/b/ - Random

Modern feminism already does what you say, I do agree that it's a shame that it also panders to troons and other overly sensitive snowflakes though.

But isn't that what Beauvoir was getting at?

>>102615
>I do agree that it's a shame that it also panders to troons and other overly sensitive snowflakes though.

Can you clarify? I can understand the tranny part but who are the other snowflakes?

>>102618
The lardwhales who bitch about doctors telling them to lose weight, the enbies breaking down because someone used the wrong pronouns, the second gen Muslims who get triggered whenever someone points out that their belief is extremely misogynistic, etc.

>>102619
what the fuck is an enbie?

>>102620
Non-binary

>>102622
>Non-binary is used to describe people who feel their gender cannot be defined within the margins of gender binary. Instead, they understand their gender in a way that goes beyond simply identifying as either a man or woman.

Sounds like the same old tranny shit to me, only with a slightly different LARP attached to it. it's all make believe

>>102623
Yeah, most of them are just LARPing fujos that a few years ago identified as FtM but that stopped being cool so now they are either enby or some other weird gender non-conforming flavor.

>>102623
As much as I hate troons there's plenty of bullshit that's make believe as well. The "make believe" critique is so weak for wrecking them.

>>102625
how is it weak? Putting on a wig and cutting off your penis doesn't make you a woman and neither does stitching a sausage in front of your vagina make you a man. It's elementary school biology. They're all just mentally retarded

>>102615
In part, but you said yourself, there is so much cancer and stupid shit on modern feminism that is impossible to any women to try to use it as a symbol of strength without the chance of being prey of all the bad things around her.

That's why I think we need something new, something that is feminism in spirit but is not as corrupted with all the modern trash, how many women probably want to seek feminism but are ignorant about it's true roots and can only see all the bad things around?

Think as something like a spiritual successor, something we can focus without having to give a fuck about troons or moids or what they think about it, something only for us, that can be truly about the female strength in first place and not in second or third like feminism become.

For me, all this trash is useless, it complete deviates of what feminism was supposed to be and there is no salvation for the movement, at least in name, because if you try it all the troons and garbage all around will only seclude and marginalize you, but they can't do that on a "new" movement with no ties to feminism, but that is true feminism in spirit.

I don't care about neo gender shit, there's still enough classic old timey misogyny in the world where I just focus on pointing it out and trying to get normies to see how it's everywhere and why it's wrong. I purposely avoid modern feminist circles because in my opinion they're so far removed from what the average person you'll meet irl even cares about. It feels pointless.

Who can I read that makes a good criticsm of her work? Everyone at uni loved reading her but me

>>102635
Why didn't you wrote down your points?

>>102639
Most of my 'points' were just that I couldn't relate to the kind of "reality" that was being described. Maybe I do need to read Gender Trouble again and take notes but I'm already depressed enough with the media I consume to realise most of contemporary feminism is built on her thoughts

>>102640
>Maybe I do need to read Gender Trouble again and take notes but I'm already depressed enough with the media I consume to realize most of contemporary feminism is built on her thoughts
Then you will have an easy time debunking the whole thing. But why do you care about it? If you don't feel that it relates to you, why do you bother about other people being into it?

i agree op

>>102635
I dislike her and can’t stand reading her shit. Here’s an article from 20 years ago detailing why:

https://newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody

What bugs me about modern feminism is being automatically associated with it.
Like when people go "oh you believe women are people so you're a feminist".
No, just no.

The most prevalent feminism I witness is this nitpicky terfism from girls who's only personality trait is glorifiyng themselves for looking more feminine than a troon (not that hard lol). It's like they don't feel as feminine when compared to other females so they shoot low.
The other side is that shitty ass liberal pro-abortion and pro-sex work bullshit that thinks that going out to fuck unknown stinky moids is somehow empowering.
Both disgust me

Feminism has been AIDs since it's inception, go read The Declaration of Sentiments from the 1848 Seneca Falls convention where the original first wave feminists decided what their movement was going to be about, it is pure cancer all about getting women out of their homes and slaving away working in the male workforce. Work sucks, it's a curse, why would you want to do that??

>>102698
1. Not all jobs suck, though many do.
2. Being able to make your own money and spend it how you please is better than having to get an allowance from a moid, who could very easily threaten to stop paying your bills or buying you food if you don't obey his every command.
3. Doing housework for a moid technically is work, too. Just not work you necessarily get paid for (depending on how nice your moid is). Plus it doesn't come with weekends off or any other labor rights.

