New Wave Feminism Requests

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

server down wrote: »

Does it? someone sought out this piece. If you arent on twitter, if you avoid some threads here, the culture wars dont exist.

Oh, they exist, but they're nowhere near as prominent as people make them out to be - and hopefully it will stay that way - but groups like this have a very nasty habit of growing and gaining in popularity if society isn't careful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cloudatlas

The irony. This is a safe thread because it's using an exception to prove a rule which is exactly what the lads on this thread tell you that feminists are doing.

mzungu

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree and I disagree. What we know as cultural marxism is basically the ideas of (mainly) Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin and Marcuse amped up for the digital age. They were all die-hard Marxists, but their cultural authoritarianism was pretty much their own creation. The "march through the institutions" was a recognition that Marx's beloved proletariat would not be buying the communist dream, hence things should be moved into the fertile ground of academia where champagne and caviar socialists could cheer on the USSR (and their partners in crime) from their lovely central heated houses out in the 'burbs all the while trying to reach the hearts and minds of the middle. To an extent it worked. A sizeable number of lecturers in the US would identify as Marxists, however, the students they teach seem to grow out of it once they finish up their four years and realise that Mr. Marx won't be of much use trying to pay off that college loan. On the other hand, it has managed to help spawn drivel like that contained in the OP, and brought Critical Theory into the mainstream via willing media outlets (mostly confined to opinion columns).

So Marx is part of the genealogy, but I don't think he would have considered abandoning the proles. I would prefer a term like "Neo-Frankfurt School" as opposed to "Cultural Marxism". Although, that is splitting hairs on my part.

Out of all of them, I think Marcuse is the worst. Anybody that writes something like "Repressive Tolerance" is no different to a fascist.

WHIP IT!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fathers rights really aren't a problem in this country, and parental rights apply to both parents equally, in both law and practice.

Possibly, the most grossly inaccurate, ill-informed post ever written on boards.

The plight of unmarried fathers is possibly the last acceptable form of prejudice in this country...

Benildus

The comments, the comments!!!!!!!

Oh and I would add — to support your sexual sisters. Nudity is not consent

#12: “Talk less. In all spaces. At all times. At a lower volume.”

This spoke to me so much! Men continually speaking at all times and without value in a frenzied effort to distance themselves from the fear of other voices. They’ve lost nothing as the groups they marginalized and attacked climbed out of oppression but fear thy may be subject to their own horrors and so, they scream into the voids, terrified, and without introspection or substance. If they could befriend introspective silence, they would find worth and ability. If only they could shut up for five seconds.

pjohnson

cloudatlas wrote: »

The irony. This is a safe thread because it's using an exception to prove a rule which is exactly what the lads on this thread tell you that feminists are doing.

There are also women participating in the thread. Sorry it doesnt suit your bias.

cloudatlas

pjohnson wrote: »

There are also women participating in the thread. Sorry it doesnt suit your bias.

Are you trying to tell me that men are not in the majority on this thread and in this forum, seriously? What suits your bias?

RayM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Based on posts I've read on Boards over the years, I think it's fair to say that a lot of men (particularly those who use terms like "friendzone") don't appear to know what it's like to have a genuine, intimate, non-sexual friendship with a woman. More to do with being constantly on the lookout for their first opportunity to have sex than anything more sinister, I suspect.

One eyed Jack

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Possibly, the most grossly inaccurate, ill-informed post ever written on boards.

You must have a fairly low standard if you consider that the most grossly inaccurate, ill-informed post ever written on boards

The plight of unmarried fathers is possibly the last acceptable form of prejudice in this country...

I see you're trying to out-do it already :pac:

...And Justice

RayM wrote: »

Based on posts I've read on Boards over the years, I think it's fair to say that a lot of men (particularly those who use terms like "friendzone") don't appear to know what it's like to have a genuine, intimate, non-sexual friendship with a woman. More to do with being constantly on the lookout for their first opportunity to have sex than anything more sinister, I suspect.

I would agree, any woman I encountered before I settled down I always fcuked them in the end. Didn't matter whether they were in a relationship or not.

What I don't understand is why women demonize men for this? You wanted to fcuk at the time, so what's the problem? It's a two way street for fcuk sake.

murphthesmurf

I read the 'pay for porn' one 5 mins too late. Although the couple of dwarf lads in it did pay the lovely girl they met at the bus stop, so I'm half good.

splinter65

cloudatlas wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me that men are not in the majority on this thread and in this forum, seriously? What suits your bias?

I’m a woman. 4th wave feminism is a total embarrassment that has set us back 25 years.

