism, genocide, etc.).
You're from a country where women have about the reproductive rights and protections women in [insert "shithole" country] do. You don't ever question whether or not you're being taken seriously at the doctor, and your medical decisions to not fall to a hypothetical man you have never even met.
I don't think you could seriously argue what "neoliberal" advantages have over men, and if you're referring to something like full custody then it's not the gotcha you think it is when most men don't pay child support in full or on time to begin with.
The wealthiest man in the world pays the bare minimum for the baby he had with the bitch that smells like nickels.
At the end of the day all these structures and institutions continue to benefit you and other men, and most of you are not doing anything to change it because you enjoy your privileges. Of course patriarchy doesn't explain all transgressions, but at the end of the day all these issues are still largely committed, orchestrated, and done purposely by men in power regardless of the reasons (late stage capitalism, imperialism, genocide, etc.).
@subnetter @kernow @kumicota @lolitechengineer @toiletpaper I'm not making an argument they are the same or it inverted I just say it falsifies patriarchy explanation. I concede yes you can frame some women advantages as actually perpetuated by men but this is also part of a larger unfalsifiability problem with patriarchy
@subnetter @kernow @kumicota @lolitechengineer @toiletpaper > all these issues are still largely committed, orchestrated, and done purposely by men in power regardless of the reasons (late stage capitalism, imperialism, genocide, etc.).
I agree with this!
I agree with this!
@sun @subnetter @kernow @kumicota @lolitechengineer
playing devil's advocate: also, in usa, 89% of all black homicide victims are murdered by other blacks, and 60% of all firearm homocides in total, in spite of them only making up 14% of the population. but if we point the finger in that direction it's considered racist. meanwhile the accepted implication is some bad ceo's and politicians, therefore all men. and never mind the women in power who are just as viscous (victoria nuland, killary clinton, chystia freeland, etc, etc, etc). it's clearly because of a certain shape of genitals. bottom line, correlation is not causation.
playing devil's advocate: also, in usa, 89% of all black homicide victims are murdered by other blacks, and 60% of all firearm homocides in total, in spite of them only making up 14% of the population. but if we point the finger in that direction it's considered racist. meanwhile the accepted implication is some bad ceo's and politicians, therefore all men. and never mind the women in power who are just as viscous (victoria nuland, killary clinton, chystia freeland, etc, etc, etc). it's clearly because of a certain shape of genitals. bottom line, correlation is not causation.
@sun @kumicota @subnetter i really liked Sandra Gilbert laying out in plain English the goals of her movement: Developing a language for women that deals in emotion. Her main gripe with language was because it was developed by men it deals primarily in shape and space, rendering the vast cannon of the west extremely difficult to understand by the majority of women. I find that a noble goal, even if it would drive a greater wedge between the sexes
@kernow @kumicota @subnetter I'll read about it it sounds interesting but of course the goal should have to be that both sexes are fluent in both languages lol
@sun @kumicota @subnetter I don't think both sexes can be fluent in either one's language. Men are terrible at handling emotions, partly due to a social embargo against men holding emotions, partly due to a diminished emotional center of the brain. I can't tell if this is a chicken and egg problem or something inherent to the sex.
@kernow @kumicota @subnetter fluent is too strong a word. but I can tell you my experience from being married almost a year now. I have had to radically understand women's emotional language better to negotiate with my wife. it has been extremely difficult but it's pretty necessary. I assume if it were the 1950s I would just smack her until she shut up, instead
@sun @kumicota @kernow @subnetter any tips? dealing with my mum is incredibly frustrating and she has a lot of trauma from childhood and depression. She can be logical but when she gets into a downer or angry mood she just spirals often.
