LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Canadensia]

Generally when people refer to Feminism nowadays it's in regards to Third Wave Feminism and modern Feminism, unless it's explicitly in a historical context.

Contemporary Feminism is frankly a self-cannibalizing movement with little in the way of genuine objectives, especially in regards to egalitarianism. For the most part it's just adjunct professors and occasional full-time paid activists trying to find a way to justify their salaries (and thus making up social issues where there are none), and gullible college students with little actual understanding of the world.

The third waves biggest accomplishment was being an embarrassment to the first two waves.

Pretty much.

The RadFems were particularly annoying. Especially the TERF's.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The third waves biggest accomplishment was being an embarrassment to the first two waves.

Pretty much.

The RadFems were particularly annoying. Especially the TERF's.

The mere mention of their name is like uttering Voldemort in the Harry Potter universe to me. TERF might as well be Voldemort, far as I see it.

[The New Sea Territory]

Marx and Engels are rolling in their graves considering how much they fought for women's equality, both in their writings (such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) and in their organizing (such as criticizing the British trade unionists for their misogyny in the International Workingmen's Association).

A movement seeking to end exploitation must liberate women, as their labor is exploited by our economic system both as workers and as house-workers. The Marxist conception of primitive accumulation is not limited to land, via enclosure, but also to reproduction, women's bodies and women's traditional, herbal medicine....the protestant states whose work ethic laid the ideological foundations for capitalism and later became capitalist powerhouses themselves through the industrial revolution killed thousands of women in witch hunts: a direct offensive on the residual elements of primitive communism in late feudal society.

[West Leas Oros 2]

t. Calling feminism “equality”

Marx and Engels are rolling in their graves considering how much they fought for women's equality, both in their writings (such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) and in their organizing (such as criticizing the British trade unionists for their misogyny in the International Workingmen's Association).

A movement seeking to end exploitation must liberate women, as their labor is exploited by our economic system both as workers and as house-workers. The Marxist conception of primitive accumulation is not limited to land, via enclosure, but also to reproduction, women's bodies and women's traditional, herbal medicine....the protestant states whose work ethic laid the ideological foundations for capitalism and later became capitalist powerhouses themselves through the industrial revolution killed thousands of women in witch hunts: a direct offensive on the residual elements of primitive communism in late feudal society.

I’d be nice if most feminists actually supported that. Shame that they don’t.

[The New Sea Territory]

Marx and Engels are rolling in their graves considering how much they fought for women's equality, both in their writings (such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) and in their organizing (such as criticizing the British trade unionists for their misogyny in the International Workingmen's Association).

A movement seeking to end exploitation must liberate women, as their labor is exploited by our economic system both as workers and as house-workers. The Marxist conception of primitive accumulation is not limited to land, via enclosure, but also to reproduction, women's bodies and women's traditional, herbal medicine....the protestant states whose work ethic laid the ideological foundations for capitalism and later became capitalist powerhouses themselves through the industrial revolution killed thousands of women in witch hunts: a direct offensive on the residual elements of primitive communism in late feudal society.

I’d be nice if most feminists actually supported that. Shame that they don’t.

You talk in such general ways so you get away with making statements like this that are devoid of critical content. "Most feminists", but never really specific. "Third wave", without recognizing the disagreements in theory and practice between Marxist, poststructuralist, liberal and radical feminism. "Radical feminism", but using that word as a catch-all for "feminists I don't like" rather than what it actually means (people like Kate Millett).

Most feminists support the liberation of women. A minority support separatism, and that movement has no traction. Feminists just disagree on the various methods by which we liberate women.

I've found that Marxist feminism has the most coherent understanding of how class and gender interact, and that, while a social revolution lays the foundation for women's liberation, cultural elements of bourgeois and conservative society linger in low-phase communism/socialism and must be met with a cultural struggle alongside an economic one.

[The New Sea Territory]

The movement as a whole doesn't really conform to the dictionary definition any more tbqh

Going egalitarian or MRA puts you closer to equality.

Depends on which sect of the MRA we are talking about. Some parts of it are alright

[West Leas Oros 2]

Depends on which sect of the MRA we are talking about. Some parts of it are alright

You seem to have quote mined me. You do realize that most movements are made up of different factions and parts? You seem to be a hypocrite.

[Canadensia]

Pretty much.

The RadFems were particularly annoying. Especially the TERF's.

The mere mention of their name is like uttering Voldemort in the Harry Potter universe to me. TERF might as well be Voldemort, far as I see it.

Oh dear, now I have a mental image of Andrea Dworkin wearing a black cape, and with pasty skin and a slit snake nose.

[The New Sea Territory]

You seem to have quote mined me. You do realize that most movements are made up of different factions and parts? You seem to be a hypocrite.

I'm certain the MRA movement experiences the contradictions and factionalism that any other movement does. Certainly, even fascism experienced its own factionalism.

