Is feminism a bad fan fiction of Marxism where women are proletariat and men are bourgeoisie?

I find it strange that a board full of men is talking about feminism.

How do you know the gender of anonymous posters?

No, male dominance over women is conspicuous in history and sociology and irrational to ignore. Though feminists end up with faulty conclusions due to their hysteria and fear of sexism, the central premise is sound.

You really think that there are a lot of women on Veeky Forums? And you can tell by the language that they use.

>And you can tell by the language that they use.
Tell me more about this gender difference.

tee hee there are no girls on Veeky Forums, just you silly virgin manchildren ;)

Yes.

There is very little good proletarian feminism i.e. Kollontai

Socialism is inherently egalitarian so always be wary of those who call them Marxist Feminists

>And you can tell by the language that they use.
Tell me more about this gender difference.

what do you want me to do, compile a huge list of all the SJW tumblr memes I've come across

do you really think that everyone on Veeky Forums is male? and do you really think the only people who critique modern feminism are male?

Feminists: workers, downtrodden, untouchables

Healthy, fertile women: bourgeois, aristocrats

>misogyny is over guise

Of course modern liberal feminism is plagued with retards but it's not fair to disqualify the sentiment because of them.

i'll disqualify whatever the fuck I want NERD

>NERD

Harsh. That's uncalled for.

>being ignorant about the history of feminism

Late 19th-early 20th century feminists were Christians and Right-Wing women.
Yes communists and socialists later adopted feminism, but a part of the movement remained on the Right.

Even today many feminists are Left in name only, they support globalist capitalism, big businesses, imperialism and pretend to be "Marxist".

>Even today many feminists are Left in name only, they support globalist capitalism, big businesses, imperialism and pretend to be "Marxist".
So just like Marx?

Pretty much in the West, yes.

Stupidest post I have read in a while

Feminism was necessary, because shit was real bad for women.
It has since done its job, and now has an identity crisis.
You shouldn't be judging its success or necessity based on this period, rather on its inception and original design.

Look at how Catherine the Great was popularly portrayed, simply because she was a woman that aspire to more than being a house wife.
>A colossal figure of Catherine II steps from 'Russia', a rocky mound on the extreme left, to 'Constantinople', her toe resting on the horn of a crescent which surmounts a spire on a group of buildings, with a dome and a minaret. Her head is turned in profile to the right; in her left hand is an orb, in her right she holds out a sceptre over Constantinople, at which she looks with a determined frown. Beneath her petticoats, and strung out between 'Russia' and 'Constantinople' are the heads and shoulders of seven sovereigns, gazing up at her. On the extreme left is a man wearing the cap of the Doge of Venice, saying, "To what a length Power may be carried". Next is the Pope wearing his triple crown, saying, "I shall never forget it". Next is the King of Spain, saying, "By Saint Jago, I'll strip her of her Fur!" Louis XVI says "Never saw any thing like it". George III says "What! What! What! What a prodigious expansion!" The Emperor says "Wonderful elevation". The Sultan says "The whole Turkish Army wouldn't satisfy her". Below the design is inscribed 'European Powers'. 12 April 1791 Hand-coloured etching

A successful woman was to be mocked, since women aren't meant for success. The default attack was a sexual one, since women are only for sex and nothing else.
The fact that this seems poor form and pathetic and vulgar today means that feminism did a lot of work.

>because shit was real bad for women.

It wholly depends on how you define "real bad".

Because both genders in the 19th, and early 20th century had gender roles that they were supposed to fill. The idea that women necessarily were the automatic losers of that, and men the automatic winners, is narrow-minded, and yet that's precisely how people argue today, that women were essentially slaves to their slavers before feminism came a long, which is ridiculous.

Not every man was a coal worker, and not every woman was a stay at home housewife for an upper middle class american household.
You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of with your image.

Men were expected to have a go at greatness. Try education, and if they have a knack for it, go ahead and continue. Try getting a business going, if they have a knack at it, continue expanding. Try a career, management position, etc.
Most didn't achieve greatness, but all were expected and encouraged to attempt it.

