Radical feminism Anonymous 16661
Anyone else here a radfem? Do you guys know of any forums/blogs/etc. where radical feminism is discussed? Ideally without "ree all men should die"
What is a radfem nowadays? I don't even know. I used to consider myself one a few years ago but now I have no idea if I would be considered one by current standards because I don't think transwomen are real women and I don't think sex work is good for women.
inb4 we derail this thread about if it is or isn't blah blah… Please no
That is the essence of radical feminism (IIRC), that women are oppressed due to their biology and so trans women can never be women. radfems also don't like sex work, are against porn, etc.
the libfems would tear you to shreds for those beliefs tho
Radfems are correct about most things. Too bad most of them get autistically obsessed about hating on transwomen and men, muh lesbian superiority and have toxic outlook on life. I recommend reading their critiques of society, developing your own opinion on it and moving on. The community is a toxic swamp.
This. I'd honestly identify as one if they didnt' cry "misogyny" at the first sign of anyone disagreeing with them
just go on radfem tumblr. lol
I think we should appreciate women more!
No because I don't think eradicating gender roles is a good thing and as far as I can tell that seems to be their main goal. That just creates an expectation for everyone to be like men.
>MRA types could easily be made allies in this battle
You really know nothing about MRAs. The ONLY time they care about mens rights is when they're arguing with a feminist and want to say 'but what about men!!!' in response to discussions of women's rights. MRAs think women having rights is taking away THEIR rights. They hate women and are incompatible with feminism.
People who actually care about men's issues tend to be feminists, because they are often symbiotic with women's issues - eg, we argue against women being stuck in the kitchen, men argue against being expected to be the breadwinners. Theoretically it should be beneficial for everyone, except that's not good enough for MRAs because they want to keep their money and also keep a woman in the kitchen.
implying that there are no gender roles for men
Reminds me of this. You know who else is against the view of trannies being real women, prostitution and porn?
why does her being a conservative christian mean that they can't agree on the same topic
i know at least two men who have transitioned to female (based on a totally stereotyped idea of what it means to be 'female'), hormones, dresses and all, and then found themselves regretting it when they weren't accepted as female by society, and went back to living/identifying as male.
i think whether you can 'pass' or not is a huge part of whether these people will actually be happy identifying/presenting themselves as female; otherwise they're just making themselves worse off. i mean it's your body, by all means, do whatever you want with it, but…i think a high number of the people who carry through with the hormone therapy/surgery think that the grass is greener on the other side, and then they just get horribly disappointed.
There seem to be some pretty significant results if you just google 'sex change regret'…
Not sure what your point is, I hope you're not implying that those things are wrong because Christians have similar ideas. Not that similar though, the reasoning could differ but the end results might not. Wanting women to be modest and wanting women to avoid being sex objects both result in not supporting porn, for example.
why is the christian the one that looks like a dyke
>>17001>that first panel>"You've been hit by, you've been hit by, a smooth criminal"
they always spout "educate yourself" but being Christian isn't inherently bad. its been co-opted by racist and the money hungry. the person who created this has mearly shown how small minded they are. reducing people to 2 ideas.
its just stupid identity politics
the three listed under the #blogs subheading are pretty good, I'd definitely recommend CBGhttps://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalFeminism/wiki/resources
It's obviously a joke, the contrast and going against expectations is funny.
Christianity in it's most literal definition (the teachings of the bible) is pretty inherently bad. Christians themselves aren't necessarily since they can't exactly follow everything the bible says.
They follow it the best way, at least, if they're of a certain kind. Races all interpret and follow in different ways, or statistically they don't follow at all.
4thwavenow is great>>17088
It's a joke but it's also an argument that's made often. A fallacious one at that.
That's not true. Look at the lives of the most radical Christians who ever lived throughout history, the Holy Saints who perfectly followed Jesus's teachings.
Why did no ramfems denounce and act against the rotherham mass child rapes and child grooming by pakistani immigrants?
I saw none of the prominent ones even mention it, I checked their whole twitter feed. Funnily enough, they mentioned Henry Cavill being a rape apologist and the incels being a terrorist organization.
I am coming from a point of ignorance here, I sincerely want to know how on earth no feminists acted against the child rape epidemic in the UK, sweeden and germany.
Enlighten me, please.
Bindel kind of did but it was half-hearted and the usual "all men are like that" handwaving that you'd never find in a racialized abuse scenario where non-white children were the victims.
I don't think Rotherham was about religion per se, but it absolutely was about race. Pakistani men are fucking vile, even by Muslim standards.
Good Post, sister, dominus tecum.
How do people like you rationalize all of the systemic sexual abuse of women and children that occurs in the church
>>21906>women and children
do you mean boys?
boys are children. and no, I meant what I said:
•In Harrisburg, a priest abused five sisters from the same family and collected samples of their urine, pubic hair and menstrual blood.
