How is this? From what I understand it has a much different approach to 'feminism' than what we often see

This, pretty much. "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" and "The Subjection of Women" are great, but the rest is such a waste of time that I did not bother pondering about what I've read at all.

To answer your question OP - I haven't read the book myself but I have debated with my classmate who owns a physical copy of this book and read Wikipedia on it. To me it appears that it just consists out of denial of biological sex and natural aspects of gender, many of which are either scientifically proven or have a strong scientific consensus. The argumentation that he uses is as convincing as Berkeley's subjective empiricism. The approach she uses is typical to third-wave feminism - everything is a social construct, patriarchy is everywhere in our society, every unequal distribution of success is based on oppression. Hence if you're really into third-wave feminism then it will be the best statement of this movement, but the movement itself in nonsense.

It's not Schopenhauer's On Women.

Ignore it.

It isn't really nonsense. There are still valuable things to pick up from the book even if it's not 100% factual.

Basically ZOG knows they can't beat White Masculinity, that is, the Nordic Warrior Spirit that brought them to their knees 70 years ago. From that very moment, they realised the white man would never kneel before Bolshevism. So, sneaky as they are, they've been trying to subvert us through faggotry, white guilt and the promotion of the numale lifestyle

Why read this? Weininger solved the woman problem a long time ago.

>Demi-vapor (term coined by @cotton-blossom-jellyfish): Continuously drifting to other genders, feeling spiritually transcendental when doing so while having a clear -slightly blurred- inner visual of your genders, transitions, and positive emotions. Tied to Demi-Smoke.
Demi-smoke (term coined by @cotton-blossom-jellyfish): A transcendental, spiritual gender roughly drifting to other genders that are unable to be foreseen and understood, shrouded in darkness within your inner visual. Elevating through mystery. Caused by a lack of inner interpretation and dark emotional states. Tied to Demi-Vapor.

Satire is superfluous. Ours is the age of memes.

I saw a really interesting study by Simon Baron Cohen where they showed completely newborn babies either a face or a mechanical toy and observed how long the baby looked at it. Consistently, girls looked longer at the face, boys longer at the mechanical toy.

It's amazing how social constructs concerning heteronormative gender roles can influence babies while they're still in the womb, isn't it?

That's one of the less rigorous studies of gender I've heard of.

This is Poetry. Maybe Jorge Luis Borges is alive and going by the name ''@cotton-blossom-jellyfish''.

Fair enough.

I wouldn't really consider it literature. More tabloidism or sensationalism. Why read feminist literature when you can actually deal with economics, philosophy, politics, fiction, sociology, anthropology, history, classics, poetry, etc.

All of it is more interesting. I'd rather hear about the rise and fall of the Roman empire from contemporary sources then how and why women felt alienated 40-50 years ago.

I guess the thing is that the kind of interesting issues that are addressed within a lot of feminist writing is going to necessarily overlap with psychological, sociological, political, and philosophical ideas on power dynamics.

>is gender sometimes independent of biological sex
Yes

>is it a social construct
No

True that there are rare occasions where someones gender (mental sex) doesnt match their biological sex, you can not simply raise anyone to be the wrong gender without causing potential psychological and emotional harm to that person. See the John Money experiment.

>Aesthetigender: a gender that is derived from an aesthetic; also known as videgender

>Surgender: having a gender that is 100% one gender but with more of another gender added on top of that

>Existigender: a gender that only exists or feels present when thought about or when a conscious effort is made to notice it

>Autigender: a gender that can only be understood in the context of being autistic

>Spinozistigender: a gender that can only be understood as a manifestation of the immanent and infallible will of God inhering in all creation

>Joycegender: a gender that only exists or feels present when inhaling ones own farts and thinking up new labels to make one self more unique

Which feminist books did you read, Veeky Forums?

This is a good one.

This book is, in my opinion, highly insightful and eye opening reading

The Awakening by Kate Chopin. It was a fucking piece of bourgeois shit.

