Pride and prejudice is social realism as the females are under threat of not getting inheritance

Domestic servants were the customer service wagecucks of the 19th century

Because feminism and good writing go together about as well as oil and water, so they are desperate to turn any hack female author into a totem object (which is humorous in itself b/c Austen is complete trash; in true female fashion it turns out that she happens to be the paragon for superficial reasons, namely her, to the uneducated, low IQ mind, her fancy sounding victorian vernacular)

well I was trying to place myself in feminist system and how they 'read' things and I couldn't understand why they like PnP.

I don't think you've read a single piece of feminist literature beyond a poorly cropped and horribly compressed picture of a Laurie Penny tweet you saved from a feminist hate thread on /pol/

>petit bourgouise

name 1 good work of feminist literature
>inb4 the second sex
trash

>the frogposting /r9k/ scum thinks social realism is the same as socialist realism

Stick to discussing the size of labia

>no refutation
>just vitriol
As expected from a feminist.

le epin bait man

wait, hold on, what's wrong with feminism? According to google, it's "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes", which seems fine to me. I think equal rights for both sexes is pretty good, what's wrong with it?

>unironically engaging baiting frog people

Just stop. It derails threads. Ignore and move on

I see little point in answering as any answer I give will immediately be derided or scoffed aside. And you were kind enough to demonstrate that you would do exactly that by adding your cute little inb4

I mocked Laurie Penny. Doesn't that say something? (this is assuming that your post is not b8)

>cute
cringe

Feminism is a pleb tier ideology senpai

The "equal rights" you talk of were achieved long ago in the west

I'm and I am also not a feminist.

I think feminism is a case where people lose themselves to language. Feminism as a response to times when men and women weren't "equal" is why people confuse feminism to mean "advocacy for equality in general" when in fact feminism is "advocacy for equality [under the presupposition that there is gender inequality specifically affecting women]".

So yes, technically feminism "used to be" about "equality" but it's not about [gender equality]. Feminism is about gender equality in a specific context.

It's even in the suffix fem--
And desperate attempts by feminists to rebrand themselves as fighters for "equality" must surely clue some people, I would think. Feminism is a specifically women's interest only movement. Which is fine, I don't really care.

But I still think women are useless, and I'm willing to bet many people share my sentiments

and this is a feminist issue how?

are opinions too hurtful so there needs to be a movement to remove ideas people dont like?

wouldn't it be ideal if people didn't think women were useless? Maybe feminism could rectify this issue to some extent

Yes we need thought police now.

Well the argument is always that negative opinions and sentiments often lead to negative results with tangible consequences. Which I sort of understand, but on a more abstract conceptual level, in principle I can't bring myself to agreeing with imposing state injunctions on 'bad thoughts'

why would it be ideal? What is the 'ideal' world in your view and what happens to those who don't share the same vision?

The reason why I'm very skeptical of the supposedly left leaning, social justice-y types is their tendency towards utopianism. It creeps me out. Very cultish.

Not that I want a society full of women hating or black hating whatevers. I just think people should be free to live and let live.

You don't like gays, that's fine. You do you.
You like being around black people, that's great. You do you.

Is there a philosophy that describes my sentiments?

Well, if you believe women to be worthless, it is likely you would deprive them of their rights in daily life. If I don't like women, then I would treat women poorly.

But isn't that what the state does already? We already discourage other immoral acts such as murder and adultery. Surely depriving someone of their rights is immoral.

I think that's a bit of a hyperbole.

probs absurdism desu

Thought can not be a crime

Why would you try to control it, or stop certain thoughts?

Of course you would want to discourage certain thoughts user. Certain thoughts can lead to certain outcomes. If I hate blacks so much I want to kill them, I would try to go out and kill them. Society already discourages certain thoughts.

I've read The Stranger and thought it was very similar to The Man Who Wasn't There.

To be quite honest, I am a bit intellectually intimidated by this board and only just started getting interested in philosophy and all that. I should study up on absurdism, thanks for the tip.

It is a bit hyperbolic to say some Stasi esque thugs in gear will thought police you 1984 style but at the same time, having lived in a place that actually has strict censorship laws giving the state power to control and suppress expression of thought by its citizens doesn't sit right with me. It's a tough situation.

I get it.

One question though, you said "If I don't like women, then I would treat women poorly."
Assuming that that's true, isn't "poor treatment" (like the ones I'm guessing you're thinking of, like harassment or assault) already illegal and considered immoral?

Why the need for laws on free expression?

Society can do what it wants

But why would you want to force a certain way of thought

I don't care how "noble" your cause is, what gives you the right to tell others how to think?

Actions are actions and thoughts are thoughts, simple as that

I don't think there needs to be laws on free expression. I just think that there are still embedded beliefs within people which cause irrational, biased judgements. I think these beliefs are problematic, and I think feminism can help in educating people on their irrational biases, thus preventing immoral judgements.

I never, ever said I wanted to force a certain way of thought. I don't want to tell others how to think. I just want to tell people what's right and what's wrong. Not my own conceptions of what's right and wrong, but on a codified set of morals which is universally accepted: human rights. I really think you have the wrong idea user. See my other post

You originally implied people should be told how to think

It's to this I'm completely opposed

People's thoughts shouldn't be influenced by a social movement attempting to do deliberately that, nor should the education system have ideological motives

...I think you should really make a case why society should listen and follow your specific beliefs.