• Also in Harrisburg, a priest raped a 7-year-old girl who was in the hospital after her tonsils were removed, according to the report.
• In the Greensburg diocese, a priest impregnated a 17-year-old, forged a pastor's signature on a marriage certificate and divorced the girl months later. According to the grand jury, the priest was allowed to stay in ministry by finding a "benevolent bishop."https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html
right but if there's abuse and it's mostly of boys, and some girls happen to get abused as well, isn't it kind of dishonest to try to claim that as an example of "system abuse of women"?>Of the victims 80 pecent are boys or male adolescentshttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25002477?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I mean if you want to say it's men doing it, that's fine but like, radfem just looks like a joke if you turn every problem in the world into "to WOMEN". >The bridge collapse KILLED WOMEN, female nationalism now
The phrase used was 'women and children': this is a common locution which encompasses the classes of people abused by sexual predators in the catholic church. The order in which these classes are listed does not reflect a prioritization of the welfare of 'women' over that of 'children', or an enumeration of the relative proportion of victims belonging to either class: it is just a turn of phrase with substantial currency.
That said, the demography of the victims is less important than the fact that the catholic church is responsible for an untold number of sexual crimes.
If I followed the events correctly, there's even more men being victim(re: seminaries)
Nonetheless, it's like asking "why do you still support the US if x% of its citizens are criminals and the system actively contributes to making everything worse?"
Because the US is a thing, and the Church is even more of a thing.
ntayrt but because the system actively protected the people who were committing these crimes for fucking decades
>>21917>Nonetheless, it's like asking "why do you still support the US if x% of its citizens are criminals and the system actively contributes to making everything worse?"
I do not think these are commensurable circumstances. The United States is a nation-state with many citizens of various religious affiliations, some of whom break the law. The Catholic Church is a religious institution that actively conspired to suppress knowledge of sexual predators in their ranks.
>>21915>someone abuses 99 boys, and 1 woman>women and children are being victimised!
sorry that's fucking stupid
You see, it's still just a percentage of criminals. The system allowing predators to rise up (things have been changed, though, we're dealing with the aftermath of the 60s where child sex was rampant in society anyway) is definitely comparable to a system actively encouraging young boys to idealizing weapons and warfare and then sending them across the globe to kill and get killed for the benefit of multimillion companies.
At least the church has a definite ruleset saying that the corrupt ones are doing wrong whereas the while of the US is convinced that everything is needed the way it is and the atrocities are unfortunate, but part of American life.
a) shouldn't you take this to the catholic thread?
and b) saying that 'yeah child predators are bad but wHAT ABOUT WAR and the GOVERNMENT' doesn't distract us from the fact that Child Predators And The Institutions That Protect Them Are Bad.
How radical can we get on this thread?
I personally would like to see the majority of men castrated after age 14 to lower their testosterone and keep crime rates low. (and keep them from turning into muscular hairy gross things)
Ik that will not happen any time soon but that's my political standing / fantasy.
Eh, well it's more of a political thing.
I'd just like to see at least one major country with women on top for a change.
Plus, I'm into being a dom, but I hate masculinity. I'm straight though, which means I need to fine feminine boys… which is hard and they usually don't stay that way for long because of testosterone.
I agree but definitely more for a kink reason. Although I do generally hate men on top of that.
We should also keep them as our property to use for house work and sex. Nothing else, it's a woman's world now.
Totally agree. If only there was just one tiny country where we could move to and not have to deal with male bulls**t.
I really wish femdom wasn't polluted with horny disgusting men who constantly try to top from the bottom and disappear once they get off. If a man was totally, 100% submissive I might be able to tolerate him but sadly it's impossible to find a legitimate sub because if you make one post looking for one you'll get bombarded by fakes just looking to get off.
Men as property sounds like a beautiful world. I really wish the genders could live separately again, except this time with the women owning everything.
Though tbh, it might be more practical to just ditch men entirely and make babies exclusively via artificial insemination. There's a technique (discovered by a women fittingly enough) that combines egg cells so you don't even need a man.
>>22254>Men as property sounds like a beautiful world.
This entire thread is just horny sub dudes roleplaying as radfems isn't it
I am not a radical feminist mostly because i don't think men are the spawn of all evil.
I agree that in some countries women need more rights and protection.
My problem is with this genderstuff that happens. I really hate all these new pronouns and the oh-im-that-and-this.
You are born a man or a woman. There is no other option. There can be men who like stuff that we think of feminine and there are women who like stuff that we think is more masculine.
But they will be always man and women. You are not something special if you only want to have sex with people who you know.
You are not feeling male today just because you don't want to wear pink or a skirt. You just don't like wearing a skirt or pink today.
It is simple understanding.
As a straight women you can think that some women are hot or beautiful, without being attracted to them.