>things that never happened

Fucking exactly

Look up radical feminism. Real women's issues are being colonized by transgender politics

those are some nice titties

Kek

>Perfectly mundane events become impossible to believe once they're made political

>where's the female
How Quaint

>Mundane events
How often are men coming up to you, putting hands on you, and whispering in your ear? Why do you let them do that to you?

Link a few of the studies you've heard of then.

You're still not even talking about the fucking book

Not often, being that there aren't alot of gay men around where I live.
If you don't think people flirt hard, then your silly. The dude probably thought she'd be fine with some teasing.

Some people do "flirt hard" as you put it, but why do we have to be so sexist as to pretend that a woman cannot fight back? She could just say, "Whoa, back the fuck up", or put her hand to his face to show she isn't interested, or even simply walk away.

You could argue that women see all men as horrible rapists and perverts, but that has as much validity as a man claiming all women are parasitic whores.

Well, who says she didn't say back the fuck up? Also when something like that happens you're kind of in a shock and the person is probably making a quick getaway. The point is to spook you, not to get publicly embarrassed or arrested, and since it's premeditated the odds of doing that successfully are in their favor.

>when something like that happens you're kind of in a shock and the person is probably making a quick getaway
>The point is to spook you
>premeditated

I'm sorry, are you describing "mundane events" or an act of terrorism?

You know putting your hand to someone's face after they harass you about your tits doesn't fix the fact that it feels like shit when it happens to you? I've been in both situations, were someone harassed me and I was shell-shocked/scared and another when I fired back immediately and showed them my phone dialed 911. Neither were enjoyable so I guess I don't get your point.

Harrassment is both mundane and terror-inducing

PoMo has been the official ideology of managerial late capitalism for a while now, Trust me, white brothers, nothing you haven't seen before. The best hope for our people lies in the synthesis of ideas like performativity, queer theory simulacra and the spectacle plus a big ol serving of fash. Post Ironic Hitlerism. Hyperfascism. Hitler Youth Twink Brigades. Hyperreal Stormtroopers. Memetic Blitzkrieg.

>the word "premeditated" can't denote anything less than terrorism

y i k e s your vocabulary

I understand and agree that a woman should NOT have to suffer undue harassment just because she is a she, but anyone can get harassed by assholes. I've been minding my own business and gotten harassed by belligerent drunks, police, teenagers, random "thugs", etc; and while I will admit those tend to not be overtly sexual in nature, harassment is harassment all the same.
>inb4 this happens every time I step outside
That is the most common hyperbole ever said and almost always believed, which I also find to be sexist. If you really want to be a strong womyn, then show some strength and stand up for yourself.

c o n t e x t

>Autigender: a gender that can only be understood in the context of being autistic

I've thought about calling myself 'trans' just to jump on the bandwagon, I don't even have to shave my beard or fuck dudes or whatever, (after all that's what being 'non binary' it's all about.) but I guess it can be useful for picking up tumblr chicks or getting 'diversity points' of some sort at college admissions

Happens ~2/month. I think we're really close to being on the same page, it would just require you to take the last little step into admitting harassment "of a sexual nature" is different than being yelled at by drunks. I live in the city and rely on public transportation, so my avg is maybe skewed, but I've had to call the police twice in the past 5 months for being followed and sexually harrassed. You say "stand up for yourself" but what do you want people to do? I have a knife and pepper spray but I weigh 107. I have a hard time believing if I was able to pepper-spray someone within range I wouldn't end up knocked out within a second. You think I'm gonna brandish my pocketknife at them like "don't talk about my tits again, I'm warning you!!"
so what you need to do is define what you mean by "stand up for yourself", and ask yourself if that would put the woman in greater physical risk.