I'm not a white male. Yet I have no problem with white supremacists. I am not a Black Israelite. And I don't have a problem with them either.

Certain parts of what you said is very interesting because you seem to have an idea of what is "rational" and "unbiased"
>which cause irrational, biased judgements

I don't. As much as I disagree with the message of a certain section of feminists and their open contempt of white men, I honestly do not care about them at all. When they're in my periphery, yes they can be annoying. But outside that I just do not care about them in the slightest.

People should be free to believe what they want and live apart from each other (I think).

I'm not quite sure morality can exist without submitting to religious belief anyway, so I try not to embed moral value into anything.

I don't think 'objective' morality can exist without submission to religious thought.

I'm the user by the way.

And to be perfectly honest with you, even though as an asian guy I'm not the usual target of certain feminist attacks/criticisms, I'm quite scared of them moving onto their next target.

Can someone who doesn't argue in platitudes and memes tell me if Emma is worth reading?

I've had it on my shelf for a while.

I don't think I implied that. I do think people's thoughts can be influenced, and, in some cases, should be. Ad campaigns already do this for far less righteous reasons, with far less honest techniques, and often with far less transparency. Rather than any 'telling', I think a better word would be 'informing'. Anti-smoking campaigns inform the viewers in an attempt to change their thoughts, and prevent harmful action. I think attempts towards anti-sexism should be similar.

I think society already listens to my specific belief that all humans deserve equal rights. I think my conceptions of what is irrational is very easy to swallow. It is irrational to treat someone poorly for something they have no control over.

I do not think open contempt of white men is correct nor should be considered feminism, because it is contrary to the definition.

As a side note, I think if you disagree with a certain message, you care enough to engage with it.

People should be free to believe what they want, but that does not mean what they believe is right. I don't think you can control what you embed moral value into.

Morality, by definition, is not objective. It is dependent on societal values.

Sorry, it's really easy to argue in platitudes. Emma is pretty good, definitely one of the stronger Austen novels.

>I think society already listens to my specific belief that all humans deserve equal rights

...yes and you're probably right. What do you suggest for people who don't share your views?
I'm not even convinced that people 'deserve' rights or that 'rights' not as a social construct but as something inalienable exists.

I think you should write a formal list of what is and isn't rational.

>As a side note, I think if you disagree with a certain message, you care enough to engage with it.

Well, only for that moment. Right now feminism is in my "periphery".

And is there such a thing as right and wrong? Can you believe that without believing in god?

>It is irrational to treat someone poorly for something they have no control over.

Very dangerous statement. Please rework your sentences so as to avoid imprecise or vague/ambiguous use of language.

People who don't think all humans deserve equal rights are, in my eyes, dangerous.

>I'm not even convinced that people 'deserve' rights or that 'rights' not as a social construct but as something inalienable exists.

I'm sorry, I don't think I can argue against that kind of claim.

>is there such a thing as right and wrong? Can you believe that without believing in god?

I believe that people take things as right and wrong, and I take those things to be right and wrong.

If someone has absolutely no control over something, they should not be punished for it. I really don't know how to make this clearer, sorry. What problems do you have with the statement?

I've had western education so I was taught that everyone ought to be treated equal.

I never quite got around to fully believing in that though. I always thought, well why?
This is an anonymous board (allegedly) and seeing as how my kind of thinking is banned from cultural discussion I thought I would ask just about anyone on this board. Veeky Forums seems pretty well read from what I've seen.

the thing about
>If someone has absolutely no control over something, they should not be punished for it.
is that some people are born with psychological conditions or dispositions that is frowned upon in society. like "harmful" sexual needs and such. At least I think that's what was getting at.

Of course I don't think a person wanting children sexually should be punished merely for desire.
>I believe that people take things as right and wrong, and I take those things to be right and wrong.

Then there's not much point in being moral, is there? Or believing in 'right and wrong'?

Sorry, I don't think I can engage in the whole 'why should people be treated equal' discussion.

I think people who are born with conditions or dispositions should be helped, not punished or harmed for it. There should be no malice or disapproval towards an inherent condition.

I don't think you can 'not' believe in right and wrong. I also think morality helps society function.

>Sorry, I don't think I can engage in the whole 'why should people be treated equal' discussion.
That's fine. and to be honest I was expecting that.

So from what I've read you recognise morality as a utility?

I guess my biggest problem with 'positive belief' about social constructivism and progress into utopia or some such is what happens to people who don't want that or who don't agree with that version of utopia?

laugh of the medusa

It happens what always happen. Whoever is stronger gets his viewpoint to prevail.

You know user all the things people tell you on the internet aren't always true

>well I was trying to place myself in feminist system and how they 'read' things and I couldn't understand why they like PnP.

Nigger, actual feminist critiques of it were written, you can easily pick up those instead of inane fantasizing.

I've actually read a few. That's why I said "why do feminists read into pride and prejudice as if Austen was expressing feminist sentiments?"

>i don't know what the petit bourgouise is but i'll use it to look smart

I admit I haven't read serious academic papers by noted scholars (the ones I have read are from [not famous] universities) but still, really?

All they talk about is "the entailment", patriarchy and how Elizabeth is a proto feminist. I just don't get how they read "feminist sentiments" out of an Austen work.