>>102701
1. Name a job in the male workforce that doesn't suck that can't just be done comfortably from inside your own home. Because in the declarations of that document they don't just want women to be able to make their own money, they specifically want them out of their homes, this is the gay part.
2. If you work at a job you're still getting an allowance, it's just from your overlord bossman who doesn't care if you live or die.
3. Everyone who doesn't want to live in filth has to clean their house so not sure what your point is there

>>102702
1. Almost all jobs these days can be done from home, but that wasn't the case during pre-internet days. And going outside doesn't inherently suck, anyway. Many women enjoy going outside, and many women enjoy jobs that involve "nurturing" such as being a teacher, nurse, working with animals, etc. Many women also enjoy playing sports, creating music/performing arts, or acting. If you personally think that everything in the world sucks except staying at home, that's a you problem.
2. True, but but bosses need to compete with each other in a way that men don't after you marry them, and in a workplace you have other workers that you can unionize with for more rights. Not to mention, abusive and violent people are less likely to hurt you when there are other people around. SO being reliant on your boss isn't quite the same as being reliant on your husband (who also may not care if you live or die).
3. Just taking care of your own filth and preparing simple food for yourself isn't the same level of work as taking care of yourself AND taking care of a moid's filth, cooking a greedy moid a three-course meal three times a day, and entertaining said moid whenever he's at home. Not to mention, with your own money you can eat out, and hire maids, gardeners, babysitters to clean your place up or take care your kids once in a while if you'd rather not do that particular work yourself.
Nothing wrong with being a hikineet housewife if you find a good moid and that's what you wanna do, but idk why you think it's stupid for women to have the option to leave their house and do something other than housework.

>>102709
Nta
>1. Almost all jobs these days can be done from home, but that wasn't the case during pre-internet days. And going outside doesn't inherently suck, anyway. Many women enjoy going outside, and many women enjoy jobs that involve "nurturing" such as being a teacher, nurse, working with animals, etc.
You make it sound like teachers and nurses haven't been majority women since the 1880s.
>Many women also enjoy playing sports, creating music/performing arts, or acting. If you personally think that everything in the world sucks except staying at home, that's a you problem.
This isn't even relevant, but given the rest of the post you seem prone to dishonest exaggeration as a debate tactic.
>2. True, but but bosses need to compete with each other in a way that men don't after you marry them, and in a workplace you have other workers that you can unionize with for more rights. Not to mention, abusive and violent people are less likely to hurt you when there are other people around. SO being reliant on your boss isn't quite the same as being reliant on your husband (who also may not care if you live or die).
What do you think withholding sex and telling him to sleep on the couch is? What else could it be but going on strike against unbearable conditions?
>3. Just taking care of your own filth and preparing simple food for yourself isn't the same level of work as taking care of yourself AND taking care of a moid's filth, cooking a greedy moid a three-course meal three times a day, and entertaining said moid whenever he's at home.
>three-course meal any time of day
I don't know what bourgeois upper class household you grew up in, but I don't think, at any point in time, anywhere, it was standard fair for a wife to cook her man three-course meals everyday for a single meal let alone three.
>Not to mention, with your own money you can eat out, and hire maids, gardeners, babysitters to clean your place up or take care your kids once in a while if you'd rather not do that particular work yourself.
And you gardeners, maids and babysitters can also afford their own gardeners, maids and babysitters? Get real. This is the most delusional upper class thinking I've ever seen.

>>102710
>You make it sound like teachers and nurses haven't been majority women since the 1880s.
There were majority male before feminism. The anon I was responding to was complaining about the 1848 Seneca Falls convetion, not anything post 1880. I wasn't talking about modern feminism in my post.
>This isn't even relevant, but given the rest of the post you seem prone to dishonest exaggeration as a debate tactic.
That anon asked me what jobs don't suck. So I gave some examples of jobs that many women enjoy, which require going outside. I fail to see how that isn't relevant.
>I don't know what bourgeois upper class household you grew up in, but I don't think, at any point in time, anywhere, it was standard fair for a wife to cook her man three-course meals everyday for a single meal let alone three.
kek, I never said it was the standard. The point was that moids can be very demanding and expect far more work than what you might want to do for yourself.
>What do you think withholding sex and telling him to sleep on the couch is? What else could it be but going on strike against unbearable conditions?
kek wtf is marital rape, amiright? a single woman all alone with no money or home of her own can EASILY just say no to a man and he'll have to listen, amiright?
> And you gardeners, maids and babysitters can also afford their own gardeners, maids and babysitters? Get real.
I literally never claimed that all of them could. All I said was that some women could afford those things after entering the workforce, and thus not have to do that work themselves to maintain a clean place and have food. You don't need to be extremely wealthy to have someone else deep-clean your place once in a while or to eat out once in a while, either. There are many middle-class working women who do those.
Does life still suck for poor women? Sure. I never claimed that allowing women to join the workforce single-handedly eliminated all problems that all women face or that there's nothing wrong with the male workforce. All I said was that it helped some women have more freedom to live the life they want and that women having their won money protects women from some forms of abuse that result from being entirely reliant on one man and having no co-workers. The anon I was replying to was arguing against women being allowed to leave their homes and join the workforce.

>>102709
Women who wanted to work those kinds of jobs independently without being financially dependent on their husband were already free to do so long before first wave feminism. Like Hildegard of Bingen for example was a doctor, scientist, musical composer, and writer in the 12th century hundreds of years before first wave feminism was ever conceived. Feminism didn't liberate women to have these kinds of jobs if they wanted them, they were already doing them.