Sweetemotion

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m a woman. 4th wave feminism is a total embarrassment that has set us back 25 years.

pjohnson

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Sexual Assault!

Sweetemotion

pjohnson wrote: »

Sexual Assault!

Ahh man, I'm in trouble now. Will I lose my job?

splinter65

pjohnson wrote: »

Sexual Assault!

The Patriarchy in his demeanor is just too much! I’m triggered! I need my safe space!

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

The Patriarchy in his demeanor is just too much! I’m triggered! I need my safe space!

Get to the twitter. This is so hashtagable.

murphthesmurf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I cultivate genuine, intimate, nonsexusl friendships with all the women I don't find attractive.

Sweetemotion

What's the deal with male feminists?

Does anybody else find them creepy?

Mrloverlover

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What's the deal with male feminists?

Does anybody else find them creepy?

I consider myself a male feminist ... And ill have you know me being creepy is completely unrelated!!

WHIP IT!

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What's the deal with male feminists?

Does anybody else find them creepy?

I certainly suspect quite a lot of 'male feminist' tweets etc are really motivated by the hope that "this one might finally get me laid!"

splinter65

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What's the deal with male feminists?

Does anybody else find them creepy?

My daughters boyfriend is a feminist and he is so sweet he makes me laugh out loud. He’s in a permanent state of apology.
For being a man.

rustynutz

I have read the article and I cant figure out if its a piss take or not.

I really hope its a piss take

Sweetemotion

splinter65 wrote: »

My daughters boyfriend is a feminist and he is so sweet he makes me laugh out loud. He’s in a permanent state of apology.
For being a man.

A male feminist with a girlfriend. I am shocked :eek:

My own daughters boyfriend is in the same permanent state but don't think he is a feminist. Just all the hash he smokes.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

The irony. This is a safe thread because it's using an exception to prove a rule which is exactly what the lads on this thread tell you that feminists are doing.

+1. It's nothing more than confirmation bias. I mean, the first reply to the thread is "Feminists are fcking loons". Some people obviously draw some comfort in choosing to believe that feminism is nothing more than a few uppity women losing the run of themselves, headed by one irrelevant, attention-seeking blogger.

RayM wrote: »

More to do with being constantly on the lookout for their first opportunity to have sex than anything more sinister, I suspect.

whilst dodging a few restraining orders, I venture.

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m a woman. 4th wave feminism is a total embarrassment that has set us back 25 years.

I have a penis, since that's relevant, and I disagree.

...And Justice

splinter65 wrote: »

My daughters boyfriend is a feminist and he is so sweet he makes me laugh out loud. He’s in a permanent state of apology.
For being a man.

You love kebab....i can tell, go Hillary.

silverharp

splinter65 wrote: »

My daughters boyfriend is a feminist and he is so sweet he makes me laugh out loud. He’s in a permanent state of apology.
For being a man.

careful with him, they only become male feminists because they cant compete with other guys normally. They can have rage issues beneath the weak exterior

RayM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What's the deal with male feminists?

Does anybody else find them creepy?

What's the deal with people who hold opinions that aren't the same as mine?

Sweetemotion

RayM wrote: »

What's the deal with people who hold opinions that aren't the same as mine?

Nazis?

The_Valeyard

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Nazis?

I believe he got in trouble for using another word, beginning with N

Sweetemotion

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I believe he got in trouble for using another word, beginning with N

OHHH? please tell

It wasn't when he called me a Nasty person was it?

RDM_83 again

anna080 wrote: »

The tampon thing is beyond weird. I can buy my own tampons thanks and don't need anyone to baby me or advocate on my behalf for freebies because I'm not 10 years old. If any man I worked with started advocating for free sanitary products I'd be a bit mortified if I'm honest. In fact I'm sure there's more than enough ingredients in that list for any man to be presumed a complete weirdo by normal folk.

I get where your coming from but where is the author based?
I'm a dude so not super familiar with this but the focus on this issue (in the 1st world) always seemed a bit weird however having lived abroad in a place where these products cost 2 to 3 times the cost of Ireland/UK I can see why it might be an issue.
The thing is though the focus is on the wrong issue, sanitary products aren't expensive because of tax or the patriarchy etc otherwise Ireland/UK would be expensive too, it's because there is monopolistic/cartel retail behaviour

WHIP IT!

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I believe he got in trouble for using another word, beginning with N

I think that was his co-star who played the character 'Kramer'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoLPLsQbdt0

The_Valeyard

WHIP IT! wrote: »

I think that was his co-star who played the character 'Kramer'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoLPLsQbdt0

Oooohhhh i think you are right

Sweetemotion

The_Valeyard, you had me thinking RayM, got into trouble. Disappointed now.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

careful with him, they only become male feminists because they cant compete with other guys normally. They can have rage issues beneath the weak exterior

Preach, sister! In the spirit of true feminist gratitude, I wrote you a haiku.