As a lesbian you can think that some guys are cute or handsome without being attracted to them.
You are not a otherkind wolf just because you like back scratches.
Feelings are no Facts.
Just because it makes you uncomfortable that the sky can be blue, doesn't make it less blue.
For the sake of the peace here I don't start talking about trans people.
>>22321>You are born a man or a woman. There is no other option.
In the vast majority of births, sure. However, strictly speaking, biology is a bit more complicated than this.
It bothers me that radfem has turned into biological essentialism because it was originally about figuring out the "root" of gender discrimination, which is about power dynamics and hierarchies of social categories.
By fixating on sex as the core of gender oppression, radical feminism is recreating and reaffirming the imbalance rather than "dismantling the patriarchy." Although there may be some that say they don't intend to really change anything other than flip the script on men.
Tbh, those are horrible deformations and should be surgically fixed asap. It doesn't magically make a woman male. She can still ovulate and get pregnant as it seems.
You can't say that biology is #1 and then deny that the results of genital variation as "wrong."
These are rare development problems, still are male or female.>>22329
Not the ano but these are not variations these are deformations.
Don't mix them up.
>>22330>Not the ano but these are not variations these are deformations.
these are not mutually exclusive terms. a variation can indeed be deleterious to fitness or pathological. in fact this is a foundational principle of evolutionary biology.
>>22330>These are rare development problems
I never said they weren't
>still are male or female
it's easier to make this argument in the case of certain intersex conditions versus others. for instance, individuals with CAIS have a male allosomal karyotype but due to defective androgen receptors may develop an apparently female phenotype
If it isn't fertile, it's defective. We shouldn't even need to discuss whether a defective female needs a new gender category. It's like you had category "car", category "bike" and would like to create a new category "car that has been tragically sliced in half lengthwise".
Literally no one will ever experience a substantial change in personhood If you changed govt. documents to feature a box "something went wrong with my genitals upon development".
>>22335>If it isn't fertile, it's defective.
ah yes, that noted feminist axiom that barren women must be exiled to a remote volcanic archipelago
I'm certainly no intersex activist nor am I intersex myself, but it does seem a bit callous to describe someone with a congenital deformity as "it" and "defective"
>We shouldn't even need to discuss whether a defective female needs a new gender category. It's like you had category "car", category "bike" and would like to create a new category "car that has been tragically sliced in half lengthwise".
the point here is to illustrate that sex determination in multicellular organisms is a bit more complicated than the distinction between classes of human vehicles. many constructs in science can be very useful and valid even if they break down at a more granular level or in special cases: for instance, the biological species concept. We know now with certainty that in some instances different species which are closely related can mate and produce fertile offspring.
why would someone with a malformation be offended over it being called a deformity? there's nothing shameful in using actual words to describe a condition lol
If a woman was born with several female sex characteristics she's a woman, if a man wants to pretend he has a small dick and it makes him more of a woman he's a man.
>>22338>why would someone with a malformation be offended over it being called a deformity? there's nothing shameful in using actual words to describe a condition lol
You said "If it isn't fertile, it's defective". Clearly this language has the individual as its subject rather than the condition which affects the individual. It is also rather dehumanizing to refer to a person as "it".
Ntoa but I think she meant "it", "the stuff that's supposed to produce a mini-you".
Even if it is, where are they wrong?
You were the one who started arguing about how a defect isn't necessarily a defect, it could also be a wonderful new ~variation of nature~, but since it will not go anywhere further (because it, the defect, apparently is in the way of reproducing), it is NOT a ~variation of nature~ that should be considered anything else than a sad accident.
Women are superior to males and deserve to be worshiped. all males should be submissive. submissive women have simply been indoctrinated by the patriarchy to not understand their true place - above all males.(YOU CAN'T SIT WITH US)
>>22343>You were the one who started arguing about how a defect isn't necessarily a defect, it could also be a wonderful new ~variation of nature~
These are your words, not mine. What I said is that a trait can be both a deformity and also a manner of variation in a population–cf. achondroplasic dwarfism, some polydactylies, etc. 'Variation' in the biological usage has no positive or negative connotation: it merely describes genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity in a population, which is the raw material of evolution. Most novel mutations are either neutral or actively harmful to an organism's fitness.
I would have never expected to see one of my pastas here. Did you also save the one I wrote about how men are obsolete?
Tbh there should be only one gender
Also, fuck TERFs
What's wrong with TERFs.
If anything, TERFs would be more likely to support the "one gender" idea.
You realise you can't support trannies and support the "one gender" theory, right? That contradicts yourself. Because if there were only one gender then trannies can't claim they "feel like women" or "feel like men". If we accept that there is one gender then would they know they are in the wrong body? Body wouldn't matter anymore because society's gender expectations (that feminists seek to eradicate) would no longer exist.