Women were not expected, nor encouraged, and indeed discouraged from attempting to achieve greatness. They were mocked and ridiculed for trying, and parents and peers pressured them into not "wasting their time" and such. A good woman wasn't meant to bother with these, and women who did were shamed, including by other women. This isn't men enslaving women, its society deciding that women shouldn't attempt greatness, and feminism changed that stance.

that image is retarded

Yo, fuck of to tumblr retard.

Stop replying to this troll everyone.

>Not every man was a coal worker

No, but most men where working class, and had to do very very menial and shit labor, to support their family.

Using the upper class as a standard for anything is ridiculous, because they live in a completely different world by definition.

Why is it retarded?

>being relegated to duties a retarded child could do because society considers you inadequate for anything else is desirable
>meanwhile working to support your family is not because work might be hard
no really what the fuck

>Using the upper class as a standard for anything is ridiculous
And yet you use propaganda portraying an upper middle class woman, a best case scenario really, and contrasting it to a worst case scenario.
Also using a drawn image, and contrasting it to an actual picture.

Basically the image is so absurd, as to not even be funny anymore.
Most men didn't fall in your left image, and most women didn't fall in your right image.

Also you still haven't argued against my post , you just quoted its number and dismissed it without addressing it, much like the other two replies I got spamming about tumblr.

>and feminism changed that stance.
Not globally at all. Unless you're one of those "everyone who argued for women's rights is retroactively a feminist even though they didn't identify as feminists" type of people

No, feminism is usually pretty liberal, and Marxism and liberalism are antitheses.

I never said that the traditional gender roles were desirable.

What I did say though, if you actually read my original post, is that the current trend of revisionism where the 19th and early 20th centuries are seen as a system in which women are literally enslaved to their husband, is flat out dishonest and false, because both genders had expectations and had to fit a role. And if you didn't fit that role perfectly, it didn't matter if you were a man or a woman, you were going to be shit on by greater society.

I mean, you have situations like the White Feather movement, where feminists themselves and women in general literally branded men who didn't want to go to war as cowards, because as I said, if you didn't fit the gender role assigned to you, you would be shamed, regardless of whether you were a man or a woman.

Are you one of those "the greatest early discoveries in physics aren't made by physicists, because it used to be called experimental philosophy until recently" type of people?

sure i just called the image retarded, not your post(s). agree for the most part, though i definitely think men got the more desirable role
then again i know people who would be happy to do nothing productive for the rest of their lives so guess it's preference

So you agree then, that the problem was gender roles in general, and shaming people for wanting to get out of them, not that women were enslaved.

You know egalitarians want women's rights as well don't you.

You know you are moving the goalpost, right?

Try to hide your autism à bit more, Sarah

Physics is a hard science. Feminism is a philosophy and a method. So your post would be a false equivalency.

When the Finnish parliament was formed in the year 1907, everyone was allowed to vote anyone regardless of sex could try and run for the parliament. There was zero feminist influence behind these, and why it happened is a buildup of several historic events.

The appeal to definition fallacy that every one who believes in equal rights for the sexes is a feminist is wrong. Feminism encompasses more than just that, as the name itself states.

>and anyone regardless of sex could try and run for the parliament*

yeah sure

Butthurt?

>physics is a hard science
It is "hard" today. It used to be just logic and thought experiments initially, and very much an excercise in opinions and not facts.
>once upon a time in finland, thus i am right
No.
>encompasses more than just that
Encompasses less than just that. it is a female rights movement, not an equality movement.
Just like a cow farmers protest encompasses less than an overall agriculture reform does.

At any rate, again, you are moving goalposts. People who argued for womens rights are now referred to as feminists, similarly to how people who studied what we now call physics are labeled physicists, even though they would have never called themselves such.

>women were enslaved
Holy strawman, Batman!

Not him, but I don't use the word feminist about myself just because I want to leave women alone to do what they want with their life.

The idea that I have to align myself with some political movement and have to assign myself their label simply because I agree with some of it is ridiculous.

Many third-wave feminists argue just that, that traditional gender roles were analogous to slavery.

>The idea that I have to align myself with some political movement and have to assign myself their label simply because I agree with some of it is ridiculous.