Cuck Song (aka My Inner Feminist Rage)
by A Tyrant Named Miltiades, aged 30

Real men sweat. I glow.
Under my pashmina scarf,
Manly, bubbling rage. Burp!
--
O! Oprah Winfrey!
Glory! Gloria Steinem—
To have, and not be, a cúnt!
--
Have I nought I want?
All this blood, and no tampons.
mY bReAstS wON't sUcKLe.
--
I bubble and rage.
and bite off my chrysalis,
Penis, everywhere.

silverharp

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Preach, sister! In the spirit of true feminist gratitude, I wrote you a haiku.

Cuck Song (aka My Inner Feminist Rage)
by A Tyrant Named Miltiades, aged 30

Real men sweat. I glow.
Under my pashmina scarf,
Manly, bubbling rage. Burp!
--
O! Oprah Winfrey!
Glory! Gloria Steinem—
To have, and not be, a cúnt!
--
Have I nought I want?
All this blood, and no tampons.
mY bReAstS wON't sUcKLe.
--
I bubble and rage.
and bite off my chrysalis,
Penis, everywhere.

ha ha

retro:electro

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I get where your coming from but where is the author based?
I'm a dude so not super familiar with this but the focus on this issue (in the 1st world) always seemed a bit weird however having lived abroad in a place where these products cost 2 to 3 times the cost of Ireland/UK I can see why it might be an issue.
The thing is though the focus is on the wrong issue, sanitary products aren't expensive because of tax or the patriarchy etc otherwise Ireland/UK would be expensive too, it's because there is monopolistic/cartel retail behaviour

I'm more on about the whole notion of asking a man to do it on behalf of a woman in the first place. It supposes that women lack the agency to look after this kind of sh!t for themselves, unable to raise their own hands up and assert a problem when they see one. No we'll need a manly man to sort that one out cos he's a man. It's pure infantilising. Not to mention that most men would be absolutely mortified to even do such a thing which is grand like.
And of course it's only a 1st world problem. Notions like these are usually first world formed and only first world concerned. God forbid they'd cast their sights on actual problems!

colm_mcm

Thread title disappoints, thought they must have added a new wave feminism private forum.

anna080

anna080 wrote: »

I'm more on about the whole notion of asking a man to do it on behalf of a woman in the first place. It supposes that women lack the agency to look after this kind of sh!t for themselves, unable to raise their own hands up and assert a problem when they see one. No we'll need a manly man to sort that one out cos he's a man. It's pure infantilising.

Was it infantilising when white people said 'enough' to racial discrimination against blacks, during the Civil Rights Movement?

Or when (mainly) privileged protestant men led a rebellion against, inter alia, the subjugation of Irish people in 1798?

Throughout history, there has been a valuable tradition of those who have not been subjugated, joining the cause of those who are, in a spirit of shared humanity.

It's always been divisive to do so, but has usually been perceived in good faith, except when it comes to men who decide that they want to contribute to what feminists are trying to achieve. The 'n*gger-lovers' of 60 years ago are, today, male feminists; and I'm not trying to engage in any kind of victimhood by saying that.

It's not a question of being a victim, it's a matter of demonstrating how ridiculous it is to shout someone down, just because they genuinely believe in the rights of another group in society.

Wibbs

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Was it infantilising when white people said 'enough' to racial discrimination against blacks, during the Civil Rights Movement?

Or when (mainly) privileged protestant men led a rebellion against, inter alia, the subjugation of Irish people in 1798?

Actually, sometimes it was. Painting the oppressed as "poor souls" and little children in need of help was common enough back then.

With modern "feminism" it's most certainly at play and demonstrably so. Women are always painted as delicate victims without agency over what happens to them and men(and "patriarchal" society) are painted as the villains and oft confusingly the saviours. When it suits. Try finding a single "feminist" opinion or philosophy that doesn't paint this picture. Just one would do. I guarantee T, your search will be long and fruitless. Even when men as a group are seen as quasi victims it's because of the "patriarchy" so it's still their fault. Just once removed.

Unlike say the Black civil rights movement which can certainly drift into the victim/blame game at times, but also just as regularly looks within the Black community for internal cultural and attitude issues that need looking at and addressing and look and address them many activists, even extremist activists do. QV Malcolm X. Again try to find just one example of the current "feminist" movement that asks similar questions of women™. And again long and fruitless will be your quest.

retro:electro

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Was it infantilising when white people said 'enough' to racial discrimination against blacks, during the Civil Rights Movement?