That doesn't mean the movement as a whole still isn't garbage. The existence of factions does not necessitate the existence of good factions.

[West Leas Oros 2]

You seem to have quote mined me. You do realize that most movements are made up of different factions and parts? You seem to be a hypocrite.

I'm certain the MRA movement experiences the contradictions and factionalism that any other movement does. Certainly, even fascism experienced its own factionalism.

That doesn't mean the movement as a whole still isn't garbage. The existence of factions does not necessitate the existence of good factions.

Yeah, but I’d hardly consider the ENTIRE movement to be bad. I mean, you’d disagree if I’d said that about feminism. I’m afraid broad generalizations are a two way street. If you don’t want people to generalize, don’t do it yourself.

[Canadensia]

Marx and Engels are rolling in their graves considering how much they fought for women's equality, both in their writings (such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) and in their organizing (such as criticizing the British trade unionists for their misogyny in the International Workingmen's Association).

Their ideological beliefs aside, I think it's a tad ironic to use either Mark or Engels as paragons of gender equality, given their personal lives.

Especially in regards to the former, considering how Marx was a known womanizer who cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Writing diatribes about women's equality is all well and good, but it tends to be a tad more respectable to actually practice what one preaches.

[Valgora]

Marx and Engels are rolling in their graves considering how much they fought for women's equality, both in their writings (such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) and in their organizing (such as criticizing the British trade unionists for their misogyny in the International Workingmen's Association).

Their ideological beliefs aside, I think it's a tad ironic to use either Mark or Engels as paragons of gender equality, given their personal lives.

Especially in regards to the former, considering how Marx was a known womanizer who cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Writing diatribes about women's equality is all well and good, but it tends to be a tad more respectable to actually practice what one preaches.

Exactly how does one engaging in casual sex many times with women affect their ideas about women's equality?

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm certain the MRA movement experiences the contradictions and factionalism that any other movement does. Certainly, even fascism experienced its own factionalism.

That doesn't mean the movement as a whole still isn't garbage. The existence of factions does not necessitate the existence of good factions.

Yeah, but I’d hardly consider the ENTIRE movement to be bad. I mean, you’d disagree if I’d said that about feminism. I’m afraid broad generalizations are a two way street. If you don’t want people to generalize, don’t do it yourself.

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position. Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc. The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society. The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom. The divisions within feminism represent differing interests between bourgeois liberal feminists and working-class feminists, along with methodological disagreements. Some segments of the feminist movement actually aim at changing the material relations between genders and classes, while others don't.

MRAs are more ideologically concentrated than feminists. Put simply, MRAs are a necessarily right-wing position, while feminism can stretch from even moderate right wingers all the way to very far-left positions. We can generalize MRAs because they share core principles. Feminists do not, across the board, share core principles.

[The New Sea Territory]

Marx and Engels are rolling in their graves considering how much they fought for women's equality, both in their writings (such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) and in their organizing (such as criticizing the British trade unionists for their misogyny in the International Workingmen's Association).

Their ideological beliefs aside, I think it's a tad ironic to use either Mark or Engels as paragons of gender equality, given their personal lives.

Especially in regards to the former, considering how Marx was a known womanizer who cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Writing diatribes about women's equality is all well and good, but it tends to be a tad more respectable to actually practice what one preaches.

Marx practiced what he preached....he supported the representation of women in the first communist international (the IWA).

Engels in his personal life literally didn't marry the woman he loved because he thought marriage was a bourgeois institution which treated women as property.

[Canadensia]

Their ideological beliefs aside, I think it's a tad ironic to use either Mark or Engels as paragons of gender equality, given their personal lives.

Especially in regards to the former, considering how Marx was a known womanizer who cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Writing diatribes about women's equality is all well and good, but it tends to be a tad more respectable to actually practice what one preaches.

Exactly how does one engaging in casual sex many times with women affect their ideas about women's equality?

When you're doing so behind the back of your own wife, it's a tad hypocritical to then claim moral superiority in regards to gender equality.

[Valgora]

Exactly how does one engaging in casual sex many times with women affect their ideas about women's equality?

When you're doing so behind the back of your own wife, it's a tad hypocritical to then claim moral superiority in regards to gender equality.

Not really.
Him cheating on his wife doesn't mean he can't claim moral superiority in regards to gender equality.

[Canadensia]

Their ideological beliefs aside, I think it's a tad ironic to use either Mark or Engels as paragons of gender equality, given their personal lives.

Especially in regards to the former, considering how Marx was a known womanizer who cheated on his wife on multiple occasions. Writing diatribes about women's equality is all well and good, but it tends to be a tad more respectable to actually practice what one preaches.

Marx practiced what he preached....he supported the representation of women in the first communist international (the IWA).

Engels in his personal life literally didn't marry the woman he loved because he thought marriage was a bourgeois institution which treated women as property.

Marx also cheated on his wife and treated women as sexual objects.