Being an independent woman who truly don't need no man = based
Being a mother, having a family and raising the next generation = based

Demanding that women who have chosen to have a husband and a family enter the male workforce outside the home = worst of both worlds, gay and sucks donkey balls, no one wants this

>>102714
Who is demanding you to do anything? Is there a law telling you you can't stay home? Before equality in the work force, those jobs were extremely hard to land for a woman, and unequal pay, unequal treatment and harassment would have been what you put up with

>Women who wanted to work those kinds of jobs independently without being financially dependent on their husband were already free to do so long before first wave feminism. Like Hildegard of Bingen for example was a doctor, scientist, musical composer, and writer in the 12th century hundreds of years before first wave feminism was ever conceived. Feminism didn't liberate women to have these kinds of jobs if they wanted them, they were already doing them.

This is all kinds of garbage and ignorance right here. Sure there were a few unicorns who were able to make it, but they weren't the norm and society would have crushed them into marriage, one way or another. You make it sound like sexism and discrimination just didn't exist in some fantasy land in your head.

>>102715
>freedom of choice under capitalism

No lol if you are able to work you will be forced to

>>102715
The first wave feminists demanded this for married women in the document Declaration of Sentiments which is what I'm talking about.

Direct quote from the document:
> Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States


>Sure there were a few unicorns who were able to make it, but they weren't the norm
Not true, the entire nursing industry for example used to be mostly women working those jobs before private for profit hospitals were invented, women who wanted to work did so throughout history long, long before first wave feminism.

>>102716
NTA, but housewives still exist. I've personally met a few. You aren't forced to work if you're married and your husband agrees to be the bread winner.
>>102720
That quote doesn't demand that all married women work. It demands that they have the right to work.

>>102721
It's crazy to demand that as a "right" though. Anyone who thinks they want to work in the male workforce definitely hasn't done it before, it sucks. The first wave feminists who dreamed that it'd be so lovely to split their attention between their family and a soul-sucking job were the real crazies. Go work or go have a family, but demanding to do both is just begging for misery.

>>102722
Having the right doesn't mean you have to do both. It means you can choose between the two, or alternate between the two. There are women who become housewives and have kids young, then choose to join the workforce after their kids graduate from high school, for example.

>>102716
Then go back to being a household slave I guess? with no income of your own, no house, no savings no assets .. Unless you inherit them ,which means living with a moid at all. Eventually you will have to realize you can't sponge off your parents, you'll have to sponge off someone else in exchange for sex and endlessly gratifying their needs…

>>102722
So then what the fuck do you do for life and disposable income //if you don't want to live with or depend on a moid//? What if you hate it when you find out their abusive or toxic? You sound like you've never left your parents basement. Cohabiting with some moid would be 20x worse. And who said anything about having kids? That's like death's door if you you ask me.

>>102723
Working class people don't have that choice

>>102720
Those jobs were extremely extremely rare, back in the day. Your dad or family had to have already been in the business. This is basic history 101. There was no "climbing your way to the top" For a woman in the 17th century unless you could grease palms or had connections.

>>102722
this has to be bait

>>102722
I know that in our economy there are some women who are forced by various circumstances to work and take care of kids at the same time, but that doesn't change the fact the the right to work made it a choice for many women. And lacking the right to work doesn't help the poor single moms out there, either.
Before you had the right to work, if your husband died, or if your husband's wage couldn't make ends meet, and you didn't have other family to rely on, you were fucked. You and your kids would probably die. Poverty and other shitty circumstances have always existed. First wave feminism and the right to work didn't cause all the world's problems.

>>102727
Jesus christ way to speak for all women anon.

This entire fucking thread sounds like a moid post, or something that was written by the most naive kind of 13 year old on earth. Working class people!? 99% of people have to work. Even if your parents are super wealthy. Mine were pretty wealthy, but you couldn't pay me 2 million to marry a guy for money. Those kinds of guys are the worst I know from experience, they think they can get away with anything and treat people around them like objects. Unless he's in the 2% of enlightened men out there, which most of them aren't.

Jesus christ the 12 year olds in this thread.

Modern feminism seems to want to include everyone and everything; striving for equality for all
what seems to be damaging progress is
"Feminism means something different for everyone"
(what comes to mind is "a house divided cannot stand")

Early wave feminism seemed concise when there were clear misogynistic laws so the goals were simple

The goals now seem to be all over the place and all types claiming feminism wants this and that (as other people mentioned, mostly due to everyone being included)
The misogyny now (in western countries) seems to be more social so having collective goals is difficult
(eg, we want to stop being seen as objects, men can take a walk at night without being raped and we want the same for women)
so it's no longer as simple as going to the law makers, its about changing everyone's deep rooted operating system and what they think is ok

a new wave feminism with concise goals would be a step closer imho

I am talking with very few years of knowing about this topic and how things actually work but discussion on this topic is very interesting (sad to see how far off topic this thread got kek)