But you would call yourself a capitalist or a liberal, without agreeing to 100% of the proposed policies, nor agreeing with all parties under that label.
Whats the difference here?

I think you are just ashamed of using the term, because it has since been abducted by what used to be fringe elements, and are today mainstream neo-feminism.

>Encompasses less than just that. it is a female rights movement, not an equality movement.
>it is a female rights movement, not an equality movement.
Ergo you can fight for women's rights without being a feminist. Thank you for proving me right. Fighting for universal rights means you fight for women's rights as well
>At any rate, again, you are moving goalposts
Are you dumb? You seriously couldn't catch the fact that I'm not >No
Ignoring historical precedent for equal rights happening without feminist ideology?
>People who argued for womens rights are now referred to as feminists
No. Just no. Not all people who argued for womens rights are referred to as feminists.

I'm not *

Many nationalists argue that we have to genocide other races. Doesn't mean nationalism itself, nor all people who follow it, or followed it in the past, are of that opinion.

Many free market capitalists endorse slavery of children, since the parent owns the child until it is adult, and can thus trade it freely. Doesn't mean that free market capitalism as an ideology promotes or supports this, nor that all free market capitalists today and in the past share this view.

Every school of thought has extremists. When feminism was needed, they were a minority. Now that it has achieved its goal, they have taken over, since the main body no longer has a purpose in the west and has an identity crisis, as I mentioned before. This shouldn't discredit the idea as a whole, and certainly shouldn't prompt you into history revisionism as to what it has achieved.

You didn't provide any new arguments, just repeated your old post, now with more "thanks for proving me right are you dumb" and so on, without addressing mine.

I don't call myself a capitalist or a liberal either.

I usually just supply arguments, and people label me as X.

People have this sycophancy with labels, that is really unhealthy, and they want people to fit neatly into labels so they can attack the label instead of the arguments I use.

Hence, I don't call myself a feminist, anymore than I call myself a liberal or a capitalist.

>your example doesn't specifically target me, thus you are wrong

Okay, do you call yourself a human? Because there are some abhorrent humans. Re-read my post as a human, if you just happen to not be a liberal capitalist, since you apparently can't even entertain the idea to see the logic at play here.

>Every school of thought has extremists

Yeah, but there's a difference in the level of societal acceptance between the examples you chose.

A known feminists who says she hates men and wants them all to die on Twitter, will get thousands of likes and pictures of women holding cups that says "I bathe in male tears".

A nationalist that says he wants to genocide all the immigrants in his country will be arrested and prosecuted for hate crime.

>similarly to how people who studied what we now call physics are labeled physicists
Nope. They're called philosophers, astronomers, mathematicians, alchemists.
Regardless, feminism is an ideological movement, not a field of study. So your shitty argument through analogy fails on both the nature and veracity of its comparison.

>When the Finnish parliament was formed in the year 1907, everyone was allowed to vote anyone regardless of sex could try and run for the parliament.
>There was zero feminist influence behind these

Not really true.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I don't want to be associated with the label feminist?

I am after all a man. Why would I possibly use a label that does not have anything to do with me personally, nor my sex?

You are then fine with torturing animals, since animal rights movements do nothing for you and isn't something you'd associate yourself with?

I am only showing you the obvious holes in your narrative, so you can work on it and patch it up, hopefully coming up with a better philosophy of life and understanding of your environment and society at large.

>You are then fine with torturing animals, since animal rights movements do nothing for you and isn't something you'd associate yourself with?

No, because the dichotomy isn't between torturing animals on the one side, and being a crazy tree hugger on the other.

I can without problem be against torturing animals without being in a political movement.

>A known feminists who says she hates men and wants them all to die on Twitter, will get thousands of likes and pictures of women holding cups that says "I bathe in male tears".
>A nationalist that says he wants to genocide all the immigrants in his country will be arrested and prosecuted for hate crime.

And 150 years ago it would've been the opposite, and often the state had to move in to stop mobs from killing blacks. People had to be prevented, by police and armed forces, from genocide.

Your argument can thus be reduced to appeal to current popular views, ignoring past and future popular views. Why is today's twitter culture more important than any other stance in human history, including those yet to come?

Not having a membership card doesn't mean you don't support the idea. You are arguing semantics here.