>women are equal to men
>but they also need to be protected from sexual harassment
Really makes you think

Women are inferior and shouldn't have gotten rights

>men choose to target those physically weaker than them and commit almost all violent crime

Hmm really makes you think about ethical genocide

>genociding men
You didn't think this through

>I have a hard time believing if I was able to pepper-spray someone within range I wouldn't end up knocked out within a second. You think I'm gonna brandish my pocketknife at them like "don't talk about my tits again, I'm warning you!!"
This is the problem. This is what Feminism is trying to break. You take the power away from yourself because you've been trained to think that you CANNOT defend yourself, even when armed for self-defense. Why pretend to be strong if the little voice in the back of your head is still in control?

>harassment "of a sexual nature" is different than being yelled at by drunks
>yelled at
You'd be surprised how quickly yelling turns into violence when it's between men.

The issue is that women are inherently weaker than men. No amount of feminism can change that.

This was a lively discussion until /pol/ came along

I recognize that I have a physical disadvantage based on size. It's not a psychological trick but a reality that will always discourage confrontation. It's in me for any emergency but I'll exhaust other resources first

Besides this is off-topic? The point's not the logistics of a male v. female fight but really WHO is initiating the conflict. Imagine every time I get harrassed I DO "stand up for myself" and, hypothetically, win. That's really no way to live. Women deserve to not have conflict initiated with them constantly blah blah it's common sense

this

Some men are inherently weaker than other men. Basing rights on physical might is illogical in a developed society but ya you know that

>Imagine every time I get harrassed I DO "stand up for myself" and, hypothetically, win. That's really no way to live.
Welcome to a Man's life.

>Women deserve to not have conflict initiated with them constantly
But men do?

Men don't have conflict initiated constantly b/c they're not seen as targets.

As a man I need to be on guard in public places to insure that I am not mugged or some such thing. The idea that that if you are a man then you are somehow "safe" is ridiculous. If I look at the wrong person the wrong way I could end up dead.

>tfw yr old working class neighborhood is being slowly gentrified by homosexual invaders

I can't put enough meme arrows before this so I won't even try.

Not only are you ignoring reality, but you are making an incredibly sexist and incorrect generalization disparaging a VERY large portion of the population just because you think you know better.

I think feminism is a solipsistic worldview. It considers the problems of women, which are in many cases legitimate, and excludes th problems of men. This allows certain non-problem" of women to be viewed as real issues, and for real problems to become hyper-corrected. That is not to mention the mutual resentment and alienation that it breeds. A healthier approach would be cooperative rather than combative. Both sexes need to consider the issues affecting not just themselves, but also the other, and find a synthesis that achieves the greatest well-being for both. Feminism is not the way forward.

this is now a dank fashwave
a e s t h e t i c s
thread

Oh good god. Are you also
? Taking the bait 1 more time but here goes: you're not routinely targeted for sexual violence by the opposite gender
That's all I got friend thanks for playing

>You don't experience the same sort of violence I experience therefore you don't experience violence

Oh, okay.

That's a strawman

This much IS true (unless you are a boy in grade-school with a female teacher), but is that really all there is to life? Are those the only crimes that count? Why is it that significantly more men are arrested, tried, and sentenced for the same crimes as the opposite gender? Why are things such as child support and custody wildly skewed in the woman's favor? Why are Stay-at-Home Moms celebrated and Stay-at-home Dads looked down on?

Not him, but that is not a complete strawman. He is absolutely right in his assumption that you have an incredibly narrow perspective of what is equal.

Well you'll have a hard time squeezing any admission of court injustice out of me because I believe men DO act more violently than women more frequently. I've seen it in my personal life and statistically. Hell I've even heard men say so themselves, frequently, as an excuse for committing crimes (men can't help raping, etc.) I barely believe a wide scale extermination of men would be unethical. It would be fun if there was a test like the replicant test in Blade Runner, and every time a man failed to answer a question ethically (i.e., is it okay to have sex with a person who is unconscious?) he would be culled. So no I don't think it's unjust that men are afforded um, less child custody

Then nothing you say matters, congratulations you are a sociopath.