Engels, admittedly, I might be unfair with. Although I'm inclined the discount the opinion of someone so radical that they can't even accept marriage as a social bond.

[Canadensia]

When you're doing so behind the back of your own wife, it's a tad hypocritical to then claim moral superiority in regards to gender equality.

Not really.
Him cheating on his wife doesn't mean he can't claim moral superiority in regards to gender equality.

In terms of ideology, sure.

Then again Hitler was a vegan, and yet I don't see anyone lauding him as a staunch supporter of animal rights.

What one practices is far more important than what one thinks or writes on paper.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Yeah, but I’d hardly consider the ENTIRE movement to be bad. I mean, you’d disagree if I’d said that about feminism. I’m afraid broad generalizations are a two way street. If you don’t want people to generalize, don’t do it yourself.

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position. Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc. The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society. The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom. The divisions within feminism represent differing interests between bourgeois liberal feminists and working-class feminists, along with methodological disagreements. Some segments of the feminist movement actually aim at changing the material relations between genders and classes, while others don't.

MRAs are more ideologically concentrated than feminists. Put simply, MRAs are a necessarily right-wing position, while feminism can stretch from even moderate right wingers all the way to very far-left positions. We can generalize MRAs because they share core principles. Feminists do not, across the board, share core principles.

How do you define MRA? Some self professed MRAs merely consider feminism a detriment to men, or merely believe that men face institutional injustice in such things as criminal justice, to name one example. If we’re going to use it based on the wording, it simply means advocating for the rights of men. Of course, going off of name alone is stupid, because that would make Hitler actually socialist, which he clearly was not, and it would make the DPRK actually a Democratic Republic, which it is not. You’re making a claim that I argue is false. What proof do you have that LITERALLY ALL MRAs share core values. I mean, wouldn’t that mean Ancoms and Marxist-Leninists share core values because they believe in the same core values of communism, such as collective ownership and abolishing private property? Unless you can prove that you know what all MRAs believe in, you can’t claim they share core values. There are some MRAs who even identify as syndicalists! Syndicalists! There are self Professed MRAs who hold leftist views on such things as capitalism, the state, and even Women’s rights in some cases. I’d hardly call a movement containing such people as being exclusively rightist. Give me proof that MRAs are 100% forced to be reactionary in literally every case. Prove that you are the end all be all authority on what MRAs believe.

[Valgora]

Not really.
Him cheating on his wife doesn't mean he can't claim moral superiority in regards to gender equality.

In terms of ideology, sure.

Then again Hitler was a vegan, and yet I don't see anyone lauding him as a staunch supporter of animal rights.

What one practices is far more important than what one thinks or writes on paper.

Him being a womanizer and even cheating on his wife doesn't mean shit.
It doesn't mean he's not practicing what he talked about.
You could totally be a womanizer and support women's rights and equality. The number of women you have sex with doesn't determine if you support gender equality of not.

[Thermodolia]

Ya know maybe the feminism stuff should be taken to the feminist thread

[West Leas Oros 2]

Ya know maybe the feminism stuff should be taken to the feminist thread

You’re probably right, but LWDT has talked about this many times before, and it’s pretty commonplace here.

[Proctopeo]

Yeah, but I’d hardly consider the ENTIRE movement to be bad. I mean, you’d disagree if I’d said that about feminism. I’m afraid broad generalizations are a two way street. If you don’t want people to generalize, don’t do it yourself.

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position.

Yes, when taken from the perspective of a feminist, specifically one entrenched in ideology.

Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc.

Same goes for the MRM, though.

The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society.

Feminism as it exists today doesn't really do that, either. Even Marxist feminism does it because of the Marxist part, not the feminist part.

The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom.

Okay, you obviously don't understand the MRM or men's rights. Opinion discarded wholesale. Who are you even considering "MRA" in this context, anyway?

[West Leas Oros 2]

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position.

Yes, when taken from the perspective of a feminist, specifically one entrenched in ideology.

Feminism can potentially be reactionary, liberal, separatist, etc.

Same goes for the MRM, though.

The divisions within the MRA movement represent conflicts within bourgeois ideology; nothing about the MRA movement challenges the material relations between genders or classes as they exist in our society.

Feminism as it exists today doesn't really do that, either. Even Marxist feminism does it because of the Marxist part, not the feminist part.

The premise remains the same for MRAs: men are actually the oppressed gender in society, a patently absurd axiom.

Okay, you obviously don't understand the MRM or men's rights. Opinion discarded wholesale. Who are you even considering "MRA" in this context, anyway?

You summed up what I said perfectly.

[Pensalum]

That's not how it works.

Men's rights is inescapably a reactionary position.

Yes, when taken from the perspective of a feminist, specifically one entrenched in ideology.

But it literally is only reactionary. It's a reaction against the activism and victories of feminism. It's the reaction of men losing their cultural dominant position in society.