>And 150 years ago it would've been the opposite, and often the state had to move in to stop mobs from killing blacks. People had to be prevented, by police and armed forces, from genocide.

Yeah, and that wouldn't be acceptable then, anymore than it is acceptable for women to call for the genocide of men on Twitter today.

There were actually people living and breathing during the time of lynching and slavery who spent their time campaigning against it you know.

That's just how history works, you oppressed all those women and blacks 200 years ago and now you'll be punished, sucks to be you!

>doesn't mean you don't support the idea

Well I don't support the torture of animals. But that's not the only thing the animal rights movement stand for, nor is it the only thing Greenpeace for example stand for either.

There's a lot more to political movement than simply 1 issue, and sometimes I disagree with them more than I agree with them, hence I don't want to align myself.

>How many people here thought Marx was against capitalism? Marx was against capitalism? Almost nobody? Max wasn't against capitalism? How many think he wasn't against capitalism? One? Why do you think he wasn't against capitalism? Just get to a mic.

>Student: He wasn't against capitalism because Marx thought capitalism was a necessary step in getting to socialism.

>Professor: You're exactly right. So what Marx thought about capitalism was, and we're going to understand the reasons for this in detail in the next couple of lectures, that for a certain phase of history it was essential. He thought capitalism was the most innovative, dynamic, productive mode of production that had ever been dreamed up, and there was no way you could even think abut a socialist or a communist society developing unless you had capitalism first. And Marx would have had absolutely no sympathy for the Russian Revolution which was done in a peasant society, or the Chinese communist system either. He would have said they were completely premature because in the end it's going to be capitalism which is necessary to generate the wherewithal to make socialism possible. So he wouldn't have had any sympathy with the Leninist or Stalinist projects, which we'll talk about later.
oyc.yale.edu/transcript/808/plsc-118

I can't, for the life of me, understand why would any "marxist" describe himself as an anti-capitalist.

It's the best possible system at the moment, a historical inevitability, and Marx knew this.

Peasant societies like Russia or China with no middle class to speak of underwent the revolution, by doing so, they skipped the necessary historical transitions of developing a full-fledged capitalist economy first, then socialism, and finally communism.

While Europe underwent the transition to social democracy and enjoyed the prosperity and innovation it brings.

Marx never criticized the social democracy we experience today.

Cute b8

>There were actually people living and breathing during the time of lynching and slavery who spent their time campaigning against it you know.

You mean like there were people protesting against the housewife label, and how there are people protesting against SJWs today?
Its almost as if you have no point, because there is nothing exceptional about it.

You mean you don't take a stance, and just sit on the fence feeling smug and superior, looking down on everyone as you fail to produce anything of worth?

I've heard of your kind. Rope day is coming.

>You mean like there were people protesting against the housewife label, and how there are people protesting against SJWs today?

Well protesting against SJWs is only acceptable on the internet.

It's not acceptable in real life, because you will invariably be labeled a bigot or a misogynist, and when and if you do, your reputation will be destroyed and you might even lose your job.

Or even worse, like in the Gregory Alan Eliot case in Canada, where simply disagreeing vehemently with feminists on social media, will get you arrested and charged with criminal harassment.

>Well protesting against SJWs is only acceptable on the internet.

Sounds like you only live on the internet. Even in Sweden or USA there is a stronger backlash against SJW events than there is support.

What the fuck are you on about?

>Even in Sweden or USA there is a stronger backlash against SJW events than there is support.

I find that hard to believe, but okay whatever.

Even assuming that is true, it is clearly not true for the rest of the West.

Its even more true in the rest of the west. Its the worst in USA in academia and in Sweden in hipster youth communities, and even there its not as bad as the internet makes you think.

You are saying the internet has the biggest backlash to it, but in fact the internet is the only place where SJWs are being supported.

You're either literally fucking retarded or lying out of sheer malice.

I think women's rights does, but not feminism. Feminism is late 19th century and Marxism begins early to mid 19th century.

This is a blue board senpai

artnews.com/2016/06/28/national-organization-for-women-names-emma-sulkowicz-its-2016-woman-of-courage/

this is all you need to know about modern feminism