It's the opposite of sociopathic to want a better world.

I find that actually quite a lot of women are starting to feel that way. They nominally will describe themselves as feminist but only insofar as policies - reproductive rights, equal pay, and so on. On an ideological level they find it rather unsatisfying, and look for something with more solidarity and, I suppose, 'togetherness.'

seriously, this might just be crazy enough to work. Anyone got any tips?

With this level of ego and vanity you may actually tip the scales into psychopathy.

Don't do it. Like, seriously, the people who have genuine problems resolving their gender with their sex already have it bad enough that upper-class liberals are commodifying their existence. But even besides that, all you'll really be doing is buying into the idea that your identity is a commodity, something that can be sold or dictated to you.

>Genuine problems resolving their gender
Really? Like, just look in your pants nigga, wtf?

Well to be honest I feel a little guilty for posting that. Do you think MEN ever feel guilty for the things they say online to WOMEN

Do you think WOMEN ever feel guilty for the things they say online to MEN?

>all these egalitarian cucks itt
Take the redpill and realize that traditional gender roles is the only way forward

I don't feel guilty about what I say online to anyone, and I imagine that you don't either.

>exterminating all men would be good for the species
You're not a psychopath you're just a retard

But I can't expect more from a woman

Maybe it's time to embrace life as a posthuman brand entity. I can get an english degree and sucker a bougie liberal publication into letting me write a series on trans oppression all while scoring maad pussy and hanging out with NYC's zionistic media elites.

>believing it's possible, desirable or ethical to do so
>believing the egalitarianism meme
>believing in fantastical notions about how good it would be if white girls just loved preening themselves for their men and running through the wheat

Literally as stupid as the New Soviet Man.

Well, hey, you've gotta be your own light.

>something with more solidarity and, I suppose, 'togetherness.'

That has to be the end goal. We are stuck here together, and have a natural desire to be together. I think there might be some sort of synthesis possible which combines some aspects of traditional relations with some of the gains of feminism, perhaps through a greater integration of biology and sociology. But what do I know.

Soon we will all sing the body electric, and we will make sweet, sweet mechanical love under the Earth's beautiful magnetic field.

>feminism
Why didn't you listen?

>I think there might be some sort of synthesis possible which combines some aspects of traditional relations with some of the gains of feminism, perhaps through a greater integration of biology and sociology. But what do I know.
>mfw

That's pretty much Bookchin and Ocalan's idea

Huh, I'll have to look into them. Any specific writings you would recommend?

the ecology of freedom for Bookchin

I'll check it out. Thanks.

>check it

...

noice

yes, they still want to builds rights giving them lower responsibilities, but they want to feel righteous about it, especially after men showed them they were not so righteous before. The best part is that mild feminists do not do anything to stop the radical feminists, because the mild feminists benefit from the fruits brought by the radical ones while feeling good about not being radical. It is quite clever since nothing has changed.

I would spend all of my days pounding that ass until it was flat and shapeless as the Earth that gave birth unto me.

That's because I haven't read the book and don't plan to read it

how many of the people that harass you are niggers, my guess is that the average is skewed in that direction.

do you think it would be reasonable to eliminate them

>Well you'll have a hard time squeezing any admission of court injustice out of me because I believe blacks DO act more violently than whites more frequently. I've seen it in my personal life and statistically. Hell I've even heard blacks say so themselves, frequently, as an excuse for committing crimes (blacks can't help shoplifting, fighting, abusing drugs etc.) I barely believe a wide scale extermination of men would be unethical. It would be fun if there was a test like the replicant test in Blade Runner, and every time a black failed to answer a question ethically (i.e., is it okay to have sex with a person who is unconscious?) he would be culled. So no I don't think it's unjust that blacks are afforded um, less opportunities to work

Define "niggers"

anyone darker than a north-italian

...