Or when (mainly) privileged protestant men led a rebellion against, inter alia, the subjugation of Irish people in 1798?

Throughout history, there has been a valuable tradition of those who have not been subjugated, joining the cause of those who are, in a spirit of shared humanity.

It's always been divisive to do so, but has usually been perceived in good faith, except when it comes to men who decide that they want to contribute to what feminists are trying to achieve. The 'n*gger-lovers' of 60 years ago are, today, male feminists; and I'm not trying to engage in any kind of victimhood by saying that.

It's not a question of being a victim, it's a matter of demonstrating how ridiculous it is to shout someone down, just because they genuinely believe in the rights of another group in society.

I'm too tipsy to answer this right now. I'll do my research and come back tomorrow

WHIP IT!

Did someone here compare the "struggle" for free fanny pads to that of the Civil Rights movement?? :-O

Icemancometh

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Did someone here compare the "struggle" for free fanny pads to that of the Civil Rights movement?? :-O

No. He compared male feminists to civil rights activists

namloc1980

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Did someone here compare the "struggle" for free fanny pads to that of the Civil Rights movement?? :-O

Icemancometh wrote: »

No. He compared male feminists to civil rights activists

Same thing. :pac:

Sweetemotion

namloc1980 wrote: »

Same thing. :pac:

He must make a mean sandwich.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually, sometimes it was. Painting the oppressed as "poor souls" and little children in need of help was common enough back then.

First of all, fair play Wibbs, I thought I'd lost my temper and insulted you enough for you to lose patience, for one night!

The very fact that such condescending attitudes were, unfairly, attributed to whites and protestants, respectively, does somewhat legitimise the fallacious nature of these personal attacks, or these accusations of virtue signalling, does it not? I'm sure nobody would look at Eric Kulberg today, and describe him as an attention-seeking virtue signaller. Most people appreciate that he was standing up for something he believed in, even though he wasn't a victim. But neither was he dickishly trying to virtue-signal, as he was seemingly accused of being, in the language of the day.

With modern "feminism" it's most certainly at play and demonstrably so. Women are always painted as delicate victims without agency over what happens to them and men(and "patriarchal" society) are painted as the villains and oft confusingly the saviours.

Always is a pretty strong word. I have no doubt this happens, but as a man, I've never been accused of being a patriarchal villain.

I know plenty of women, as I'm sure most people do, who have been the victims of casual sexism, and even 'casual' sexual assault. That's one part of their identity. They're no 'victims' in other areas of life: part of their ability to speak out about such incidents is probably due to the fact that they are not 'natural' victims in everyday life, but very assertive women. So I'd have to disagree that, according to feminism, women are always victims. They are only sometimes so.

Again try to find just one example of the current "feminist" movement that asks similar questions of women™. And again long and fruitless will be your quest.

Not sure if you're familiar with the radio journalist, Julia Hartley Brewer. It was she who very recently spoke out about Michael Fallon touching her legs inappropriately, which revelation led to his resignation as UK defence secretary. Yet JHB does not shy away from questioning and criticising a lot of feminists. In many respects, she has little time for feminism.

WHIP IT!

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Did someone here compare the "struggle" for free fanny pads to that of the Civil Rights movement?? :-O

No, but I assume you are thinking of my post about civil rights in the US.

I said that whites who tried to give some support to the civil rights movement, were often accepted as holding legitimate political opinions, although they were sometimes dismissed as 'n*gger lovers'.

I just tried to compare that to a different situation today, where men (and I stress, I'm not trying to make out that we're victims, in any way) are ridiculed for trying to support women in their various arguments for equality. The standard approach is to dismiss us as homosexuals, or cucks, or trying to sneak our way into a woman's knickers.

It's got nothing to do with likening the Civil Rights movement to 'free fanny pads' as you so eloquently put it.

Sweetemotion

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, but I assume you are thinking of my post about civil rights in the US.

I said that whites who tried to give some support to the civil rights movement, were often accepted as holding legitimate political opinions, although they were sometimes dismissed as 'n*gger lovers'.

I just tried to compare that to a different situation today, where men (and I stress, I'm not trying to make out that we're victims, in any way) are ridiculed for trying to support women in their various arguments for equality. The standard approach is to dismiss us as homosexuals, or cucks, or trying to sneak our way into a woman's knickers.

It's got nothing to do with likening the Civil Rights movement to 'free fanny pads' as you so eloquently put it.

What arguments of equality are you speaking off?